The future of Pathfinder


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Jester David wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Jester David wrote:
Revisions almost always invalidate the old. (3.5e to PF is anomalous in this regard.
In D&D. Perhaps. In most RPGs. No. The degree of compatibility between Runequest 2nd edition and Runequest 6th edition (1978-2012) is very large. Tunnels and Trolls 1st edition from 1976 has module that need little conversion to play with 7e. And that's the case with most RPGs. In that respect D&D is an anomaly.

This comes down to the problematic use of the term "edition", which can mean both "new version" or just "new printing". A reprinting with new art, formatting, and covers is as much a new edition as a complete revision of the rules. It's hard to differentiate these two, but they're very different.

Yes, games that have the variant-printing editions are compatible. This includes stuff like Runequest, Tunnels and Trolls, Palladium, Call of Cthulhu, and many others. And, arguably, D&D Basic.

Games where edition means revision and not reprinting are less likely to be backwards compatible. Sometimes it can be done, with some effort and other times not.

The vast majority of those were not just reprintings. The mechanics may have been very compatible, but that's not the same as just a reprinting. I know the Cthulhu rules for example were largely rewritten and reorganized from edition to edition. They remained mostly compatible largely because they were so simple.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Do you know that 4x20th level character are equivalent to a CR24 encounter? The balrog is designed to be a regular encounter at level 20 and a "Boss" for the lower levels like 16 or 17. A Boss for a level 20 party was always intended to be in the CR 23-24 range. Are these guidelines written down anywhere? How does a DM know what will, and won't, challenge a well optimised party?

Yes, those guidelines are written down. They're the CR system. A CR=APL is supposed to be an "average" encounter, and this assumes an "average" amount of system mastery (because the game is supposed to be fun for new players as well as more experienced ones).


Orfamay Quest wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Do you know that 4x20th level character are equivalent to a CR24 encounter? The balrog is designed to be a regular encounter at level 20 and a "Boss" for the lower levels like 16 or 17. A Boss for a level 20 party was always intended to be in the CR 23-24 range.
Are these guidelines written down anywhere? How does a DM know what will, and won't, challenge a well optimised party?

Yes, those guidelines are written down. They're the CR system. A CR=APL is supposed to be an "average" encounter, and this assumes an "average" amount of system mastery (because the game is supposed to be fun for new players as well as more experienced ones).

To me any kind of challenge rating system in any game is wobbly at best due to the nature of players. PCs will range from sub optimized to minmaxers and even if that gap is perceived to be small mechanically it becomes a much bigger deal based on how the players fight.


Malwing wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Do you know that 4x20th level character are equivalent to a CR24 encounter? The balrog is designed to be a regular encounter at level 20 and a "Boss" for the lower levels like 16 or 17. A Boss for a level 20 party was always intended to be in the CR 23-24 range.
Are these guidelines written down anywhere? How does a DM know what will, and won't, challenge a well optimised party?

Yes, those guidelines are written down. They're the CR system. A CR=APL is supposed to be an "average" encounter, and this assumes an "average" amount of system mastery (because the game is supposed to be fun for new players as well as more experienced ones).

To me any kind of challenge rating system in any game is wobbly at best due to the nature of players. PCs will range from sub optimized to minmaxers and even if that gap is perceived to be small mechanically it becomes a much bigger deal based on how the players fight.

CRs of monsters work very well as baseline standards.

What really matters in the end is the Action Economy of the monsters vs players.

4 Players vs a single Monster, even 3 CR above their APL, are at an advantage because they have a 4:1 ratio of actions.

A CR22 "Boss" with 8 CR16 "Lieutenants" is a more threatening CR24 encounter for 4 lv20 characters than a single CR24 monster for instance, due to party having a 4:9 action ratio.


Malwing wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:


Do you know that 4x20th level character are equivalent to a CR24 encounter? The balrog is designed to be a regular encounter at level 20 and a "Boss" for the lower levels like 16 or 17. A Boss for a level 20 party was always intended to be in the CR 23-24 range.
Are these guidelines written down anywhere? How does a DM know what will, and won't, challenge a well optimised party?
Yes, those guidelines are written down. They're the CR system. A CR=APL is supposed to be an "average" encounter, and this assumes an "average" amount of system mastery (because the game is supposed to be fun for new players as well as more experienced ones).
To me any kind of challenge rating system in any game is wobbly at best due to the nature of players. PCs will range from sub optimized to minmaxers and even if that gap is perceived to be small mechanically it becomes a much bigger deal based on how the players fight.

And yet, whether it's formalized or not, there has to be some way to judge how tough a given encounter is going to be.

CR is a tool to that end. It's not exact, of course. Even without considering the party's optimization, different encounters will prove differently challenging just due to happening to go against the group's strengths or weaknesses.

It's a rough guideline. Doesn't mean it isn't useful.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
Jester David wrote:

This comes down to the problematic use of the term "edition", which can mean both "new version" or just "new printing". A reprinting with new art, formatting, and covers is as much a new edition as a complete revision of the rules. It's hard to differentiate these two, but they're very different.

Yes, games that have the variant-printing editions are compatible. This includes stuff like Runequest, Tunnels and Trolls, Palladium, Call of Cthulhu, and many others. And, arguably, D&D Basic.

Games where edition means revision and not reprinting are less likely to be backwards compatible. Sometimes it can be done, with some effort and other times not.

The vast majority of those were not just reprintings. The mechanics may have been very compatible, but that's not the same as just a reprinting. I know the Cthulhu rules for example were largely rewritten and reorganized from edition to edition. They remained mostly compatible largely because they were so simple.

Just like the Encyclopedia Britannica had a different edition every year even though 90% of the information contained within didn't change. It's still a newish edition.

You have reprintings, which in book terms can sometimes be new editions.
You have reformattings, which generally have different ISBNs and can different editions. Or not (like the black bordered reprints of 2nd Edition D&D, which are still 2e).
And then you can have game mechanic revisions, which are typically new editions as well. Or not (see 3.5e which was the same edition, or Vampire the Masquerade 2nd Edition Revised).

The term is not consistently applied.

But, when considering "editions" that set out to update the rules and not just reprint/reformat/repackage then backwards compatibility is seldom considered and conversion can be difficult and awkward. Even for minor updates.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm still waiting on the completely under-sea AP, the total war AP, an 'Around the World in 80 Days' AP and a Planes Walking AP. I have confidence Paizo will keep me entertained for a long time.


Gar0351 wrote:
I'm still waiting on the completely under-sea AP, the total war AP, an 'Around the World in 80 Days' AP and a Planes Walking AP. I have confidence Paizo will keep me entertained for a long time.

Don't forget about APs on "Not-Mars" and "Not-Venus", two other inhabited worlds in the Golarion system.

And then, of course, an AP involving a War of the Worlds-style invasion.

