| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To try to get the 4e talk back on topic to the thread: 4th ed was designed to address a lot of feedback there was regarding 3.5e. It was also designed to try to kill the OGL. But let's look at the non-commercial aspects.
People complained negative ability score modifiers restricted races to certain classes, so they removed them.
People complained about the alignment system, so they changed it.
People complained about the 15 minute work day, so they created encounter powers.
People complained about some classes being more boring than others, so they introduced a unified mechanic system and assigned roles to classes.
People complained about non-combat resources and combat resources taking up the same cost, so they introduced ritual magic and utility powers which (sort of) helped.
People complained about the games being unbalanced, so they tightened up the math for classes and monsters.
People complained about how long it took to build NPCs or make monsters more dangerous, so they exposed the math of monsters and NPCs and treated them as one and the same.
People complained about multiclassing incentivising dipping, so they removed it and introduced feats as multiclassing.
People complained about the boring Bix Six items being mandatory and not flavourful, so they made it so all but the most basic items had an interesting ability in addition to a numerical bonus.
People complained about cure light wounds wands, so they introduced healing surges.
People complained about the potency of buffing, so they made buffs last until "the end of the encounter."
People complained about the lethality of low levels, so they introduced a friendlier stabilisation mechanic and added con score to your starting hit points.
People complained about how complex the skill system was, so they simplified it.
A lot of 4th ed's changes can be directly linked back to a complaint people had about 3.5e (not all of them, but a lot of them). So what went wrong? WotC may have overestimated how much of a problem people had with these mechanics, I believe the forums and Living Greyhawk were given far more weight then ultimately they should have. Also just because people had a problem with X, doesn't mean they will like any solution that addresses X. And what happened was a very strong reaction against 4th ed and Paizo were able to capitalize on that.
So what does this mean for the inevitable Revised Pathfinder? People will want some of these problems addressed. Most likely they won't want all of them fixed at once, but they'll want some of them fixed.
I see Pathfinder Unchained as not just their Arcana Unearthed, but also their Player's Handbook 2 and whichever monster manual WotC had the revised statblock layout in. PHB2 and MM? were WotC's first glimpse at 4th edition. It came out in May, 2006 and about a year later 4th ed was announced (to follow 1 year later). Now unless you think WotC is capable of building an entire new edition (which had such radical changes to 3.5e) in less than 2 years, PHB2 was about introducing 4th ed ideas into 3.5e.
So how can Pathfinder Unchained be different to PHB2? I don't expect Paizo will be announcing a Revised Pathfinder next year. We have Occult Adventures which is introducing an entirely new power source (sorry, 4th ed term slipped in) and several new base classes. I expect they'll want to support those for at least a year before we get a new edition because I expect a lot of the work they've done with Occult Adventures will want to become core for a Revised Pathfinder.
Second, they're introducing these radical ideas they have (inherent bonuses, shorter skill list, background skills, stamina abilities, skill tricks, dramatically altered spells and spell-slots for spellcasters) into the existing edition. I expect they'll wait and see how well received these ideas are before deciding whether to make them core in a Revised Pathfinder. If they'd already started work on the next edition, these decisions would have already been made. I expect Paizo will wait a couple of years to see which ideas gain the most traction and then move forward with them.
Finally I do expect a public playtest. The idea of one was new and innovative for Pathfinder, WotC has since followed suit. I expect Paizo will continue with it. It gives them a chance to get that final nod of approval before they publish the book.
So in that respect I do think Pathfinder 2.0 is inevitable. It won't be announced for at least 2-3 years and then we won't actually get it for another 1-2 years, so that's 3-5 years before we get it in our hands. It also won't be the drastic change we saw going from 3.5e to 4th ed. It'll be closer to the move from AD&D to AD&D 2nd edition or from 3.5e to Pathfinder. If all current indicators remain true I expect we'll see:
- Full BAB monk
- Stamina Pool for Fighter.
- New Rogue with skill tricks.
- The Bix Six somehow removed from the game (potentially not using inherent bonuses, but instead making them part of other items in those slots, much like 4th ed did).
- A simpler skill list, but not to the dramatic extant that is in Pathfinder Unchained.
- New monster building and layout
- Background skills and traits
- Archetypes potentially made core (although you'd remove some of the flexibility if it morphed into 5th ed's subclasses)
So yes, pathfinder 2.0 is inevitable. Fans will eventually demand proper solutions to some of the inherent flaws in the system, rather than add-ons onto the existing system. We'll get the math cleaned up a bit, but it's never going to be 3.5e to 4th ed. The move from 3.5e to Pathfinder 2.0 might seem similar to the jump from 3.5e to 4th ed (although IMO still not as drastic), but that's ignoring the context of Pathfinder v1 bridging the two editions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OP is absolutely, unequivocally correct; Pathfinder 2.0 is NOT inevitable. Humanity could be wiped out by an asteroid tomorrow.
