|
No, I would not like to see a new edition.
I don't mind every so often buying a new core rule book every few years because the book has fallen apart, and some "errata" or rule evolution has been included.
So No, I don't want to see a new edition yet.
I hope the writers keep focusing on the Stories. I love reading the adventure paths, the setting books etc.
This evening I had an enjoyable dinner, reading entries in the Inner Sea gods. I'm thinking of playing a cleric of Iomedae for a carrion crown game, so I was reading up on her entry. Very well written. Thank you.
So. No I don't want to see a new edition yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No appears to be heads over shoulders on yes.
Let's look at the extremes.
Yes: "Pathfinder totally needs this, not that I am going to stop playing anytime soon."
No: "Paizo would be dead to me."
Perhaps this a bad polling location, since everyone on these forums plays Pathfinder to some extent, but I am not seeing reward out-weighing risk on this business venture even if the results were more even.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Voted
.
'
.
'
.
'
.
'
.
'
.
'
Because don't care. And if they did it wouldn't obligate me to buy it.
FWIW, I would have liked an "indifferent" option too.
No, a thousand times no.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am of two (maybe three or four) minds...
No, because Paizo seems to be doing pretty well with the current model of doing things and it could very well be disastrous to mess with it.
Yes, but only revisions and updates.
Yes, unshackle Pathfinder from 3.5 and finally let loose and see what they can do. Do away with fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard, and the rest and design new classes (perhaps based on the stuff in the Advanced Class Guide) that capture a new and distinct flavor, separate from the game's ancestors.
No, because Pathfinder is the go to game for third party publishers and changing the game would have a ripple effect throughout the entire industry.
So, I guess I'm abstaining because there are just too many variables to consider. I will say that I would definitely buy and play a 2nd edition but I'll also still buy and play the current edition.
Yes please.
|
Yes, but a new (rewritten with clarifications and fixes, and maybe even re-done classes) edition of the rulebook, not a new version of the game.
So, because of what the majority tend to think because of the way it's been done with D&D over the years, that's a "no" in this particular vote.
Not really. 3.0 is the edition that first threw the bathwater, the baby, and the bathtub out the window.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm happy with how things are going and I would much rather have them do things like Unchained instead of releasing a new edition.
No, not yet.
I'd prefer to wait and see what the "Unchained" stuff looks like, and figure out whether the system can be tweaked with that enough to fix the major issues with the game.
That is, unless Pathfinder wants to adopt the Edge of the Empire dice system, but I doubt that will happen as it would be an enormous departure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To Vote, simply *favorite* a post below:
In >THIS< article, Erika Mona says he'll do Pathfinder 2e if the fans ask for it.
"People are always asking us when we're going to do a new edition
of Pathfinder, well, we'll do that when the players want it.".
POLL: Do You Want A New Edition of Pathfinder (Pathfinder 2e) ?
.
Honestly, unless you're objection is that you don't want to spend more money (which is completely reasonable), then I don't see a reason to say "no."
I mean, we haven't talked about what the new edition is going to be like yet. For right now, a new edition just means the game becomes exactly what I want it to be. So, since I want the game to be exactly what I want it to be, I'll vote yes.
Just because there is a new game that does not mean it will be exactly what I want it to be. It might even be farther from from I want than PF is right now.
My vote is NO, by the way. I know it has to happen one day, but I don't think the time is now.
Honestly I can only see Paizo doing a re-boot if they end up doing something like Buying the D&D name and all IP from Hasbro... which I've heard rumors is actually not outside the realm of possibility if 5.0 doesn't go as they hope...
In the world of RPG's Pathfinder is as popular as D&D. In mainstream society is it not heard of, with the Obsidian license deal that could change. Not that I think Hasbro would ever sale anyway. There is a long thread on that topic if you want to look into it.
No appears to be heads over shoulders on yes.Let's look at the extremes.
Yes: "Pathfinder totally needs this, not that I am going to stop playing anytime soon."
No: "Paizo would be dead to me."
Perhaps this a bad polling location, since everyone on these forums plays Pathfinder to some extent, but I am not seeing reward out-weighing risk on this business venture even if the results were more even.
I personally haven't been a Paizo customer since the days of the print mags, but a PF 2e might turn me into a returned customer. But I'm probably unusual for a Paizo forumite, so I think you're right.
Not sure, but I kind of want to see what they come up with for a second edition, so...
