I don't truly think anyone can say there has been no power creep.
Otherwise there wouldn't be a growing argument that "fighter, cleric and rogue are obsolete"
Swashbuckler and Slayer are CLEAR examples of power LEAP never mind creep
Are Slayers really that powerful? I mean, hasn't rogue been known to be a really weak class since forever? Making a class more powerful than the rogue isn't really a sign of power leap, more like actually getting a class properly balanced.
Are Slayers really that powerful? I mean, hasn't rogue been known to be a really weak class since forever? Making a class more powerful than the rogue isn't really a sign of power leap, more like actually getting a class properly balanced.I don't truly think anyone can say there has been no power creep.
Otherwise there wouldn't be a growing argument that "fighter, cleric and rogue are obsolete"
Swashbuckler and Slayer are CLEAR examples of power LEAP never mind creep
I agree that the rogue is a pretty low bar to jump over, and one that should be jumped over too. However, if you move up the baseline strength of classes, you're also increasing the average class strength of the game, so it could be construed as power creep.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2nd Ed needs to come to compress down the options that have been presented, throw away what has been proven not to work, and pull into the core what has come from expansions that has proven to work and should have been there in the first place.
What they should also do in 2nd Edition is produce a single book each year that does away with fluff, and present a bound version of JUST rules and mechanics from the books that came out the year before for condensing and resource reference. A kind of Rules Compendium for that year. It would keep GM;s for instance closer to the rules, but would still require people to buy the original full books to get the information surrounding the rules, the cultures. the stories, the mindsets those mechanics came from.
That doesn't seem like terribly great business logic. First off, Paizo relies pretty strongly on the subscription model. An annual rule compendium would get little if any interest from most of the subscribers.
"OH look, you mean I can get the rules from X, that I already have, only stripped of flavor? yay"
Yes, Paizo does reprint options from APs and other lines, but usually alongside new rules and monsters. and some rules and systems just are not as popular as others. I don't see this at all being profitable for the company, and may in fact encourage people to dump there existing subscriptions.
I would also argue that "1 rulebook a year" is not doable either. If they did that, odds are they would have to ax a lot of their design and editing team. Which in turn would probably reduce the quality of their other material.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the rogue is a pretty low bar to jump over, and one that should be jumped over too. However, if you move up the baseline strength of classes, you're also increasing the average class strength of the game, so it could be construed as power creep.Are Slayers really that powerful? I mean, hasn't rogue been known to be a really weak class since forever? Making a class more powerful than the rogue isn't really a sign of power leap, more like actually getting a class properly balanced.I don't truly think anyone can say there has been no power creep.
Otherwise there wouldn't be a growing argument that "fighter, cleric and rogue are obsolete"
Swashbuckler and Slayer are CLEAR examples of power LEAP never mind creep
If you move the baseline, then yes that is power creep. But the bottom isnt the baseline, it is BELLOW the baseline. The baseline for the core game is the paladin, barbarian, bard, ranger and sorceror. The top end is the wizard, cleric and druid, and the bottom end was the rogue, monk and fighter.
If the new options have a similar power spread, then there isnt power creep. And if you really look at it, each major release of options has had a very similar spread of 'power' since the apg. A couple of options or classes that were in the high power spectrum and decried as 'OVERPOWERED', a few that were the opposite, and a whole bunch somewhere in between the rogue and the druid often leaning more towards the rogue then the druid.
Otherwise you are saying that since the rogue, monk and to a degree the fighter were sub par in the core rules ANY character that fits a concept within those areas must REMAIN subpar throughout the life of the game.
In fact, I think paizo has hit the middle a fair larger amount of times then it has hit the high or low end of the spectrum. Particularly in the base class area. If the majority of characters made with the current options do their job about as well as the paladin/bard/barbarian then we have a sound game. And for the most part, that is true.
What we do have is MORE concepts able to hit that area. Where as a group might have had a rogue, or a monk in them which early in the game under performed, now they can perform considerably better with similar concepts. But they arent better at their job then a paladin is at smiting evil bad guys, or a barbarian is at smashing face or a bard is at buffing and social skills.