But barring any society-shaking event -- or the complete demise of Paizo -- there will eventually be a revision of Pathfinder. Not only does it make business sense, but with 6+ additional years of experience, I'm confident Paizo could make a better game. I do expect, however, that the eventual revision will be along the lines of tightening and clean-up, and to bring some of the better ideas (traits, archetypes, etc.) into the core, rather than a radical departure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"4e is about as 'dead and gone' as pathfinder" is patently untrue. Surely there are more fruitful matters to debate?
|
The fracturing of the fanbase will happen. No matter the changes done to the system. Minor or major. Paizo can attempt to minimize the effects. To be honest I think it's a waste and they should focus on developing the rules and playtest. Even with PF being similar in ways to 3.5. their still is some that play that edition and only that one.
Unless their is a significant and large amount of gamers who uses 3.5. material at their table I don't think the next edition has to be backwards compitable. It would help but if only a small portion of the community uses older material it should not be that big of a priority imo.
Paizo is kind of in a difficult position imo. Release a rehashed edition and not sell as much. Release a new edition and that too is a problem. Competition from other rpgs.
For main rule system sure but from setting they have room to grow there for another decade. I'm not sure what other books I could possibly need for Pathfinder on rule base point after Unchain and the Occult book. I'd love to see more Golorian hard cover books on different continents.
Oh, definitely. There is a lot of room to grow for the Golarion books, with many interesting places still unexplored.
I think Unchained is how to do new editions. You don't release a new edition - you evolve a new edition.
That way people who like the original don't have a bookshelf full of dust gatherers and the new stuff is not so different you can still work with it, allow it or disallow it.
For people who like all the new options then it's "happy, happy, Joy, Joy".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that approach has it's own problems. Do you continue to support the new material? Do unchained versions of the classes show up in adventures? Does PFS make use of it - not just the classes, but the alternate rules?
Adding a bunch of one-shot variations that are never referred to again doesn't evolve anything. Using those "optional" rules as the baseline going forward doesn't make the originalists happy.
Eh, I think Paizo has an idea of what people will definitely like (the Stamina system and the Unchained Rogue), while other stuff is a little more up-in-the-air. I'd expect to see some things in Unchained make a comeback in fairly short-order.
Other stuff, we may be waiting on.
Just look at the APG, UC, UM, and UE - they introduced 8 new classes and pretty much immediately went about producing materials for them (although they very obviously were planned as a trilogy/quadrilogy of books that would define "Pathfinder" as its own system separate from 3.5).
Retraining is now a key and effectively-basic part of the game, as are Racial Favored Class Bonuses.
Obviously Archetypes are basically what makes the world go 'round anymore.
Even Traits have been featured in... I wanna say 2(?) PRD books.
Stamina will probably be incorporated as a basic thing, and I'd imagine the Unchained Rogue is really Rogue 2.sexy, so there may well be feats and other things which presuppose that Unchained has completely replaced the original in every way.
What DOESN'T seem to get readdressed are things that don't need to be (Retraining and Chases are pretty much complete in Ultimate Campaign & don't need to be elaborated on, for example) or things that are radically different than the basic rules and don't fit easily from here forward, like the Mythic rules (although Mythic was used as a way to make Bosses more like Bosses in the Bestiary 4, after all, and work extremely well at that - they're just... horrible as player options, however).
Occult Adventures may or may not be a standalone thing like MA. The addition of full-on Classes makes it SEEM like the Occult rules are supposed to be here to stay as much as the Gunslinger and Alchemist, but only time will tell if they really are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you see the stat blocks for the unchained classes being unusable for GMs not using unchained. Or the new rule not referenced.
Society is governed by its own reference document. What's in and out is decided book by book season by season. Just like any sport, game or competition, Cricket for example the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) frames the Laws of the game worldwide, to ensure uniformity and fairness, Paizo does the same.
The MCC & Paizo is not going to stomp in and shut down your backyard variant (over the fence is 6 and out, tip and run, electric wickets, one hand one bounce, off the wall on the full one handed, no golden ducks) game. They are going to make sure the "official/public" game is clear and as governed as well as possible.
When Unearthed Arcana came out it didn't fracture the player base, people used what they wanted, tossed the rest. The earth spins the world changes people evolve and adapt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I want to like what you wrote, but I'm not sure if half of that is in English*...
