The basic question there is "Can they fix whatever needs to be fixed while remaining backwards compatible?"I think the answer is no.
And therein lies the problem. A large portion of the fanbase wants the system to be fixed, but an equally large portion of the fanbase wants it to simply be the fourth iteration of the inherently flawed 3.x system, with minor enough changes that they can run any existing adventure as-is.
Paizo cannot please both groups.
It's more complicated than even that.
There are people who don't want a new set of Core Rules at all, because errata already creates enough of a problem of "what I have in my book isn't what it really does".
There are people who don't want a new set of Core Rules because they feel that succeeding printings with Errata will be enough to fix things.
There are people who would be okay with a new set of Core Rules ONLY if it doesn't invalidate any other book besides a "pre-revision" Core Rulebook (This is most likely the largest group)
There are people who want a system overhaul, but don't want to drop the d20 base architecture, despite the fact that a massive overhaul would create serious problems with dependent books (rules snarls be dammned, apparently).
There are people who want the game to drop the d20 system entirely and want a from-the-ground-up rewrite of the entire rules, which basically would be the move from 3.5 to 4E all over again.
It'd take way too much time to go over ALL the opinions that exist, but the overwhelming consensus (taking into account other forums like GITP and Reddit) seems to be that "rules revision would be okay, so long as it doesn't require me to re-buy all my books or create rules snarls)
And regardless of what happens, people are going to be butthurt about SOMETHING. At the moment, it seems like the overwhelming majority are either fine with the system or are fine with houseruling things (and they'd likely be houseruling stuff even IF the Core Rules were changed).
---
IF Paizo put out a Revised CRB, it would need to have changes in place that both altered the game as a whole yet didn't affect the usability of the other books dependent upon it.
Combat Expertise as a Feat could do with a full-on rewrite and not affect much to anything - subsequent feats and abilities simply say that they require CE, and don't directly talk about its effects.
Iterative Attacks cannot be separated from the system without creating major issues, so a rework of the system would need to be incorporated that could fit into the rules as they currently are in subsequent books; there are a few ideas presented (such as allowing 5-foot steps between attacks, up to one's full movement)
The Unchained Rogue could probably straight-up replace the basic Rogue, although that means that a portion of Pathfinder Unchained is rendered redundant entirely, so it really comes down to how "expendable" players and Paizo feel PFU is. There's also the possibility that SOME aspects of the Unchained Rogue could be added, while other changes are made that keep the Unchained and basic Rogue separate enough to not make the Unchained redundant (although then you have a problem of potentially making the Rogue either weak again)
Stamina, for as popular as it seems to be (and will probably be incorporated into most campaigns), can't be added to the Core Rules - doing so would require you to include all the Stamina abilities of all Feats in the CRB, as well as then incorporating the abilities of all feats in subsequent books, creating the need for new versions of the APG, ARG, ACG, UC, and UM.
Adding Under- and Over-casting to the game might create some issues, as well. It would also make Heighten Spell effectively redundant and unnecessary, so Heighten Spell would probably need a full-on rewrite (although it COULD potentially be in the same boat as Combat Expertise - other things reference the name, but not the effect).
Changing the core rules of a game without invalidating options created after the original rules is a tricky thing - Magic the Gathering managed to do this when it switch from the "Batch" system (used from Alpha to 5th Edition) to the "Stack" system, used from 6th Edition forward - only 1 card was made literally unplayable by the rules change, and it wasn't even very good to begin with.
But RPGs are significantly trickier; it's not impossible for the Core Rulebook to get a revision and leave the APG, ARG, ACG, UM, and UC completely valid, but it'd require a great deal of effort.
Contributor
|
"Magic the Gathering managed to do this when it switch from the "Batch" system (used from Alpha to 5th Edition) to the "Stack" system, used from 6th Edition forward - only 1 card was made literally unplayable by the rules change, and it wasn't even very good to begin with."
As a trivia lover, which card was this?
"Magic the Gathering managed to do this when it switch from the "Batch" system (used from Alpha to 5th Edition) to the "Stack" system, used from 6th Edition forward - only 1 card was made literally unplayable by the rules change, and it wasn't even very good to begin with."
As a trivia lover, which card was this?
Honestly, I can't remember.
I believe it either had something to do with mana, or with the fact that you used to not lose when your Life reached 0 as long as you could raise it before the end of the current Phase (compared to now, when you lose the moment your Life reaches 0 before State Based Effects are checked.
|
Contributor
|
"Magic the Gathering managed to do this when it switch from the "Batch" system (used from Alpha to 5th Edition) to the "Stack" system, used from 6th Edition forward - only 1 card was made literally unplayable by the rules change, and it wasn't even very good to begin with."
As a trivia lover, which card was this?
Honestly, I can't remember.
I believe it either had something to do with mana, or with the fact that you used to not lose when your Life reached 0 as long as you could raise it before the end of the current Phase (compared to now, when you lose the moment your Life reaches 0 before State Based Effects are checked.
I know you couldn't drop below zero and then Mirror Universe/Psychic Transfer anymore. Sad day.
In my view, the new setting should be tied to the new rules.
I think if you put out new rules whilst continuing to expand Golarion, you're going to have to put a lot of effort into converting how-things-used-to-work into how-they-work-now. Also, whatever is possible in Golarion has to be possible in the new ruleset - I'd rather they give themselves a free reign when and if they feel it's the right time for a "PF2".
Unless they switch genres (Say to science fiction, or to gritty low magic fantasy) I don't see why they would need to switch settings. Fighters and wizards still exist, just mechanics underlying them would be different.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Spellfire was a pretty bad game, made during a dying period in TSR's life.But that doesn't mean their aren't games that die en masse. Since 2000, there have been many CCGs that have come into being and then died out, many within their first two years of existence: Fullmetal Alchemist TCG, SpyCraft the TCG, the VS System, Kaijudo and its older twin Duel Masters, Hex, the Dragon Ball CCG, Chaotic, Redakai, etc.
Several more exist and manage to stay alive, but are all-but unheard of.
I think I remember that at Gen Con in 1994, approximately 170 CCGs were released. Everyone wanted in on what they saw as the new big thing and easy money. AFAIK only one of those is still in print - Legend of the Five Rings. The market became super competitive and companies failed to realize that the customer base doesn't have infinite money to spend.
|
|
Well I certainly hope that the next edition of pathfinder isn't called Pathfinder 2.0. That's a horrible name!
