|
At the same time if some of the fanbase hate change then they should say so.This is something I'm going to be very interested in watching play out if 2.0 is ever announced.
As I said above, I think there was huge incentive to "change as little as possible" when Pathfinder was first being developed. My expectation is that significantly more people will be wanting to see Paizo adopt a fresher approach approach, this time around. (Though I'm sure there'll be a number who want to continue to use their current PF stuff).
Sorry Steve you might have answered this before. If they made a 2nd edition, would you like to see Pathfinder redesigned from the ground up or more along the line of unchained versions?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Me personally? I don't have a strong opinion. Mechanics don't have much impact on me. I'm more concerned about happens with Golarion - I'd like them to keep adding to that (rather than "updating" what they've done already) or alternatively to start a new campaign setting entirely.
If the choice of "revision vs revolution" impacts on how they treat Golarion material, I'd happily accept whichever choice meant I continued to get new setting/flavor material.
More than that, I hate the apparent presented dichotomy between those who 'hate change' and those who want to upend the whole apple cart and start over. You can be perfectly fine with wanting to keep the bones and basics the same while revising and changing a number of things. Say another set of changes on the order of first pathfinder from 3.5 level.
It's definitely a false dichotomy. It's not silly to view each extreme as on the same spectrum though.
|
This is something I'm going to be very interested in watching play out if 2.0 is ever announced.
To be honest I'm not sure if the word interesting really applies. If anything I'm not sure if it's really something that would be healthy to the hobby imo. Too often some in the hobby want to draw a line in the sand and start something. WHile not offering anything productive to the situation.
As I said above, I think there was huge incentive to "change as little as possible" when Pathfinder was first being developed. My expectation is that significantly more people will be wanting to see Paizo adopt a fresher approach approach, this time around. (Though I'm sure there'll be a number who want to continue to use their current PF stuff).
One can hope. I understand and respect but not agree that they had " change as little as possible". I get that some want the fighter to remain unchanged. I just don't get the whole "Giving Fighters more class features ruins immersion" from some players. As I said before if all that takes then they can't really play other fantasy rpgs.
All I know imo they need to offer more changes a second time around. Not a complete overhaul. More than a rehash.
More than that, I hate the apparent presented dichotomy between those who 'hate change' and those who want to upend the whole apple cart and start over. You can be perfectly fine with wanting to keep the bones and basics the same while revising and changing a number of things. Say another set of changes on the order of first pathfinder from 3.5 level.
You can have both yes. But their more of a incentive to buy something new imo. Then something that remains unchanged imo. If their was no 5E then they could coast by a second time with a rehash of a rehash. With 5E fixing some of the flaws of 3.5. I think some in the hobby will be more critical this time around in the design process. As well if some of the fans dislike the martial/caster disparity a unchanged edition is not going to take them away from 5E.
- It's too much gear-reliant.
- It gets too many gear-related abilities. I fail to understand why a fighter should get 4 weapon group trainings, when he's carrying 2 weapons on average (melee and ranged).Question, what is your view on Material Unlocks in the vein of skill unlocks of the unchained rogue except with the idea of "Allow you to use a special material to do something supernatural without it making players feel like the fighter is the supernatural one" it had things like adamantine cutting spells, planar boundaries, and time, while someone wearing angelskin armour could actually take on angelic traits eventually?
I mean, it enhanced the gear-focus so I'm wondering if you would be opposed to it on those grounds.
A fighter is only as good as the weapons and armor it carries, basically. The arhcetypes give it more depth, sure, but at the cost of the removal of other abilities. If you could layer an archetype ON TOP on the standard class, that would be more interesting.
"You're not just a fighter, you're a polearm master"... and not "You're a polearm master instead of a regular fighter."
Even better the advanced weapon training stuff from Weapom Master Handbook, layer THAT on top of the archetype as standard features. That would give it more crunch. How come, when selecting a weapon group, I don't get a bunch of abilities that I can select? If each weapon group had 10 abilities each, that would be an improvement.