We dont have power creep, we have power equalization. The bottom has been brought up, but the top remained in tact for the most part, and the mean, if not the average, amount of power has actually become more consistent throughout the various potential concepts.
If you take just the core rules and the apg as your baseline (The apg is really where pathfinder became it's own game in my opinion, and no one is going to tell me there was a bloat problem at that point), no party you could create now is more powerful then what could be created there. And most of what can be created in both cases will sit in the middle range of power, with a relatively small amount of outliers on either side. That is a good thing, and its not power creep, its a more complete game.
In 2009, if I wanted to play a sneaky skilled guy who can fight, I had to jump through alot of hoops. Now I can play a slayer. If I wanted to play sherlock holms, lots of hoops. Now, I play investigator. The supposed bloat has made it easier to create effective (read: On par with the paladin, barbarian, bard, sorceror and ranger) characters of more varied concepts. The rogue isnt sacred. The fighter isnt sacred. The game as a whole is better for the options that have been added. More complicated, probably. But it is better, where better is defined as how good a tool the game is to create specific character concepts and have them participate in being heroic adventurers.
The summoner, arcanist and a hand full of specific feat/archetype choices that create actual problems are a welcome challenge if it means that I and the people at my table can more easily create and tell the characters and stories we want to tell.
ALone in the CRb are more than enough possibilities for a real strong party or PC´s.
The only thing, roles and who can do what where pretty much fixed there.
All the other books and feats brought more diversity, loosening this very tight grip.
So, different classes can take different roles now or contribute different things, maybe even some that weren´t in the original class or concept. A real good thing.
And no, only because it´s difficult to take a rogue and charge someone in barbarian style, the rogue is not underpowered or whatever. It´s a totaly different play concept and as long that is not recognized, there can be no comparison.
If you take just the core rules and the apg as your baseline (The apg is really where pathfinder became it's own game in my opinion, and no one is going to tell me there was a bloat problem at that point), no party you could create now is more powerful then what could be created there. And most of what can be created in both cases will sit in the middle range of power, with a relatively small amount of outliers on either side. That is a good thing, and its not power creep, its a more complete game.I'm not sure I agree with that. While most of the new classes haven't contributed to power growth too much (arcanist and maybe summoner, excepted), there are feats, spells and other options that have boosted the power and versatility of those original top tier classes.
I certainly agree there are some outliers, and some abilities that when combined in specific ways are problematic, but to me at least, it seems relatively easy to limit those specific combinations. And certainly its easier to do cut out a handfull of feats and spells then it is to make sherlock holmes or an effective swashbuckler using the core rules, is it not?
IMO, though the new books do add a lot of content and can be a challenge to keep up with, I really enjoy new releases. Each new class, feat, item, etc. adds more options for my existing characters and players, and also gives me ideas for my stories that I might not have discovered without the inspiration. For instance, I play an archer alchemist who uses alchemical weapon, explosive missile, special arrows, and (soon) a conductive bow to give his arrows a boost. The addition of the Alchemy Manual, ACG, and Ranged Toolbox gives him more versatility and helps make the concept possible. In addition, as I posted on the Medium feedback thread, I found the new medium class to have striking similarities to characters in the setting for a book I've been working on, which helps me flesh out the concept a ton.
For new players, I suggest coming up with a concept and reading the class fluff descriptions to figure out which one fits best rather than trying to parse through 5 books of classes and digesting it all at once. Only crazy people and new players who've been shoved into the GM role should try that. The upcoming Strategy Guide should help with that.
|
I truly cannot believe someone compared the bloat in Rifts to being similar to PF bloat. Or any other rpg for that matter. It's not even remotely in the same category imo. With a few exceptions even the newer PF material is somewhat balanced. Rifts suffers from it be cool if we added this very truly unbalanced material into the game without playtesting or balance simply because we can. Even if it ruins the gameplay at the table rules design syndrome. Sure some later classes in PF are better than some. Like the Investigator vs the Rogue. It's nowhere near as bad as it is in Rifts and I'm a fan of the rpg. It's like trying to compare oranges to plutonium.
