NO, I don't think that Pathfinder needs another edition of Fantasy.
I would like to see them apply their efforts to making A "STARFINDER" type game set in the distant future of some far flung galaxy with Alien instead of Demi-Human races and Psionics instead of magic...and of course advanced technology.
Same type of Mechanics(tweaked) with all new futuristic classes.Like WH40K only without Space orks.
I'd buy that.
I'd certainly buy into it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
BTW PF has been broken since core.
|
I'd certainly buy into it.NO, I don't think that Pathfinder needs another edition of Fantasy.
I would like to see them apply their efforts to making A "STARFINDER" type game set in the distant future of some far flung galaxy with Alien instead of Demi-Human races and Psionics instead of magic...and of course advanced technology.
Same type of Mechanics(tweaked) with all new futuristic classes.Like WH40K only without Space orks.
I'd buy that.
Id buy it too. Ive been looking for a system to run Mass Effect but most systems out there just dont seem to work for me.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, some folks think a New Editions means something more like from 3E to 4E where it's a completely new game that would also invalidate the vast majority of setting material, forcing you to rebuy everything, while others take a new edition to simply mean an update to the existing system.
Others think that a new edition in a few years is a good idea, while others think that one far off day might be ok, but not now. When you do a yes/no sort of Poll, it leaves a lot of things in the middle, and gives odd results.
So, for me personally, the category I would say yes to would be the one that said "YES, a new edition that did not invalidate other material, but updated some of the core systems, fixed things that are most commonly discussed issues (on these boards) such as Alignment, Paladin Codes, Fighter/Monk/Rogue/Cleric/Monk/Monk/Monk/Fighter/Monk/Rogue, Reach, etc. . ., but did not require someone to rebuy the Inner Sea World Guide or Bestiary's , well maybe 2-4, but not Bestiary 1, didn't require any single AP to need to be reprinted, (well if we can get Age of Worms non-Golarion edition, that's just a win for everyone, rpger or not that makes the world a better place, because lets face it, it's the absolute best AP Paizo has ever created, not that RotRL crap they keep pushing), and if they literally started today, even without a public playtest, (regardless of your or my personal opinion of them based of the ACG), it wouldn't be our until likely 2016 at the earliest, thus giving the PF Unchained, (but not PF Unearthed) book plenty of chances to fail to be what we actually wanted (damn it, did I say that out loud) to do it's thing, as well as everyone the chance to play through the AP that b~#&%slaps Cheliax and House Thurne or whatever, and fixed some of the few issues that 3E as a system sort of created", my answer is that one. But if particular aspects of that are not true, my answer might be no. But, that exact option was not presented in the Poll.
I will vote no, at least for now.
|
I just dont believe you. I do think some people probably got pushed away and that is a shame. Though I think these forums are pretty well moderated and have fair discussions. The forums are welcoming to anyone who likes PF and even those who dont. There are trolls but what site doesnt have them? I also dont think you have a basis for a biased playtest. The goal was to make a backwards compatibale system so having a lot of changes was never in cards.
I saw what I saw and all we can do is disagree. As I don't want to thread jack any further.
While it would be good for a new edition to be backwards computable it does not have to be IMO. As the current one is already.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it completely makes all the books I've spent my hard earned money on obsolete then NO!!! A revision would be fine but a complete overhaul and they would lose me as a customer. I left D&D for the same reason after many years as a gamer for just that reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forums and their voting polls aren't trustworthy places even if the vast majority of the fans posted here. The concept of multiple accounts throws any aggregate feedback you get out of the window.
Self Selection bias is bad enough. That is just icing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Self Selection bias is bad enough. That is just icing.
It's a great way to basically do what you want with the guise of public endorsement, though!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just dont believe you. I do think some people probably got pushed away and that is a shame. Though I think these forums are pretty well moderated and have fair discussions. The forums are welcoming to anyone who likes PF and even those who dont. There are trolls but what site doesnt have them? I also dont think you have a basis for a biased playtest. The goal was to make a backwards compatibale system so having a lot of changes was never in cards.
I saw what I saw and all we can do is disagree. As I don't want to thread jack any further.