For a class that basically pushes for specialization, it lacks a LOT of abilities reflecting that.
A fighter is only as good as the weapons and armor it carries, basically. The arhcetypes give it more depth, sure, but at the cost of the removal of other abilities. If you could layer an archetype ON TOP on the standard class, that would be more interesting.
This was straight on top... and it wasn't an archetype. This was homebrew I made to straight buff fighters. Were you thinking of something else?
It's not a dichotomy, the "hate change" grogs don't acknowledge that the edition they love still exists. It that's Pathfinder, then pathfinder will not only still be there but will exist in a complete fashion for (essentially) free thanks to the PRD/SRD/Archives of Nethys.
Yes it will still exist... but lack of any content going forward from first party is generally a bad thing for a game. Also, there is an issue if they change too much they stop being compatible with their adventure paths, so I seriously doubt they would change much to begin with.
Yes it will still exist... but lack of any content going forward from first party is generally a bad thing for a game. Also, there is an issue if they change too much they stop being compatible with their adventure paths, so I seriously doubt they would change much to begin with.
Exactly. Pathfinder will still be around, but without active support it will be increasingly difficult to find people to play with, and it becomes a hassle to back convert things (which can be difficult with a radical revision)
This is primarily why people argue over the whole new edition idea or much revision is required.
also i want to add after reading that someone said that 5e is outselling pathfinder. it is a new system and, as everyone remembers and should know, wizards of the coast will probably keep the system alive for about 4 more years and then come up with 6e, regardless what they have said. that is wizards status quo. plus they never playtest anything, and if they do, they never listen to the playtesters.
Keep in mind that 5e is a new set of rules so you're seeing the rise in numbers from people who are purchasing a new set, as opposed to Pathfinder whose players already own the main rulebooks. Also I suspect that the sales figures don't factor into count support material, or modules and AP books. As far as local sales, 5th Edition isn't exactly removing Pathfinder from the shelves at the Compleat Strategist in Manhattan.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest I'm not sure if the word interesting really applies. If anything I'm not sure if it's really something that would be healthy to the hobby imo. Too often some in the hobby want to draw a line in the sand and start something. WHile not offering anything productive to the situation.
This is something I'm going to be very interested in watching play out if 2.0 is ever announced.
The word interesting does apply (to me).
I tend to hope people are able to be grownups. In my view, the negatives associated with the 4E/PF schism was a function of bad behaviour, not actually a result of differences in design philosophy. I think the level of negativity associated with any potential PF/PF2 schism will be up to us.
The problems with Pathfinder are not in the bestiary or class choices (trap options aside), they are in the combat rules and the magic rules and the spell lists and the feat taxes.
I seriously wonder how class choices isn't a problem when so many classes are trap options that don't allow them to make any actions beyond "I can stab things".
Combat and magic rules are fine in general IMO, feats should be stronger, spells... to be honest I don't see much issue with spells aside from versatility (which can actually be easily reduced when it comes to things like summoning and planar binding, not fixed but immensely reduced, by making you have to learn it once for each different outsider you want to bind or summon, so instead of Planar Binding you have Planar Binding [Erinyes], etc.) but I allow more stuff than most groups do and the spell rules are very good for making NPC's. I mean, I allow simulacrums and planar binding.
I honestly think that the biggest issue with the game as current is simply that there are too many classes that are far to limited in their avenues of agency.
Um ... If you change the combat rules, the spells list and the magic rules in what way would it be even remotely possible to use the APs as is?
Huh?
I was curious about this too but assumed I must have misunderstood or something.
Maps, monsters, magic items, and story? I'm not sure what you are seeing as incompatible...
Things like rebuilding NPCs from scratch and trying to match the rough power curve they originally occupied despite the basic "physics" underpinning how the game works changing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meaning you're saying that essentially re-writing every single mechanical combat encounter from the ground up is "using the APs as is and the bestiaries as is or with a on-the-fly change"?