I could hope for Advanced Pathfinder or something similar but that'd be too derivative really.
Seriously I can't personally think of any reason to not eventually make a newer game. Newer ideas, plenty of lessons learned and eventually there will be a content end point. How many Bestiaries can you make before sales choke? I literally have no idea.
The Advanced Core Rulebook
The next step, The Expert Player's Guide.
I wonder if Paizo did a new edition, would they drop something? Think about Fighters for example. Do we really need Fighters? If all different flavors of "the guy with stick" can be sufficiently covered by all the different classes made over the years, why still keep Fighter around?
Or does Fighter still serve as the big blank class, the one where all ideas can fall upon in need? Maybe the only thing other martials don't yet truly fulfill is a "King" class. The class that makes the best classic kings.
But I digress. If Pathfinder has lard that needs to be trimmed, what would the most critical parts be?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I certainly hope that the next edition of pathfinder isn't called Pathfinder 2.0. That's a horrible name!
I vote for "Pathfinder 1.875-pf-v2"
How many Bestiaries can you make before sales choke? I literally have no idea.
There can NEVER be enough monster books.
|
Here is a bridge release they could do before the eventual edition change.
They could release an updated Core Rulebook, one that...
- fixes the PrC's to fit more with the updated classes from 3.5
- has archtypes for each class
- cleans up rules and fixes some cut and paste mistakes like the Enlarge/Reduce person inconsistency
- includes traits, most likely those from the PDF for PFS use
- dedicates one specific section to CMB/CMD and how to use them
- do something with the Monk, and have at least an Archtype that uses a different Alignment for him
- Have Bonded Object and Familiar be two class features for the Wizard instead of having to choose between side stepping horrible mechanics and having the icon familiar
- and so on.
Changes would be more in line of "fixes" than the Unchained complete rewrite. Flurry, for one thing, would need to never have a penalty and be able to use weapons like Brass Knuckles or such to allow magical assistance.
The page count could go up, but with the overall editing and combining/maneuvering of repeat rules, the overall pages may stay the same.
It might be easier to just come out with the PFver2, but then again...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The page count could go up, but with the overall editing and combining/maneuvering of repeat rules, the overall pages may stay the same.
It might be easier to just come out with the PFver2, but then again...
CAN page count go up? the core rulebook is already a massive tome with binding issues. If anything, if they are going to update rules in this fashion, I would rather they just break it up into a players and a GM book.
How about not splitting the fan base?
Seriously I can't personally think of any reason to not eventually make a newer game. Newer ideas, plenty of lessons learned and eventually there will be a content end point. How many Bestiaries can you make before sales choke? I literally have no idea.
Paizo could have produced the Core Rules exactly as they were in 3.5. Instead they chose to split the fan base and create a new iteration of the 3.5 rule set. There's no reason to think they won't do it again, and if they're similar enough to Pathfinder then there's no reason to think the majority won't follow.
This is why the new edition should be an iterative approach. Revolutionary ideas belong at the end of the existing edition. Not at the beginning of a new one. This let's the market tell you what they like and don't like. Psychic magic is a revolutionary idea in the context of psionics. It seems to have received a lot of acceptance and so I wouldn't be surprised to see the Occultist become a core class in the next edition. On the other hand the Arcanist has received a lot of love from some fans, and it seems mixed reactions from most others. I would be surprised to see that replace core Vancian. It'll take a year or two to judge how much acceptance any given rule has received from Pathfinder Unchained.
You might think that's exactly what WotC did with Tome of Battle and those other late 3rd ed books. I would argue WotC was already making 4th ed and ported some rules back to 3.5 rather than the other way around. This means fan base acceptance or rejection of these rules were ignored. Also the most revolutionary idea of 4th ed (unified power system) was never released in 3.5
Paizo could have produced the Core Rules exactly as they were in 3.5. Instead they chose to split the fan base and create a new iteration of the 3.5 rule set. There's no reason to think they won't do it again, and if they're similar enough to Pathfinder then there's no reason to think the majority won't follow.How about not splitting the fan base?
Seriously I can't personally think of any reason to not eventually make a newer game. Newer ideas, plenty of lessons learned and eventually there will be a content end point. How many Bestiaries can you make before sales choke? I literally have no idea.
You are leaving out a big part of the picture. Being bound to other people's products was bad for them, so they made the new system. That is not a comparable situation to releasing a new edition now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless they switch genres (Say to science fiction, or to gritty low magic fantasy) I don't see why they would need to switch settings. Fighters and wizards still exist, just mechanics underlying them would be different.In my view, the new setting should be tied to the new rules.
I think if you put out new rules whilst continuing to expand Golarion, you're going to have to put a lot of effort into converting how-things-used-to-work into how-they-work-now. Also, whatever is possible in Golarion has to be possible in the new ruleset - I'd rather they give themselves a free reign when and if they feel it's the right time for a "PF2".
What I meant is that you'd need to re-do books with a lot of mechanical stuff. So all the Gods would stay the same, but if there's no such thing as domains (for example) in PF2 then you need to redo all the books detailing clerics, paladins, etcetera to bring them in line with the new system. Also you face the PR/customer service problem of people buying a 'Golarion' book from the PF1 era which doesnt work with the new RPG (PF2) they've just bought.
Alternately, you create a 'new system' but ensure old splatbooks are still viable - and I personally think that's imposing a needlessly harsh restriction on the designers of the game.
Unless they switch genres (Say to science fiction, or to gritty low magic fantasy) I don't see why they would need to switch settings. Fighters and wizards still exist, just mechanics underlying them would be different.In my view, the new setting should be tied to the new rules.
I think if you put out new rules whilst continuing to expand Golarion, you're going to have to put a lot of effort into converting how-things-used-to-work into how-they-work-now. Also, whatever is possible in Golarion has to be possible in the new ruleset - I'd rather they give themselves a free reign when and if they feel it's the right time for a "PF2".
