| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before anyone begins questioning the premise...
Yes, I'm serious.
Yes, I do think it is inevitable for the company to maintain and increase profits that it print a new edition similar to how Dungeons and Dragon does.
When do you think it will happen?
What do you want to see in it?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you need a second edition? They have updated rules several times in the several printings plus they just add unchained. The system is complete and flexible so it would make no sense. I wonder if they will open another setting at some point, maybe a Modern rule set.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Pathfinder 2nd Ed discussion which gradually devolves into a Godwin's Law poster child comes up about once a month...you can cover all the main rhetorical points without delay by searching the message boards. All the hate, none of the wait.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps one should ask Wizards of the Coast about how the switch from 3rd to 4th edition worked for them:-)
At least that's why I found pathfinder :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you need a second edition? They have updated rules several times in the several printings plus they just add unchained. The system is complete and flexible so it would make no sense.
Profit. Money. And also flaws in the system that need to be fixed (I don't think anyone around believes Pathfinder is a flawless game).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder will have a second edition when Paizo believes that releasing a second edition would be the most profitable course of action for the company. Which doesn't seem too likely to happen in the immediate future, since from what I've heard the current edition is still selling quite well.
Also, given developer and designer statements in the past, it seems very likely that Pathfinder 2e would be much more along the lines of Pathfinder 1.5e than the sorts of radical changes seen in D&D editions. Rules language would be cleaned up, and a couple of the popular things from expansion books will be incorporated (traits, unchained classes, etc), but the fundamental basic game chassis will be unchanged.
My guess that paizo is unlikely to release a straight up new edition, but they are more likely to release more errata and rulebooks to guide the development of the system forward towards wherever tabletop RPG is heading, in fluid steps rather than broad leaps.
That's just how it looks like from my vantage point, which for all I know may be obscured by trees and fog.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see a revised edition at some point (it will become unevitable), but not really a second edition.
Now, a second Campaign Setting, or a major expention to the existing one, would be welcome and useful.
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see a revised edition at some point (it will become unevitable), but not really a second edition.
Now, a second Campaign Setting, or a major expention to the existing one, would be welcome and useful.
They've stated repeatedly that they have no intention of splitting the CS line, based on what happened to TSR. (Maybe one day their position will change, of course.)
I'd love a Dragon Empires/Casmaron/Arcadia hardcover, though. ^_^
or more on the other planets and planes, i'd snap that up :)
Yes! I like the sound of this idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of another planet that's still technically part of the pathfinder setting is an appealing one I must admit.
I could see an 'alternate edition' - perhaps labelled as an Unchained Edition, as a sort of Core plus Greatest Hits Collection streamlined into a second core.
A Second Edition, especially a Second Edition that isn't backwards-compatible, seems much less likely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they did make a new edition, the changes would be lower on the scale than the change between 3.5e and PF was originally. They really really really want backwards compatibility so people can still play the pathfinder adventures regardless of when they are using them.
As for settings, Pathfinder may as well already have multiple campaign settings with how kitchen sink the setting is. If you want to go to a different setting, just hop the nation's border or planeshift or teleport to another planet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Paizo folks keep track of there sales data...I don't think we will see a new edition until the Core Rulebook levels off or declines in sales, and we seem something similar happen to the AP/CS line.
Vic has said that the above has not happened yet, and based on product announcement and development time, we are probably 2-3 years minimum (and possibly longer) away from that time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see two things going against a 2nd ed. First, it would give people an opportunity to jump ship and try out DnD 5th instead. Second the screaming that would take place on these forums over what powers/abilities each class should have or which rules should be changed/altered will make the 3rd/4th 'edition war' look like happily roasting marshmallows over a campfire.
Out of curiosity, OP, when do *you* think it'll happen, and what do tou want to see in it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see a revised edition at some point (it will become unevitable), but not really a second edition.
Now, a second Campaign Setting, or a major expansion to the existing one, would be welcome and useful.
They've stated repeatedly that they have no intention of splitting the CS line, based on what happened to TSR. (Maybe one day their position will change, of course.)
I'd love a Dragon Empires/Casmaron/Arcadia hardcover, though. ^_^
This is why I added the expansion option (granted, it was misspelled), not make a new verse, 'just' make the existing one bigger.