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
I hope they never change the core rules enough to warrant a 2.0 version. The choice is up to the GM and groups to decide which Paizo or 3pp products to use for campaigns. If I want to play a different rule system there are other companies with excellent rules out there. The Star Wars RPG and the Warhammer 40k RPGS from Fantasy Flight comes immediately to mind.
After watching Forgotten Realms get constantly destroyed/remade and Games Workshop destroying Warhammer last year I do not ever want to see that happening to Golarion. The only change I wish they would reveal is either how Aroden was killed or actually bring him back into the books and lore.
I hope they never change the core rules enough to warrant a 2.0 version. The choice is up to the GM and groups to decide which Paizo or 3pp products to use for campaigns. If I want to play a different rule system there are other companies with excellent rules out there. The Star Wars RPG and the Warhammer 40k RPGS from Fantasy Flight comes immediately to mind.
After watching Forgotten Realms get constantly destroyed/remade and Games Workshop destroying Warhammer last year I do not ever want to see that happening to Golarion. The only change I wish they would reveal is either how Aroden was killed or actually bring him back into the books and lore.
Changing the game rules actually doesn't require any change in the setting though. Even if their was a radical change in editions you could pretty much keep the setting as is. I would assume any rule change would still attempt to capture the fantasy setting genre vibe.
|
Strawman? The blatantly obvious straw man is to claim you can both radically change the system and continue to use the AP 'as is'
Probably less of a straw man but rather another point of view. I'd intuitively agree with hiiamtom, because I don' think that the rules are an anyhow important part of the AP's narrative (which is, what for me the AP actually is about).
To explain: If I'd convert an AP to 5E or 13th Age, I wouldn't consider this as "changing the AP" at all. It's just changing the rules. Similarly, if I'd run the Shackled City-AP with Pathfinder and only did rewrite the rules sections, I'd still think that I run the AP as is.
Admittedly, that's still quite some work to do. So I can totally understand if someone doesn't want to do so and therefore doesn't want the rules change too much.
The problems with Pathfinder are not in the bestiary or class choices (trap options aside), they are in the combat rules and the magic rules and the spell lists and the feat taxes.I seriously wonder how class choices isn't a problem when so many classes are trap options that don't allow them to make any actions beyond "I can stab things".
Combat and magic rules are fine in general IMO, feats should be stronger, spells... to be honest I don't see much issue with spells aside from versatility (which can actually be easily reduced when it comes to things like summoning and planar binding, not fixed but immensely reduced, by making you have to learn it once for each different outsider you want to bind or summon, so instead of Planar Binding you have Planar Binding [Erinyes], etc.) but I allow more stuff than most groups do and the spell rules are very good for making NPC's. I mean, I allow simulacrums and planar binding.
I honestly think that the biggest issue with the game as current is simply that there are too many classes that are far to limited in their avenues of agency.
I think a Pathfinder second edition could tweak or alter most feats, spells, and classes and still maintain compatibility with the the current system (as long as the overall range of power of PCs doesn't surpass the present range). Tweak the combat system, or leveling, or action management, and so forth and then compatibility goes out the window.
|
|
But by definition that would not be using the AP as is
Well what I was trying to confer was that his definition of "as is" may differ from your definition of "as is". And mine. And obviously I don't think that it's ridculous at all. When WotC published "Murder in Baldur's Gate" they outsourced the rules part so that you could use the adventure with which system you wanted. 3.5, 4E, Next, everything was possible, but the adventure would still be the same. Meaning you would run the adventure "as is" no matter the system you would use.
