The release of 5e has shown some good advancements, but come on guys... Paizo already shown that can do much better than that.
The 5e, besides some good improvements and reverting back to 2E in many good ways, it has basically abandoned all the progress made with 3.0, 3.5 and 4E.
I think there is a good window of opportunity for Paizo to start planning a version of Pathfinder II. This could keep Pathfinder I own advances but also give some direction to the advances made with 4e (condensed skills, combat advantage), 5e (itterative attacks as standard action) and beyond.
For example, 5e has thrown away the mechanic that gave weapons different critical threat ranges and multipliers, a mechanic that used to help to each weapon to become more unic.
As a suggestion for Pathfinder 2, I would start to tinker with a defense bonus for all classes and monsters scaling at a rate of one-half the character's Base Attack Bonus. This would help to reduce the system dependence to magical itens for those like me that play in low magic settings. If you choose to use a Base Defense Bonus (BDB) you should also think about dropping BAB decreasing progression of +20/+15/+10/+5, and make all itterative attack the same BAB, or maybe a faster scaling for the second and third itterative attack so at later levels they can reach the first attack BAB.
These are just some ideas, but the message I would like to pass above all is that, THERE IS ROOM for a PATHFINDER II, if not now, in a near future, and we will be waiting for that!
Cheers.
5E already exists...I don't think it's a terribly great business tactic to try to emulate another simplified ruleset. There are certainly bit and bobs that could be smoothed over, and certainly the presentation could be improved, but Pathfinder as a complex game is probably a better niche for them to explore
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope
Have you looked at Sean K Reynolds's Five Moons RPG?. The game is pretty mucb being developed on the premise of what would Sean K. Reynolds do if he rebuilt Pathfinder from the ground up.
I have strong doubts there ever will be a Pathfinder II.
Maybe a revised Pathfinder CRB in 2017.
Five Moons RPG didn't raise much capital. Not like how Numerena did.
This means that if you are going to create a new rpg find a demographic or interest that isn't covered by one of the major game systems.
Pathfinder has its faults, not enough faults for people to jump ship.
As long as Paizo keeps on producing quality products its business as usual.
I just don't see why paizo would invalidate their entire catalog in order to do a second edition.
I think Five Moons looks awesome, but I know I would never find anyone to play it, so I didn't kickstarter it.
5E already exists...I don't think it's a terribly great business tactic to try to emulate another simplified ruleset. There are certainly bit and bobs that could be smoothed over, and certainly the presentation could be improved, but Pathfinder as a complex game is probably a better niche for them to explore
Agreed. There is a tendency of people to embrace the "dumbed down modern American culture", in arts, cinema and even RPGs, but it is not my case. 3.X system is a brilhant game in many ways and I miss many of its incredible features in 5e. I think that to dumb it down because people simply lacking the will or attention span to learn a game is a terrible mistake, as 4E already showed to Hasbro. So if Paizo wants to make its way through the future, it has to start planning a Pathfinder 2, maybe for release in 2017... it can make some featurew simplier but not neglect and abandom all the progress made with 3.Xe, and even borrow some features from 4e (like a more rebuilt of itterative attacks, condensed skill system, not skill ranks, just trained and non-trainted, class skills and non-class skills etc.).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Five Moons RPG didn't raise much capital. Not like how Numerena did.
This means that if you are going to create a new rpg find a demographic or interest that isn't covered by one of the major game systems.
Pathfinder has its faults, not enough faults for people to jump ship.
As long as Paizo keeps on producing quality products its business as usual.
Though I agree it's foolish for Paizo to create a whole new game, I have strong objections to your comment because:
1) Discrediting Five Moons because of financial success is not really a fair statement considering the game is a year from release. It's especially unfair to compare it to Numenera, which had a larger development team, which included SKR. I was recommending it to the OP because the game seems very relevant to his interests and concerns.
2) There does exist a substantial amount of players that would like to see PF get spruced up, even though many prefer one that doesn't invalidate previous content. In fact, many of the threads in this forum are dedicated to fixing or reworking existing mechanics.