While it would be good for a new edition to be backwards computable it does not have to be IMO. As the current one is already.
I will say, I know several people who won't come to the boards anymore, though it had nothing to do with the playtest. Its because they perceive (whether right or wrong is another discussion) that many people on these boards are jerks.
I'm just not seeing a point in a new edition. They can just come out with a book like "Pathfinder Unchained" or something and just completely rewrite the rules, secretly introducing an entirely new edition without ruffling anyone's feathers.
Oh wait... That sounds oddly familiar...
I will say, I know several people who won't come to the boards anymore, though it had nothing to do with the playtest. Its because they perceive (whether right or wrong is another discussion) that many people on these boards are jerks.
I don't know how many potential customers gave up on PF due to play test civility, or lack thereof, but I do know that other 3.x forums like ENworld, GitP, and Brilliant Gameologists have quite a bit of negative PF sentiment. "The so-called 'play test' was a brilliant free-PR stunt" and "PF is just different enough to be a pain in the ass, but not different enough to be worth buying" are a couple of the milder criticisms I've seen.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will say, I know several people who won't come to the boards anymore, though it had nothing to do with the playtest. Its because they perceive (whether right or wrong is another discussion) that many people on these boards are jerks.I don't know how many potential customers gave up on PF due to play test civility, or lack thereof, but I do know that other 3.x forums like ENworld, GitP, and Brilliant Gameologists have quite a bit of negative PF sentiment. "The so-called 'play test' was a brilliant free-PR stunt" and "PF is just different enough to be a pain in the ass, but not different enough to be worth buying" are a couple of the milder criticisms I've seen.
Playtests must be rough on companies. I have seen these same criticisms levied at WOTC with 5E.
I will say, I know several people who won't come to the boards anymore, though it had nothing to do with the playtest. Its because they perceive (whether right or wrong is another discussion) that many people on these boards are jerks.I don't know how many potential customers gave up on PF due to play test civility, or lack thereof, but I do know that other 3.x forums like ENworld, GitP, and Brilliant Gameologists have quite a bit of negative PF sentiment. "The so-called 'play test' was a brilliant free-PR stunt" and "PF is just different enough to be a pain in the ass, but not different enough to be worth buying" are a couple of the milder criticisms I've seen.
Year after year though those people get hooked into a group and eventually buy a CRB.
Part of the PF appeal is how paizo doesn't have a history of edition hopping, even thought the game itself is still relatively young compared to previous.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No opinion. Or, no pre-set opinion, anyway. I'm not sure it's needed, so I don't want it for the sake of it, and yet it could be awesome, and I might love it.
Since it's not only total vaporware, but I don't even know what sort of changes / evolution would even be considered, I have no idea if it would be going in a direction I'd love or one I'd hate.
Imma just sit here on this fence, make sure it doesn't go anywhere.
Would I play PF 2.0, certainly, but that doesn't mean I need a new edition, and saying it plainly, PF 2.0 is something that I don't really need nor want.
I think I will wait and see how unchained looks before coming to any concrete decision one way or another.
If unchained can modify the core game mechanics enough to bring the linear scale of the martial classes closer to those of the quadratic casters, then I will be fairly satisfied. If not, then we may have to have this discussion again.
Yup Keen
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No x infinity
Veto
Heck No
Absolutely not
De Nada
Don't you dare.
Game is fine as is, and I don't want to have to rebuy my books and pdfs under any circumstance. -_-;
Playtests must be rough on companies. I have seen these same criticisms levied at WOTC with 5E.I will say, I know several people who won't come to the boards anymore, though it had nothing to do with the playtest. Its because they perceive (whether right or wrong is another discussion) that many people on these boards are jerks.I don't know how many potential customers gave up on PF due to play test civility, or lack thereof, but I do know that other 3.x forums like ENworld, GitP, and Brilliant Gameologists have quite a bit of negative PF sentiment. "The so-called 'play test' was a brilliant free-PR stunt" and "PF is just different enough to be a pain in the ass, but not different enough to be worth buying" are a couple of the milder criticisms I've seen.
Indeed! There are always fans who want incremental change, and there are always those who want dramatic change, no matter the game.