Plus we still have the Psychic land, the not-America lands, etc.

Yeah, they've got a LOOONG way to go before Paizo runs out of adventure ideas.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

14 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll go as far as to say that we'll never run out of adventure ideas, in fact. Based on the evidence that humanity has been telling stories from the start, and we're still telling stories today that feel new and exciting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
I'll go as far as to say that we'll never run out of adventure ideas, in fact. Based on the evidence that humanity has been telling stories from the start, and we're still telling stories today that feel new and exciting.

I'm still waiting on my AP concerning a professor of dubious notoriety who travels around the Planes in a blue box with attractive companions...


Wait, didn't we have this exact same thread just this week?


Jester David wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Disaster for the hobby? D&D 3.5e was massively successful. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

It was moderately successful. 3.0 was massively successful, 3.5e's sales were 70% that.

And it was successful for WotC, but disastrous for the hobby in general, killing stores and preventing people from buying product.

Morzadian wrote:

It had a huge fan base which crossed over to Paizo's Pathfinder.

3.5e is a robust system, still going strong in Pathfinder all these years later. The Ivory School of Design element of 3.5e was most likely it's undoing, as well as the OGL and too radically rethinking the D&D brand.

This isn't just 3.5e though, and I can say the exact same things about 3.0. After all, 3.0 is a robust system, still going strong in Pathfinder. And, as mentioned above, 3.0 had a much larger audience than 3.5e.

3e as a whole was a staggering success with an ardent and dedicated fanbase. But 3.5e was problematic and arguably caused more problems then it solved, and might have been better implemented with smaller changes that were more overly backwards compatible.

No you actually can't say that (with any believability) because Pathfinder is based on the 3.5 system, not the 3.0 system. 3.0 wasn't a robust system because it was modified two years after its introduction.

In Pathfinder they use the 3.5 damage reduction (DR) rules not the 3.0 version.

How was D&D 3.5 problematic? It used an improved 3.0 system.

The only real issue is that 3.5e invalidated 3.0 material. Not a nice thing to do to consumers (and loyal fans) and from what I can see WOTC and Paizo have acknowledged this as an industry mistake hence why we are seeing long runs of a particular edition and/or iteration of D&D.


magnuskn wrote:
Wait, didn't we have this exact same thread just this week?

not to worry next week we get Pathfinder: Days of Future Past :-)


Anzyr wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
For anyone who played D&D during the 2.0 era, 3.5e was a vast improvement in quality.

That's an opinion, I suppose.

Morzadian wrote:
So many books in the 2.0 era were substandard. TSR were just pumping out books, without a clear creative vision, character class balance was unheard of (Ranger Justifier?), and most adventures were hollowed out.
I'm trying to figure out if this was a typo or what, since you just described the 3.x era.

Ya, no.

Some of the absolute best 3.5 stuff came at the end. Tome of Battle being the big one having some of the best balanced and designed content compared to anything prior (except the Expanded Psionics Handbook of course).

Yes, the amazing Tome of Battle and last but not least the mega adventure The Red Hand of Doom, which had one of the best plot twists I have seen in an adventure.

Liberty's Edge

Morzadian wrote:
No you actually can't say that (with any believability) because Pathfinder is based on the 3.5 system, not the 3.0 system. 3.0 wasn't a robust system because it was modified two years after its introduction.

Sure you can.

3.5 was modded for cash grab reasons and balance problems with a couple classes (but mostly cash grab). The system itself is identical and some classes/feats were left unchanged. Heck, the update to Pathfinder arguably made more changes to the rules.

3.0 and 3.5 and PF are the same system with minor tweaks, and any variation is mostly confined to classes and simmilar options. A human fighter in all three versions will be almost identical (excluding the names of a few skills, CMB/D, etc).

Morzadian wrote:
In Pathfinder they use the 3.5 damage reduction (DR) rules not the 3.0 version.

Differences in DR were minor. It pretty much just went from 10/ to 5/ so you could actually damage monsters with DR.

Morzadian wrote:
How was D&D 3.5 problematic? It used an improved 3.0 system.

There were a lot of changes for change's sake. Spells were renamed. And the duration of many buffs were reduced, specifically the ones that modified stats. Miniatures were assumed more than in 3.0. And the fact Paizo could do another update just 5 years later suggests they didn't do a great job fixing problems.

But, mostly, the problem was that the updated was foisted on people after only three years.

Morzadian wrote:
The only real issue is that 3.5e invalidated 3.0 material. Not a nice thing to do to consumers (and loyal fans) and from what I can see WOTC and Paizo have acknowledged this as an industry mistake hence why we are seeing long runs of a particular edition and/or iteration of D&D.

Liberty's Edge

Gar0351 wrote:
I'm still waiting on the completely under-sea AP, the total war AP, an 'Around the World in 80 Days' AP and a Planes Walking AP. I have confidence Paizo will keep me entertained for a long time.

Total war will be tricky because of wealth by level. A war AP will have a lot of enemy NPCs: generals, soldiers, and the like. All of whom need a LOT of gear to be the appropriate challenge. But the value of this gear can be more than the expected treasure gained from an encounter. It's very easy to give out too much magic. So there needs to be encounters with no treasure, but this is awkward in a war story. It's filler.

The assumptions of the game hinder that story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

Running an army is expensive (especially in the field) - it's probably not a problem to give out an unusual amount of wealth as long as you also provide an unusual need for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I started with the Moldvay box and played through second edition as well. I say Pathfinder is just getting started. There is no need to continually build the crunch and Golarion is still wide open for exploration. I reject the basic notion of this thread.

Liberty's Edge

Steve Geddes wrote:
Running an army is expensive (especially in the field) - it's probably not a problem to give out an unusual amount of wealth as long as you also provide an unusual need for it.

The expenses of running an army are feeding it and equipping it. If you get extra treasure from an army campaign, it should be because of those reasons.

The expenses of managing an army should not be because the NPCs needed crazy amounts of magical gear so their math would keep them a challenge to a group of adventurers.

The fact is NPCs require gear with a gp value twice the expected treasure PCs should expect to gain from an encounter. Each NPC is adorned with the treasure of two encounters. An NPC-heavy campaign has to alternate between humanoid opponent and monster while also having zero treasure from the monsters.

Honestly, I suspect the Giantslayer adventure path was the closest we'll see to a "stop the evil army" AP, as the giants replace NPC generals.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can I ask two things when posting in similar threads. Saying that a new edition will fracture the fanbase. No matter what they do rehash or new edition it will fracture the fanbase. In a major or minor way. But it happens no what. When 2E came out it was happening with that edition way back then. It did with the 3.0 to 3.5. transition. Same with 3.5. to PF. I know of a store owner who had to ban a persistent group of 3.5 diehards who even with PF and Paizo free Srd kept pestering the owner about when they could get 3.5. No matter how many times he told them they were out of luck. So imo Paizo whatever they do with a 2E of PF really should not care about fracturing their fanbase because short or long term they can't really do anything about it.