Same here, basically. I have no horse in this race, but I'll be curious to see what PF 2e looks like when it comes.
The only things in this edition which I don't like are easily said no to. Crafting and Leadership. Only a few other legal things make me raise my eyebrows like dazing spell/Sacred geometry (Did someone who hated math class write this feat).
No, I think it was someone who likes math a little too much. Or it's one helluva a nerdy April Fool's joke!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No.
Emphatically.
I like it the way it is, and I think there is a lot of design space that still hasn't been used - Paizo or 3OO
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. I hate playing dead editions. Been there lots of times before & it's the main reason I'm playing Pathfinder in the first place!
If you want the game tweaked/improved, I suggest you wait to see what Unchained brings to the table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll toss in another vote for "No new edition, but a revised CRB would be nice." Pathfinder Unchained might address some of those issues, but it would also be nice to see a CRB where a few of the more problematic sections (like mounted combat) are just completely redone instead of being a confused mishmash of inherited 3.5 text, Pathfinder text, and errata text. Plus some general rules and language cleanup to make things a lot clearer to the average player, and consolidating a few of the more excessive feat chains.
Basically, Pathfinder 1.5. Not a new edition, but a slightly more polished version of the current one.
I would have to say no as well, we just got ten new classes, and there is a lot of exciting stuff on the horizon as well. As a compromise, perhaps they could do Pathfinder Revised, where they revise the core Rulebook with updated errata and clarification on some difficult rules. A new edition is not something I want, with some of the new options being presented with new releases, I think there is still a wealth of material to continue to look into. I think we should at least see what Unchained has to offer, that may slake the thirst for a new edition for a while.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll toss in another vote for "No new edition, but a revised CRB would be nice." Pathfinder Unchained might address some of those issues, but it would also be nice to see a CRB where a few of the more problematic sections (like mounted combat) are just completely redone instead of being a confused mishmash of inherited 3.5 text, Pathfinder text, and errata text. Plus some general rules and language cleanup to make things a lot clearer to the average player, and consolidating a few of the more excessive feat chains.
Basically, Pathfinder 1.5. Not a new edition, but a slightly more polished version of the current one.
I came in here to say this. I'd love to see some fundamental changes, but not enough to make the the current material un-usable, especially in the "Unlimited power for casters, worthless prerequisite ridden garbage for martials" design philosophy... but yeah I kinda doubt that given how the latest book allows every last divine caster to get Paladin's Divine Grace, but it would be broken for the Swashbuckler to have it so his version gets arbitrarily restricted. Not bitter or anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I came in here to say this. I'd love to see some fundamental changes, but not enough to make the the current material un-usable, especially in the "Unlimited power for casters, worthless prerequisite ridden garbage for martials" design philosophy... but yeah I kinda doubt that given how the latest book allows every last divine caster to get Paladin's Divine Grace, but it would be broken for the Swashbuckler to have it so his version gets arbitrarily restricted. Not bitter or anything.I'll toss in another vote for "No new edition, but a revised CRB would be nice." Pathfinder Unchained might address some of those issues, but it would also be nice to see a CRB where a few of the more problematic sections (like mounted combat) are just completely redone instead of being a confused mishmash of inherited 3.5 text, Pathfinder text, and errata text. Plus some general rules and language cleanup to make things a lot clearer to the average player, and consolidating a few of the more excessive feat chains.
Basically, Pathfinder 1.5. Not a new edition, but a slightly more polished version of the current one.
I don't think Paizo works this way though. They ran a stealth playtest that is AMAZING for stealth and fixes most of its uses, but it hasn't been incorporated.
Yes, PF in its current form needs at least a 1.5, and since Paizo has more or less shown repeatedly they aren't changing the core problems with the game, I would like to see a new system sooner rather than later.
And honestly, I don't think the Paizo boards is the best place to conduct a survey like this. I belong to two different online groups, one is very active and about 100 people. I venture roughly half of them are sick of PF and about a quarter won't even play the game any more, many of them are 2-4 star PFS GM's as well. As much as I dislike 5E from my read through, they already have 5E games going. I largely suspect that not one of that 20-25 people who have sworn off PF ever comes to the boards anymore...just saying. And these people WOULD come back if the bloat were cut down, which is really only achieved through a new system.