That's my approach to Paizo's APs as well. Only with the difference that those include a system (namely PFRPG), but basically I could still do the same as with MiBG. And still would running the same AP.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo thought AP's were just narratives to people without mechanics mattering, then PFRPG wouldn't exist because they'd have just moved to 4e with Pathfinder. PFRPG's whole origin was "WotC has changed the mechanical nature of the game, so now our adventures aren't compatible anymore mechanically.... lets keep making adventure paths in a way that doesn't invalidate the old ones rather than using the different mechanics."
If paizo management agreed your arguments, PFRPG wouldn't exist.
Changing the game rules actually doesn't require any change in the setting though. Even if their was a radical change in editions you could pretty much keep the setting as is. I would assume any rule change would still attempt to capture the fantasy setting genre vibe.I hope they never change the core rules enough to warrant a 2.0 version. The choice is up to the GM and groups to decide which Paizo or 3pp products to use for campaigns. If I want to play a different rule system there are other companies with excellent rules out there. The Star Wars RPG and the Warhammer 40k RPGS from Fantasy Flight comes immediately to mind.
After watching Forgotten Realms get constantly destroyed/remade and Games Workshop destroying Warhammer last year I do not ever want to see that happening to Golarion. The only change I wish they would reveal is either how Aroden was killed or actually bring him back into the books and lore.
This is technically true that you could keep the setting the same and still radically later the rules but after the examples I provided in my previous post I trust no company to do this.
For example, taking 5e's magic rules and dropping them into Pathfinder means the stat block has all the information you need without changing anything. Taking a generic example, I will modify the stat block:
You do realise that monsters are tonnes weaker when it comes to numbers in 5e. I mean hell, your converted bearded devil is ridiculously stronger than 5e's bearded devil. If you used your converted bearded devil in 5e against a level 5 party in 5e, the party is in for a hard time indeed. Congradulations, you just killed your party in what would normally be a normal fight because the maths of the game is completely different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try reading the text you quoted. I took different magic rules and applied them to the Pathfinder system. I didn't say "this is a conversion from Pathfinder to 5e".
I took magic rules from the Dungeons and Dragons 5e system.
Then I applied those rules to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game system.
This was to demonstrate how using very different rules from a different system can be used in a non-existent Pathfinder 2.0 while using a common stat block.
Seriously, RTFT and don't just react to it.
I apologize. Though... Now noticing you Only converted the spells... ummm... what's the point of your post? Yes everyone knows that most the spells from 3.5e's Core Rule Book exist in 5e's Core Rule Book. That's not what needs converting. Even if the statblock for Some creature's don't need to change in the area of spells (breaks down once you get to bestiary 2), the spells names didn't change in the editions, but effects did.
You didn't "demonstrate how using very different rules from a different system can be used in a non-existent Pathfinder 2.0 while using a common stat block." since you only converted one tiny section of the statblock while ignoring anything else.
Try reading the text you quoted. I took different magic rules and applied them to the Pathfinder system. I didn't say "this is a conversion from Pathfinder to 5e".
I took magic rules from the Dungeons and Dragons 5e system.
Then I applied those rules to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game system.
This was to demonstrate how using very different rules from a different system can be used in a non-existent Pathfinder 2.0 while using a common stat block.
Seriously, RTFT and don't just react to it.
I apologize. Though... Now noticing you Only converted the spells... ummm... what's the point of your post? Yes everyone knows that most the spells from 3.5e's Core Rule Book exist in 5e's Core Rule Book. That's not what needs converting. Even if the statblock for Some creature's don't need to change in the area of spells (breaks down once you get to bestiary 2), the spells names didn't change in the editions, but effects did.
You didn't "demonstrate how using very different rules from a different system can be used in a non-existent Pathfinder 2.0 while using a common stat block." since you only converted one tiny section of the statblock while ignoring anything else.
