| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Last thread I was at the "hell no" camp. Now? I just introduced someone to Pathfinder who hadnt played ttrpgs. It wasnt easy...and it is much more to absorb than when I picked up PF 4 years ago; you can stay core only but since the rest of the table and the GM use most of the stuff it is a steep learning curve.
But..the money invested..and time.
My preference would be if they started a second system and setting that was completely different (sci fi, horror, whatever, just not fantasy) with a much simpler rule set and they kept that alive through APs, which is what makes Pathfinder so great.
1. Easy to learn/run without the obsessive number crunching (which I love but it's starting to get in the way). Intuitive, rules-lite.
2. APs and stories with PF quality so you can run things straight off it with its fantastic writing.
Eventually I think people would flock to this system, and then it's a question of transfering the rules from this system to the Golarion setting, and BOOM: step wise path to Pathfinder 2.0.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly suspect that when we see the eventual product labeled Pathfinder 2.0 it will be more a consolidation and reorganization of what constitutes "core" rather than the types of seismic changes that WotC tends to prefer. That allows all the old material to be continue to be used while providing a clearer path of entry for new players and reduces the stress put on LPF DMs. Because the sales are primarily centered on APs, it's not going to be a deal breaker to not have everyone rush out and buy the new core book immediately if they want to keep using their existing material.
The core book will look a lot different, but the game as a whole will not. The biggest change I see happening is building archetypes and traits into the core while shifting around which classes (and to a far lesser extent, races) are considered core and how they are structured. Beyond that, the only thing I could see actually changing is the magic system and magic items, but even that isn't going to get a radical change; they've said many times that they like the Vancian system, and any new system is probably going to align in some form to the basic idea of Vancian casting. They may eventually offer a pure point system as an alternative, but it will never be the core. The biggest thing that can and needs to happen is a culling and rewriting of the core spells and spell lists to fit with newer classes and spells from newer sources, but that doesn't really require tinkering with the core magic system.
Everything else would be reorganization. They pretty much copied and pasted most of the basic structure of the core book this go around, and there's a lot of room for improvement in how the different rules are laid out and explained. However, things like a unified chart for saving throws doesn't actually change the rules for saving throws, and most of the problems people complain about seem to be rooted in poor organization; most of the rules aren't that bad to those people that actually figure out how to put all the disparate pieces together from the multiple places they are currently found.
I wouldn't expect most of the alternate rules we've seen in Unchained and elsewhere to make it directly to core, but I could see them very much influencing decisions ultimately made about what will make core for the new "edition" and how.
Last thread I was at the "hell no" camp. Now? I just introduced someone to Pathfinder who hadnt played ttrpgs. It wasnt easy...and it is much more to absorb than when I picked up PF 4 years ago; you can stay core only but since the rest of the table and the GM use most of the stuff it is a steep learning curve.
But..the money invested..and time.
My preference would be if they started a second system and setting that was completely different (sci fi, horror, whatever, just not fantasy) with a much simpler rule set and they kept that alive through APs, which is what makes Pathfinder so great.
1. Easy to learn/run without the obsessive number crunching (which I love but it's starting to get in the way). Intuitive, rules-lite.
2. APs and stories with PF quality so you can run things straight off it with its fantastic writing.
Eventually I think people would flock to this system, and then it's a question of transfering the rules from this system to the Golarion setting, and BOOM: step wise path to Pathfinder 2.0.
Isn't that what the Beginner Box is for?
Personally I would not be able to stand a more rules lite Pathfinder, otherwise I'd be playing 5e. I can understand it for a beginning but I'd really want something I can grow into rather than hit a wall and get bored with the whole thing. I have plenty of other RPGs where narrative is first and to different degrees.
One thing that I frequently argue whenever Pathfinder 2.0 threads come out is that instead the Beginner Box should be expanded and retooled to be Pathfinder-lite. That way you have a rules lite system that beginners can play that technically functions with adventure paths and modules, there's a window of getting into super-crunchy Pathfinder so you aren't bored and since the rules are at it's guts pretty much the same you can slot in even third party things if you wanted to. At the very least scale it up to level 10 so that they have the possibility of being PFS relevant, and modules like The Dragons Demand functionally become mini-adventure paths. I'm currently running the beginner box rules for 9 year olds and they aren't getting overwhelmed. Its about as functional as 5e as far as I've experienced. When we finish some things I'm introducing some fan made material that has all the classes up to the Advanced Class Guide in Beginner Box form. If I can expand it to level 10 then I'd have a ton of material to work with. It can be done.
Why is it the only reason for a new edition is because of splat books?
That's a terrible reason.
Why?
Because splat books and other "extras" are just that...OPTIONAL!
If the core system works fine, and you're having fun, what exactly is so wrong with it that you have to go to a NEW edition?
If you stick to core only, you're fine.
If the game, after a few years, needs some more "fire" as we'll call it, then add in "Advanced Player's Guide." and maybe one other splat to help (like a Player Companion or two).
If, after a few years, it begins to get dry again, add Advanced Class Guide or maybe run an Occult themed or Mythic style campaign.