The group was pretty much 100% PF 2 years ago, I'm now seeing 5E, Mutants and masterminds, SAGA, Cthulhu and even Shadowrun games being ran now. I still think PF makes up a little more than all of those, but just barely now, rather than being 95% it was 2 years ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I predict the 2nd edition of pathfinder will be announced by 2016.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
also, as much as I enjoy the current result of the poll, vocal minorities like us are hardly indicative. And folks who want PF2.0 want it for vastly different reasons, see:
Bugley: Beginners Box layout, no splatbooks plz.
Rynjin: Buff monks, decapitated SKR on the cover.
Beckett: Option to play LG Cleric of Jesus Christ who is > other classes.
Kthulhu: Fatal blunder which finally bankrupts Paiozo and leaves Monte Cookie homeless.
If the people at Paizo are getting restless they should look at an alternate product, IMHO. Pathfinder works fine and a significant portion of their fan base comes from the edition war, let's not disenfranchise them. (I'm regretting that I mentioned the war already.)
Oh wait, they are already doing alternate products with the Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Tales, audio books... Good move.
Were you one of the 'I predict Paizo will go bankrupt by 2010' people?I predict the 2nd edition of pathfinder will be announced by 2016.
No. I just think Pathfinder Unchained will be a glimpse of the future rather than a fix for the past.
If they announce the 2nd edition next year they may be able to publish it by 2016, but regardless, I think they will at least announce it by 2016.
I predict the 2nd edition of pathfinder will be announced by 2016.
That would be amazingly poor timing. It's a given that they'll lose some people to 5e over 2015, so for them to do something that would divide the customer base further, and look like they were trying to "follow the leader", by announcing a new edition the year after would be profoundly unwise.
Well... it depends on the new version/edition/revision doesn't it? :)
For me retaining (a very large degree of) backwards compatibility would be important, if it isnt compatible with all the PF stuff i already have, i might a well play a completely different game...
Also if Pathfinder should be changed a lot for me it should be in a much more rules light, less options/bloat way... but hey i got plenty of other systems for that! (i like many of the OSR games, especially ACKS, and also original AD&D and B/X D&D).
All in all...
Im fine with Pathfinder as it is! My next campaign will probably not be with ALL the options - but thats fine too.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would love for a way for the current rules to "evolve". No huge changes, but a simplification of presentation and clarification of many of the currently confusing rules. Essentially taking much of what was learned in the Beginners Box and expanding it to the entire core book. Perhaps folding some of the better (better as in more interesting/ balanced not as in stronger) play options from later in the game into the core book (for example: get rid of seldom used rage talents and fold some of the better ones back into core).
Is that a new version? I don't think it needs to be, but I suspect many would argue it is.
Nope not broken, plenty of options now, some good 3rd party stuff too. The basic core game is fine, if you don't like certain parts of it there is a plethora of options open now to change it to what you want so I realy don't see the need for it.
I do think they are reaching the limit for new rules material which in the long run could cause trouble for people like me. I'm not excited about any of the new hardbacks after the class guide and its making me wonder what they could be doing after the physic book that will make me want to buy anything again. If there are more people like me out there then sales may drop which could prompt them to bring out another edition to peak the interest again. However, I do find this highly unlikley as the boards seem to show there are a lot of folks that are still excited about anything that Paizo brings out.
I wouldnt buy a new edition though, for me the present edition works, I have years worth of material I can use and would not want to fork out £100's of pounds again to get to the same point im in now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My answer is No, BUT I will say that I'm all for a revision... like, dare I say it, WotC's "3.5/3.75" edition.
The system itself is fine IMO, but it's not perfect, as all things. This is why I got into PF instead of mandatorily jumping on the 4e wagon, because I love the 3e rules.
I'd love to see a revision at least, such as:
- Buffing the monk... at least the standard version, since some archetypes can do it.
- Remove some feats: ok, look... the Improved, Greater, Superior and "Upgraded" versions are annoying as all Hell to take. Please do me a huge favor and combine some of the feats into a SINGLE ONE. Case in point:
Two-Weapon Fighting
Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
ADVANCEMENT: If you have Dex 17 and a base attack bonus of +6, you can make a second attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –5 penalty. If you have Dex 19 and a base attack bonus of +11, you can make a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty. If you have Dex 21 and a base attack bonus of +16, you can make a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –15 penalty.
Now, do the same with Greater Bull Rush/Overrun/Sunder/Disarm/Trip/Feint/Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will, Lightning Stance, Spell Penetration, Etc...