Still, I see where the second criticism comes from. By 2008, I had a set of house rules that were comparably different from 3.5 than PF is. Arguably more so. (Just not in quite the same way.) So I have no reason to buy into all of PF's niggling little changes -- as a hypothetical 3.x DM I prefer my own niggling little changes, and as a very occasional PF player I can just use the PF srd.
Year after year though those people get hooked into a group and eventually buy a CRB.
And year after year people get hooked into D&D or WoD or Exalted or whatever game groups, and eventually buy the books. What's your point?
Part of the PF appeal is how paizo doesn't have a history of edition hopping, even thought the game itself is still relatively young compared to previous.
PF doesn't have much of a history, period.
In any case, yes, many fans like PF because presumably it won't evolve as quickly as D&D. And yet this is a bug rather than a feature for many potential fans.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want a new edition. I want good, playtested fixes to the problems in the current one.
Treat it the way science text books do. Keep the same chassis, but release a new version when new information is discovered. It wouldn't be a new rules set, it would just large scale errata-ing of problems and printing them in an updated volume.
Can we have that?
They've done that already, a couple of times. 3.0 to 3.5, and 3.5 to Pathfinder. There comes a time when it's more efficient to actually replace the pipes rather than slapping layer after layer after layer of duct tape on them to try and see if the leak can be held back for a few more days.
|
|
If it completely makes all the books I've spent my hard earned money on obsolete then NO!!! A revision would be fine but a complete overhaul and they would lose me as a customer. I left D&D for the same reason after many years as a gamer for just that reason.
Unless Paizo sends it's reclamation squads to confiscate your Pathfinder 1E books and delete your PDFs, then your books don't become obsolete.
|
|
They've done that already, a couple of times. 3.0 to 3.5, and 3.5 to Pathfinder. There comes a time when it's more efficient to actually replace the pipes rather than slapping layer after layer after layer of duct tape on them to try and see if the leak can be held back for a few more days.I don't want a new edition. I want good, playtested fixes to the problems in the current one.
Treat it the way science text books do. Keep the same chassis, but release a new version when new information is discovered. It wouldn't be a new rules set, it would just large scale errata-ing of problems and printing them in an updated volume.
Can we have that?
It becomes especially hard when the amateur plumber also rejects some tape because it doesn't match the color of the previous tape.
I voted NO, but a updated 1.5 with all the FAQ and updated added, after they have gone thru the FAQ backlog would be nice.
I voted NO, but a updated 1.5 with all the FAQ and updated added, after they have gone thru the FAQ backlog would be nice.
I assume you mean with a commitment that its only the CRB that is reprinted and that UC, APG, ARG, ACG, UM, ect all stand
|
|
I think its a bad thing because I dont agree with you. I think things turned out a way you dont like and you feel that forum posters somehow got to make that choice by being vocal. If posters are driving people off I trust the moderators here to do something about that. Though permabanning people just because they dont agree with you is thankfully not going to happen. Folks enjoy the 3E/PF system and like a more conservative approach to evolving the system and they are going to voice that.There fans who refuse to come to the forums because of the core playtest. Some in the hobby consider the core playtest a sham because a very vocal subset of fans chased them away. I'm not one of them because I own a lot of material.
Why is my asking for a fair and unbiased playtest bother you so much. Is it because of a fear that they might change something. That's the risk of a playtest.
I just dont believe you. I do think some people probably got pushed away and that is a shame. Though I think these forums are pretty well moderated and have fair discussions. The forums are welcoming to anyone who likes PF and even those who dont. There are trolls but what site doesnt have them? I also dont think you have a basis for a biased playtest. The goal was to make a backwards compatibale system so having a lot of changes was never in cards.
These forums, despite the opinion of some, aren't really any better than any others. There have been a few threads where I've had the entire Paizo Defense Force rise up and tell me to GTFO, that my opinions were unwelcome, and that I should leave these forums and not return sine I have the temerity to prefer some other system to Pathfinder.