Out of curiosity, OP, when do *you* think it'll happen, and what do tou want to see in it?
Sure, I'll take a wack at it.
I think the prime opportunity was when 4e launch to 5e, but the money was still good so they kept going, which makes the next prime opportunity the jump from 5e to 6e. Paizo's primary business plan is to capitalize on people dissatisfied with DnD who are looking for an accessible fantasy game that's close enough.
The changes might be insignificant, if so I think that Paizo will slowly die as 3e fans get older and stop being interested in their product. A better bet would be to create a much more significant changes for a high risk, high reward situation.
However it's hard to see how Paizo will work it. I can't really get a feel on their business tactics since (if they are to be believed) they were in a "failure just means we're back where we started" situation upon the initial release of Pathfinder.
Anyways. Assuming that they go for significant changes here's a list of what I would like to see. Though I doubt any of them would happen.
1. A removal of mechanical alignment.
2. A removal of vancian spellcasting.
3. A rebalancing of basic equipment and special materials that emphasizes them as bread and butter resources.
4. Magic items to be special items that a character might possess 3 of by end game, max.
5. Power equity to be provided between ranged, melee and blaster damage dealers.
6. Additional utility provided for classes like the Fighter who already have options.
7. A multiclass system that eschews the feat based progression of unchained/4e and the mix and match progression of d20 in favor of something that maintains competitive balance.
8. Aesthetic that emphasizes progress and doesn't try to harken back to AD&D like 5e's aesthetic does.
9. More cultural diversity in the mythology used for classes, races and bestiary sources at the start rather than being introduced down the line.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agree that "PF 2nd Ed." may well be more like 3.5->PF than something totally new.
Meaning, some or even ALOT of stuff will still be "compatable" with PF2Ed,
even if some stuff no longer works, and another chunk of stuff may technically work but lose it's raison d'etre.
I can see them re-working Feats to be more valuable, especially for "martials"/mundanes,
and the work with unchained skills and occult skill unlocks would be tied into the base system tighter.
There's also stuff like Spells and Magic Schools, which could do with some rejiggering and breaking assumptions,
and then stuff like re-wording "Full-Round" vs "1-Round", "Move Action" (category) vs "Move" action "to move your move speed" type of stuff.
Based on Unchained, they obviously think the base action economy is the source of an issue re: martial/caster disparity, esp. at higher levels,
so the base action economy system may well be cleaned up... Although honestly,
I personally think the same goal re: disparity can be addressed with less disruption to the overall game
by approaching it from the other side of the coin, simply bringing caster action economy back to martial standards,
namely, you tend to need a full-round action to fully leverage your abilities/scale with level.
A Full Caster's Top 2 spell levels (Top 1 of 6 level casters) need a full-round action to cast
(if they are a standard normally, i.e. swift cast spells aren't modified based on max spell lvl).
Separeately, you cast your spells at -5 Caster Level (min 1) UNLESS you use a full-round action to cast them...
(which you have to do anyways for top level spells, for lower level spells you have the choice depending on your need for CL)
That has side of effect of giving swift spells (incl. quickened) a lower CL, which adds nuance/suppleness to them IMHO.
Note this isn't the same as 1-round spells, which have a larger window of disruptability, this happen "instantaneously" like a full attack does.
4 level casters wouldn't be affected by the spell level/action limit, but would by the CL/action limit.
If they count their base CL using class level, their "fast" cast spells (with penalty)
approximate the CL granted by current system where CL only starts at 1 at 4th level when they gain spells,
except they have the choice to use slower casting to gain full CL, i.e. more common out of combat,
but also do-able in combat if they fully commit to spellcasting that round akin to a mundane committing to full attacking.
Perhaps, besides martial/caster parity on full/standard action economy, it's possible to break up the turn sequence, not to the hair-splitting degreee of 2nd Ed's weapon speed/casting time system, but enough to limit the degree of "rocket tag" dynamic... At least to break up the full turn into "halves", and only allow single Standards/Moves to resolve first (in init order), then allow full-round and Move/Standard actions... That way, nobody can unleash their "fully level scaled" full-round+swift power combo before anybody else can do anything in response... If you want to do a full-round action, then others will get to do SOMETHING before (albeit they would be limited to Standard if they wish to act first). Perhaps full-attacks will even allow their first attack to "go off" in the first Standard Action slot, while the rest of iteratives "go off" in the Full-Action slot (2nd half of round)... Heck, allow high level spells to work that way too, let them deal a lesser effect in the first half, and the remainder of the effect "goes off" in the 2nd half of round. MAYBE combat will be slower, but it will involve everybody more and be more interesting, so better by my book.