Actually, I argue that the spell system is probably the thing most needed of fixing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Changing the game rules actually doesn't require any change in the setting though. Even if their was a radical change in editions you could pretty much keep the setting as is. I would assume any rule change would still attempt to capture the fantasy setting genre vibe.I hope they never change the core rules enough to warrant a 2.0 version. The choice is up to the GM and groups to decide which Paizo or 3pp products to use for campaigns. If I want to play a different rule system there are other companies with excellent rules out there. The Star Wars RPG and the Warhammer 40k RPGS from Fantasy Flight comes immediately to mind.
After watching Forgotten Realms get constantly destroyed/remade and Games Workshop destroying Warhammer last year I do not ever want to see that happening to Golarion. The only change I wish they would reveal is either how Aroden was killed or actually bring him back into the books and lore.
Put me in a group that is diametrically opposed to this theory. The game rules define the setting. You can make minor tweaks, but radically changing the game rules radically changes the feel of the game, and that completely changes the setting.
For me, backwards compatible, would all be in character creation. If the books I own are invalidated generally then I wouldn't consider it BC. I still use 3.5 material pretty easily.
A change on the level of 3.5 to PF is about as far as I want to go. That ultimate Magic, combat, APG and such sill have most material usable in a new edition, then that would be to my taste.
To me there are many other systems to do other approaches to a game, no need to make radical changes to PF to change that.
If a book was released that had new classes that invalidated most of the weaker martial classes to help with martial / caster disparity, I'd be all for it - but don't bring the casters down, raise up the martials. I really like DSP Path of War for that.
If Paizo thought AP's were just narratives to people without mechanics mattering, then PFRPG wouldn't exist because they'd have just moved to 4e with Pathfinder. PFRPG's whole origin was "WotC has changed the mechanical nature of the game, so now our adventures aren't compatible anymore mechanically.... lets keep making adventure paths in a way that doesn't invalidate the old ones rather than using the different mechanics."
If paizo management agreed your arguments, PFRPG wouldn't exist.
That's only a small part of Pathfinder's origin. A key reason Paizo decided to do their own thing was that when 4E was announced, Wizards didn't reveal what 3pp license would be available. After a few months of waiting to find out whether it would be a viable license, Paizo decided it couldn't wait the year or more it would take for Wizards to reveal their 4e licensing strategy. If 4E had been released OGL and announced that early, we might be living in a completely different world.
Instead, Paizo was forced to go their own way, and chose backwards compatibility as one of their goals. But don't mistake that as the primary reason for Pathfinder's existence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to Lisa, the mechanics of 4e had as much to do with it as the license.
Jason's mission was to learn as much as he could about 4th Edition, play it as much as he could, and report back with his findings. From that, we would ultimately make a decision that could make or break us. The tension was agonizing. I could barely sleep at night as my mind wrestled with the options. If we made the wrong decision, it could very well mean the end of Paizo.
When Jason returned from D&D Experience, he laid out all the information that he had gleaned. From the moment that 4th Edition had been announced, we had trepidations about many of the changes we were hearing about. Jason's report confirmed our fears—4th Edition didn't look like the system we wanted to make products for. Whether a license for 4E was forthcoming or not, we were going to create our own game system based on the 3.5 SRD: The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
According to Lisa, the mechanics of 4e had as much to do with it as the license.
Jason's mission was to learn as much as he could about 4th Edition, play it as much as he could, and report back with his findings. From that, we would ultimately make a decision that could make or break us. The tension was agonizing. I could barely sleep at night as my mind wrestled with the options. If we made the wrong decision, it could very well mean the end of Paizo.
When Jason returned from D&D Experience, he laid out all the information that he had gleaned. From the moment that 4th Edition had been announced, we had trepidations about many of the changes we were hearing about. Jason's report confirmed our fears—4th Edition didn't look like the system we wanted to make products for. Whether a license for 4E was forthcoming or not, we were going to create our own game system based on the 3.5 SRD: The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
Yes, but the lack of license information at that stage made them much more likely to strike out on their own. The unknown license meant they had to make a decision early. I'm just saying rules weren't the only factor.