I voted NO, but a updated 1.5 with all the FAQ and updated added, after they have gone thru the FAQ backlog would be nice.I assume you mean with a commitment that its only the CRB that is reprinted and that UC, APG, ARG, ACG, UM, ect all stand
Yes. A few rules could be clarified also. Mounted Combat, Stealth.
But a "Complete classes" "complete feats & traits" Complete spells" etc books, even if 100% reprints would be bought by me.
POLL: Do You Want A New Edition of Pathfinder (Pathfinder 2e) ?
Not quite. What *I* want is a Pathfinder Basic. I got the core rules after buying the Beginner Box, and I'd MUCH prefer a 1-20 Pathfinder that was like the Beginner Box than what the Core Rules provided.
I mean, really, its like comparing the HERO 6th Edition books 1 and 2 to HERO Basic, or HERO 5th to HERO Sidekick. I want the lighter version with out all the massive amounts of details, and significantly better presentation.
I mean, really, Pathfinder is great and all, but its SO MASSIVE! I want a simpler game, which is why I've been seriously trying to get my players onboard to changing to D&D 5e Basic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I voted NO, but a updated 1.5 with all the FAQ and updated added, after they have gone thru the FAQ backlog would be nice.
Isn't the "FAQ backlog" always going to exist? By the time they answer or dismiss the current batch, there'll be more wont there?
I'd have assumed that the more complicated the game got, the more options with the potential to clash, the more FAQs there'll be.
Still I'd rather have faqs and errata then having to buy all new books.
If it completely makes all the books I've spent my hard earned money on obsolete then NO!!! A revision would be fine but a complete overhaul and they would lose me as a customer. I left D&D for the same reason after many years as a gamer for just that reason.Unless Paizo sends it's reclamation squads to confiscate your Pathfinder 1E books and delete your PDFs, then your books don't become obsolete.
If they stop publishing APs that are support version one they will indeed become obsolete. Unfortunately I have to work full time and can't devote the time to create my home brew adventures. I walked away from D&D after putting in far more time and money when they changed and I will walk from pathfinder if they do the same.
If they stop publishing APs that are support version one they will indeed become obsolete.
As I said, as long as they maintain Golarion as their setting, this is false. At most, you'd just have to convert monster stats. But, the meat of an AP (the characters, geography, customs, cosmology, etc) are kept intact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they stop publishing APs that are support version one they will indeed become obsolete.As I said, as long as they maintain Golarion as their setting, this is false. At most, you'd just have to convert monster stats. But, the meat of an AP (the characters, geography, customs, cosmology, etc) are kept intact.
You'd only have to redo most of the work. . . but really its coo, it works. . .
Under those assumptions it should be easy to run the Original Against the Giants in pathfinder, since "all" you have to do is convert monsters. . .
Believe me-- the fluff remaining the same and all the stats changing matters more than you think,
F$@# no.
If they stop publishing APs that are support version one they will indeed become obsolete.As I said, as long as they maintain Golarion as their setting, this is false. At most, you'd just have to convert monster stats. But, the meat of an AP (the characters, geography, customs, cosmology, etc) are kept intact.
And as it is I barely have the free time to do the necessary prep work to run one now. Adding extra time to converting a Pathfinder 2 Edition ap so that it is backwards compatible to everything I already own will make it virtually impossible for me. So still no, my vote is not swayed.
I think a new Pathfinder version completely released from the limitations inherent to the 3.5 system (like the huge focus on full attacks at the cost of mobile fights) would be both incredibly liberating and very interesting, but I'm not sure it would actually require a completely new edition - I'm hopeful that Pathfinder Unchained will help solve some of those limitations.
Barring that, Pathfinder 1.5 sounds interesting.
|
|
If they stop publishing APs that are support version one they will indeed become obsolete. Unfortunately I have to work full time and can't devote the time to create my home brew adventures. I walked away from D&D after putting in far more time and money when they changed and I will walk from pathfinder if they do the same.If it completely makes all the books I've spent my hard earned money on obsolete then NO!!! A revision would be fine but a complete overhaul and they would lose me as a customer. I left D&D for the same reason after many years as a gamer for just that reason.Unless Paizo sends it's reclamation squads to confiscate your Pathfinder 1E books and delete your PDFs, then your books don't become obsolete.