5e is not anywhere close to ending. It was designed to be a low overhead steady-yield game. The expansions they do come out with are tied up in PDFs not hard backs. WotC seems to be realy working on APs. They also made their guidelines in the DMG for homebrew really good. There is a pretty active "modding" scene for 5e with some pretty good stuff coming out.
The problem with a 6e is that d&d is being managed by a company that is not focused on d&d. They make plenty of money off licensing and really have no reason to encourage further risk. Oddly enough if 5e starts really competing with Paizo then 6e is more likely to happen than the current situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the events around how Pathfinder started I would be very reluctant to generate a new edition that was not compatible with the current edition. Heck, the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 wrecked a lot of people. Then you'd have to announce it way in advance because I have four kickstarter things to get and if everyone jumps ship to a new edition too fast those projects will be wrecked on arrival.
Why would you need a second edition? They have updated rules several times in the several printings plus they just add unchained. The system is complete and flexible so it would make no sense.Profit. Money. And also flaws in the system that need to be fixed (I don't think anyone around believes Pathfinder is a flawless game).
Nor does anyone think a 2nd edition will be a flawless game.
I don't see there being a need for a 2nd edition. Unchained has proven that Paizo is willing and able to introduce alternate rulesets that have been in play since day 1. The best part is, though, that everything in Unchained fits into the existing framework, and people who want to play an Unchained Monk can, while those who want to stick with their Core Monk can also do so.
Personally, I'd like to see some sort of "Ultimate Class" or something along those lines here in the next couple years (not like the ACG, though) that just has updated, errata'd, and fully FAQd versions of the base classes that we have now. Core classes can change their bases and we could move forward on options--like the Rogue--that we feel are weak, or change how some feats work to avoid the needless feat taxes that cropped up.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of Unchained, why do we just ignore 3pp in these kind of discussions? I know that a lot of people are reluctant to use third party material but 3pp is kind of the basis for Pathfinder existing and kept the edition afloat when it was all but abandoned keeping some of the surviving companies still printing new things attached to the system. Are we really willing to push for a new edition when a lot of creativity is riding on this one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the prime opportunity was when 4e launch to 5e, but the money was still good so they kept going, which makes the next prime opportunity the jump from 5e to 6e. Paizo's primary business plan is to capitalize on people dissatisfied with DnD who are looking for an accessible fantasy game that's close enough.
The changes might be insignificant, if so I think that Paizo will slowly die as 3e fans get older and stop being interested in their product.
I think disaffected D&D players was an enormous factor in Pathfinder's initial success. I don't think that's where they are now though - Pathfinder is now the most popular RPG rather than a newcomer trying to build market share by capturing another game's splintering fanbase.
I have no clue on the numbers, of course and am basing it purely on anecdotal impressions from the messageboards. Nonetheless, I think a sizable number of Paizo's current customers came to Pathfinder because it was the game being played most around them - not because they used to play 3.5 and want to continue. Even the people who were initially attracted to the backwards compatibility seem to be valuing that feature less with each hardcover release.
In my opinion, it's a mistake to base your business plan around the movements of your competitors. Obviously what happens with D&D is going to have an impact on Paizo, but they're going to be much better off focusing on doing what they think is best for the game, rather than jumping at shadows or ICv2 reports.
I suspect we'll see a second edition when Paizo decides they can do it without committing commercial suicide.
That's probably a long, long time off.
Out of curiosity, OP, when do *you* think it'll happen, and what do tou want to see in it?Anyways. Assuming that they go for significant changes here's a list of what I would like to see. Though I doubt any of them would happen.