What I meant is that you'd need to re-do books with a lot of mechanical stuff. So all the Gods would stay the same, but if there's no such thing as domains (for example) in PF2 then you need to redo all the books detailing clerics, paladins, etcetera to bring them in line with the new system. Also you face the PR/customer service problem of people buying a 'Golarion' book from the PF1 era which doesnt work with the new RPG (PF2) they've just bought.
Alternately, you create a 'new system' but ensure old splatbooks are still viable - and I personally think that's imposing a needlessly harsh restriction on the designers of the game.
Its not "if there are no such thing as domains" . . if PF 2.0 isn't released under the OGL license there can't be "domains" because a non d20/OGL system would have to shed all that language altogether.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And Champions.If the theory is to keep this edition of Pathfinder going indefinitely, that would be a serious break with history.
What's the longest lasting edition of any RPG? Continuously in print, with new material coming out.
2E AD&D lasted something like 10 years. Anything beat that? And it was pretty moribund by the end.Actually it's the multiple editions of D+D that were the exception. The rule of most RPG's was that they stayed in one edition throughout their history.
Okay, Talislanta went through 5 editions, but most of that was it's many change of publishers.
1st edition Champions/Hero and 5th Edition Champions/Hero are closer to each other than 3.0 and Pathfinder though. 6th was the first edition to make any major changes.
Its not "if there are no such thing as domains" . . if PF 2.0 isn't released under the OGL license there can't be "domains" because a non d20/OGL system would have to shed all that language altogether.Unless they switch genres (Say to science fiction, or to gritty low magic fantasy) I don't see why they would need to switch settings. Fighters and wizards still exist, just mechanics underlying them would be different.In my view, the new setting should be tied to the new rules.
I think if you put out new rules whilst continuing to expand Golarion, you're going to have to put a lot of effort into converting how-things-used-to-work into how-they-work-now. Also, whatever is possible in Golarion has to be possible in the new ruleset - I'd rather they give themselves a free reign when and if they feel it's the right time for a "PF2".
What I meant is that you'd need to re-do books with a lot of mechanical stuff. So all the Gods would stay the same, but if there's no such thing as domains (for example) in PF2 then you need to redo all the books detailing clerics, paladins, etcetera to bring them in line with the new system. Also you face the PR/customer service problem of people buying a 'Golarion' book from the PF1 era which doesnt work with the new RPG (PF2) they've just bought.
Alternately, you create a 'new system' but ensure old splatbooks are still viable - and I personally think that's imposing a needlessly harsh restriction on the designers of the game.
The terminology isnt important - if PF2 doesnt have the concept of a domain (whatever it's called) then all the Golarion sourcebooks referencing such would need to be republished or would be non-compatible with PF2.
However, in my opinion, the chance of Paizo releasing an RPG and not using the OGL are negligible. That's a separate issue from whether it's compatibile with PF1 though - being released under the OGL doesnt imply it's compatible with PF (or D&D 3.5, for that matter).
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo releases a Pathfinder 2e, it will be as backward compatible to PF1e as PF was to D&D3.5 when PF was released. Anyone expecting an entirely new, or wildly different, game is going to be sorely disappointed because Paizo isn't going to release a game that will invalidate their entire back-catalog.
The entire idea of PFRPG was predicated on the fact that people didn't want a completely new game. As bets go, it was a huge winner.
-Skeld
Unless they switch genres (Say to science fiction, or to gritty low magic fantasy) I don't see why they would need to switch settings. Fighters and wizards still exist, just mechanics underlying them would be different.In my view, the new setting should be tied to the new rules.
I think if you put out new rules whilst continuing to expand Golarion, you're going to have to put a lot of effort into converting how-things-used-to-work into how-they-work-now. Also, whatever is possible in Golarion has to be possible in the new ruleset - I'd rather they give themselves a free reign when and if they feel it's the right time for a "PF2".
What I meant is that you'd need to re-do books with a lot of mechanical stuff. So all the Gods would stay the same, but if there's no such thing as domains (for example) in PF2 then you need to redo all the books detailing clerics, paladins, etcetera to bring them in line with the new system. Also you face the PR/customer service problem of people buying a 'Golarion' book from the PF1 era which doesnt work with the new RPG (PF2) they've just bought.
Alternately, you create a 'new system' but ensure old splatbooks are still viable - and I personally think that's imposing a needlessly harsh restriction on the designers of the game.
Most of the setting books (including the Hardcover setting books) are fairly rules light. Depending on the degree of edition change there might be little need for updating.
You give the example of domains changing, but there are plenty of ways they could deal with domains
Don't change them at all.
Have them exist but give them different options/spells/etc
Have them exist but only have how they are used by classes change
Consolidate them into smaller sets (or break them into new domains)
Completely revamp/delete them
Not all of the above changes are likely to produce the same degree of need for change within the setting.
In addition, abandoning Golarion and restarting with a new setting poses probably more problems than changing the rules. For one, you invalidate all the existing APs/modules/CS books/player companions, whereas only the player companions would really risk obsoletion with a rules set.
Secondly, a lot of the creators like James Jacobs have ported a lot of their game elements they have spent decades working on within the game. I don't think many of them would be very happy with abandoning them to a "dead" setting.
For me, I see zero signs that the CS/AP/Module line is running out of ideas/niche space, so I see no need to switch from Golarion to something else, especially with so much unmined material
If Paizo releases a Pathfinder 2e, it will be as backward compatible to PF1e as PF was to D&D3.5 when PF was released. Anyone expecting an entirely new, or wildly different, game is going to be sorely disappointed because Paizo isn't going to release a game that will invalidate their entire back-catalog.
The entire idea of PFRPG was predicated on the fact that people didn't want a completely new game. As bets go, it was a huge winner.
-Skeld
I agree with this.
There are areas that need improvement in the game, so I think we will get another version of Pathfinder someday. I just don't see any radical redesign in the future. I also think that should any change happen, we won't see a re-release of all the new books. I think Paizo is smart enough to find away around that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo releases a Pathfinder 2e, it will be as backward compatible to PF1e as PF was to D&D3.5 when PF was released. Anyone expecting an entirely new, or wildly different, game is going to be sorely disappointed because Paizo isn't going to release a game that will invalidate their entire back-catalog.
The entire idea of PFRPG was predicated on the fact that people didn't want a completely new game. As bets go, it was a huge winner.