*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I want to like what you wrote, but I'm not sure if half of that is in English*...
*
It's a good day when I can reference cricket....
Isn't the same true for a new edition? You can keep using the old rules. You can adapt new adventures for the old rules or old adventures for the new ones.
The more significant rules changes appear in optional material, the more they'll split the user base. Classes, races and abilities are probably the least significant, since they can be dropped in or out individually.
And sure, they can reference the new rules and material in the adventure. That lets you not buy the book. Which is easy anyway since it'll be online. You still have to rewrite it if you don't want to use the rules.
To use an Australianism "Nah yeh nah" (I see where you are going, but I disagree) sudden change shakes things up it causes friction and grumpiness.
Giving people time to get used to an idea, see it in action and use it or discard it as they see fit without stopping support for what they already have is the user friendly way to go.
Paizo had put a few backup eggs in some very different baskets I don't see them going away.
I'd be very surprised if they made a second edition of pathfinder under it's current management. It could very well happen if someone else got ownership of it, but that doesn't sound like it'll happen any time soon.
To use an Australianism "Nah yeh nah"
As an australian, I have no idea what "nah yeh nah" would mean. "Nah, yeah" and "Yeah, nah", that's fair 'nough, but nah, yeh, nah is just confusing.
I'd be very surprised if they made a second edition of pathfinder under it's current management. It could very well happen if someone else got ownership of it, but that doesn't sound like it'll happen any time soon.
To use an Australianism "Nah yeh nah"As an australian, I have no idea what "nah yeh nah" would mean. "Nah, yeah" and "Yeah, nah", that's fair 'nough, but nah, yeh, nah is just confusing.
I use it all the time.... I must confuse the shit out of people.... Nah = you're wrong Yeh=I understand you nah = you are still wrong....
What state are you from?
What state are you from?
NSW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be very surprised if they made a second edition of pathfinder under it's current management. It could very well happen if someone else got ownership of it, but that doesn't sound like it'll happen any time soon.
To use an Australianism "Nah yeh nah"As an australian, I have no idea what "nah yeh nah" would mean. "Nah, yeah" and "Yeah, nah", that's fair 'nough, but nah, yeh, nah is just confusing.I use it all the time.... I must confuse the s%!# out of people.... Nah = you're wrong Yeh=I understand you nah = you are still wrong....
What state are you from?
Being an Australian it is more like nah, yeh, naaah.
But yeah totally understood it
I say it again. A reboot is not inevitable.
Of course its not - I'm fairly certain its been going on for months.
What state are you from?NSW.
Probably from north of the bridge with your fancy edumaction and every fing, talking all posh ;-)
I think Unchained is how to do new editions. You don't release a new edition - you evolve a new edition.
That way people who like the original don't have a bookshelf full of dust gatherers and the new stuff is not so different you can still work with it, allow it or disallow it.
For people who like all the new options then it's "happy, happy, Joy, Joy".
But that approach has it's own problems. Do you continue to support the new material? Do unchained versions of the classes show up in adventures? Does PFS make use of it - not just the classes, but the alternate rules?
Adding a bunch of one-shot variations that are never referred to again doesn't evolve anything. Using those "optional" rules as the baseline going forward doesn't make the originalists happy.Potentially it's fracturing the fanbase, just like a new edition, except maybe even more, since it's adopted in smaller pieces.
That was one of the issues with 3.5's splat explosion. A lot of new material that all got no/minimal support past the book it was released in.
|
|
The main problem that 4th edition had was the overall class structure that made each class "the same" with different wording and power sources.
That the WBL reward system made character poor by default and was just shy of requiring a wish list from players didn't help, and the Skill "Train or suck" adoption from SW Saga was ill advised.
4th edition had some good ideas, some that (from what I heard) have made the "jump" to the next edition (Next or 5th, whatever) and I like what I hear about the scalable spells, unified magic system (mostly based on the Spontaneous casting mechanic) and other things, like the skill groupings and how the race entries are done.
The other side of the fence is the over-simplification of the rules compared to past (and PF current) systems.
Good or bad, the whole Essentials debacle killed the struggling brand, though I believe that the Psionic introduction had fanned the flames beforehand. I hope that 5th finds some players, as both PF and the Brand will benefit better if it has some success.
Yes, PF ver2 is an inevitable progression of the setting, a rules clean up, or edition change to modernize the game. But for now, it is years down the road.
The main problem that 4th edition had was the overall class structure that made each class "the same" with different wording and power sources.