I find it hard to believe you've played through all the APs, modules, and scenarios available.
|
|
If they stop publishing APs that are support version one they will indeed become obsolete.As I said, as long as they maintain Golarion as their setting, this is false. At most, you'd just have to convert monster stats. But, the meat of an AP (the characters, geography, customs, cosmology, etc) are kept intact.You'd only have to redo most of the work. . . but really its coo, it works. . .
Under those assumptions it should be easy to run the Original Against the Giants in pathfinder, since "all" you have to do is convert monsters. . .
Believe me-- the fluff remaining the same and all the stats changing matters more than you think,
And once again, the biggest barrier is the inherent complexity of 3.X/PFRPG. The simpler the system, the easier it is to do conversions "on the fly". Give me a copy of a Pathfinder adventure and the S&W rule book and monster books, and I would wager I could deliver a better no-prep experience than someone trying to run it in Pathfinder, it's native system, with no prep.
I find it hard to believe you've played through all the APs, modules, and scenarios available.If they stop publishing APs that are support version one they will indeed become obsolete. Unfortunately I have to work full time and can't devote the time to create my home brew adventures. I walked away from D&D after putting in far more time and money when they changed and I will walk from pathfinder if they do the same.If it completely makes all the books I've spent my hard earned money on obsolete then NO!!! A revision would be fine but a complete overhaul and they would lose me as a customer. I left D&D for the same reason after many years as a gamer for just that reason.Unless Paizo sends it's reclamation squads to confiscate your Pathfinder 1E books and delete your PDFs, then your books don't become obsolete.
I don't own many that I haven't already played through. And I buy the older ones as I can find them as long as they aren't priced at some ridiculous amount on amazon. So I do have that buffer to fall back on if need be. So yeah if they go to a new edition I can still pick up that stuff second hand but Pazio will not be getting anymore money from me.
|
|
I'd also point out that Paizo is far from the only publisher putting out Pathfinder material. Seriously, there exist more Pathfinder adventures than any one person could ever play in a single lifetime. So, to me, the whole "dead system" thing doesn't hold water. Sick of Golarion? Take a spin in Midgard, the Lost Lands, NeoExodus, the Lonely Coast, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't change the fact that if Paizo switches to PF he's not buying their products anymore. . . just switching to a different 3pp (assuming they don't all switch to PF 2.0) or whatever isn't really a good solution. . .
I'd also point out that Paizo is far from the only publisher putting out Pathfinder material. Seriously, there exist more Pathfinder adventures than any one person could ever play in a single lifetime. So, to me, the whole "dead system" thing doesn't hold water. Sick of Golarion? Take a spin in Midgard, the Lost Lands, NeoExodus, the Lonely Coast, etc.
And believe me if indeed pathfinder does go 2.0 I'll be snatching all those up as quickly as I can afford them. But like Nathaniel said it won't be Paizo I'm purchasing from. They will have lost me as a customer and possibly a few more people as well. Now they may bring in more people through a new edition to make up for that. If so then more power to them but it could also end up being a D&D 4th edition level disaster. If the company is willing to take that gamble it is up to them. Ultimately what I have to say on this board won't have a bearing on their decision one way or another but I will give my opinion anyway and personally I think it would be a bad idea to do a complete revamp of the rules.
Ultimately what I have to say on this board won't have a bearing on their decision one way or another but I will give my opinion anyway and personally I think it would be a bad idea to do a complete revamp of the rules.
It may not be the only thing they consider, but given the interview in question, I think they'll pay attention.
It's a pretty difficult problem with a guaranteed segment of the market who are unhappy, no matter what you do. I'm encouraged by PF unchained and Occult Adventures coming out - I don't think they'd release proxy psionics rules and then immediately abandon the system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
These forums, despite the opinion of some, aren't really any better than any others. There have been a few threads where I've had the entire Paizo Defense Force rise up and tell me to GTFO, that my opinions were unwelcome, and that I should leave these forums and not return sine I have the temerity to prefer some other system to Pathfinder.
The "Paizo Defense Force" is definitely a thing. Unfortunately.