-Skeld
This would be my preference. However, I think there's an argument that 'what people want' has changed from 2008/9 to now.
In my opinion, a big part of the backwards compatibility value was derived due to the existence of a segment of the market who thought 4E was coming out too soon and a second segment who thought it was too different. Who knows what the sizes of those segments will be in a few more years time?
Unless they switch genres (Say to science fiction, or to gritty low magic fantasy) I don't see why they would need to switch settings. Fighters and wizards still exist, just mechanics underlying them would be different.In my view, the new setting should be tied to the new rules.
I think if you put out new rules whilst continuing to expand Golarion, you're going to have to put a lot of effort into converting how-things-used-to-work into how-they-work-now. Also, whatever is possible in Golarion has to be possible in the new ruleset - I'd rather they give themselves a free reign when and if they feel it's the right time for a "PF2".
What I meant is that you'd need to re-do books with a lot of mechanical stuff. So all the Gods would stay the same, but if there's no such thing as domains (for example) in PF2 then you need to redo all the books detailing clerics, paladins, etcetera to bring them in line with the new system. Also you face the PR/customer service problem of people buying a 'Golarion' book from the PF1 era which doesnt work with the new RPG (PF2) they've just bought.
Alternately, you create a 'new system' but ensure old splatbooks are still viable - and I personally think that's imposing a needlessly harsh restriction on the designers of the game.
Most of the setting books (including the Hardcover setting books) are fairly rules light. Depending on the degree of edition change there might be little need for updating.
You give the example of domains changing, but there are plenty of ways they could deal with domains
Don't change them at all.
Have them exist but give them different options/spells/etc
Have them exist but only have how they are used by classes change
Consolidate them into smaller sets (or break them into new domains)
Completely revamp/delete themNot all of the above changes are likely to produce the same degree of need for change within the setting.
In addition, abandoning Golarion and restarting with a new setting poses probably more problems than changing the rules. For one, you invalidate all the existing APs/modules/CS books/player companions, whereas only the player companions would really risk obsoletion with a rules set.
Secondly, a lot of the creators like James Jacobs have ported a lot of their game elements they have spent decades working on within the game. I don't think many of them would be very happy with abandoning them to a "dead" setting.
For me, I see zero signs that the CS/AP/Module line is running out of ideas/niche space, so I see no need to switch from Golarion to something else, especially with so much unmined material
Me neither. Nor do I see any need to abandon the ruleset.
However, if they do decide to switch to a brand new rule set, I think they should also switch settings.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2.0 is already here and has been here for years, arguably the Advanced Players Guide was the first taste and certainly since the Advanced Class Guide.
Paizo smartly hasn't called it Pathfinder 2.0 considering the likely negative reaction that would create among a certain percentage of their fan-base but the game plays differently than it originally did.
Paizo evolved the game gradually at first and faster lately until it is at least as different as 2nd Ed was from 1st Ed by my recollection. I look around my table and see a lot of players playing characters with "points pools" and many abilities that modify roles (rolls) of various kinds. Now the original classes have been re-imagined more in line with more recent classes.
At my table we already call it Pathfinder 2.0.
|
|
If Paizo releases a Pathfinder 2e, it will be as backward compatible to PF1e as PF was to D&D3.5 when PF was released. Anyone expecting an entirely new, or wildly different, game is going to be sorely disappointed because Paizo isn't going to release a game that will invalidate their entire back-catalog.
And yet, if they don't do that, then they aren't really going to be fixing the inherent problems of the system, they would just be slapping another layer of duct tape over the layers that 3.5 and PF 1.0 slapped onto the gushing pipe that is 3.0/d20.
The entire idea of PFRPG was predicated on the fact that people didn't want a completely new game. As bets go, it was a huge winner.
I think a large part of the idea of PFRPG was that people didn't necessarily want the new game that was 4E.
If Paizo releases a Pathfinder 2e, it will be as backward compatible to PF1e as PF was to D&D3.5 when PF was released. Anyone expecting an entirely new, or wildly different, game is going to be sorely disappointed because Paizo isn't going to release a game that will invalidate their entire back-catalog.And yet, if they don't do that, then they aren't really going to be fixing the inherent problems of the system, they would just be slapping another layer of duct tape over the layers that 3.5 and PF 1.0 slapped onto the gushing pipe that is 3.0/d20.
The entire idea of PFRPG was predicated on the fact that people didn't want a completely new game. As bets go, it was a huge winner.I think a large part of the idea of PFRPG was that people didn't necessarily want the new game that was 4E.
And yet there are plenty of people in real life that don't see problems with Pathfinder as it is.
Pathfinder 2.0 is already here and has been here for years, arguably the Advanced Players Guide was the first taste and certainly since the Advanced Class Guide.
Paizo smartly hasn't called it Pathfinder 2.0 considering the likely negative reaction that would create among a certain percentage of their fan-base but the game plays differently than it originally did.
Paizo evolved the game gradually at first and faster lately until it is at least as different as 2nd Ed was from 1st Ed by my recollection. I look around my table and see a lot of players playing characters with "points pools" and many abilities that modify roles (rolls) of various kinds. Now the original classes have been re-imagined more in line with more recent classes.
At my table we already call it Pathfinder 2.0.
Totally agree, Paizo has been creating a new edition very slowly, steadily moving away from 3.5 legacy concepts (like Prestige Classes) towards a new system.
And sometime in the future they will bring out a revised edition.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they officially released Pathfinder 2nd Edition or 2.0 or whatever and the current books were meaningless... I would quit pathfinder wholesale.
I am glad that all these books are all part of one cohesive and ever-growing edition that includes both books from the 3.5 time that Pathfinder was.. and what it is today.
If Paizo releases a Pathfinder 2e, it will be as backward compatible to PF1e as PF was to D&D3.5 when PF was released. Anyone expecting an entirely new, or wildly different, game is going to be sorely disappointed because Paizo isn't going to release a game that will invalidate their entire back-catalog.And yet, if they don't do that, then they aren't really going to be fixing the inherent problems of the system, they would just be slapping another layer of duct tape over the layers that 3.5 and PF 1.0 slapped onto the gushing pipe that is 3.0/d20.