Kolokotroni: The points in your post about there being a range of power levels in the Core, a range which has been recognized over the years, would that range not be a great reason to launch 2ndEd?
-Matt
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never been that concerned with 'power' in the game rules. All the classes, feats, options, etc are all tools to help you create the character you want, to play out the story you want to play out. More options are better, in some ways, because they let you get the game character closer to the character in your head. More options are worse, because they make it more daunting to create and manage said game character.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kolokotroni: The points in your post about there being a range of power levels in the Core, a range which has been recognized over the years, would that range not be a great reason to launch 2ndEd?
-Matt
Not really, fixing the problems doesnt require a re-write. It requires additions. Some of that has been resolved since the core, some of it could stand for additional material.
What I do think it calls for is stuff like unchained. A set of optional rules that can work to deal with certain problems. Where you can say, hey, have a problem with x? Here's a different take on x. What I want is for every character to be as awesome as a well played/built wizard or druid. And I want the tools to create those in every general concept. If that means people stop playing rogues as a class, I dont mind so long as the concept is still acheivable.
My agrument against a 2nd Ed is quite distinct from rules issues. It has more to do with the fact that I simply dont want to have to buy the same books another time, nor do I want the robust set of options that exist in the game to be drastically paired down. Nor do I want the setting and adventure material I have to become less useful.
I LIKE lots of options, so a 2nd ed would take the game from a state that I like (where I feel like I can create most any character) to a state I dont (where I feel like the available options without homebrew or conversion are extremely limited). The reality is, I am more or less (as a player) done with the core classes. I've played them conceptually for 20 years. Theres nothing left in the tank for the basic 11 for me. I would literally have no interest in playing a new game that was once again reduced to the core rules. And I wouldn't be willing to wait years and spend hundreds of dollars again to get back to a state that I like only to have it repeat itself.
I am tired of the rotating editions. I am happy to address the problems and challenges of the game as it exists within the current edition, either with things like unchained or house rules, but there is very little chance that a 2nd ed of pathfinder wouldn't drive me away from the game as a customer.
I don't truly think anyone can say there has been no power creep.
Otherwise there wouldn't be a growing argument that "fighter, cleric and rogue are obsolete"
Swashbuckler and Slayer are CLEAR examples of power LEAP never mind creep
People were complaining about the fighter and rogue when the CRB was out. Them being replaced has more to do with them not being designed better.
The swashbuckler is not really much better than the fighter and is basically a dip class. The slayer is still not better than the ranger so it is not a leap in power.
I really have not seen any concensus that the cleric is obsolete. People that dont like playing it, don't say that due to its lack of power. The class's lack of class features make it boring to some, and that has nothing to do with power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am tired of the rotating editions. I am happy to address the problems and challenges of the game as it exists...
I see. So what you're saying is that the Core rulebook is becoming an obsolete product, but that's okay, because we can rely on the veterans who own everything to support the game, and because new players are perfectly capable of purchasing everything required to have a "fixed" game? And they'll just magically figure out which rules materials are included in this "fixed" game and which aren't?
-Matt
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's possible new players won't come in with preconceived notions of what is and isn't broken. A lot of our veterans are dragging their baggage from the Great D&D Migration and have ideas about what is right and wrong with the game. Newer folks might not be as experienced slash jaded and have less trouble using the Core book.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am tired of the rotating editions. I am happy to address the problems and challenges of the game as it exists...I see. So what you're saying is that the Core rulebook is becoming an obsolete product, but that's okay, because we can rely on the veterans who own everything to support the game, and because new players are perfectly capable of purchasing everything required to have a "fixed" game? And they'll just magically figure out which rules materials are included in this "fixed" game and which aren't?