Lack of a OGl. While a OGL for any rpg is nice. It's not a requirement. We played through the 1980s until 2000 when Wotc first came out with the OGL. Guess what the hobby survived without one. I get that people like the OGl but to say that any rpg company without one is doomed to fail. Either is a younger gamer to the hobby. Or simply wants a OGL. If they can't get it proclaim doom and gloom for any edition of D&D lacking one and the hobby as a whole. TSR went under because of being run poorly not a lack of a OGL. I'm not a huge fan of a OGL. Maybe it's because of huge clut of poor D20 products under 3.5. Or because I rather charge a fee to use a OGl. If I owned the OGL I want guaranteed 100% sales or at least a decent amount of money coming in. Not "gives us your rules for free and you might get some revenue" of the OGL

I notice that those in threads like these who don't want change. Really can't see any further than their own bookshelves. Again they have to offer something new with a PF 2E. Too much competition from OSR, 4E, 5E, 13th Age. It's not 2008 anymore where it seemed no one but Paizo was going to support 3.5.If all I'm going to get is 80-90% old material and being generous 10-20% new material. Why would I reinvest in the core. Sorry but supporting Paizo and my fellow 3.5 diehards. Is simply not a valid or good enough reason for me to buy more pf the same material. Unlike the current edition. I think the next edition will have to offer more. Fans who play 5E because they dislike the caster/martial issue. Are not going to leave 5E to get more of the same. The only flaw 5E has is a lack of decent support imo.

Whatever they do I will still support them in some way. I still buy Pathfinder Tales. As theirs not much new in terms of novels from Wotc. Quite frankly I'm tired of the ever continuing adventures of Drizzt and friends. I would still buy map packs and other accessories as well. Maybe even more APS if it is a rehashed edition.


memorax wrote:
Can I ask two things when posting in similar threads. Saying that a new edition will fracture the fanbase. No matter what they do rehash or new edition it will fracture the fanbase. In a major or minor way. But it happens no what. When 2E came out it was happening with that edition way back then. It did with the 3.0 to 3.5. transition. Same with 3.5. to PF. I know of a store owner who had to ban a persistent group of 3.5 diehards who even with PF and Paizo free Srd kept pestering the owner about when they could get 3.5. No matter how many times he told them they were out of luck. So imo Paizo whatever they do with a 2E of PF really should not care about fracturing their fanbase because short or long term they can't really do anything about it.

While perhaps you feel it isn't worth talking about, fracturing the fanbase is a concern that Paizo (and the fanbase!) can't really ignore. Especially in the internet age, which can cause minor disagreements over marketing to massively blow up. Yes, some fracturing occurs with each edition and really isn't avoidable. But the extent of fracturing varies with edition changes, a lot of which is avoidable. One thing of course is timing of edition change over. 3.5 to 4E got a lot of grar because (some) people didn't think the system was ready yet for a revision, not after the 3.0-3.5 update. Paizo needs to find a way to minimize that fracturing. That may involve a massive rules overhaul obsoleting the older books (not something I want, so hopefully no), or it might require some sort of incremental change, that will probably not make you happy. Or some sort of third option neither of us considered.

memorax wrote:
Lack of a OGl. While a OGL for any rpg is nice. It's not a requirement. We played through the 1980s until 2000 when Wotc first came out with the OGL. Guess what the hobby survived without one. I get that people like the OGl but to say that any rpg company without one is doomed to fail. Either is a younger gamer to the hobby. Or simply wants a OGL. If they can't get it proclaim doom and gloom for any edition of D&D lacking one and the hobby as a whole. TSR went under because of being run poorly not a lack of a OGL. I'm not a huge fan of a OGL. Maybe it's because of huge clut of poor D20 products under 3.5. Or because I rather charge a fee to use a OGl. If I owned the OGL I want guaranteed 100% sales or at least a decent amount of money coming in. Not "gives us your rules for free and you might get some revenue" of the OGL

As far as Pathfinder is concerned, I agree here, but that is only because I see no evidence that Pathfinder 2.0 would NOT have an OGL. Really OGL discussions mostly show up regarding 5E, not Pathfinder.

I do think OGL helps Pathfinder, by providing a proving ground for new talent. Several current Paizo folks got their start in OGL, and a good chunk of the freelancers are heavily involved with it.

It also means that people with different interests and design ideas get to play with the ruleset, which as a consumer means I can port in systems, classes, etc that might take years to get from Paizo, if at all. It really helps if you are interested in running any sort of game deviates from standard high fantasy DnD assumptions.

memorax wrote:
I notice that those in threads like these who don't want change. Really can't see any further than their own bookshelves. Again they have to offer something new with a PF 2E. Too much competition from OSR, 4E, 5E, 13th Age. It's not 2008 anymore where it seemed no one but Paizo was going to support 3.5.If all I'm going to get is 80-90% old material and being generous 10-20% new material. Why would I reinvest in the core. Sorry but supporting Paizo...

Nah, people want what they want. You can't really take people to task about putting there personal preferences first, when that is the same thing you do, only you are arguing from a different position. YOU may only be interested in a new version of Pathfinder, but I personally want a game that doesn't render all my current books "obsolete" (Yes I can still use those books, but for many people including myself finding games is tough, and its even tougher if you are interested in a dead system). Really...I expect Paizo will take the path which ensures the largest fraction of the fanbase is happy, brings in players, and most of all makes them money. This may be completely different from what either of use want.

Liberty's Edge

MMCJawa wrote:


While perhaps you feel it isn't worth talking about, fracturing the fanbase is a concern that Paizo (and the fanbase!) can't really ignore. Especially in the internet age, which can cause minor disagreements over marketing to massively blow up. Yes, some fracturing occurs with each edition and really isn't avoidable. But the extent of fracturing varies with edition changes, a lot of which is avoidable. One thing of course is timing of edition change over. 3.5 to 4E got a lot of grar because (some) people didn't think the system was ready yet for a revision, not after the 3.0-3.5 update. Paizo needs to find a way to minimize that fracturing. That may involve a massive rules overhaul obsoleting the older books (not something I want, so hopefully no), or it might require some sort of incremental change, that will probably not make you happy. Or some sort of third option neither of us considered.

I don't think they can minimize it. Large or small amount of fanbase fracturing it's inevitable imo. Why waste resources on something that at most they can do little stop imo. The only third option I can see is series of Pathfinder Unchained. Though I do find the 3.5./PF fanbase fracturing really strange. It's not like PF is that different from 3.5. With Paizo giving away the rules on their SRD seems strange to not want to convert imo.

