Yup, It's time for Pathfinder 2.0


Product Discussion

1 to 50 of 483 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as a favorite.

After quite a few years of happily playing in Paizo's awesome sandbox -- a huge fan of Pathfinder, Adventure Paths, and Golarion -- I suddenly realized this summer that I'm ready for a big change.

Paizo, I think, has followed the same company arc that we've seen so many RPG brands navigate. They started by publishing a great rule system and a great setting.

Then, to keep the cash flow going (which is a good thing, not a bad thing) and because they are creative people, they've elaborated upon that rule system to the point of near exhaustion.

The latest book offering TWENTY new core classes? That pretty much stopped me in my tracks. As a DM, my table and my game group were already creaking under too many options, too many complex mechanics.

I would prepare a story, or gear up to run one of Paizo's adventures, and I never knew what circus menagerie was going to wind up in the party of PCs.

I'm a decent DM. I know the core rules really well. But I was always one step behind my players when it comes to how all their powers and abilities work.

Meanwhile, to heighten my desire for something different, Numenera and D&D 5.0 arrived in the gaming world, both with far more math-and-fine-print light, far more story-heavy architectures.

I ran a Numenera game last weekend and I have to say, it was a liberation. Preparation was easy and focused almost entirely on story, not stat blocks. Battles took a quarter the time to run and were far more fun and dynamic and cinematic.

Players, meanwhile, had a ton of fun making up PCs using a far simpler, more story-based series of templates. Half the crunch and still far more unique. My sense of D&D 5.0 is that it moves in the same direction.

So why not just switch? Why not jump ship if I want something a little different? (A lot of you are probably already typing a reply telling me to get the hell out of the sandbox...)

The truth is that I want to stay with Paizo and Pathfinder, for much the same reason that I stayed with Pathfinder as 3.0 and 3.5 were dying out.

I like the continuity. I like having all my old adventures and campaigns still be somewhat forward engineer-able.

I'm also absolutely convinced that Paizo will continue to be the best adventure-writing company in the gaming world. I want to run their Adventure Paths.

So, as regular loyal customer, here's what I want from Paizo:

I want them to earn their next pile of bucks by producing a streamlined, narrative-rich version of Pathfinder.

Not just a "beginner's box," but an actual parallel rule structure that exists comfortably side-by-side with the more byzantine version of Pathfinder that's come into existence.

I get that one way to "solve" this is by simply banning (at my table) a lot of the material published after the Pathfinder core rulebooks were released.

But I bet there's a more exciting way for the game gurus at Paizo to do this -- one that would be a profitable way for Paizo to compete with and match the new innovations coming from Wizards and Monte Cook.

This next part is important: I don't want people to think that I'm hostile to products like the Advanced Class Guide.

They're not to my taste. But I know there are a lot of great DMs and super-fun players who completely love that stuff and will never get enough feats and spells and class abilities and races -- that's cool.

But I think Paizo can do that stuff and offer a kind of alternate, streamlined cross-compatible system.

So...here's my memo to Paizo: Put that version of Pathfinder in a hard-back book with a lot of fun art and charge $50 for it...and I'll be your first customer.

Captain Marsh

Scarab Sages

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Just so you know, you got your facts wrong. It's 10 new base classes, not 20. They are also all hybrid classes, and their mechanics are mostly based off existing classes.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I think I've heard this before. I know Paizo will listen, but I don't think much will change.

Minor point, where did you come up with twenty new core classes? Assuming you mean the ACG, there are only ten.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah what imbicatus said. It's only ten classes. And honestly, its not that hard keeping g track of what the players are playing. Fairly simple really.

I hope Pathfinder 2 is nothing like 5th. I'm not impressed by simple RPGS and I'd rather have options. And I hope Pathfinder 2 comes out decades from now.

Sovereign Court

14 people marked this as a favorite.

/not signed
With the PRD and age of the interent I will never be ready for PF2. I hope they never make one and just keep doing what they are doing. At this point all I needs me is some AP goodness.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Much agreed Captain ...

But picking and choosing what you want to incorporate in your homebrew of Pathfinder maybe the most expeditious way to reach your gaming nirvana.