3) It should be noted that a Pathfinder 2.0 doesn't necessarily have to follow D&D tradition of completely invalidating existing material. Almost each edition of D&D is essentially a completely new game whereas most games simply refactor existing mechanics between editions.
4) I'm baffled by the notion that playing one game means you'll never play another, especially when the games have different goals and experiences.
|
...D&D tradition of completely invalidating existing material. Almost each edition of D&D is essentially a completely new game whereas most games simply refactor existing mechanics between editions.
0E, 1E, 2E, B/X, and BECMI are all essentially the same system. It wasn't until 3.0 that developers scrapped the whole thing to start from scratch.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Boooooooo, no pathfinder 2
...D&D tradition of completely invalidating existing material. Almost each edition of D&D is essentially a completely new game whereas most games simply refactor existing mechanics between editions.0E, 1E, 2E, B/X, and BECMI are all essentially the same system. It wasn't until 3.0 that developers scrapped the whole thing to start from scratch.
You are missing the point here. The question is not to identify which edition was exactly the turning point (and, by the way, I think 3E wasn't the turning point, what was a break and a totaly new game was 4E. Some people say that 3E was too complex but they seen to forget many points there were brilhantly streamlinded by 3E, starting by Ability Score Bonuses - no more bend bars/lift gates % from 2E etc., and the infinite number of modifiers each ability score provided in 2E. So 3E also made the game more simple in many points were it should be simple. By the other hand, some inovations like diferent critical modifiers and threat ranges for different weapon were a very nice add on without too much complexity. Maybe giving too many itterative attacks and at a decreasing attack bonus were a mistake of 3E but it can be corrected in future editions).
The point in this post is to discuss about the FUTURE of PFRPG, a possible PFRPG 2.0, not the past of D&D, and its zero, 1st or 2nd past edtions. If community wants, Paizo will answer its call and produce a PFRPG 2.0, but keeping it greatly compatible with its predecessor material, much like 3.0E was still compatile in most parts with 3.5E.
Cheers.
...D&D tradition of completely invalidating existing material. Almost each edition of D&D is essentially a completely new game whereas most games simply refactor existing mechanics between editions.0E, 1E, 2E, B/X, and BECMI are all essentially the same system. It wasn't until 3.0 that developers scrapped the whole thing to start from scratch.
Alright, let me rephrase that. The CURRENT tradition of invalidating previous material. A Pathfinder 2.0 doesn't have to follow that. It could simply be the same game with refactored mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5E already exists...I don't think it's a terribly great business tactic to try to emulate another simplified ruleset. There are certainly bit and bobs that could be smoothed over, and certainly the presentation could be improved, but Pathfinder as a complex game is probably a better niche for them to exploreAgreed. There is a tendency of people to embrace the "dumbed down modern American culture", in arts, cinema and even RPGs, but it is not my case. 3.X system is a brilhant game in many ways and I miss many of its incredible features in 5e. I think that to dumb it down because people simply lacking the will or attention span to learn a game is a terrible mistake, as 4E already showed to Hasbro. So if Paizo wants to make its way through the future, it has to start planning a Pathfinder 2, maybe for release in 2017... it can make some featurew simplier but not neglect and abandom all the progress made with 3.Xe, and even borrow some features from 4e (like a more rebuilt of itterative attacks, condensed skill system, not skill ranks, just trained and non-trainted, class skills and non-class skills etc.).
And this right here is where you lost me. Love how you say "dumbed down modern American culture" and other mentions of "dumbed down" or "dumbing it down". I take it you are not American, and you have never heard of K.I.S.S. or "Keep It Simple, Stupid".
Just gotta love the whole "dumbing down" BS that gets thrown around when speaking of pre-3rd edition and 5th edition. And sorry, 4th edition's lack of interest from a large number of people wasn't because it was "dumbed down", it was because it was a massive departure from so much that came before, which is why Pathfinder succeeded like it did.
And your comments are sounding quite Edition War-y.
Alright, let me rephrase that. The CURRENT tradition of invalidating previous material. A Pathfinder 2.0 doesn't have to follow that. It could simply be the same game with refactored mechanics....D&D tradition of completely invalidating existing material. Almost each edition of D&D is essentially a completely new game whereas most games simply refactor existing mechanics between editions.0E, 1E, 2E, B/X, and BECMI are all essentially the same system. It wasn't until 3.0 that developers scrapped the whole thing to start from scratch.