MMCJawa wrote:


As far as Pathfinder is concerned, I agree here, but that is only because I see no evidence that Pathfinder 2.0 would NOT have an OGL. Really OGL discussions mostly show up regarding 5E, not Pathfinder.

I do think OGL helps Pathfinder, by providing a proving ground for new talent. Several current Paizo folks got their start in OGL, and a good chunk of the freelancers are heavily involved with it.

It also means that people with different interests and design ideas get to play with the ruleset, which as a consumer means I can port in systems, classes, etc that might take years to get from Paizo, if at all. It really helps if you are interested in running any sort of game deviates from standard high fantasy DnD assumptions.

It's all well and good to want to help and encourage others. Does it give the primary owner a guaranteed source of income is all that I'm interested about. Do I want to help artist or up and coming rpg company XYZ. Sure. It better make me richer one way or the other. The OGL was a very good but also somewhat naive endeavor on the part of Wotc. It helped encourage others without guaranteeing any sales for them. As well as creating their own competition. So I can see why their not doing it with 5E.

MMCJawa wrote:


ah, people want what they want. You can't really take people to task about putting there personal preferences first, when that is the same thing you do, only you are arguing from a different position. YOU may only be interested in a new version of Pathfinder, but I personally want a game that doesn't render all my current books "obsolete" (Yes I can still use those books, but for many people including myself finding games is tough, and its even tougher if you are interested in a dead system). Really...I expect Paizo will take the path which ensures the largest fraction of the fanbase is happy, brings in players, and most of all makes them money. This may be completely different from what either of use want.

If their was a large amount of gamers who actually used most of their 3.5. collections at the table. I would agree. Yet from what I'm seeing here and elsewhere and outside of the internet. It seems to be the exception not the norm. Either it's PF and only PF. Even then most 3PP PF stuff is disallowed. I don't see why they should design a edition for the small number of people who use most or all of their 3.5, PF and 3pp. When and I could be wrong. Most either let it gather dust. Or sell it off to buy PF stuff. What you and others are ignoring is that PF also faces competition from other rpgs. If all your going to offer is more the same. Good luck getting those who switched to say 13th Age from returning to the fold. Or 5E which actually fixes some of the flaws of PF.

Sovereign Court

4E supposedly fixed some of the flaws of 3E/PF too. Didnt kill PF as a competitor. The thing is fixes are very subjective. Even though 5E has fixes they dont have near the material of PF. Of course that could change in time but for now 5E and PF are very different offerings. Also WOTC has chosen a slow material release strategy, which leads me to believe its not quite the threat folks are making it out to be. Oh and 13th age is not even on the radar. Change is inevitable but I don't see the immediate threat that requires major rewrites and edition changes some seem to be calling for. PF seems to be doing just fine with its current course and speed.


The quoted sections have gotten a bit big to manage, so I am going to
respond in sections

Response 1:
You state that that Paizo can't minimize fanbase fracturing, but then say it could be small or large. That their implies that to some extent, although impossible to eliminate, they can influence the degree that it is a problem. If fanbase fracturing is huge with a new edition, than Paizo will hemorhage fans and thus suffer serious lost in profit. As a business that needs to be a major consideration when dealing with any new edition.

Response 2:
Again, we are not talking about 5E here...but Pathfinder. So I don't think OGL is that relevant. I will say that Paizo, since they also run there own store, are probably making money of 3pp, something that currently WotC can't really do.

Response 3:
I don't expect Paizo to worry too much about 3.5. That is an edition that is largely out of print for most people, and they had no oversight over. I'm really only interested in Pathfinder compatability.

Liberty's Edge

While I'm sure 13th Age is not as popular as OF. To simply dismiss it out of hand is a mistake. It offers a mix of both 4E and PF. Which some fans want. While I do wish that their would be more releases for 5E. It fixed some of the issues that PF has. For some that s big thing. Any new edition of PF will be compared to what has come before. I still think that not much can be done at fracturing the fanbase. I'm not saying nothing can be done. Just that it will happen one way or the other whatever they do.


MMCJawa wrote:

The quoted sections have gotten a bit big to manage, so I am going to

respond in sections

Response 1:
You state that that Paizo can't minimize fanbase fracturing, but then say it could be small or large. That their implies that to some extent, although impossible to eliminate, they can influence the degree that it is a problem. If fanbase fracturing is huge with a new edition, than Paizo will hemorhage fans and thus suffer serious lost in profit. As a business that needs to be a major consideration when dealing with any new edition.

Response 2:
Again, we are not talking about 5E here...but Pathfinder. So I don't think OGL is that relevant. I will say that Paizo, since they also run there own store, are probably making money of 3pp, something that currently WotC can't really do.

Response 3:
I don't expect Paizo to worry too much about 3.5. That is an edition that is largely out of print for most people, and they had no oversight over. I'm really only interested in Pathfinder compatability.

I will have to agree with Memorax on this one. Pathfinder is a progressive role-playing game (mechanically progressive and at times socially progressive) and it continually needs to move forward or it will eventually die out. You just have to look at Pathfinder Unchained, it's got a lot of people excited (me included) because it's introducing new things into the game.

Sure some fans may not like Pathfinder Unchained, some may even hate it. Yet the designers keeps marching forward and will never look back.

Yes there will be a fracturing of the fan base, there always is in times of change but Paizo and Pathfinder will survive.

The OGL hurt WOTC because they left the 3.0-3.5 system and used a total different system with the 4th edition system, and as it turns out the 3.0-3.5 system was very popular still. OGLs are always relevant, and hopefully Paizo can still have the great working relationships it has had with 3pp.

As long as designers keep designing and writers keep writing, with their eyes looking towards a new future for Pathfinder everything will be ok.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Lets clear the air here.

3.5 was necessary. It wasn't made as a quickie cash grab as some might think. There was some pretty nasty rules glitches that patching with errata simply would not fix.

It was also a very badly timed release, as a lot of 3.0 Wizard's product had to be edited and changed to work with the new rules (Small weapons, yuck!!) and were delayed because of the new revision. (I believe the MM2 was the big one)

There was, in the previous editions, little later additions much like the 3.5 move, like Advanced Dungeon and Dragons that was supposed to offer a more in depth play than the regular D&D. 2nd edition had a few changes but was run side by side with 1st edition for a long while. I fondly remember my copy of Unearthed Arcana, and still am amazed that it was a 1st edition book.

The change from 3.5 to PF is much like the change from Regular to Advanced. The rules are much the same, but more options are available (even in the Core Rulebook) and a lot of the low level problems were addressed. (max hp, more front loaded, at will 0 lvl spells, ect)

You can use 3.5 with PF, but as time goes on there is less and less reason to do so.

But the 3.5/PF system, while it wasn't actually at a stopping point at the beginning of the brand's change to 4venture, is now getting long in the tooth. Eventually, PF will change over to a new, more modern system. I believe it will survive the change, dispite misgivings and callings of doom and gloom, as the setting can overcome any hiccup of edition change overs.