-Matt
Who said the core rulebook is becoming obsolete? 2 of the classes in the core rules might be, but the other 9, all the feats, spells, and everything else are not.
Heck even the contents of those 2 classes are still relavent as they are referenced elsewhere. Thats like 10 pages of a multi hundred page book. That doesnt make the core rules obselete.
And by fixing within the system, I am talking about things like Unchained, where we are given the opportunity to make changes without re-writing the game.
As for new players having to purchages a 'fixed' game, they dont have to purchase a things. Unchained like all the rulebook line will be on the prd. Its easy enough for people to point them there.
New players dont read the core rules cover to cover anyway. Rewriting the core rules wont help them. Products like the upcoming strategy guide which at least on it's billing will help new players make 'good' choices within the web of options available will. Again, 'fixes' without rewriting the base rules is what I want. And it isnt all that hard to do either. It might replace a few options from existing products, but there isnt a need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The fundamental rules work as well as any d20 rpg. It's only specific options that need attention.
|
|
When possible I would want to use the current edition the longest. Eventually though depending on how many rules issues or flaws a rpg has it may require a new edition. While certainly doing something like PF Unchained is a good thing there is only so many books one can add to the core system as well. Another problem is keeping the edition unchanged. A PF 2E without major changes is going to sell well. Just nas well as PF 1E did imo. We have two edtions of D&D that are similar. One that is pretty much 3.5 with maybe 10% new material added in. Asking fans to reinvest 120$ in another rehash is simply not the way to go. Better to keep the system as is and keep adding more Unchained books to the core. For all the talk about backwards compability I see more and more fans just using PF only. So it's not even that bog a issue if it is imo.
Even Call of Cthulhu 7E while still very similar to previous editions is simply not just a repacked rehash with better art and organization. They added some new elements to the rules. Not major ones. One can still use previous editions sourcebooks just with a few changes. Chaosium was losing fans to both Trail and Realms of Cthulhu. It was a risk and from what I hear from the moderate fans of the rpg a good one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So let's say there are a couple of new players. Neither of them has ever played any version of D&D before. Neither of them is interested at all in casting spells: one wants to play an elf fighter like Legolas, and the other wants to play a thief like Gord the Rogue. In addition to the CRB, which books should they get to have everything they need to make characters that will be viable in a game where the other party members are a blaster wizard, a summoner, and a druid?
They should get d20pfsrd or the prd. They dont have to buy anything. They might possibly want to pick up the strategy guide in print, as that might be something they'd want to read fairly heavily. The rest of the books are REFERENCES. You dont need them during play. There is nothing forcing anyone to 'buy all the books'. Paizo has actually been supremely generous in that regard for specifically this reason. No one should be forced to buy a ton of books just to get to play.
And what specifics they want will depend on their actual vision of their characters. 'Like legolas' can mean a lot of things. And pathfinder 2.0 will almost certainly not make it any easier to create a specific vision of a character. They will still have to wade through different choices to find the ones that fit. Thats what an option rich game like pathfinder requires.
I am not familiar with Gord, but if I had to choose for legolas, I'd probably go with a zen archer. Nimble, good at acrobatics, and shoots a ton of arrows while still being able to fight close up.
But all of that ignores the overwhelmingly subjective term 'viable'. After all a core rulebook archery focused fighter can put out a ton of damage, and that might satisfy the player, or it might not, thats all perspective, and again it's unlikely a pathfinder 2.0 will make that any simpler, given that it can only have so many options in it. Some concepts wont be achievable with what's there regardless of changes to the core mechanics. Thats why we add to the rules in the first place.
When possible I would want to use the current edition the longest. Eventually though depending on how many rules issues or flaws a rpg has it may require a new edition. While certainly doing something like PF Unchained is a good thing there is only so many books one can add to the core system as well. Another problem is keeping the edition unchanged. A PF 2E without major changes is going to sell well. Just nas well as PF 1E did imo. We have two edtions of D&D that are similar. One that is pretty much 3.5 with maybe 10% new material added in. Asking fans to reinvest 120$ in another rehash is simply not the way to go. Better to keep the system as is and keep adding more Unchained books to the core. For all the talk about backwards compability I see more and more fans just using PF only. So it's not even that bog a issue if it is imo.