The entire idea of PFRPG was predicated on the fact that people didn't want a completely new game. As bets go, it was a huge winner.I think a large part of the idea of PFRPG was that people didn't necessarily want the new game that was 4E.And yet there are plenty of people in real life that don't see problems with Pathfinder as it is.
Pretty much this entirely.
Talk to many extreme gaming nerds/connosiuers, and they'll tell you that Magic the Gathering is crap because of X, Y, and Z, and get really salty about its popularity.
One of the most commonly-thrown around things people say is the five-color difference, yet I've spoken at length with one of the main writers of the FATE system (who's a fan of Magic himself), and he agrees that one of the BEST aspects about the game is the colors - they act as a balancing factor and add resource-management as another level of strategy that needs be employed by the game.
On top of this, the cards are designed and worded in such a way that while their effects are very specific, they are general enough that they can easily be used in either 1v1 or multiplayer formats, allowing for a multitude of different various games that can be made using them, from the typical "preconstructed deck 1v1" style, to extremely radical games like communal decks & multi-colored dice for mana, deck-building games, etc.
Added to this the fact that Magic has surprisingly very little Power Creep for a nearly-25-year-old game, who's only gone through ONE major rules shakeup, and it becomes obvious that one of the key factors to its success is balance, and another is the generally novel designs and adherents to a system that works for the majority of its playerbase.
---
Anyway, Pathfinder has a lot in common with MTG in that regard: it's a very easily-applied system to lots of different genres of games (not ALL, but much more than just high-fantasy). It's got a system that's tested and has had many kinks worked out, and the majority of players are perfectly content with it; if they don't like some aspects of the basic game, they can houserule stuff and still use 90% of the original system.
The general lack of ANY complaints on the Reddit forums is more than a little telling as to how the general public feels about the game (i.e., they seem to like it just fine).
Anyway, Pathfinder has a lot in common with MTG in that regard: it's a very easily-applied system to lots of different genres of games (not ALL, but much more than just high-fantasy). It's got a system that's tested and has had many kinks worked out
Can you give me an example of a kink that's been worked out? It seems like most of the standard complaints on these boards (caster disparity, rocket tag, problems dealing with Armor-Class-focused characters, buying the compulsory 'big 6' items at the magic mart, balance falling apart at high levels, etc) either stay the same or get worse as new material appears.
The developers also don't see a caster-martial disparity. (To the point where they regularly nerf martial options, while introducing even more overpowered caster options.)
That doesn't mean it doesn't actually exist.
It's not so much that they don't see it, it's that it isn't quite as common as you'd think.
The disparity generally comes around from optimized vs optimized comparisons.
Optimizing a full caster takes quite a bit of time, experience, and desire to gimp out a character into a God.
Optimizing a Martial into "duh, I hit it once and it died, George" isn't so hard - like the Summoner, it's fairly simple to make a Martial hit decently-sized numbers without much experience or effort.
Martials, like the Summoner, are fairly easy to stumble your way through and get a decent-enough bodycount; martials' optimized-to-effectiveness ratio isn't nearly as steep a slope as casters as a result.
Since the overwhelming majority of players are low- or mid-level optimizers, especially in regards to Casters where their spell choices are often based much more on Theme than on Optimization, the disparity is significantly less apparent than in high-optimization play.
6th-level casters are generally on-par in effectiveness with Martials; when you add in the fact that their spells are PROBABLY going to be given the same "by the power of THEME!" go-over that 9th -level casters definitely are, you end up with 6th-level casters generally being slightly less overwhelming than Martials in most home games.
So, really, the players themselves often do the balancing for Paizo by not going full-optimal with their spell choices; that means that Paizo needs to watch out for Martial options that may potentially cause problems in most games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you give me an example of a kink that's been worked out? It seems like most of the standard complaints on these boards (caster disparity, rocket tag, problems dealing with Armor-Class-focused characters, buying the compulsory 'big 6' items at the magic mart, balance falling apart at high levels, etc) either stay the same or get worse as new material appears.
Do you remember the joys of performing a Grapple in 3.5?
I rest my case.
Also, "Magic Mart" has existed since 1st Edition. Magic Marts exist because DMs are too lazy or aren't crafty enough to put interesting magic items into treasure from adventures, and so rely on the "here's some cash, go buy your own present" tactics - i.e. the Magic Mart.
The system actively TRIES to make it hard for players to buy magic items by setting purchase limits based on settlement size. DMs usually ignore that and let you buy at Magic Wholesale Warehouses even in the smallest of thorpes, or make the world so overly-populated by Metropolitan-sized cities that purchase limits effectively don't matter.
Blaming the system for DMs sucking at their jobs hasn't been a legitimate argument since 1977.
I think he was referring to the big six as the un-worked-out kink, rather than the magic mart itself:
"...buying the compulsory 'big 6' items at the magic mart..."
You only need to be remotely interested in optimisation to conclude that the big 6 are flat out better choices than their equally priced alternatives (even though they're usually more dull). If you deny players those by giving them 'interesting' or flavorful items and making it difficult to exchange what they find for the big six, they will struggle against encounters they're expected to be able to defeat at high levels.
It doesnt really matter how you obtain them - Pathfinder seems to say "Here's a whole bunch of cool magical items. You won't want most of them - just the dull, boring and effective ones."
Can you give me an example of a kink that's been worked out? It seems like most of the standard complaints on these boards (caster disparity, rocket tag, problems dealing with Armor-Class-focused characters, buying the compulsory 'big 6' items at the magic mart, balance falling apart at high levels, etc) either stay the same or get worse as new material appears.Do you remember the joys of performing a Grapple in 3.5?
I rest my case.
Also, "Magic Mart" has existed since 1st Edition. Magic Marts exist because DMs are too lazy or aren't crafty enough to put interesting magic items into treasure from adventures, and so rely on the "here's some cash, go buy your own present" tactics - i.e. the Magic Mart.
The system actively TRIES to make it hard for players to buy magic items by setting purchase limits based on settlement size. DMs usually ignore that and let you buy at Magic Wholesale Warehouses even in the smallest of thorpes, or make the world so overly-populated by Metropolitan-sized cities that purchase limits effectively don't matter.
Blaming the system for DMs sucking at their jobs hasn't been a legitimate argument since 1977.