Liberty's Edge

With fans being able to play older editions if they want. The previous PF books will not disappear jus because a newer edition is no longer compaitable. Even though Wotc stopped supporting 2E. Fans of that version still play it. I get that some don't want to see their material become obsolete. Yet it was laways a risk. I knew full well that with the changes between 2E and 3E being so different. That their was a risk of it happening again.


Morzadian wrote:


I will have to agree with Memorax on this one. Pathfinder is a progressive role-playing game (mechanically progressive and at times socially progressive) and it continually needs to move forward or it will eventually die out. You just have to look at Pathfinder Unchained, it's got a lot of people excited (me included) because it's introducing new things into the game.

Sure some fans may not like Pathfinder Unchained, some may even hate it. Yet the designers keeps marching forward and will never look back.

Yes there will be a fracturing of the fan base, there always is in times of change but Paizo and Pathfinder will survive.

The OGL hurt WOTC because they left the 3.0-3.5 system and used a total different system with the 4th edition system, and as it turns out the 3.0-3.5 system was very popular still. OGLs are always relevant, and hopefully Paizo can still have the great working relationships it has had with 3pp.

As long as designers keep designing and writers...

My point may have been muddled in previous responses. For what it's worth, I am pro some sort of new "edition", however you want to refer to it as. I just would rather see such an edition make a transition more similar to 3.5 to Pathfinder. I don't actually care too much about 3.5 compatibility, but would like to keep the nuts, bolts, and aesthetics of the current system. And hopefully any sort of new edition would be implemented in a way different than just getting 5 years of Pathfinder 2e Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Equipment, Bestiaries 1-3, etc.

I mostly disagree with Memorax that fanbase fracturing isn't something to be concerned about. I feel the 4E transition shows that in the internet age it is a significant business concern. I think WotC learned a lot when you look at the roll out of 5E, and its something Paizo needs to keep in mind.

And I still hold that the OGL is more something of a discussion issue with WotC than it is with Paizo...we have seen no indication that a future edition wouldn't include one, and at this point discussion of any Pathfinder 2E and OGL is even more speculative than discussion of a Pathfinder 2DE


memorax wrote:
With fans being able to play older editions if they want. The previous PF books will not disappear jus because a newer edition is no longer compaitable. Even though Wotc stopped supporting 2E. Fans of that version still play it. I get that some don't want to see their material become obsolete. Yet it was laways a risk. I knew full well that with the changes between 2E and 3E being so different. That their was a risk of it happening again.

I think there are people who have said, in this very thread, that they have tons of 3.5 material but can't find any groups that allow it. It's great you have a regular group that might be cool with playing past editions. However, I would guess a considerable chunk of people don't, and they have to rely upon PFS, or meeting up with strangers who have no interest in those older systems, or none of the books.


Yeah, a new, incompatible edition won't invalidate those books. That's not what anyone is worried about.

When you have a new incompatible edition, you can't use all of this old material and the older edition isn't getting any new material. That sounds like a losing gambit, if you ask me. They have so much material that makes things interesting in Pathfinder. I don't see why they'd even want to invalidate all of that.

Liberty's Edge

Which i understand. But at the same time if the edition offers me nothing new. Why invest in the same product again. I think Paizo is in a damned if you do and damned if you don't.


memorax wrote:
Which i understand. But at the same time if the edition offers me nothing new. Why invest in the same product again. I think Paizo is in a damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Well, slightly more damned if they try to shift their momentum. They are moving at a steady pace with what they are doing now. Sure, it's not perfect, but they risk a loss of that momentum if they try to switch things up. There is no "win-win" in any action they take. There will always be problems. But as of now, and probably for a long while still, full steam ahead is the best option.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
Yes, the amazing Tome of Battle and last but not least the mega adventure The Red Hand of Doom, which had one of the best plot twists I have seen in an adventure.

Oooh! Oooh! What was the plot twist in question? :-P

Silver Crusade

James Jacobs wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Yes, the amazing Tome of Battle and last but not least the mega adventure The Red Hand of Doom, which had one of the best plot twists I have seen in an adventure.
Oooh! Oooh! What was the plot twist in question? :-P

Don't tell me you lost your draft copy...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
sowhereaminow wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Yes, the amazing Tome of Battle and last but not least the mega adventure The Red Hand of Doom, which had one of the best plot twists I have seen in an adventure.
Oooh! Oooh! What was the plot twist in question? :-P
Don't tell me you lost your draft copy...

Lost?


Material only becomes obsolete as long as you allow it to become obsolete.

So let's say Paizo moves on to a completely new system and realistically leaves the Pathfinder rules set in the dust. There would be no call for existing PFRPG content in the new edition. New edition, new rules set, new world ... everything is new. And yes, I realize Paizo would NOT do this to us but let's be able to consider the option, shall we?

This is perfectly exampled by the those dumb people (and that's not what I really wanted to call them) over at Wizards of the Coast by moving from 3.5 - 4.0.

Just as we all can play any edtion of D&D, why can we not play the current PFRPG even once Paizo moves to a completely new system editon, new rules set, new world .... new everything? The only person stopping you is ... you.

Now don't get me wrong ... I don't want them to do this at all. I want to be able to continue using all the PFRPG books I've amassed. But it would be the same as the above people stating the obvious fact we can play any D&D edition. For me, personally, I made the decision before buying into the PFRPG that I would still play the game even if/when a new edition was released. I accept change because it is necessary.

For me, I hold Paizo to a much higher standard than WotC because they've earned it in my book. I'm sure most all of you here do so, as well. So I'm confident they will handle a transition in a respectful and honorable fashion. But to be honest, it does concern me because, as we have seen with WotC, a company can and will do just about anything.


James Jacobs wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Yes, the amazing Tome of Battle and last but not least the mega adventure The Red Hand of Doom, which had one of the best plot twists I have seen in an adventure.
Oooh! Oooh! What was the plot twist in question? :-P

Hi James,

During the D&D 3.0-3.5e era there was some wonderfully designed published adventures, Cooke's Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, Cordell's The Sunless Citadel and Logue's The Eyes of the Lich Queen. Exhibiting interesting ways of incorporating themes, breaking the Encounter Level mould, and providing thought provoking NPCs with Meepo being a pertinent example.

Yet myself and my long-running gaming group (25 yrs+) have never really experienced the explosive power of storytelling until you and Richard Baker wrote the famous adventure The Red Hand of Doom.

Red Hand of Doom spoiler:
The plot twist in question is when the players discover Urikel Zarl's (aka the Ghostlord) phylactery in the ruins of Rhest.

I Gmed RHOD a couple of years ago, fleshing out and extending the adventure somewhat, providing 2 years of gameplay fighting hobgoblins and ogres before the players get to Rhest, where the literary bomb is dropped when they find out an ancient evil exists potentially more powerful than the Red Hand Horde.