By creating product, they pay their bills... So curbing their output is not going to happen. A "rules light" version is an interesting premise as well. Pathfinder is a fine system, and could very well benefit from such an iteration!


29 people marked this as a favorite.

No thank you.

I'm fine with having more options, more choices, and more material to work with. It's easier to crop a high res picture than to blow up a low res one.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The people at Paizo are dead set against a parallel rule structure for the same reason they're against a separate campaign setting: It splits their customer base. They'd have some people buying Pathfinder Streamlined books and some people buying Pathfinder Classic books, giving them twice the development work (and I might point out, they're constantly falling behind their present product release schedule, as is) without garnering twice the sales. In addition, due to smaller print runs, each book would cost more per copy to print; either profit would go down, or pricing would go up.


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
The people at Paizo are dead set against a parallel rule structure for the same reason they're against a separate campaign setting: It splits their customer base. They'd have some people buying Pathfinder Streamlined books and some people buying Pathfinder Classic books, giving them twice the development work (and I might point out, they're constantly falling behind their present product release schedule, as is) without garnering twice the sales. In addition, due to smaller print runs, each book would cost more per copy to print; either profit would go down, or pricing would go up.

Its almost like they can read the history of TSR and not make similar mistakes.

Silver Crusade

23 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If I got a dollar every time somebody posted essays without using the 'Search' function beforehand...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

From a purely business standpoint, it's probably not a good idea for Paizo to release another version of PF unless they're planning to mostly drop the old one. And if they did that right now, it would look to a lot of people like they were rushing to play catch-up with WoTC, which is not a good way to be perceived by potential customers.


Interesting. I'd like to ask you a question about Numenera - I've been bothered a little, that the same resource is used for hitpoints and powering up various abilities. Didn't your players feel penalized for this?

Secondly, I have experienced similar issue - my players at some point refused to read PFRPG supplements when making characters. Since then I have switched to 13th Age (a d20 variant with a few narrative mechanics, and most certainly rules-light system). If you want to take a break from PFRPG, I would recommend it for a nice change of pace *.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. * - 13th Age is not perfect. But it's quite simple, casters most certainly do not dominate the game (anyone can pick a Ritual Magic feat, and then, Buffy style, produce a magic effect after several hours of intense research; combat spells are mostly limited to blasting; utility spells are very limited), the statblocks are sweet and simple, and conversion from PFRPG is quite easy (though you still need to address caster's superpowers).


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I do not understand the current rules-light fad. Completely not to my taste. I hate going back to square one, and I love the complexity. That's why I play Pathfinder. There are rules-light systems out there. Pathfinder is not one of them. I hope they keep it that way. It's not for everyone, and that's good - something that appeals to everyone cannot exist, and those that try generally fail. We'll see how well it works for 5th ed.


They may kind of in a small way round about way have done it maybe? The strategy guide is I think aimed at newbies coming from the begginner box and helping to fill the bridge between the 2 vesions amounst other things. Unchaned is coming out which is amopunst other things addressing things that needed re-working.

You want an easier to understand version get the strategy guide and use core rules only, you want a 2nd edtion use unchained?

I think its as close as you are going to get to a simplifed version or a new edition anyway as far as I can see. A new edition is not going to happen for a long time if unchained is coming out I reckon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

13th Age is pretty good and honestly I think it is better at being a simple DnD game than fifth ed. Still am not sold on simple games with less options but it has cool mechanics.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Paizo addressed this with the new release coming this spring, Pathfinder Unchained. It provides alternate rules that you can choose to implement and reworks some classes. I think that's a nice middle-ground. It doesn't make older stuff obsolete, but still provides fresh content.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Please no.

I don't want this pathfinder to end, ever.

And a new pathfinder would mean a bestiary 1 again, and that means all that D&D horror again before Bestiary 2 and beyond go into the cooler beasties again, so no please.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ShallowHammer wrote:
I think Paizo addressed this with the new release coming this spring, Pathfinder Unchained. It provides alternate rules that you can choose to implement and reworks some classes. I think that's a nice middle-ground. It doesn't make older stuff obsolete, but still provides fresh content.