The last time I checked (just a moment ago), the Magic Mart system is included as a guideline in the magic items section and includes a list of town sizes and the availability of items in those towns. You can't really blame the GM when they are just following the system the rules provided. The pricing limits only come into play at mid to high levels. Most of the stuff a typical PC would have from level 1 to level 10 doesn't cost more than 16000gp. The only thing I can think of that would be an issue is a +3 weapon. Many campaigns don't go much past level 10 anyway.
Besides, pathfinder assumes creatures, including PCs, will hit certain numbers at certain CRs. The only way they can do this is by using a big pile of magic items, which is what causes the Christmas tree effect. A GM can either carefully include certain nigh-mandatory items with treasure so that the party gets their required numbers, or the GM can say "screw it here's some gold, go spend it on whichever of the big 6 you want and whatever's left over can go towards nifty little things".
Can you give me an example of a kink that's been worked out? It seems like most of the standard complaints on these boards (caster disparity, rocket tag, problems dealing with Armor-Class-focused characters, buying the compulsory 'big 6' items at the magic mart, balance falling apart at high levels, etc) either stay the same or get worse as new material appears.Do you remember the joys of performing a Grapple in 3.5?
I rest my case.
Also, "Magic Mart" has existed since 1st Edition. Magic Marts exist because DMs are too lazy or aren't crafty enough to put interesting magic items into treasure from adventures, and so rely on the "here's some cash, go buy your own present" tactics - i.e. the Magic Mart.
The system actively TRIES to make it hard for players to buy magic items by setting purchase limits based on settlement size. DMs usually ignore that and let you buy at Magic Wholesale Warehouses even in the smallest of thorpes, or make the world so overly-populated by Metropolitan-sized cities that purchase limits effectively don't matter.
Blaming the system for DMs sucking at their jobs hasn't been a legitimate argument since 1977.
The last time I checked (just a moment ago), the Magic Mart system is included as a guideline in the magic items section and includes a list of town sizes and the availability of items in those towns. You can't really blame the GM when they are just following the system the rules provided. The pricing limits only come into play at mid to high levels. Most of the stuff a typical PC would have from level 1 to level 10 donesn't cost more than 16000gp. The only thing I can think of that would be an issue is a +3 weapon. Many campaigns don't go much past level 10 anyway.
Besides, pathfinder assumes creatures, including PCs, will hit certain numbers at certain CRs. The only way they can do this is by using a big pile of magic items, which is what causes the christmas tree effect. A GM can either...
Right, but the point of that system is that you may find something like a +1 Flaming sword in a curio shop, or a few other tid-bits here and there. DMs are supposed to come up with what's available in whatever settlement you've walked into, sometimes/often at random.
You're in a high-fantasy world, so it is assumed that there will be trading of Magic Items, sure - but mostly in a pawn shop setting.
Walking into a shop in search of a particular Magic Item is supposed to be a crapshoot, and you're a bit more encouraged to do some Gather Information-y stuff to find the particular thing you want (which may be in the Black Market for all you know).
The whole "Magic Mart" problem comes about because lots of DMs will allow you to walk into Crazy N'gleuthiznol's Magic Item Emporium and buy whatever Magic Item you could want - like searching on Ebay or walking into a super-sized Wal-Mart.
Being bound to other people's products was bad for them
I never said they should have neverproduced the Core Rulebook. I said they could have, and not changed a single thing from 3.5e (except incorporating errata).
so they made the new system.
APG, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, ACG, etc could have all been 100% compatible with 3.5e instead of "mostly" compatible with 3.5e. Sure any concepts/ideas they simply reproduced from 3.5e might not have gained as much traction (I'm not sure if there has been any, although I've heard people say "this is the Pathfinder X"), but some people would have still bought it (new players for example).
By the same token a revised edition of Pathfinder could be "mostly" compatible with Pathfinder. If there is enough fan demand for a revised edition, there is no need for a revised edition to be 100% compatible. Enough compatibility that lets you use or convert Pathfinder v1 rules without too many problems is good enough in many people's book (this is where I see Pathfinder currently at with regards to backwards compatibility to 3.5e).
And yet there are plenty of people in real life that don't see problems with Pathfinder as it is.
Pathfinder is potentially the best version of D&D (as good as the 5th edition ruleset is, having good mechanics is only part of the components required for a game to be good at being D&D. The lack of foreseeable support outside of adventures is hitting my enthusiasm for it). That isn't the same as me saying there are no problems with Pathfinder.
Can you give me an example of a kink that's been worked out? It seems like most of the standard complaints on these boards ... buying the compulsory 'big 6' items at the magic mart ... either stay the same or get worse as new material appears.
Pathfinder Unchained has rules to deal with this kink specifically for those groups that dislike it. Not all groups see it as a bad thing (I struggle to understand that myself) and so don't see it as something that needs to be worked out. Hence the optional rule.
...Right, but the point of that system is that you may find something like a +1 Flaming sword in a curio shop, or a few other tid-bits here and there. DMs are supposed to come up with what's available in whatever settlement you've walked into, sometimes/often at random.
You're in a high-fantasy world, so it is assumed that there will be trading of Magic Items, sure - but mostly in a pawn shop setting.
Walking into a shop in search of a particular Magic Item is supposed to be a crapshoot, and you're a bit more encouraged to do some Gather Information-y stuff to find the particular thing you want (which may be in the Black Market for all you know).
The whole "Magic Mart" problem comes about because lots of DMs will allow you to walk into Crazy N'gleuthiznol's Magic Item Emporium and buy whatever Magic Item you could want - like searching on Ebay or walking into a super-sized Wal-Mart.
The assumption of the CR system is that the PCs have these items.
The system that the rules provide for the GM give a 75% chance of finding literally anything below a certain price at every settlement with little effort(the book actually uses the term "little effort"). It suggests modifying it for certain settings, but for a "typical" setting this is how the rules work, like it or not
Here, have the relevant rules.
***Table - See URL***
Magic items are valuable, and most major cities have at least one or two purveyors of magic items, from a simple potion merchant to a weapon smith that specializes in magic swords. Of course, not every item in this book is available in every town.