The plot twist's effect is amplified by the fact that the Ghostlord is a myth, a campfire story, an allegorical tale explaining a complex idea like corruption. Not taken seriously by anyone (except high-level casters and in RHOD there are very few), just viewed as a playful distraction from the harsher realities of ordinary medieval life. Such a thoughtful concept, that really connected with the players in my gaming group on a deeper level.

Lord Jarmaath of Brindol is neck deep in cut-throat politics and is pre-occupied with a looming war that is coming towards his city and doesn't believe the adventurers about this 'Ghostlord.' Granting real player empowerment as they have to face the Ghostlord alone, risk everything on a children's story about the bogeyman. Great writing James, absolutely loved it.


Vhayjen wrote:

Material only becomes obsolete as long as you allow it to become obsolete.

So let's say Paizo moves on to a completely new system and realistically leaves the Pathfinder rules set in the dust. There would be no call for existing PFRPG content in the new edition. New edition, new rules set, new world ... everything is new. And yes, I realize Paizo would NOT do this to us but let's be able to consider the option, shall we?

This is perfectly exampled by the those dumb people (and that's not what I really wanted to call them) over at Wizards of the Coast by moving from 3.5 - 4.0.

Just as we all can play any edtion of D&D, why can we not play the current PFRPG even once Paizo moves to a completely new system editon, new rules set, new world .... new everything? The only person stopping you is ... you.

Now don't get me wrong ... I don't want them to do this at all. I want to be able to continue using all the PFRPG books I've amassed. But it would be the same as the above people stating the obvious fact we can play any D&D edition. For me, personally, I made the decision before buying into the PFRPG that I would still play the game even if/when a new edition was released. I accept change because it is necessary.

For me, I hold Paizo to a much higher standard than WotC because they've earned it in my book. I'm sure most all of you here do so, as well. So I'm confident they will handle a transition in a respectful and honorable fashion. But to be honest, it does concern me because, as we have seen with WotC, a company can and will do just about anything.

The main reason people feel that Editions or even new systems "invalidate" or "obsolete" previously-published books, meaning the new core rules don't take into account backwards compatibility and cause major rules headaches and on-the-fly conversions, is that you get the notion that the publishers are going

"Hey, thanks for your money guys, now f~!$ you, because books from here forward aren't gonna work nicely at all with your old stuff."

3.0 to 3.5 created some rules snarls, but nothing too godawful. 3.5 to Pathfinder also created some small hiccups rules-interaction-wise, but nothing absolutely major. Looking at the OD&D/BECMI, 1st Ed, and 2nd Ed Classes side-by-side with their 3rd Ed counterparts, you see a pretty distinct & discernible evolution, and can convert characters from far back to Pathfinder rules (60% mechanically, 40% thematically, but it's something).

4E rally did say "f*!% off" to the players in a really big way, though, because the game didn't look, didn't act, and didn't feel like 3rd Edition in the slightest, to say NOTHING of it being as recognizably the same game as 1st Ed, 2nd Ed, or BECMI as a Honda motorcycle is recognizably "the same thing" as a VW Bus. The system was without much of a doubt D&D "In Name Only," which is why 5th Edition took such an enormous step backwards and effectively became "3rd Edition Lite" as far as rules go.

What was even more outstanding was that this was WOTC - the guys who created Magic the Gathering, went through 1 complete rules overhaul, several smaller iterative rules overhauls over the years, and never once made a card literally unplayable (okay, well, ONE card, though I can't recall the name... but 1 in 15,000+ is pretty freakin' good, honestly); every card ever printed, from Alpha to present, still functions pretty perfectly - THAT is fantastic game design right there.

And that's not to say that 3rd to 3.5 didn't have annoyances, as well - mostly, the fact that 3rd Ed classes, Feats, etc., had to be re-edited, repackaged, and re-sold to work seamlessly with 3.5 - most notably with the Complete series being "rehashes" of things like Tome & Blood.

Most people haven't minded the Pathfinder "rehashes" of 3.5 classes because a) they understand that Paizo can't directly port non-Core classes, and b) those "rehashes" are often drastically different mechanically and are generally vastly superior.

I can't imagine, though, that people'd take too kindly to having to buy new books just to play with their favorite Pathfinder classes under an updated system.

If Paizo ever does release a "Revised" Edition, it'd have to be like how WOTC handled/s MTG: making changes to the Core Rules in places that leave basically all the printed content AFTER the Core Rulebook intact, yet still provide an updated system.

It's possible; it just needs to be done very carefully is all.

Liberty's Edge

Again some here are saying "don't change anything" as they want to keep using their books. Which I respect. Yet beyond that no one is really telling me why I should reinvest in a edition that changes nothing. It's the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about or even acknowledge. Unless a rehashed edition offers significant new material. I'm probably not going to spend money on it. First I can get it off the SRD for free. Second I have the current edition that I can use. With all the options and material released their enough for a lifetime of gaming.

The 3.5./PF 1E diehards will be happy with the new edition. The middle of the road gamers like myself probably not as much. Those who dislike 3.5. forget about. The fanbase at large with 3.5, 4E and 5E as options can and will ask what the new edition will offer that the current edition can already do.

As for 4E I played I enjoyed it when I did. It simply was not the game for me after awhile. I don't dislike it. Or hold any grudge at Wotc. Unlike some in this hobby I have vastly more important things to do with my life.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
memorax wrote:
Again some here are saying "don't change anything" as they want to keep using their books. Which I respect. Yet beyond that no one is really telling me why I should reinvest in a edition that changes nothing. It's the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about or even acknowledge. Unless a rehashed edition offers significant new material. I'm probably not going to spend money on it. First I can get it off the SRD for free. Second I have the current edition that I can use.

I think the reason for the bolded is because nobody thinks you should. Just as you respect those who want to preserve compatibility with their PF1 books, people are respecting your preference to only buy new editions which are substantially different.

Liberty's Edge

chbgraphicarts wrote:
The system was without much of a doubt D&D "In Name Only," which is why 5th Edition took such an enormous step backwards and effectively became "3rd Edition Lite" as far as rules go.

I think one of the reasons 5E is popular is that it draws from all editions. I've seen die hard 4e fans gripe about 5e because it takes away the Encounter/daily regime from the rules. And I've seen 2e fans drawn too it because its simpler.

I think there's plenty more for Paizo to do with Pathfinder. If they update the rules to 2.0 and add in the fixes from the FAQ. I'd buy it. But I'm happy with it as is.

I've bought the 5e books too. Cause I have all the other editions too. I ran a short in person Greyhawk game but it fell apart cause of schedules.