Point is, if I have one of the regular feats, why WOULDN'T I get the upgrades, character build aside?
- Limiting the Christmas Tree effect... then again, each DM can handle it on his or her own.
That's about it for me.
Bottom line: I'm sticking with PF's current rules... but a revision wouldn't hurt.
Yes. And I'd hope we get such a heads-up that we can make a decent discussion of where this edition should go. Of course I don't expect that to happen, but it'd be nice... I've been wanting to make some extensive posts on the things which I think should be improved in a new edition and I've been holding off on them for a few years now, since I think they would have only a chance to make some impact when the devs are working on a new edition.Ya know, it's probably better to say them sooner rather than after any hypothetical announcement of a second edition. If you want significant changes, odds are some decisions on the direction of the game will be made before the playtest is released.
Sure, but if I write those posts too soon, they will have fallen by the wayside when the developers finally begin to develop the next edition.
I guess after the first Unchained book is released may be a good time.
I have to say Yes and No. It really depends on what Pathfinder Unchained looks like. There's a lot of things that are funky about the system as it is but it's never been something that a few house rules and some third party products couldn't solve. Having a vetted pile of alternate rules could just resolve most problems.
At best a 2e Pathfinder would just streamline things down to look more like a modern game like D&D 5e, and honestly if we wanted that we would be jumping ship weeks ago or just play FATE.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes.
You can do a new edition without throwing everything that was done previously out the window, and I believe that is EXACTLY how Paizo would approach a new edition.
It is time to do some dusting and maintenance. This is not a bad thing.
I've voted No because I don't want to see a new edition however I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a bit of simplification and rules consistency in some places (Mainly the stacking rules but there are other rules which run contrary to similar abilities); a bit more precision in the language used (especially in the older books where rules sections didn't anticipate the huge number of classes)and maybe some tidying up so the rules are much easier to read. However although I'd buy it, I can't in all honesty say that given the choice between such a product and something with a load of new options in it I'd take the cleaned up version so whether it's worth the development cost...
I'd also like to see a few other things in place to help new players (or people who don't have the time to scan the multiple rule books) with character creation. However at the moment I'm hoping the forthcoming Strategy Guide will do that.
The other things I'd like to see are more optional rules (I'd like to see an option to remove full attacks without killing martial characters for example) so more for Pathfinder Unchained than a new version I suspect.
No. Still want to see a Pathfinder movie though!
Isn't... there already one?
Oh, you mean without vikings and native americans XD
No.
Only simplify the format and layout of the existing CRB (probably the Strategy Guide has this covered).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does the game need polishing? Sure. Are some of the older classes showing their age? Yes. Can the rules be simplified? Absolutely.
While I will contend that the game is flawed in some small aspects, I do believe that the overall quality is still very good. I know a lot of people would like to do away with alignment restrictions, and I personally would like to see that as well. Also, I think many of us can agree that some of the monsters in the bestiary kinda need a power boost to keep up with the growing power creep.
That being said, the system is still very solid. Oh sure, we could probably do away with a few of the useless class skills (seriously...do we really need profession, perform, or knowledge nobility), and also clean up a few of the more 'difficult to define' spells, but aside from a few tweaks, do we really need an overhaul yet?
I don't really think so.
Now granted, when Pathfinder 2.0 does come out, I will happily start buying the books. Honestly though, I'm kinda hoping Pathfinder Unchained starts polishing up a few of the problems.
Either way, I have confidence in the staff at Paizo, and I hope they continue to give us even more of this wonderful game we love.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Folks, we have a company that is willing to hear and sometimes respond, in real time, to our concerns about the rules. They have also hired someone recently whose stated role, among other things is to answer FAQ requests and make clarifications.
I don't think we need a new edition.
What we need is to have access to these FAQs in errata updates, which we have and to make some judgment calls of our own once in a while. Also Paizo announced a new project suggesting alternate rules to adjust some of our pet peeves like Rogues, martial characters and monks. Use these.
I have been through this ringer with D&D. I really don't want to keep re-buying books and re-learning a game every 5-10 years. Tinker Paizo, please don't overhaul.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No way.
But I do want an alternate cover, where SKR returns triumphant as the new Aroden and a paladin named Erik Mona sings Sweating Bullets in praise of this miracle.
Meanwhile, James Jacobs eats pancakes while watching Trollhunter.
I'd pay top dollar for that book!