I agree with this. I'd prefer gradual compatible changes to a new edition frankly.

Sovereign Court

5E is only simple if you stick to the free PDF and to ne honest im not sure that is going to last. Trust me 5e will get more and more complex. Though it will be more sub-divided in complexity which is what WOTC is going for. In fact, I hink its exactly what the OP is asking for. Sounds like he wont jump ship though because WOTC aint got the adventures.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Pretty sure I'm going to stay Core-only for my 5E campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder is at the deep, deep end of the mechanical side of gaming, right along with stuff like HERO and GURPS these days. It sounds like that's not the game you want any more. However, that side of things is working well for Paizo right now - they're the biggest RPG company at the moment, so I doubt they're going to change course until they have to.

I've found myself in agreement with a lot of what you say. That's why I consider my main game to be Savage Worlds now, even though I'm mostly playing and running Pathfinder because the simplicity of running PFS games appeals to me, rather than having to organize an ongoing campaign. SW is in the middle, to me - not as rules-light as something like FUDGE or Dungeon World, but certainly less crunchy and options-focused than Pathfinder or 3.5. I think that 5e will end up at about the same level of complexity as Savage Worlds, but I'm leery of WotC at this point and will examine it from a distance.

Selling rules options makes money, more so than selling setting material. The people who play Pathfinder are mostly the people who want options and mechanical depth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SteelDraco wrote:

Pathfinder is at the deep, deep end of the mechanical side of gaming, right along with stuff like HERO and GURPS these days. It sounds like that's not the game you want any more. However, that side of things is working well for Paizo right now - they're the biggest RPG company at the moment, so I doubt they're going to change course until they have to.

I've found myself in agreement with a lot of what you say. That's why I consider my main game to be Savage Worlds now, even though I'm mostly playing and running Pathfinder because the simplicity of running PFS games appeals to me, rather than having to organize an ongoing campaign. SW is in the middle, to me - not as rules-light as something like FUDGE or Dungeon World, but certainly less crunchy and options-focused than Pathfinder or 3.5. I think that 5e will end up at about the same level of complexity as Savage Worlds, but I'm leery of WotC at this point and will examine it from a distance.

Selling rules options makes money, more so than selling setting material. The people who play Pathfinder are mostly the people who want options and mechanical depth.

I like Savage Worlds actually. It's simple but still has good, meaningful options and some mechanical depth. And I like generic systems (huge HERO fan) but most fall into the trap of being TOO comprehensive.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Azazyll wrote:
I do not understand the current rules-light fad.

I don't know that I'd call it a fad. Hell, most of the popular gaming systems since 1974 have been simpler than 3.x/Pathfinder. If either of the two is a fad, it's the rules-heavy systems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Same feelings as the OP, different realization: Time to stop feeding the beast and simply run my home games with the Core Rulebook.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Azazyll wrote:
I hate going back to square one, and I love the complexity. That's why I play Pathfinder. There are rules-light systems out there. Pathfinder is not one of them.

There's nothing that says that a rules-light system can't be complex, because complexity isn't about the length or number of rulebooks. Complexity is about having decisions, and is only rewarding when those decisions have real weight that goes beyond one decision being "right" or "wrong." There are a couple good rules-light systems that do complexity well. There are also plenty of rules-heavy systems that don't. Pathfinder happens to be the latter. The way the mechanics are presented leaves too few real choices, too many things that are either too good not to choose or too bad to justify choosing, which actually severely limits its complexity.

This is not necessarily a bug. Complexity is a value-neutral quality. A more complex game is not automatically a better one, and a less-complex game is not automatically a worse one. Pathfinder isn't a bad game, but despite all the math and tables, it isn't really that complex.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
If I got a dollar every time somebody posted essays without using the 'Search' function beforehand...

I'd settle for a quarter every time someone makes a thread to complain that their specific playstyle isn't being catered to.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You've got to ask yourself, why is your table creaking under these options? The key word here is options, as in optional, as in not mandatory. Don't use what you don't want!