Mike


memorax wrote:

Again some here are saying "don't change anything" as they want to keep using their books. Which I respect. Yet beyond that no one is really telling me why I should reinvest in a edition that changes nothing. It's the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about or even acknowledge. Unless a rehashed edition offers significant new material. I'm probably not going to spend money on it. First I can get it off the SRD for free. Second I have the current edition that I can use. With all the options and material released their enough for a lifetime of gaming.

The 3.5./PF 1E diehards will be happy with the new edition. The middle of the road gamers like myself probably not as much. Those who dislike 3.5. forget about. The fanbase at large with 3.5, 4E and 5E as options can and will ask what the new edition will offer that the current edition can already do.

As for 4E I played I enjoyed it when I did. It simply was not the game for me after awhile. I don't dislike it. Or hold any grudge at Wotc. Unlike some in this hobby I have vastly more important things to do with my life.

You keep missing the point:

People are saying they'd buy a REVISED CORE RULEBOOK.

A single book that makes changes to the basic game without creating rules headaches when used with already-printed books.

No rehashes. No reprints. NOTHING beyond a new version of the Core Rulebook.

Why SHOULD YOU?

Well, that's up to you, just like "investing" in every book out there: will it be fun/add more enjoyment.

If you're fine with the Core Rules as-is (which many, many people seem to be), then you wouldn't HAVE to buy that Revised Core Rulebook; If you want a change-of-pace or rules fixed in places, then you buy a Revised Core Rulebook.

Under this model NO books after the Revised Core Rulebook would seem any different than ones PRIOR to it, because the point would be to alter the basic parts of the game while maintaining absolute compatibility with all non-Core books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
memorax wrote:
Again some here are saying "don't change anything" as they want to keep using their books. Which I respect. Yet beyond that no one is really telling me why I should reinvest in a edition that changes nothing. It's the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about or even acknowledge. Unless a rehashed edition offers significant new material. I'm probably not going to spend money on it. First I can get it off the SRD for free. Second I have the current edition that I can use.

I think the reason for the bolded is because nobody thinks you should.

Well, except for the people whose livelihood depends on making money off the next edition. It's very easy for me to sit in my armchair and say "someone who isn't me should spend vast sums of money to produce a set of product that won't sell."

Which is basically what I am doing if I say "don't change anything in the next edition."


chbgraphicarts wrote:
memorax wrote:

Again some here are saying "don't change anything" as they want to keep using their books. Which I respect. Yet beyond that no one is really telling me why I should reinvest in a edition that changes nothing. It's the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about or even acknowledge. Unless a rehashed edition offers significant new material. I'm probably not going to spend money on it. First I can get it off the SRD for free. Second I have the current edition that I can use. With all the options and material released their enough for a lifetime of gaming.

The 3.5./PF 1E diehards will be happy with the new edition. The middle of the road gamers like myself probably not as much. Those who dislike 3.5. forget about. The fanbase at large with 3.5, 4E and 5E as options can and will ask what the new edition will offer that the current edition can already do.

As for 4E I played I enjoyed it when I did. It simply was not the game for me after awhile. I don't dislike it. Or hold any grudge at Wotc. Unlike some in this hobby I have vastly more important things to do with my life.

You keep missing the point:

People are saying they'd buy a REVISED CORE RULEBOOK.

A single book that makes changes to the basic game without creating rules headaches when used with already-printed books.

No rehashes. No reprints. NOTHING beyond a new version of the Core Rulebook.

Why SHOULD YOU?

Well, that's up to you, just like "investing" in every book out there: will it be fun/add more enjoyment.

If you're fine with the Core Rules as-is (which many, many people seem to be), then you wouldn't HAVE to buy that Revised Core Rulebook; If you want a change-of-pace or rules fixed in places, then you buy a Revised Core Rulebook.

Under this model NO books after the Revised Core Rulebook would seem any different than ones PRIOR to it, because the point would be to alter the basic parts of the game while maintaining absolute compatibility with all non-Core books.

Except, as far as I'm concerned, 100% compatible with all old books and all following books 100% compatible with both the old and new CRB means it's not a new edition. It's a reprint. Maybe with errata.

That's less than the difference between 3.5 and PF and a big selling point of the PF transition was that you could keep using your old 3.5 stuff.

It would be silly because you're not going to fix enough to be worth bothering with.

Shadow Lodge

Begin wall of text mode.

People who work for companies almost always have pre-defined opinions of how things should be handled, and will then take steps to prove the validity of their viewpoint to their co-workers and customers (to some extent).

When I look back at the 3.5 era, I can imagine folks in the Wizards office talking about how they should handle martial classes in the next upcoming edition and some folks leaning towards powers like we saw in the Warblade, and some folks guarding the sacred cow of the straight up simple fighter that's been around since the Basic/1E.

I imagine a company like Wizards or Paizo knows years in advance when they believe they will be hitting fatigue in the rules space and will schedule in advance the kinds of "tests" they need in the market to see how they will make certain decisions and how they will disposition certain things that have been part of the game for decades.

At any rate, Tome of Battle is clearly an example of: "hey I think martials should have cool powers built into the class in the next edition, let's see how the market receives it in an experimental supplement".

Of course the person who's pushing that agenda could dig up sizable evidence for either side of the argument: (a) "holy cow, look at all these people who want martial powers, and per-encounter powers" or (b) "look at all these people enraged that we obsoleted the basic fighter which has been a sacred cow for decades". Clearly whoever dug up data points for the (a) viewpoint won that debate, since 4e clearly swung in that direction.

It would be crazy to dismiss that Paizo personnel aren't deep into determining what they do next. There's little chance that Occult Adventures and the subsequent core rule books will outsell the early volumes like the APG. There's little chance that a book on Vudra will outsell a book on the Inner Sea region, barring some sort of major social trend that takes an interest in the U.S. in those kinds of things (like a mega-Hollywood blockbuster that makes everyone want to buy those kinds of things in 2016-2020).

Unchained is a pretty clear transitional work, where our collective response to experiments within will help Bulmahn, Seifter, Mona or whomever press their beliefs into the next iteration (whether it's called "Revised", "2E", etc). Things like "hey, look the community prefers multi-classing via feats versus the traditional 3.x era multi-classing, it looks like we can go that direction and not have to worry about balancing based on class dipping". Or things like "hey folks like the stamina pool, we can make that part of the core rules for martial characters".

There's some sort of fine line where they can take the next iteration of rules and preserve the adoption of the collected majority, and strangely a lot has to do with how they handle fighters, rogues and monks. If you push fighters too far towards the warblade, you'll lose a major part of the audience. If you don't push them far enough towards the warblade, you'll lose a major part of the audience. Stamina powering feats is actually a pretty clever way of finding the middle ground, and I suspect that for 6-12 months they'll be gauging the reactions of their audience on it since it will play a major part of how the game looks in 2016 and beyond.