It is less of an issue now then it was 5 years ago. But it was for many when they started. With just the core rules, your options were VERY limited. The backwards compatability allowed you to have some variety using 3.5 material until more was released for pathfinder. It would be years before a new edition of pathfinder reached the same state. Even on day one, I was more or less only interested in trying one concept out of just the core rules. It was the wealth of 3rd party options and the eventual addition of the APG that kept me interested.
I am more or less done with the core classes conceptually. A non-backwards compatable edition of pathfinder would be a non-starter for me, there wouldn't be anything I was excited to play, or see played when I dm.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt Pathfinder 2e is going to be the panacea that many people seem to expect. Any new edition is going to be backward compatible to the current edition because Paizo isn't going to want to alienate at great many of their customer base by invalidating their entire current catalog (at least the mechanical bits of it).
It's more likely that pathfinder will issue stealth changes through books like Unchained, where the "edition change" is really just a new set of options that can be played alongside existing options.
-Skeld
I would love to see a slow 'polishing' of various sections of the ruleset via rule update releases. These would be optional replacements to sections of the rules, that incorporated fixes, streamlines, and consistencies into them. A given table can of course choose to use them or not, but if they are well written, they will be well used, and become the standard naturally.
The key, though, is that nothing in these options should be just a copy paste from previous editions/current rules. Everything needs to be done with a fresh look.
I'd love to see a consolidations of environmental effects. Should a square consumed in part of a wall of fire or a square bursting with the explosion from a flask of alchemist's fire be treated different than a square occupied by a flaming sphere, or a burst from a burning hands spell or fireball? Can this be consolidated into an environmental rule about sustained and burst environmental effects? I'm not saying fire spells are somehow broken, but the 102 different ways to get burnt by fire are a prime example of what IS bad about bloat.
Wraithstrike wrote:
"The swashbuckler is not really much better than the fighter and is basically a dip class."
------
Respectfully, I'm not certain the difference is all that slight.From the starting gate the swashbuckler is insulated against attacks from rank and file mooks via Opportune Parry & Riposte while holding its own on every other level with a fighter. This mechanic alone redefines combat. Generally speaking, from seeing one in action from levels 5-15, the swashbuckler and her/his deeds shine in play while the fighter's collection of bonus feats is far less inspiring. The swashbuckler newly being the go-to dip class is a problem all of its own, much like a ranger dip was in 3.0.
I cannot speak to the slayer, having not seen one in play for any length of time, but am inclined to agree with you.
Which one does better is more dependent upon player skill than either of those classes. I won't disagree that the slayer is more interesting, but that does not really give it separation if you are just looking at mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There may be a need for an Expanded Core Rulebook after Pathfinder Unchained comes out, that includes the updates for the Monk, Rogue, and Barbarian, but that's really about it.
If it comes down to 2-3 classes needing a major upgrade, then creating a new Edition, and in effect making an entirely new rule system, is killing a fly with a Howitzer.
The general consensus is the Fighter, Rogue, and Monk need re-dos, right? Then wouldn't just updating the Core Rulebook be the best option?
Paizo is going to keep putting out the CRB for the entirety of Pathfinder, and it updates errata and fixes mistakes in printings of their books, so it's not unreasonable for 2-3 problem classes to just be updated.
So long as Paizo calls to attention that the new book is an updated Core Rulebook, then it wouldn't be an issue - same Core Rulebook for all intents and purposes but with a few key updates; older players wouldn't need to get it since they'd be familiar with the rules and updates, and new players wouldn't need to buy Unchained in order to get the updated versions of the classes.
There are also rules systems that need to be redone, Stealth and perception being the obvious examples.There may be a need for an Expanded Core Rulebook after Pathfinder Unchained comes out, that includes the updates for the Monk, Rogue, and Barbarian, but that's really about it.