Also, I see a thread calling for 2.0 once a fortnight, it would have probably been easier to bolt this post on one of those.

If you want a more rules light system, check out 5e, my group will be playing both!!

I agree that pathfinder could do with a bit of a clean up (god knows it could! I started RPGs only a couple of years ago with the beginner box and trying to navigate the crb was and is a nightmare!) but constantly asking for a new edition with major changes or a parallel simpler system when in every other thread that this comes up on has the paizo staff saying "not going to happen" is a waste of time.

Two options for you: limit pathfinder resources at the table or have a go at another system as a palette cleanser between crunch heavy sessions. :)


7 people marked this as a favorite.

My gaming dollars are precious and few. I wouldn't invest in a 2.0 at all. I'd just keep the current iteration and continue to use it until I'm in the Old Gamers Home.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I greatly enjoy the current version of Pathfinder.

With that said, I realize the need for game designers to make money and stay in business. I think in 4-5 years Paizo will seriously consider a Pathfinder 2.0 just to keep in business. I just hope that when they do so, they follow Wizards of the Coast and make the previous versions of Pathfinder available as an alternative (D&D released 1.0, 2.0, and 3.5 in limited print runs somewhat recently).

If not Pathfinder 2.0, then perhaps a new game using the same mechanics while in a different genre. Who has the legal rights to Star Frontiers? A space opera setting from Paizo might not be bad. With this new adventure path, they are halfway there.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry everyone - yes. 10 New classes. My mistake.

Most of the responses here make sense and fall into the "I like Pathfinder the way it is, thank you very much."

Which is great. I probably would have made the same argument last year.

And it may be that this is how the game world will shake out, with some of us gravitating toward more rules-light/story heavy games.

But again, I don't want to gravitate away. I love Paizo and yes, actually, I do want my playstyle to be catered to. (Duh.)

I'll check out Pathfinder Unchained -- first I've heard of it. Thanks.

Finally, to folks here who reiterate the old "I've heard this thread before so shut up" argument or the old "quite whining about your playstyle not being catered to" saw, I say - pft.

If I had a quarter for every person on this message board who told me to shut up...

Bottom line?

This is my message board as much as yours, and Paizo is my gaming source and my addiction as much as yours.

They deserve to hear my (hopefully positive, constructive) feedback as much as yours.

And if I'm repeating a concern raised before, even better.

--Marsh


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would agree with some of the sentiment in the OP. The Pathfinder game has exponentially expanded over the years and I must admit it is well beyond the interest level of my group.

I would like to see Paizo further refine its "experimental every other AP" philosophy to be: one AP a year is "core rulebook rules only" and the other is "anything goes". This way groups like mine that have no interest in any of the rule expansions always have an AP option. I bet it would also alleviate some of the day to day release pressure from Paizo staff.

Today it is harder and harder for me to find an AP (or even adventure) I can run without having to ignore or heavily modify way too much rules content to fit into my game.

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Captain Marsh wrote:

Finally, to folks here who reiterate the old "I've heard this thread before so shut up" argument or the old "quite whining about your playstyle not being catered to" saw, I say - pft.

If I had a quarter for every person on this message board who told me to shut up...

Bottom line?

This is my message board as much as yours, and Paizo is my gaming source and my addiction as much as yours.

They deserve to hear my (hopefully positive, constructive) feedback as much as yours.

And if I'm repeating a concern raised before, even better.

--Marsh

I'm not sure I see any such responses to you, but even if I did, I'd still have to say 'back at you'. You're free to raise your point, and they're free to respond to it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Unchained may be the closest we'll get to a 2.0 release, and if it's good enough that's all we'll need.

They don't need to change the core mechanics of the game, just some design philosophies when it comes to feat and class design. From the blog post, this release is meant to re do the core classes with the design knowledge, play test history, and design philosophy they have gained over the last decade.

While not necessarily being a true 2.0 release, it may be just what you want.


The Unchained book is probably the closest to a PF 2.0 we're going to see in a while (which I like, and got ninjad). It's more like a PF 1.1 though.