So, since Pathfinder is pretty much considered D&D 3.75, would Pathfinder 2 be D&D 3.875?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have you looked at Sean K Reynolds's Five Moons RPG?. The game is pretty mucb being developed on the premise of what would Sean K. Reynolds do if he rebuilt Pathfinder from the ground up.
...Yay...a whole GAME designed by SKR...my enthusiasm is boundless...
...D&D tradition of completely invalidating existing material. Almost each edition of D&D is essentially a completely new game whereas most games simply refactor existing mechanics between editions.0E, 1E, 2E, B/X, and BECMI are all essentially the same system. It wasn't until 3.0 that developers scrapped the whole thing to start from scratch.
As Kthulhu said, pre-3rd edition D&D was basically the same thing, only with slight variations. It wasn't until the WotC era of D&D that new editions decided to scrap what came before and make something new. If 4th edition wasn't such a huge departure over 3rd edition, it would have been a huge success. And I believe that's why they had 5th edition be something that more resembles pre-4th edition D&D with a few 4th edition additions. Every WotC D&D edition has been a complete re-write of what came before. It worked with 3rd edition, not so much with 4th edition, and seems to work for 5th edition.
Funny how the OP says a simpler version of D&D is "dumbed down" when 3rd edition was touted as a simpler version of 2nd edition AD&D.
People just couldn't understand THAC0 for some reason.
If I remember correctly (been a LONG while since I've played anything 2ed), its basically the opposite of AC. Where in 3rd edition and beyond the higher the AC the better, in 2ed the lower the THAC0 the better. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I may be oversimplifying it, and like I said, I haven't played 2ed or Baldur's Gate since the 90s.
5E already exists...I don't think it's a terribly great business tactic to try to emulate another simplified ruleset. There are certainly bit and bobs that could be smoothed over, and certainly the presentation could be improved, but Pathfinder as a complex game is probably a better niche for them to exploreAgreed. There is a tendency of people to embrace the "dumbed down modern American culture", in arts, cinema and even RPGs, but it is not my case. 3.X system is a brilhant game in many ways and I miss many of its incredible features in 5e. I think that to dumb it down because people simply lacking the will or attention span to learn a game is a terrible mistake, as 4E already showed to Hasbro. So if Paizo wants to make its way through the future, it has to start planning a Pathfinder 2, maybe for release in 2017... it can make some featurew simplier but not neglect and abandom all the progress made with 3.Xe, and even borrow some features from 4e (like a more rebuilt of itterative attacks, condensed skill system, not skill ranks, just trained and non-trainted, class skills and non-class skills etc.).And this right here is where you lost me. Love how you say "dumbed down modern American culture" and other mentions of "dumbed down" or "dumbing it down". I take it you are not American, and you have never heard of K.I.S.S. or "Keep It Simple, Stupid".
Just gotta love the whole "dumbing down" BS that gets thrown around when speaking of pre-3rd edition and 5th edition. And sorry, 4th edition's lack of interest from a large number of people wasn't because it was "dumbed down", it was because it was a massive departure from so much that came before, which is why Pathfinder succeeded like it did.
And your comments are sounding quite Edition War-y.
I am not too young, I am 32 years old and have played 2nd edition since the early 90's. I\And you are right, I am not american, but do not have anything against the americans, much the contrary. KISS is a world wide famous expression for everybody who works in a corporative enviroment. Dont be stupid.
For THAC0, you figure out what the character's level was. Let's go with a 5th level Warrior. The warrior's thac0 is 15, so he would have to roll a 15 or better when rolling a d20. This is the base number not counting any modifier from high attribute. So, you take that 15 (which is what is needed to hit AC 0), and look at the monster's AC. If the AC is 10, the warrior would need to roll a 5. If the AC is -10, the warrior would need to question his DM as to why he is putting them up against a great wyrm dragon (as he would have to roll a 25, or a natural 20) at level 5.