If it comes down to 2-3 classes needing a major upgrade, then creating a new Edition, and in effect making an entirely new rule system, is killing a fly with a Howitzer.
The general consensus is the Fighter, Rogue, and Monk need re-dos, right? Then wouldn't just updating the Core Rulebook be the best option?
Paizo is going to keep putting out the CRB for the entirety of Pathfinder, and it updates errata and fixes mistakes in printings of their books, so it's not unreasonable for 2-3 problem classes to just be updated.
So long as Paizo calls to attention that the new book is an updated Core Rulebook, then it wouldn't be an issue - same Core Rulebook for all intents and purposes but with a few key updates; older players wouldn't need to get it since they'd be familiar with the rules and updates, and new players wouldn't need to buy Unchained in order to get the updated versions of the classes.
I thought thought was cleared up. I may be wrong. What stealth(not counting invis issues are still a problem?
Invisibility + stealth is still something that is not clear.
What they should have done was kept hide + move silently as two different skills and the same for spot and listen, but that ship has sailed unless they give the option back in unchained. .
However they would still need to clear up the invis+stealth rules.
Stealth and Perception, imo, are more or less fine. However, and this is essential, it requires all their supporting text to be taken into account. You can't really mince fluff vs. crunch and expect both systems to gel well as is. When you're trying to be super strict with RAW then weird things happen. I've not seen a scenario with the given text (not rules) that doesn't work if you stop trying to rules miser the system. Many perceived issues with the system are alleviated the same way, but I understand why people value crunch vs. fluff distinctions and how some rewrites could make things more streamlined.
Most of us care more for RAI than RAW. RAI allows for stealth to work better than it did before.
RAW that is does not fit RAI is really not a rule.
With all the dev feedback and editorial snafus over the years (not a complaint, they just happen) there are a ton of RAW that isn't RAI.
I am saying the RAI is clear on how stealth works. The RAW matches it better also since the errata.
PS: RAW should be fine also now. I am aware that there are things that still need work. :)
There are also rules systems that need to be redone, Stealth and perception being the obvious examples.
Not to mention the entire concept of crafting both mundane AND magic items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt Pathfinder 2e is going to be the panacea that many people seem to expect. Any new edition is going to be backward compatible to the current edition because Paizo isn't going to want to alienate at great many of their customer base by invalidating their entire current catalog (at least the mechanical bits of it).
It's more likely that pathfinder will issue stealth changes through books like Unchained, where the "edition change" is really just a new set of options that can be played alongside existing options.
-Skeld
If it is going to be backwards compatable whats the point of a new edition? It wont fix the 'issues' that are the bigest problems. If you go back to all the 'what do you want out of pathfinder 2E' threads few of those ideas would go well with backwards compatability.
If you arent going to go for a redesign why not just make those minor tweaks in house. Release updated stealth/perception rules and new write ups for a couple classes. New edition not required. Heck we might see all of that in unchained itself.
I'd love to see an updated Core Rulebook that incorporates Traits and haunts, cleans up Stealth and perception, is clear on exactly how 10' reach works, etc. But where do you stop? The whole rule set could use a rewrite. Before you know it, you have a 2nd edition. Even if you maintained 100% mechanical compatibility, that would still leave a bad taste in many people's mouths. Not my mouth, mind you. :P
|
|
They could always include new and updated rules for Stealth and Perception. We have melee and ranged tactics toolbox sourcebook. Maybe call it a Stealth tactics toolbox or something similar. To me it's the only way to fix any issues. Short of a new edition. I understand wanting to keep backewards compability. At the same time the flaws and ruled issue need to be addressed. A new edition with little to no rule changes just is not going to sell as well imo. I know a few on the hobby that don't play or run Pathfinder. As they feel it's not different enough. That's a big issue I think the devs have to deal with. A new edition that is different but not completly.
|
|
I doubt Pathfinder 2e is going to be the panacea that many people seem to expect. Any new edition is going to be backward compatible to the current edition because Paizo isn't going to want to alienate at great many of their customer base by invalidating their entire current catalog (at least the mechanical bits of it).