Making a new pathfinder would only help to clean up a few old things (and that's partly what Unchained seems to do).

No major changes could be done or it would strive too far away from the 3.X, which is the backbone of the game. When I found Pathfinder, I heard it was like if there was a D&D 3.75, many people recomended Pathfinder because it was a refined version of D&D 3.X. If they strive away from the original too much, they would lose that recomendation. (D&D 4E and 5E is getting criticism for doing that)

Also, making a new game would mean that you need to start all over with probably everything. They would have to rewrite everything for every small adjustments that is made, or skip the small adjustments.

With additions like Unchained, however, they don't. They only need to adjust the new material to the old. Slowly patch up the game and cover its' "flaws", while also offering the original rule alternative for those who want it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

Unchained may be the closest we'll get to a 2.0 release, and if it's good enough that's all we'll need.

They don't need to change the core mechanics of the game, just some design philosophies when it comes to feat and class design. From the blog post, this release is meant to re do the core classes with the design knowledge, play test history, and design philosophy they have gained over the last decade.

While not necessarily being a true 2.0 release, it may be just what you want.

Bolded for truth. Paizo, its this.

I love the idea of FCBs, but they are implemented wrong.

I love the idea of most classes out there, but they are balanced like poop.

I love the idea of feats and having so many of them, but wasting them on feat taxes that provide little to a character is disappointing, plus it inherently weakens Fighters and Rogues who depend so much on the power level of available feats.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

No, it's NOT time for another edition.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Uh oh guys! A dissenting opinion! Better grab our pitch forks!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Uh oh guys! A dissenting opinion! Better grab our pitch forks!

That doesn't seem to be what's happening in this thread. Many people are offering helpful suggestions to the OP.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
If I got a dollar every time somebody posted essays without using the 'Search' function beforehand...
I'd settle for a quarter every time someone makes a thread to complain that their specific playstyle isn't being catered to.

I'd settle for a dime every time someone stopped in a thread to post a useless comment instead of clicking the hide thread button.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Captain Marsh wrote:

And it may be that this is how the game world will shake out, with some of us gravitating toward more rules-light/story heavy games.

But again, I don't want to gravitate away. I love Paizo and yes, actually, I do want my playstyle to be catered to.

I find that the effort of conversion is largely a function of the target system's complexity, not the source system. Consequently (as a fan of rules-negligible games and paizo setting and adventures) I feel like I can have my cake and eat it too.

I've run APs and paizo modules in Dungeon Crawl Classics, Swords and Wizardry and 4th edition plus I've started converting one to 5E and fully converted one to 13th Age (which didn't actually eventuate). I personally find it less effort to convert a paizo adventure to Swords and Wizardry than to prep for a pathfinder game.

You can play rules light without having to "gravitate away" (I'm sure that's wrong! :p) from paizo.


Right. I don't see pitchforks. And I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I actually like conversation.

I DO grumble about the folks on the messageboard who like to tell other folks not to post opinions...which happens a lot.

Usually it's just the 'we've heard it all before' thing. Which is fine.

But this is actually a thread where if it keeps recurring...maybe that means something.

And again, I'm eager to try Pathfinder Unchained. Maybe Paizo already has exactly the thing I want and I just missed it.

-Marsh

Shadow Lodge

Simon Legrande wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
If I got a dollar every time somebody posted essays without using the 'Search' function beforehand...
I'd settle for a quarter every time someone makes a thread to complain that their specific playstyle isn't being catered to.
I'd settle for a dime every time someone stopped in a thread to post a useless comment instead of clicking the hide thread button.

That's what, 20 cents you'd be owed now?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm certainly looking forward to 5e, way more than I was for 4e. I got the basic box and I've preordered the PHB which should be in next week. I like how it seems to be moving back towards the simplicity of the earlier editions while keeping some of the good things from 3.x.

That being said, I wouldn't ask Paizo to cater to my need for a lighter rules system. I think the market is better served by having multiple systems that offer different things to different people. That kind of competition is what really drives game makers to make things better for gamers.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Captain Marsh wrote:

Right. I don't see pitchforks. And I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I actually like conversation.