1. A removal of mechanical alignment.
2. A removal of vancian spellcasting.
3. A rebalancing of basic equipment and special materials that emphasizes them as bread and butter resources.
4. Magic items to be special items that a character might possess 3 of by end game, max.
5. Power equity to be provided between ranged, melee and blaster damage dealers.
6. Additional utility provided for classes like the Fighter who already have options.
7. A multiclass system that eschews the feat based progression of unchained/4e and the mix and match progression of d20 in favor of something that maintains competitive balance.
8. Aesthetic that emphasizes progress and doesn't try to harken back to AD&D like 5e's aesthetic does.
9. More cultural diversity in the mythology used for classes, races and bestiary sources at the start rather than being introduced down the line.
This sounds a lot like D&D 4E to me. (Except 8 and 9 which are more flavor/branding.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you want to see in it?
Not a unique answer but: NOTHING.
Here's the deal. The moment Paizo makes game that isn't PFRPG, they've invented "yet another game system I don't play". Think about it. There are dozens of tabletop games out there. If I wanted to play something that isn't PFRPG, it's not like I've got no options.
It's not that the game is flawless. That simply doesn't matter.
When the restaurant you visit every Tuesday to buy their [whatever] removes it from the menu and offers "new and improved", it doesn't matter that the new thing has fewer calories or less arsenic or is "organic". What matters is that the reason you went there is gone. Now you're "forced" to eat something that isn't what you want to eat.
So why bother restricting yourself to that restaurant if you're forced to find a new favorite food?
Right. No reason.
The moment you change editions, you lose customers. Guaranteed. You gain some. Guaranteed. What isn't guaranteed is if you gain more than you lose.
So you don't screw around until you have to, to pay the mortgage.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Pathfinder 2nd Ed discussion which gradually devolves into a Godwin's Law poster child comes up about once a month...you can cover all the main rhetorical points without delay by searching the message boards. All the hate, none of the wait.
only hitler would cite godwin's law. [/joke][/MyEntireComntributionToThisThread]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They will issue the 2nd edition once a single week goes by without a new "When will
Pathfinder have a 2nd edition?" thread.
They will issue the 2nd edition once a single week goes by without a new "When will
Pathfinder have a 2nd edition?" thread.
So there will NEVER be a 2nd edition?
-- david
rotflmao
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I too found Pathfinder due to the never-ending "new editions" of another related rpg. I think Paizo has learned from that company's numerous errors. I don't see a complete revamp/new edition of pathfinder in the future. I think we will continue to see this game evolve rather than revamp.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
When do you think it will happen?
The secret that you don't realize is that it already happened. The game is very different than it was when they released it years ago. They will never announce a new edition, instead continuing to evolve into new editions gradually over time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When do you think it will happen?The secret that you don't realize is that it already happened. The game is very different than it was when they released it years ago. They will never announce a new edition, instead continuing to evolve into new editions gradually over time.
I wouldn't be shocked if Paizo decided to officially keep it all in the same edition, but eventually released something like "Core Rulebook: Anniversary Edition" that would serve as a generally revised CRB somewhat akin to Pathfinder 1.5.
Uh... By definition, releasing a new edition is not keeping the same edition, am I wrong?
Likewise, I see no conflict between releasing a new edition and having an "evolutionary" approach.
PRPG was an evolutionary approach to 3.5, as was 3.5 to 3.0, etc.
PRPG 2ndEd. may very well be "largely" backwards compatable with PRPG 2stEd. material, as much as PRPG was with 3.5.
Just like with PRPG's introduction, if you don't like something new in PRPG2.0,
you can easily decide to follow the "old" PRPG mechanic for that specific rule,
while drawing the features you do like from the 2nd Edition. People seem to think "new edition" = "totally different game",
when Paizo's own history is exactly taking the opposite approach, where new edition still feels like the same game, more or less.
Probably the most serious thing they could do would be tinkering with the basic action economy,
but AD&D action economy already has changed significantly (2nd>3rd) while still mostly feeling like the same game.
(you kind of have to hold the book upside down and stick your tongue out, but THACO ~ Attack Bonus)
(similarly, PRPG 2nd Ed could re-factor CMB as a modifier to attacks/Touch AC, easier to swap into any attack (sequence))
re: TOZ's point, yeah that kind of is the feeling you get when you now have two versions of Rogue,
with the Core book containing the "loser version" and the "respectable version" in an expansion book.