It's actually fairly easy. Take your to hit, and modify it by the creature's AC. AC > 0, you subtract that number from thac0. AC < 0 you add that number to thac0. I am surprised I even remembered all that.
Ah, 2nd Edition. I will never forget how the 2nd Edition books were replete with soft-core porn 'artwork'. *cough* lamia *cough*
|
I am not too young, I am 32 years old and have played 2nd edition since the early 90's. I\And you are right, I am not american, but do not have anything against the americans, much the contrary. KISS is a world wide famous expression for everybody who works in a corporative enviroment. Dont be stupid.
Speaking of dumbed-downed modern Amurican culture, KISS rocks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chalk up another vote for "No Pathfinder 2".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still playing Pathfinder so I guess I'm not too keen on having a second edition of Pathfinder. At best I'd like a few more expansions on The beginner box. and play with those rules when I want a 'simple' game. Going back to playing beginner box rules hasn't been bad, especially since someone homebrew expanded it to include all the classes up to Ultimate Combat and more feats. Adding whatever advanced or third party rules as you are comfortable with is also possible. If we want simplified rules, we got them already.
I want a 2nd Ed simply so they can fix a lot of the convoluted and unclear rules, and spruce up some classes.
Doesn't have to be a full overhaul that invalidates everything though. Someone's idea of a "Revised CRB" would be fine with me.
|
|
5E already exists...I don't think it's a terribly great business tactic to try to emulate another simplified ruleset. There are certainly bit and bobs that could be smoothed over, and certainly the presentation could be improved, but Pathfinder as a complex game is probably a better niche for them to exploreAgreed. There is a tendency of people to embrace the "dumbed down modern American culture", in arts, cinema and even RPGs, but it is not my case. 3.X system is a brilhant game in many ways and I miss many of its incredible features in 5e. I think that to dumb it down because people simply lacking the will or attention span to learn a game is a terrible mistake, as 4E already showed to Hasbro. So if Paizo wants to make its way through the future, it has to start planning a Pathfinder 2, maybe for release in 2017... it can make some featurew simplier but not neglect and abandom all the progress made with 3.Xe, and even borrow some features from 4e (like a more rebuilt of itterative attacks, condensed skill system, not skill ranks, just trained and non-trainted, class skills and non-class skills etc.).And this right here is where you lost me. Love how you say "dumbed down modern American culture" and other mentions of "dumbed down" or "dumbing it down". I take it you are not American, and you have never heard of K.I.S.S. or "Keep It Simple, Stupid".
Just gotta love the whole "dumbing down" BS that gets thrown around when speaking of pre-3rd edition and 5th edition. And sorry, 4th edition's lack of interest from a large number of people wasn't because it was "dumbed down", it was because it was a massive departure from so much that came before, which is why Pathfinder succeeded like it did.
And your comments are sounding quite Edition War-y.
Also, a goal of game design (hell, a goal of life in general) should be to avoid needless complexity.
|
For THAC0, you figure out what the character's level was. Let's go with a 5th level Warrior. The warrior's thac0 is 15, so he would have to roll a 15 or better when rolling a d20. This is the base number not counting any modifier from high attribute. So, you take that 15 (which is what is needed to hit AC 0), and look at the monster's AC. If the AC is 10, the warrior would need to roll a 5. If the AC is -10, the warrior would need to question his DM as to why he is putting them up against a great wyrm dragon (as he would have to roll a 25, or a natural 20) at level 5.
It's actually fairly easy. Take your to hit, and modify it by the creature's AC. AC > 0, you subtract that number from thac0. AC < 0 you add that number to thac0. I am surprised I even remembered all that.
and having had to add and subtract positive and negative numbers since elementary school, when the american public school system finally started teaching it in secondary school, it was like nbd!
it took me a long time to 'come around' to PF, mostly because I just didn't want to buy new books. but eventually it's popularity was just too great, i had to give in.