I DO grumble about the folks on the messageboard who like to tell other folks not to post opinions...which happens a lot.

Usually it's just the 'we've heard it all before' thing. Which is fine.

But this is actually a thread where if it keeps recurring...maybe that means something.

And again, I'm eager to try Pathfinder Unchained. Maybe Paizo already has exactly the thing I want and I just missed it.

-Marsh

I wouldn't hold your breath about pathfinder unchained, to be frank. It's going to be more options and more ways of tweaking the system (I heard it described as "how we would have designed pathfinder if we weren't worried about backwards compatibility"). I haven't heard anyone suggest that it's going to be simpler than vanilla pathfinder - just another way to do some things.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Marsh wrote:
And again, I'm eager to try Pathfinder Unchained. Maybe Paizo already has exactly the thing I want and I just missed it.

There's always Project Pentagon ... that might be what you're looking for, too.

Gripe #72 about Pathfinder: Someday I'd love to have a 1st level elf archer that's comparable to a 1st level human archer, regardless of class.

(This complaint being generally all archers will inevitably go Point Blank shot at 1st, then Precise|Rapid next, and the elf is always behind a human in this regard)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

From a business perpective, I think this woudl be a terrible moment to releease PF 2.0. Paizo just released 10 new classes (in what seems to be a very rushed book), but more importantly... A new edition of D&d is coming out. Releasing PF 2.0 means competing with it for customers, and I don't know about you, but if I have to buy a whole new game edition, I'll probably go with D&D 5ed before checking PF 2.0.

Besides, PF unchained is pretty much a "how to release PF 2.0 without actually releasing PF 2.0.". Or at least, this is the impression it gave me.


Lemmy wrote:

From a business perpective, I think this woudl be a terrible moment to releease PF 2.0. Paizo just released 10 new classes (in what seems to be a very rushed book), but more importantly... A new edition of D&d is coming out. Releasing PF 2.0 means competing with it for customers, and I don't know about you, but if I have to buy a whole new game edition, I'll probably go with D&D 5ed before checking PF 2.0.

Besides, PF unchained is pretty much a "how to release PF 2.0 without actually releasing PF 2.0.". Or at least, this is the impression it gave me.

I agree with this.

If Unchained does what we want it to do, then we will see some classes reworked with the care that the magus, inquisitor, and other very well designed classes got.

We will also see a lot of feat chains either eliminated or reduced.

I would also really like to see an alternate version of point buy that didn't force Paizo to change the way they design feats and classes because not everyone in their player base uses point buy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that Paizo could do quite well by sticking with what they have, but releasing a better organized version of what they have (including re organizing the SRD to make it easier to find things in), while taking the opportunity to apply errata, including things that are currently awaiting errata. While they're at it, condense things that are largely redundant or that should otherwise be combined, like the 2 metamagic feats (Reach Spell and the misleadingly named Enlarge Spell). A fair number of people who have already invested in rulebooks would pay for a compilation if it made things easier to find and reduced chances for error.


Captain Marsh wrote:

Finally, to folks here who reiterate the old "I've heard this thread before so shut up" argument or the old "quite whining about your playstyle not being catered to" saw, I say - pft.

If I had a quarter for every person on this message board who told me to shut up...

Bottom line?

This is my message board as much as yours, and Paizo is my gaming source and my addiction as much as yours.

They deserve to hear my (hopefully positive, constructive) feedback as much as yours.

And if I'm repeating a concern raised before, even better.

--Marsh

I wasn't suggesting anyone should shut up.

Not only would that be rude (and pointless since I can just not read threads), but I want more quarters. :P


5 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
If I got a dollar every time somebody posted essays without using the 'Search' function beforehand...
I'd settle for a quarter every time someone makes a thread to complain that their specific playstyle isn't being catered to.
I'd settle for a dime every time someone stopped in a thread to post a useless comment instead of clicking the hide thread button.
That's what, 20 cents you'd be owed now?

Are you kidding? Between you and the bag with teeth it would be a couple hundred bucks.

1 to 50 of 483 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Yup, It's time for Pathfinder 2.0 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.