That the WBL reward system made character poor by default and was just shy of requiring a wish list from players didn't help, and the Skill "Train or suck" adoption from SW Saga was ill advised.
4th edition had some good ideas, some that (from what I heard) have made the "jump" to the next edition (Next or 5th, whatever) and I like what I hear about the scalable spells, unified magic system (mostly based on the Spontaneous casting mechanic) and other things, like the skill groupings and how the race entries are done.
The other side of the fence is the over-simplification of the rules compared to past (and PF current) systems.
Good or bad, the whole Essentials debacle killed the struggling brand, though I believe that the Psionic introduction had fanned the flames beforehand. I hope that 5th finds some players, as both PF and the Brand will benefit better if it has some success.
Yes, PF ver2 is an inevitable progression of the setting, a rules clean up, or edition change to modernize the game. But for now, it is years down the road.
Many players also felt that the level of Power Creep in the game was simply absurd, with every succeeding book effectively obsoleting the ones before then.
Whether or not this is true, I'm not sure; we were so thoroughly disgusted enough after a few campaigns with just the PHBI, DMG, and MMI that we sold (we would have burned, had it not been a good chunk of money), those books and didn't look back, especially once the Pathfinder BETA came out.
Don't try to logic it away. 4e classes are obviously all the same.
Now let me move and attack/stand still and full attack with my fighter/paladin/ranger/cavalier/rogue/barbarian/bloodrager, or cast one of my spells from level 1-9 if I'm playing a cleric/druid/wizard/sorcerer/oracle/witch instead.
For one, you don't full-attack with your rogue. That's just unwise.
For two, lumping all the ninth level casters and full BAB classes together as two homogeneous groups is just... wow. (I mean, the breathtaking variety of ways to take a full BAB alone, which varies between those classes is impressive... before you get into unique "powers".) Beyond that, you missed all the partial-casters, and several of the other classes, managing to undermine your point with needless emphasis (you'd actually have had a still-lacking, though more-solid point if you'd just stuck to the Core Rulebook to make it).
For three, even if it was the case, the comparison is "Now let me use my A-W/E/D" which is everyone in 4E (before Psionics or Essentials), thus, yes, yes it is (relatively speaking) "the same", using the metric that you applied to PF classes - even more so by that very metric.
Are the classes different? Yes, of course.
But their differences (as of the first PH) were comparatively subtle enough that they still (to many) felt like a single blank class template with the details written in after-the-fact.
(As an aside, personally, I love MM3 on a business card as a great way to have a handle on pretty much all 4E statistics. Provide that and access to the Conditions, and you can do most anything you want with the system. {with a few notable exceptions})
Comparing the homogeneous nature of PF classes to the homogeneous nature of 4E classes is like comparing the homogeneous nature of Coldstone (PF) to the homogeneous nature of Vanilla (4E PH) ice cream - there may well be dozens of kinds of vanilla ice cream, but the variety still pales in comparison to the things offered by Coldstone.
Incidentally, 4E did get much better over time, and beyond that, the more time you spent with the system, the more you get to appreciate the differences between the classes. They are not the same. But attempting to compare them to the variety of PF classes is a mistake.
The similar presentation and style of the class powers and skill format and so on just felt more "samey" than previous editions - at least to me and quite a few others.
(Also: I wouldn't have even commented if you hadn't have tried to put PF classes in that box. Bluenose was correct.)
Anyway, I think PF has taken the old AD&D approach of slow and continuous evolution rather than the 3.X/4E/5E approach of "NEW SYSTEM" that it sprang from. I do think it'll eventually need a "re-consolidation" in a new format, cleaned and adjusted for ease of use and introduction of new players, but that's a long ways away, yet, given Paizo's current mindset. How far is "a long ways away?" Dunno. That means different things at different times. I am excited about the idea, though, just as I'm excited about the concept of playing with what we have now.
|
|
Look at it as a blueprint that set the pieces down, like Damage being dealt, and then that blueprint is used over and over again with different words being filled in.
When the blueprint varied further than originally intended in the Psionic release, it broke the game.
Essentials didn't help, it instead drove the nails into the already built coffin.
|
|
Some things did get better, such as the mentioned MM3 fixes for the monster side (which the errata was going to before that), the adjustments for Skill Challenges, and some other things. That the WBL was "just ignore it if you don't like it" and never looked at irked me to no end. I just believe that the psionic introduction killed any semblance to keeping the design philosophy intact and set the stage for Essentials to try and shoehorn in 3.5 mechanics where they didn't belong.