Likewise, APG contains the version of Summoner that they acknowledge to have a spell list that they never intended,
but you need to buy an expansion product to get the version of Summoner that Paizo themself really think should be used.
(screw Errata, that doesn't make as much $$$)
Regardless, if enough of such stuff "piles up", and Paizo still perceives the need for more small changes,
then that's when they might as well go ahead with a 2nd edition, even if very small evolutionary changes
that make it GENERALLY backwards compatable with PRPG 1stEd. expansion mechanics.
OK... Just to put a number on it, I will say:
Next year Paizo will decide to create a new edition. 2 years from now they will announce that. 3 years from now they will release it. That whole schedule might slide an extra year.
I think the prime opportunity was when 4e launch to 5e, but the money was still good so they kept going, which makes the next prime opportunity the jump from 5e to 6e. Paizo's primary business plan is to capitalize on people dissatisfied with DnD who are looking for an accessible fantasy game that's close enough.
The changes might be insignificant, if so I think that Paizo will slowly die as 3e fans get older and stop being interested in their product.
I think disaffected D&D players was an enormous factor in Pathfinder's initial success. I don't think that's where they are now though - Pathfinder is now the most popular RPG rather than a newcomer trying to build market share by capturing another game's splintering fanbase.
I have no clue on the numbers, of course and am basing it purely on anecdotal impressions from the messageboards. Nonetheless, I think a sizable number of Paizo's current customers came to Pathfinder because it was the game being played most around them - not because they used to play 3.5 and want to continue. Even the people who were initially attracted to the backwards compatibility seem to be valuing that feature less with each hardcover release.
In my opinion, it's a mistake to base your business plan around the movements of your competitors. Obviously what happens with D&D is going to have an impact on Paizo, but they're going to be much better off focusing on doing what they think is best for the game, rather than jumping at shadows or ICv2 reports.
I agree with a lot of this. There is a lot of overlap in people who play/have played DnD and Pathfinder; releasing new editions of both games at the same time could go really wrong, as active buyers are basically forced to jump ship, and if they have to start buying new books, there is no guarantee that they won't just try the competitors new edition
Speaking of Unchained, why do we just ignore 3pp in these kind of discussions? I know that a lot of people are reluctant to use third party material but 3pp is kind of the basis for Pathfinder existing and kept the edition afloat when it was all but abandoned keeping some of the surviving companies still printing new things attached to the system. Are we really willing to push for a new edition when a lot of creativity is riding on this one?
I think it's because any decision to create a new edition has to come from Paizo, and whether or not it suits its business needs. Paizo wants a strong 3pp community I am sure, but overall it won't delay any decisions regarding its core rulebook line for 3pp reasons.
Personally I think as long as Paizo keeps some sort of OGL like thing going, updating to a new edition won't really hurt most of the major 3pp folks. Several major companies are already offering support for 5E, so I think you would be surprised how adaptable those companies are (and it's likely any new edition would be announced a year (or even more) in advance; assuming a playtest companies would be able to transition pretty easily I think.
Also a new edition doesn't mean a radical revamp necessarily. a 3.0-3.5 style update wouldn't obsolete a lot of 3pp material that was still being produced, especially when you have things like Spheres of Power and such that already are kind of removed from baseline Pathfinder.
I do really hope that if they do make a revised edition of pathfinder, that they don't use that unchained action economy... it screws with so much 1st and 3rd party backwards compatibility would be near pointless.
If something improves the game, I really don't care how much third party material goes in the toilet. If it's any good, then there isn't any reason that they couldn't sell a compatible upgrade to it.
1st and 3rd party material. But a revised edition should maintain a degree of backwards compatibility, and using that action economy (which actually weakens martials further at high levels and I would say it Doesn't improve the game) would ruin any appearance of backwards compatibility.
If it was a complete new edition that ignores the previous, then sure use it, but paizo is mainly interested in making sure it's adventures and content is as backwards compatible as possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh... By definition, releasing a new edition is not keeping the same edition, am I wrong?
In terms of the rules content, yes. But as far as marketing goes, "Core Rulebook Anniversary Edition" would sit a lot better with the folks who are happy with the status quo than "Core Rulebook Second Edition."