The following guidelines are presented to help GMs determine what items are available in a given community. These guidelines assume a setting with an average level of magic. Some cities might deviate wildly from these baselines, subject to GM discretion. The GM should keep a list of what items are available from each merchant and should replenish the stocks on occasion to represent new acquisitions.
The number and types of magic items available in a community depend upon its size. Each community has a base value associated with it (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale with little effort in that community. In addition, the community has a number of other items for sale. These items are randomly determined and are broken down by category (minor, medium, or major). After determining the number of items available in each category, refer to Table: Random Magic Item Generation to determine the type of each item (potion, scroll, ring, weapon, etc.) before moving on to the individual charts to determine the exact item. Reroll any items that fall below the community's base value.
If you are running a campaign with low magic, reduce the base value and the number of items in each community by half. Campaigns with little or no magic might not have magic items for sale at all. GMs running these sorts of campaigns should make some adjustments to the challenges faced by the characters due to their lack of magic gear.
Campaigns with an abundance of magic items might have communities with twice the listed base value and random items available. Alternatively, all communities might count as one size category larger for the purposes of what items are available. In a campaign with very common magic, all magic items might be available for purchase in a metropolis.
Nonmagical items and gear are generally available in a community of any size unless the item is particularly expensive, such as full plate, or made of an unusual material, such as an adamantine longsword. These items should follow the base value guidelines to determine their availability, subject to GM discretion.
So the system assumes PCs have certain items, and the system gives a default way of handling purchases that allow PCs to get pretty much anything that isn't really expensive, creating what effectively amounts to a magic mart even if the PCs aren't purchasing all their stuff from the same place.
Why is the GM to blame for magic marts instead of the system when the system outright encourage it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I found Color Spray to be a pretty mediocre spell when I took it for my sorcerer. Most of my enemies had good will saves, or were immune due to being undead. The DC (an unoptimized 14) wasn't hard to beat. It was rare that there were enemies bunched up so I could hit more than two at a time, and my allies frequently got in the way. Whenever enemies passed their saves, it always meant I was left in a very dangerous position. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a more typical experience of Color Spray than the "Win Button" that some people have found it to be.
I sometimes feel like Pathfinder has a fairly narrow zone of being a great game. It's in the brief system-mastery gap between "I don't understand how cleric spells work" and "I have to deliberately make sub-optimal choices or I screw up the game balance" and the character level gap between "I can't do anything" and "I can do anything".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sometimes feel like Pathfinder has a fairly narrow zone of being a great game.
I disagree with this, even though I otherwise agree with your post, if only because of the breathtaking variety of gaming styles I've borne witness to that use the d20 system in general.
It's in the brief system-mastery gap between "I don't understand how cleric spells work" and "I have to deliberately make sub-optimal choices or I screw up the game balance" and the character level gap between "I can't do anything" and "I can do anything".
In my view, this is kind of true, but that first line is actually not a "top-tier" system mastery approach.
As an example, I'm going to point you to Ashiel's stuff - probably one of the most Rules-hard and devastating methods of playing the game: taking the RAW at its word, and using that to inform the fluff instead of arbitrating fluff to inform the RAW. Holy crap, the results are consistently amazing. (He has admitted to the over-powered-if-unrestrained results of simulacrum, however.) He consistently gets "epic" out of low to mid levels, and makes his high level games "cap out" at CR 25 or so. This is what you get when you have solid optimization.
On the an- other end of the spectrum is me. I run the "RAW! (haw-haw!)" games (where "RAW" is just a figure of speech, despite my best efforts); and I run the "LEVEL890EPIIIIIC!!111!!" games that would make Ashiel grasp his head and sway a bit in confusion with "Buh... wah... grglplx!"; and then I run (rarely, but in the car, for example) the "choose three spells, or three combat feats; that's your character abilities, let's roll" style games where RAW is a veeeeerrrrryyyyy distant thing (and it'd be hard pressed to call it "Pathfinder", but it'd be hard pressed to call it anything else).
My wife runs games in an entirely different way.
My first GM(s) ran games in entirely different ways beyond that.
Pathfinder Society GMs run games different than any explained so far.
The game handles pretty much all of those exceptionally well. That... that is huge.
Thus "deliberately making sub-optimal choices", while hypothetically accurate, actively obscures what's going on within a certain realm of rules mastery: it obscures the fact that you're making interesting characters. While the hardline RAW doesn't fully support those characters' styles, most tables will get by fine with them working, and thus will allow it in some method or another.
I'd try to let Assassins work, for example, even if I had to subtly ignore a rule or two every once in a while to let them stay even close to "on par" with their fellows. Monks should be awesome, so I might deliberately weaken some CMDs or manufacture situations where their unique talents were more important than that of others every once in a while. Hey look at that: I'll be careful to try not to invalidate the Fighter, even out of combat (presupposing the player cares)*.
* This will likely involve giving subtle or weird bonuses just for being a fighter.
These are either House Rules or heavy-handed manufacturing (instead of running the game "purely RAW"), but they work reasonably within the ruleset as a whole, which actively lends itself to such customization.
This is a huge breadth of customization and alteration that allow the system to still mostly function.
There is an argument to be made about "solid rules should support character concepts" instead of making the GM craft scenarios to make them work, which I agree with, but the trick is: it kind of does, which is why the characters can exist. The trick is, as always, calibrating your expectations to the specific game of which you are part right now, instead of to a monomythical "OneTrueWay" of playing.
Of course, that doesn't stop me from saying that wizards are OP (they are, and it's great), or that rogues are weak (they are, alas), because, on the forums, everyone's got to come at the discussion from a level playing field, and it's important to be honest with the idea "my experience does not equate to the Most RAW" concepts, and take things as objectively as possible first.
---------------------
RE: Magic Marts: oh, sure, yeah, they exist... and they cap out at +2 weapons 75% quasi-guaranteed, and +4 armor 75% quasi-guaranteed and somewhere in the middle of the medium wondrous items.
That... doesn't scale very well, really. That's pretty much as far as settlements go, rules-wise (though it seems many GMs make most things available through various elements within those rules).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The developers also don't see a caster-martial disparity. (To the point where they regularly nerf martial options, while introducing even more overpowered caster options.)
That doesn't mean it doesn't actually exist.
By extension, that doesn't mean that it actually does exist, either.