It's more likely that pathfinder will issue stealth changes through books like Unchained, where the "edition change" is really just a new set of options that can be played alongside existing options.
-Skeld
If it is going to be backwards compatable whats the point of a new edition? It wont fix the 'issues' that are the bigest problems. If you go back to all the 'what do you want out of pathfinder 2E' threads few of those ideas would go well with backwards compatability.
If you arent going to go for a redesign why not just make those minor tweaks in house. Release updated stealth/perception rules and new write ups for a couple classes. New edition not required. Heck we might see all of that in unchained itself.
That's why I think a new edition is unnecessary, so I believe we agree.
It's not going to fix things in the way that some of the people clamoring for a new edition want things fixed. Backwards compatibility will still be a goal because Paizo isn't going to want to invalidate their entire PF catalog to date, especially since PF was born out of a contentious edition change where many people refused the new edition before it even hit the shelves.
I think Unchained is a sign of how the "edition change" will happen: slowly, with options instead of updates.
-Skeld
A "Revised Core Rulebook" would be pretty awesome. There is a lot about the CRB that can change without creating compatibility problems. It would be really cool if Paizo got ambitious and fixed the really deep issues, like the inherent problem of uses/day, the role and scaling of skill DCs, spells > feats, etc.
What would also be super-cool is having future APs include notes for running them in D&D Fifth Edition.
-Matt
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Backwards compatibility will still be a goal because Paizo isn't going to want to invalidate their entire PF catalog to date, especially since PF was born out of a contentious edition change where many people refused the new edition before it even hit the shelves.I don't think this is nearly as large an issue as most seem to think it is, Paizo staff included. The only fundamental changes to their APs would be monster stats which can be solved with updated bestiaries and interim conversion guides and skill challenges which can also be handled mostly through a conversion guide. Most other things are soft references to mechanics such as stating a cave in happens or the PCs need to cross a lava river, environmental stuff, et al. Their APs and modules are written such you can easily preserve the story and setting.
Well first off, a change could make specific monsters inappropriate challenges for a given character level, or make the progression of the adventure not line up (XP differences for instance). You could also see changes to things like how magic items work which would require revisions. Certain adventures also have specific spells as part of plot points, and a new edition could either eliminate, change the function of or change the availability of those spells.
It could also change how much of a challenge certain situations are, depending on what route the new edition takes. Yes a field of lava or a cave in is a 'soft' rules reference, but depending on what changes, it may increase or decrease in challenge. What if a single casting of fly becomes most of a wizard's resources at 6th level because he instead has an array of at will powers that eliminate the 15 minute work day. A pit that was once a minor obstacle, could become a major challenge or even completely impassable. What if an adventure had an encounter in a room with fire elementals that slowly filled with lava, but the new edition changes how fire immunity and fire resistance works.
What if skills are changed and for instance, social skill require a series of rolls, or the use of other in class abilities. Tons of what were meant to be minor interactions in adventures could turn into hour long slogs through something minor but important. It could also cause a huge amount of society scenarios to run over time.
Speaking of pathfinder society. Think what a new edition could do to what amounts to a very important part of paizo's business model. Hundreds of scenarios would either need revision, or to be dropped, leaving big gaps in what is available. Countless characters would need conversion (potentially with problems depending on how the current pfs model lines up with the new model). And even with revision, pfs scenarios are designed to run in a certain amount of time. There is every chance that the new edition will change how long encounters take making the revisions required of those scenarios even greater then those of adventure paths or modules.