...D&D tradition of completely invalidating existing material. Almost each edition of D&D is essentially a completely new game whereas most games simply refactor existing mechanics between editions.0E, 1E, 2E, B/X, and BECMI are all essentially the same system. It wasn't until 3.0 that developers scrapped the whole thing to start from scratch.As Kthulhu said, pre-3rd edition D&D was basically the same thing, only with slight variations. It wasn't until the WotC era of D&D that new editions decided to scrap what came before and make something new. If 4th edition wasn't such a huge departure over 3rd edition, it would have been a huge success. And I believe that's why they had 5th edition be something that more resembles pre-4th edition D&D with a few 4th edition additions. Every WotC D&D edition has been a complete re-write of what came before. It worked with 3rd edition, not so much with 4th edition, and seems to work for 5th edition.
Funny how the OP says a simpler version of D&D is "dumbed down" when 3rd edition was touted as a simpler version of 2nd edition AD&D.
AD&D had AC,HP, spell lists (that you still see in Pathfinder), classes (Fighter, Cleric etc), saving throws, dungeon adventures. It's the great-great-great grandfather of Pathfinder. And for that it needs to be shown respect. No AD&D, no Pathfinder.
3rd edition simplified some things, added complexities and nuances to others.
Pathfinder owns the 3.5 system now, Paizo is too big, hard to suggest otherwise.
D&D 5e had to take another route. Competing directly with Paizo when Paizo has such a big fan base would spell disaster for them. So they went for the simplified rules, storytelling approach.
D&D 5e hand was forced, because of Paizo's success and the OGL. There is no indicator that there is a fantasy roleplaying trend for dumbed down or overly simplified rules.
Although accessibilty and easier-to-play concepts exist in both of these systems.
I want a 2nd Ed simply so they can fix a lot of the convoluted and unclear rules, and spruce up some classes.
Doesn't have to be a full overhaul that invalidates everything though. Someone's idea of a "Revised CRB" would be fine with me.
That is the real way of conducting this discussion.
The question is: Would you want a revision of PFPRD ("PF 2.0" or "3.95E"), that improves the system without completely invadating everything that came before?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want a 2nd Ed simply so they can fix a lot of the convoluted and unclear rules, and spruce up some classes.
Doesn't have to be a full overhaul that invalidates everything though. Someone's idea of a "Revised CRB" would be fine with me.
That is the real way of conducting this discussion.
The question is: Would you want a revision of PFPRD ("PF 2.0" or "3.95E"), that improves the system without completely invadating everything that came before?
And that's the best way to do a new edition of a tabletop rpg. That way it doesn't completely invalidate all the material that came before and give the feeling of "wasting money" on what came before. That's what one of the selling points for Pathfinder was; a continuation of the previous edition without invalidating the material that came before. The drawback of that is the playerbase: they themselves have invalidated the material that came before it.
A revised Pathfinder would be great, having a 2nd edition that didn't invalidate everything from the first Pathfinder, and using the material from Pathfinder 1st edition and 2nd edition interchangeably without much fuss would be the best.
Adjule hit the nail on the head. Also keep in mind that Paizo is primarily in the business of selling adventures and campaign setting books whereas WotC is primarily in the business of selling rulebooks. It's in Paizo's best interests to not invalidate their whole catalog.
I believe a revised CRB would be wonderful. One rewritten and streamlined with a tone similar to the beginner box. It's why I threw a fit over the Strategy Guide. A rulebook written with the tone to teach the player the game works better than releasing a published version of information you can find in the advice forums.
Pathfinder 2 or revised will have to be a thing at some point.Just to avoid stagnation, and re-focus the design.
I've played since OD&D, and I felt that 3.0 was a massive improvement over 2nd edition.
I have been a big fan of the changes thru 3.5 to Pathfinder.All seeming like the games natural evolution.
4ed was a stark departure from the design philosophy of 3.x.
I didn't even now about the existence of PF when 4th ed came out.
So I bought it in good faith and was appalled,not because it was a terrible game or anything,but because someone had mis-labeled it as D&D.
It just felt that way *shrug*
The 3.x chassis still has a lot of room for improvement.
I'm looking forward to it's next incarnation.
The "big 6" need to be baked into leveling system next time.
What's the big 6?
Weapon
Armor
Cloak of Resistance
Stat-enhancing Item (Belt of Giant's Strength, Headband of Vast Int)
Ring of Protection
Amulet of Natural Armor
These are items that the system assumes you have at a certain degree of enhancement to determine how challenging monsters are for physical combatants.