If I had to gaze into a crystal ball, I'd suspect another experimental rules supplement to follow Occult Adventures (which is an ideal book to ship when they're shipping it - it opens up a certain thematic type of play, adds ever-loved-by-players additional base classes, and to a certain hardcore group is a "must-buy").

I'm not sure what else they'd want to play with in the rules space, but I'd think that would be the "future of Pathfinder" for at least 2015-2016. I could conceive a new system of feats and half-feats where they reclassify the entire feat system. Perhaps spell and combat feats stay cost the same as feats today, but they take a lot of the lesser valued feats and classify them as "half-feats" and you can select those at even levels. I'd expect this kind of change in the next edition since a lot of the flavor in the rules is ignored for combat viability vs character-definition.

I'd also suspect something else with regards to magic, although it could be Occult Adventures is the experiment here so it's not needed in a future supplement that follows Occult Adventures.

I don't know what else would need field data prior to an open beta for a revised edition?

I think folks may stumble upon the future by speculating at what core line books follow Occult. Do we get another book with 10 hybrid classes? Do we get a book with revised alchemist, gunslinger, etc classes? Do we get a book that leaps on the superhero/comics bandwagon with things like mutants/superhero powers put into a steampunk/fantasy setting?


Qstor wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
The system was without much of a doubt D&D "In Name Only," which is why 5th Edition took such an enormous step backwards and effectively became "3rd Edition Lite" as far as rules go.

I think one of the reasons 5E is popular is that it draws from all editions. I've seen die hard 4e fans gripe about 5e because it takes away the Encounter/daily regime from the rules. And I've seen 2e fans drawn too it because its simpler.

I think there's plenty more for Paizo to do with Pathfinder. If they update the rules to 2.0 and add in the fixes from the FAQ. I'd buy it. But I'm happy with it as is.

I've bought the 5e books too. Cause I have all the other editions too. I ran a short in person Greyhawk game but it fell apart cause of schedules.

Mike

Perhaps, but the joke is on them then. 5e is basically just a simplified 4e without the daily, encounter, and at-will powers (well, for the most part, it still has some of that, but encapsulated in different terminology).

I think they broke it down FAAAAR to much and made it tooooo simple at it's core (bonded accuracy). Hence, I don't really care for 5e even though I enjoyed 4e.

However, maybe the joke is on everyone who stated they disliked 4e but now love 5e. Change a few terms...and wala...some people can't tell the difference.

I disagreed with TOZ on the ability to play older editions, but I will admit he may be right on the 3.5 audience. Perhaps there is a difference between those who played 3e and 3.5 compared to those who played older editions. While I can play BECMI, 1e, or 2e just about anytime I want (I suppose there are those who would want to play OD&D if I gave them the option, but I seem to be one of the only ones with the rulebooks), I really can't find local people that would play 3e or 3.5 as a group.

Heck, it may be easier to find a group to play some weird indie RPGs than to play 3.5 with these days. Pathfinder, it's practically easy to find, but I admit, no one around where I'm at plays 3e or 3.5 anymore. They've moved on to either PF or 5e.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Qstor wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
The system was without much of a doubt D&D "In Name Only," which is why 5th Edition took such an enormous step backwards and effectively became "3rd Edition Lite" as far as rules go.

I think one of the reasons 5E is popular is that it draws from all editions. I've seen die hard 4e fans gripe about 5e because it takes away the Encounter/daily regime from the rules. And I've seen 2e fans drawn too it because its simpler.

I think there's plenty more for Paizo to do with Pathfinder. If they update the rules to 2.0 and add in the fixes from the FAQ. I'd buy it. But I'm happy with it as is.

I've bought the 5e books too. Cause I have all the other editions too. I ran a short in person Greyhawk game but it fell apart cause of schedules.

Mike

Perhaps, but the joke is on them then. 5e is basically just a simplified 4e without the daily, encounter, and at-will powers (well, for the most part, it still has some of that, but encapsulated in different terminology).

I think they broke it down FAAAAR to much and made it tooooo simple at it's core (bonded accuracy). Hence, I don't really care for 5e even though I enjoyed 4e.

However, maybe the joke is on everyone who stated they disliked 4e but now love 5e. Change a few terms...and wala...some people can't tell the difference.

I disagreed with TOZ on the ability to play older editions, but I will admit he may be right on the 3.5 audience. Perhaps there is a difference between those who played 3e and 3.5 compared to those who played older editions. While I can play BECMI, 1e, or 2e just about anytime I want (I suppose there are those who would want to play OD&D if I gave them the option, but I seem to be one of the only ones with the rulebooks), I really can't find local people that would play 3e or 3.5 as a group.

Heck, it may be easier to find a group to play some weird indie RPGs than to play 3.5 with these days. Pathfinder, it's practically easy to find, but I admit, no one around where I'm at plays 3e or 3.5 anymore. They've moved on to either PF or 5e.

It brought some things in from 4E, but reverted a lot of others to 3.x as well. And some unique features of it's own. It's certainly not 4E with the terms changed. For example, they're basically back to the traditional spell list - even if they've got different ways of preparing/casting them.

Nor does it have anything like the emphasis on grid combat. Spells and powers aren't all "Deal damage and move enemy or apply condition".

Laughing at people who didn't like 4e for liking 5e doesn't make sense. Maybe what you didn't like about it is the same, but that's not true for everyone.

As for finding 3.x players, it's not really a surprise they'd be rare. PF is close enough the vast majority who wanted 3.5 moved on to PF. (Just like the 3.0 players moved to 3.5.) The BECMI and AD&D junkies can't get their fix elsewhere so they go back to the old verisions (or the retroclones).


Well, something no one has brought up is what a new edition would do for adventure design. Paizo is in the adventure making business,and they have a wealth of tools right. If they make an edition that isn't very compatible, they lose a lot of tools they use to make these adventures. Adventures are their big seller, and compatibility with older editions is important to keeping those selling.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think the 3.5 play (That is not PF) will ease down now that 5th edition is here.

From all that I have heard, it is not anything like 4th edition, save for some of the underlining ideas that it had. I talk here of Skill groupings, Monster builds, and such. The overall power structure (at will/encounter/daily and 30 level with paragon and epic add ins) of 4th is gone.

I believe that the universal casting mechanic will be something that PF ver2 will look at and may implement in some way. I think if there is a casting mechanic that uses the same basic structure throughout the system, it will free up a lot of classes to build on that structure and become it's own unique class instead of the overall Vancian casters having their Spontaneous counterparts (with CHA caster stat).

Oracles, for example, could cast off of their Con, making the class very different than the current version.

The comparison between editions is really fruitless, the overall thing to remember is that Pathfinder will endure whatever edition change/update that will come to pass. It is in good hands and I don't see Paizo going under a big corporate umbrella anytime soon.

101 to 150 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The future of Pathfinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.