Anyway, my advice for wanting a new edition, is go try another game. Fantasy Age, 13th Age, and D&D 5 all try different things and are worth looking at. Or if you want to go further afield Earthdawn 4E is looking pretty good. Paizo is going to keep publishing Pathfinder 1 for a long, long time.
Jim, speaking as a 5e fan, I think a significant portion of the pathfinder 2.0 player base feel that their needs aren't met by 5e. Not that there is a PF 2.0 player base. Yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My take on backwards compatibility is thus:
Not too long ago, I ran the AD&D 2nd edition Night Below campaign as a Pathfinder game. I was able to keep the same story and swap out monsters when they had a Bestiary equivalent, but I wouldn't consider it to be backwards compatible. For any major villain or unique monster, I had to rewrite the stats in order to make them fit in the game.
By contrast, I can run the original Rise of the Runelords, a D&D 3rd edition campaign, with very little problem in the Pathfinder system. Some of the numbers are different than they would have been if it was written in Pathfinder, but the language is pretty much the same. Looking at the stat block for an ogre fighter, for example, tells me what the critical multiplier on its weapon is, that it has the Power Attack feat, that its composite longbow has a +7 Strength bonus, and so on. Sure, I have to do a bit of conversion to find its Combat Maneuver Bonus and I have to remember that its Listen skill is now Perception, but that takes 30 seconds tops.
My preference for future editions of Pathfinder would be to make it more like the 3.5 --> Pathfinder model rather than the AD&D ---> D&D 3rd edition model. You can change what individual parts of the system, such as what certain feats, spells, and abilities do, while still keeping the scale and the language roughly the same.
If it gets to the point that I have to do lots of work to convert old adventures over, then I don't consider that backwards compatible and the old material starts to lose value to me. I ran a very successful Night Below campaign, but it took extra work above and beyond what I normally do for a game and I'm less likely to use AD&D modules in the future unless they're really good. By contrast, the entire vast library of 3.0 and 3.5 material still remains something that I can use with little to no extra work, even though certain mechanics have gone through 15 years of changes and improvements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If one wants pathfinder 2.0 just go play 5th edition, well at least until they abandon it in favor of the next thing.
Yes, the advantage of having a less conservative fanbase is that your hands aren't tied behind your back when it comes to your game.* :) You can be creative, innovate, go retro, it's all good! Because every new edition will cater to some portion of your fanbase, thus pleasing more of them. Heck, the collectors will buy every new edition just because it has that logo on it.
The downside, of course, is that some of them will abstain from editions they don't care for, as I am now.
*Well, one hand is tied when it comes to WotC. :p
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If paizo management agreed your arguments, PFRPG wouldn't exist.
Probably. But the thing is, that while I have to accept the decisions of Paizo management, I do not need to agree with them. Nor does it invalidate my own opinion in any way. I don't need to and I won't look at my arguments through any kind of "what's best for Paizo business" lense.
And I really don't know why such kinds of arguments even come up in discussions where we all state our own opinion. Are you really so afraid that Paizo could do anything you don't like just for people like me stating our own preferences?
Anyway, my advice for wanting a new edition, is go try another game. Fantasy Age, 13th Age, and D&D 5 all try different things and are worth looking at. Or if you want to go further afield Earthdawn 4E is looking pretty good. Paizo is going to keep publishing Pathfinder 1 for a long, long time.
This suggestion is kind of poisoned though. At the moment, what binds me most to Paizo as a customer is that I like their system, their setting and their adventures good enough to use them excessively for my own games.
Now I could change the system (I really like 13th Age, for example) while still using their setting and their adventures. There may come a time though (and probably soon will) when I start playing in my (new) homebrewed setting using my own adventures. If I don't use Pathfinder rules at this point of time, that means that they'll basically lose me as a customer. Being a single person, that may not mean much, but as I like to give my money to them, I think I should probably tell them how to avoid this beforehand. What they do with this information, is up to them, of course.