Note, I'm not saying one doesn't exist - it has in some fashion since the game was created. The degree to which it exists is debatable, however.
Combining this post with your earlier one about duct tape and gushing pipes, however, this comes across simply as mudslinging rather than an attempt to persuade/debate.
Out of curiosity, if PF is so "broken", do you play it? Are their other systems that you've tried that better align to what you want from a FRPG? Are you a Paizo adventure/setting fan hoping for a fantasy heartbreaker closer to your desired style of RPG?
I ask because you seem less interested in tweaks and more in the "completely new edition/start from scratch" camp. Things don't always come across as intended on the Internet, however, so I'm not certain what you're hoping for - thus the questions, above.
That you're dissatisfied with PFRPG in its current state is clear, however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the theory is to keep this edition of Pathfinder going indefinitely, that would be a serious break with history.
What's the longest lasting edition of any RPG? Continuously in print, with new material coming out.
2E AD&D lasted something like 10 years. Anything beat that? And it was pretty moribund by the end.Actually it's the multiple editions of D+D that were the exception. The rule of most RPG's was that they stayed in one edition throughout their history.
Okay, Talislanta went through 5 editions, but most of that was it's many change of publishers.
And Champions. And Traveller. And CoC. And Gurps.
Some of those changed more or less than others, but that doesn't change things.Most stayed in one edition, but that's because they didn't last.
Got something that lasted longer than 2E? I wouldn't be too surprised, but I can't think of anything offhand.
Actually it looks like GURPS 3rd edition lasted ~15 years. Probably because their model was to make money off of largely incompatible supplements - different genres and licensed properties.
late to the party in my response, but AD&D lasted from 1977 to 1987 at least....if you consider the grandfather clause in 2e allowing all the books and options, then it lasted at least until 1990 to 92, maybe even to 95 or even 97.
Does that count...length wise that means it was 20 yrs at longest, and 10 years at shortest.
Furthermore, AD&D was simply a consolidation of OD&D's very bloated arena to a degree, hence you could say OD&D as an AD&D type form really was around 1975 or 76...adding to that timeline.
BECMI lasted from 1983 to 1995, which means it was around for 12 years.
Warhammer Fantasy RPG was originally published in 1986 and a second edition was not published until 2005. Now it was not actively supported for that entire time, but it was played and that was the ruleset, which means it lasted for 19 years.
Paladium 2e has been around for a gosh darn long time.
Dragon Kings has been around for a darn long time too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warhammer Fantasy RPG was originally published in 1986 and a second edition was not published until 2005. Now it was not actively supported for that entire time, but it was played and that was the ruleset, which means it lasted for 19 years.
Active support is fairly big factor in a game edition's lifespan, though. There's not going to be much of a push to put out a second edition if the first one isn't selling well enough to even justify further rules expansions or modules. In the case of the Warhammer RPG, it had basically faded into obscurity until the tabletop wargame got its big surge in popularity, which revived interest in RPG rules for the setting.
It's easy for an RPG with minimal to no developer support to remain as it is. There's no pressure for official rulings on rules questions, official expansions to cover new options, etc.
Just looking at Pathfinder, a lot of the people who want a new edition seem to want two main things out of it:
1: Making popular optional/expanded rules part of the Core line
2: General cleanup to deal with balance issues, unclear rules, FAQ-ratta that makes the rules even denser, etc.
Unsupported games don't have either of these issues. There's no expansions that people would want in the core line, and without dev support the answer for all rules and balance issues defaults to "Ask your DM/house rule it."
Ah yes, it was my mistake on the Dragon Kings thing, it's called Dragon Warriors.
It's been kept alive somewhat by players (I think they are mostly in the UK though, and not elsewhere), and had a weird type of support from the authors. It was an RPG, but it's world was supported by supplements and gamebooks under other names (such as blood sword).
It DID have a new edition in 2009 (I believe that's the year of publication), though it was basically the exact same rules. It was in one big book rather than six books though, and bloodsword is now finally getting republished (Hopefully they'll publish book 5, though that seems in question now).
Warhammer 1e is a different thing. It had no OFFICIAL support...but it HAD support by a multitude of various people. The unofficial support was large enough to garner interest and thoughts that it could be printed in a polished up 2e.
Other influences of this unofficial support ended up in the Dark Heresy/WH40K RPG line where you can see the obvious heritage from the original WHRP 1e.
BECMI was printed in 1983 (not to be confused with B/X from 1981). It was consolidated, but was still the same game (and not really a new edition, but consolidate, much like Dragon Warriors was in the 2009 print from six books to one big volume) later. Another Basic set was released, but BECMI was the same edition, same game, different format (Rules Compendium) if I recall.
Another one that might have lasted for a while (But I'm not sure, I didn't follow it to tell the truth that much) is Rifts.
I'm not quite certain how long Cyberpunk 2020 lasted in any of it's editions, but that seems like it may have lasted at least a small amount of time.
Now granted, ALL OF THESE are in a different situation than PAIZO or WotC. Most of them were not actively upgrading and printing new rules (and so in some cases may appear to have gone out of print even). However, in some instances they were actively supported in other ways by supplements or books (that sometimes didn't even appear to be in the same line).
It would be similar to if Paizo decided to ONLY publish the CRB (and MAYBE the APG) and nothing else. Then they continue AP's, though sometimes they are AP's for 3.5, and they continued the gamemastery line of Modules.
All things specific to Golarion still get printed, but not necessarily things to PF.
They also allow fan based sites for support and items to that effect.
A VERY different model than relying on rules, but I don't think it means the system is necessarily dead.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
BECMI was printed in 1983 (not to be confused with B/X from 1981). It was consolidated, but was still the same game (and not really a new edition, but consolidate, much like Dragon Warriors was in the 2009 print from six books to one big volume) later. Another Basic set was released, but BECMI was the same edition, same game, different format (Rules Compendium) if I recall.
I think the best argument that BECMI and the Basic/Rules Cyclopedia rules were different editions was the "I" part - Wrath of the Immortals was very different than the original Immortals box set. I don't know how often anyone actually played immortal level characters tbh.
There were a few other minor differences between BECMI and the Cyclopedia - the RC had a few extra spells, and the noncombat skills system. Whether those differences were enough to warrant calling it a new edition is certainly debatable.