I tried playing/DMing 4th edition, I really did. It just got to the point where my group was frustrated and at one point watched a movie instead.
I played Pathfinder at a Gen Con and never looked back. Especially since that was about the time the Assassin for 4th came out. *shudder*
Unchained style updates are all well and good for existing players who already own tons of pathfinder books, but not so much for new players.
As Kalindlara noted, all of the rules are available online for free. The only thing you "need" to purchase is the Core Rulebook, and I put the word "need" in quotes, because it, too, is online for free, but it makes a nice starter kit-style thing.
For a first time player? I'd guess the best thing is the Beginner Box. At thirty five bucks, it's less expensive than the Core Rulebook and lays everything out in beautiful easy-to-understand elements. If you need more rules thereafter? There's a free transition document here online, and you can always hit up the PRD (to the right of the screen), or d20pfsrd.com (for pretty much everything), or Archives of Nethys (for a solid balance between the d20pfsrd and PRD).
Regardless, there is a lot less mandated expenses with Paizo than with 5E, and that's one of the things that keeps drawing me back to this system is the freedom and free nature. Ironically*, much like the free-to-play model, it's what keeps me buying more stuff.
I like what I've seen of 5E - a lot! But the model and presentation and the pay-to-play barrier to entry just don't cut it for me.
* Not arguing this one. It's not coincidental, and it's not happenstance.
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unchained style updates are all well and good for existing players who already own tons of pathfinder books, but not so much for new players.
As Kalindlara noted, all of the rules are available online for free. The only thing you "need" to purchase is the Core Rulebook, and I put the word "need" in quotes, because it, too, is online for free, but it makes a nice starter kit-style thing.
For a first time player? I'd guess the best thing is the Beginner Box. At thirty five bucks, it's less expensive than the Core Rulebook and lays everything out in beautiful easy-to-understand elements. If you need more rules thereafter? There's a free transition document here online, and you can always hit up the PRD (to the right of the screen), or d20pfsrd.com (for pretty much everything), or Archives of Nethys (for a solid balance between the d20pfsrd and PRD).
Regardless, there is a lot less mandated expenses with Paizo than with 5E, and that's one of the things that keeps drawing me back to this system is the freedom and free nature. Ironically*, much like the free-to-play model, it's what keeps me buying more stuff.
I like what I've seen of 5E - a lot! But the model and presentation and the pay-to-play barrier to entry just don't cut it for me.
* Not arguing this one. It's not coincidental, and it's not happenstance.
Tell me about it. I buy it all twice due to Herolab. :)
|
5e has everything you need to play online for free as well. It just doesn't have all the options from the Player's Handbook. But what they do have is sufficient to play the game with.
To address the other concern about WotC not making any of the core rulebooks for any of the editions available...those of you who have claimed that they would NEVER do it might need to start eating those words. Today they released the 3.5 Player's Handbook PDF.
Given how they've done PDF releases in the past, I'd wager than over the next few weeks, we either get the rest of the 3.5 core rules PDFs, or the Player's Handbook PDFs for other editions.
5e has everything you need to play online for free as well. It just doesn't have all the options from the Player's Handbook. But what they do have is sufficient to play the game with.
Your mileage my vary with this, my group read the rules and was severely disappointed it only allows for the most stereotypical of PC options....
.... and then further disappointed that 5e's options in the full book are pretty stereotypical in the end as well.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group was willing to try 5E, but then they pulled the plug on digital products and my GM ragequit.
I'm already kinda sorry I had the audacity to continue 4e talk in an unrelated thread so I'm not going to nibble at the rest of your post but: wut? Why wouldn't you full attack with your rogue?
Because full attacking rogues wind up dead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or the PRD/d20pfsrd/Archives of Nethys. :)Unchained style updates are all well and good for existing players who already own tons of pathfinder books, but not so much for new players.
This is how we first transitioned from sporadically playing 3.5 to actively playing Pathfinder. One copy of the CRB and heavy use of the D20PFSRD website to get the hang of things. Then we started reading more about Golarion on the Pathfinder Wiki, tried our first adventure path, and I decided to pick up the ISWG. The snowball picked up speed. I have ~10 hardcovers and about 40 different PDFs now. Most of my players have anywhere between 3 and 15 books.
Wizards can say whatever they want about the SRD killing sales, in my case it made me a very good Paizo customer indeed!
Because full attacking rogues wind up dead.And this probably sums up one of the biggest issues they have. Stand around trying to full attack and risk getting splattered or dodge in and out making single attacks and basically be irrelevant after level 6.
Are you still talking about 4th edition?