I just copy pasted the above from the thread by the same name.
I think the big 6 should be replaced by inherent bonuses of some kind.
I am not too young, I am 32 years old and have played 2nd edition since the early 90's. I\And you are right, I am not american, but do not have anything against the americans, much the contrary. KISS is a world wide famous expression for everybody who works in a corporative enviroment. Dont be stupid.
Yes, but you equated 'dumbed down' with 'American culture'. You can see how that would cause a reaction in Americans, yes?
Making things simpler is not necessarily dumbing things down, nor is making things simpler a bad business move. 5e being simpler is a way to make it easier for people to get into RPGs. They want to embrace new players as well as the old.
4e was a departure from the norm, and the complaint I heard most was not that it was too easy, but that it was too much like World of Warcraft. You faceroll your character to victory. Basic basic basic DAILY basic, fight over. Lather, rinse, repeat. If you have a DM who's flexible and imaginative, it's not quite so dull. But if you have a DM who's a RAW sort of person, well...
Pathfinder's complexity can be a considerable drawback to people who've never played RPGs before, or to people who've never played D&D/Pathfinder. Sure, you can roll up a character and then wonder why the other players can do so much more with their highly optimized characters. And then you look at the many choices available and the math you need to do to find the best optimization... and there goes another new player resolved not to play Pathfinder.
I do think that Paizo has thought ahead to what their next 'thing' will be. I don't see Pathfinder going away. They might update the mechanics, nip and tuck a few things to streamline it, take out some complexities... But I believe their next RPG won't be fantasy themed.
Weapon
Armor
Cloak of Resistance
Stat-enhancing Item (Belt of Giant's Strength, Headband of Vast Int)
Ring of Protection
Amulet of Natural ArmorThese are items that the system assumes you have at a certain degree of enhancement to determine how challenging monsters are for physical combatants.
I just copy pasted the above from the thread by the same name.
I think the big 6 should be replaced by inherent bonuses of some kind.
Exactly that. The big 6 (implict magic item dependency for scaling AC and other bonuses) is a point that really needs to be worked out.
Weapon and Armor bonuses can be left the way as they are, since they, both weapon and armor bonuses, counter thenselves.
Ring of Protection and Amulet of Natural Armor which provides up to a +10 AC bonus total, could be replaced by a Base Defense Bonus (BDB) progression equal to 1/2 character's Base Attack Bonus (BAB). I already use this house rule in my games and works fine, since it is a very easy rule to adapt to the already existing material.
Instead of giving AC, I would make Rings give bonuses to Saving Throws that could be countered by amulets giving bonuses to Spell Save DCs. As for streamlining Saving Throws and Spell Save DCs, it would be better to adopt a rule that character's save is always equal to 1/2 his character level + key ability modifier (Dex, Con or Wis) + class mod (flat +2 bonus for class' "strong" save).
Also for magic heavy worlds, would leave it optional to use cloacks as AC protection which would be countered by gloves or bracers giving bonus to attack rolls.
Thus, magic itens bonus distribution should be reworked.
Weapon
Armor
Cloak of Resistance
Stat-enhancing Item (Belt of Giant's Strength, Headband of Vast Int)
Ring of Protection
Amulet of Natural ArmorThese are items that the system assumes you have at a certain degree of enhancement to determine how challenging monsters are for physical combatants.
I just copy pasted the above from the thread by the same name.
I think the big 6 should be replaced by inherent bonuses of some kind.
Ah, that. I see. That's also something Sean K Reynolds advertised Five Moons would eliminate.
I don't think Pathfinder needs a revision yet, it could probably go another year or two continuing to flesh out the furthest reaches of Golarion.
However when they do go the route of a revision of the rules, I'd like them to integrate a better crafting system using some of their house rules and making guns and a fuller alchemical system more integrated (but still easy to remove for those who don't care for them). Those are things that are very Paizo oriented, and if they're going that route they should embrace it in a new core rulebook. If anything, it would be nice if they strove to work out rules for those who wish to stay within a certain power level (Low / Medium / and High Levels).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An even more condensed skill list would also be very welcome, followed by a more streamlined skill system.