Then there is the rest of their catalogue. Hundreds of companion and campaign setting books which are not soft references to mechanics, and which would have significant portions of their content made irrelevant. Paizo makes more then just adventures even if adventures are their flagship product. Every feat, talent, prestige class, archetype (heck archetypes might not even be a thing in a new edition) and spell would require considerable conversion, or be useless. That is hundreds of thousands if not millions of words of content that would be significantly less useful with a new edition. Paizo has many print copies of said content still in their warehouse, and they are also aware of how much money fans have spent on copies they no longer have in their warehouse. It is in fact a very big issue. Even setting aside the rpg line entirely, there is a huge potential loss on both paizo and their customer's side from a new edition of the game.
I think you vastly underestimate how much a new edition COULD (note this entirely depends on how much changes) invalidate existing content.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not reading that. Sorry. *nod and smile*
If you aren't going to read what others are saying, why take part in the conversation? You can just state your opinion out loud, nod to yourself, and move on.
Just as an example of how gnarly an update can be, the half-edition change from 3.0 to 3.5 caused some odd interactions and inconsistencies - nothing that really caused breakdown, but still required some gameplay gymnastics and imbalance issues.
3.5 to Pathfinder also required gameplay gymnastics and presented some imbalance issues. The differences in rules between 3.0 and Pathfinder are pretty substantial now; again, not gamebreaking, but trying to go from 3.0 to Pathfinder creates some definitely odd instances of rules not matching up directly and requiring some rules-welding.
If there were to be a Pathfinder 2.0, not only would that create issues between PF and PF2, there would assuredly be glaring problems with going from 3.0 to PF2 - probably about as bad as trying to convert from 2nd Ed to Pathfinder (still completely possible, but requiring a LOT of conversion).
Magic the Gathering is a good example of how to update a system without creating major issues.
The switch from the rules for from 6th Edition on forward made literally only 1 card unusable, out of now-over 15,000 cards (and not many people used that card anyway). Everything else was left intact. This is because they condensed card types (Interrupt, Instant, & Mana Source into just Instant) clarified other types (Summon to Creature, and allowing for multiple subtypes), and just adjusted how some cards worked by adding Supertypes (World). Since then, in 1999, the game has slowly evolved (re-working some Subtypes into Supertypes, making odd card types into broader Subtypes, etc.), but the core game is still the same, 15 years later.
This is kind of how Pathfinder has been going: a rewrite of the core rules that don't mechanically invalidate material printed before it, with small changes made over a large period of time (whether it invalidates stuff due to optimization is a whole different story, and one that happens with every game).
A Revised Core Rulebook would be fine, as long as it adjusted the rules in such a way as to leave everything outside of the CRB still functional. Unchained will probably be a major step towards this, but won't replace the CRB any time soon.
That being said, I can't see a Revised version of the Core Rules coming out too long before the 10th Anniversary, so we'll probably be waiting until about 2018 or 2019 before we get to see an RCRB, unless the demand is somehow crazy for it.
Paizo will probably wait and see what becomes universally used in Unchained for 2-3 years before committing to making those rules "Core," which would be just about the right time for the 10th Anniversary anyway.
The bloat is more due to "too many of the same(s)", most archetypes are "partially turn class A into class B", and many of the hybrids ended up as "it's the opposite of what we asked" (well, to some).
Occult Adventure might help, but many fair it will be renaming and refluffing of existing classes/abilities.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If all added options were balanced and meaningful in ways other than "fill page count" and the horrible design philosophy that is "we need 'Timmy cards' to reward system mastery", I wouldn't call any of them "bloat".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If all added options were balanced and meaningful in ways other than "fill page count" and the horrible design philosophy that is "we need 'Timmy cards' to reward system mastery", I wouldn't call any of them "bloat".
that too, or it would take longer to call it bloated.
If all added options were balanced and meaningful in ways other than "fill page count" and the horrible design philosophy that is "we need 'Timmy cards' to reward system mastery", I wouldn't call any of them "bloat".
any game shouldn't have "Timmy Cards to reward system mastery" and every option should have equal viability, even if some cards are better at some circumstances than others. for example, a grenade should have better area effect ability than a bow or gun, but a bow or gun should be better at damaging single targets than a grenade