Seriously, the whole "There's too much material time to reset!" is utter garbage and nonsensical. Come up with a much better reason.
To play devil's advocate, since I'm not really gunning for a new edition at the moment, there is a degree to which the splat books could clean things up and make for a better game if they were included in the core.
Pathfinder Unchained would be an example, as it introduces a number of oft-requested fixes. Given more time and playtesting (the best kind, through actual play), the most popular changes introduced in that book could make for a more enjoyable game as a whole.
Last thread I was at the "hell no" camp. Now? I just introduced someone to Pathfinder who hadnt played ttrpgs. It wasnt easy...and it is much more to absorb than when I picked up PF 4 years ago; you can stay core only but since the rest of the table and the GM use most of the stuff it is a steep learning curve.
But..the money invested..and time.
My preference would be if they started a second system and setting that was completely different (sci fi, horror, whatever, just not fantasy) with a much simpler rule set and they kept that alive through APs, which is what makes Pathfinder so great.
1. Easy to learn/run without the obsessive number crunching (which I love but it's starting to get in the way). Intuitive, rules-lite.
2. APs and stories with PF quality so you can run things straight off it with its fantastic writing.
Eventually I think people would flock to this system, and then it's a question of transfering the rules from this system to the Golarion setting, and BOOM: step wise path to Pathfinder 2.0.
Isn't that what the Beginner Box is for?
Personally I would not be able to stand a more rules lite Pathfinder, otherwise I'd be playing 5e. I can understand it for a beginning but I'd really want something I can grow into rather than hit a wall and get bored with the whole thing. I have plenty of other RPGs where narrative is first and to different degrees.
One thing that I frequently argue whenever Pathfinder 2.0 threads come out is that instead the Beginner Box should be expanded and retooled to be Pathfinder-lite. That way you have a rules lite system that beginners can play that technically functions with adventure paths and modules, there's a window of getting into super-crunchy Pathfinder so you aren't bored and since the rules are at it's guts pretty much the same you can slot in even third party things if you wanted to. At the very least scale it up to level 10 so that they have the possibility of being PFS relevant, and modules...
Rules light =/= Options light.
You can still have a deep an immersive game with tons and tons of mechanically meaningful character options but still be rules light.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I introduce someone to PF, I ask them for an idea of a character and simply show them the stuff that will help fulfil that rather than limiting them to core (especially when it's generally harder to make the concepts they say with just core).
Rules light =/= Options light.
You can still have a deep an immersive game with tons and tons of mechanically meaningful character options but still be rules light.
I agree with this. There are a ton of rules and corner cases that could be simplified and clarified in a new edition. Streamlining the rules can happen without stripping out the number of options in the game.
Rules light =/= Options light.
You can still have a deep an immersive game with tons and tons of mechanically meaningful character options but still be rules light.
Theoretically that's true but I don't see it going hand in hand a lot. Mostly because I'll get calls for 'more rules lite' when multiple sources of options comes up from the get-go. And even then my point still stands because I'm not just talking about the plethora of options that Pathfinder has but mechanical depth of the system without getting HERO system levels.
I like prestige classes as their own thing because they allow for organic character growth as a campaign progresses. A PC who wants to have an archetype has to pick it up in the first few levels, but a 10th level character who suddenly learns about a secret society (or who suddenly discovers that he has draconic ancestry, et cetera) he wants to become part of can shift over to a prestige class. It's another option in a game filled with options, and I like that...Prestige classes have a role to play in D&D/Pathfinder (of letting you build upon achievements to set yourself apart from those who just go single-classed), although unfortunately they haven't been kept within this role very well.Well, if that's the case, they need to be brought by the drawing board. Sure, not every PrC would work as an archetype, but a lot would...
The problem is that the prestige aspect, as you stated, got either deluded or outright forgotten...
The prestige aspect seems hard to do in a setting neutral book. Things like Aldori Swordlord or Hellknight make sense as prestige classes, because they are built into the setting and imply membership of organizations.
It's pretty much why prestige classes have been restricted to campaign setting books of late, and not the rules line.
I wouldn't call PrCs "campaign exclusive". If lore/connections can't be established, mecanics can be worked with. A Swordlord is a swashbuckler archetype and a Hell Knight is a cavalier/paladin archetype. The Red Mantis Assassin got a "variant archetype" as the Mantis Zealot archetype for warpriests.
I do get your point though. However, in this case, prestige classes should be reserved for organizations only, which in this case, many PrCs should be turned into archetypes due to the lack of connections. Technically, if the PrC doesn't have a requirement related to being part of the organization, then it should be worked into an archetype.
I might agree, if I ever saw this actually happen in a game. The reality is that unless it is planned ahead of time, the power drop from most unplanned multiclassing needed to switch into a prestige class is so drastic that it completely nerfs your character so in dozens of campaigns I know of no one who has ever actually done this with a prestige class that wasn't homebrew.
Why is it the only reason for a new edition is because of splat books?
That's a terrible reason.
Why?
Because splat books and other "extras" are just that...OPTIONAL!
If the core system works fine, and you're having fun, what exactly is so wrong with it that you have to go to a NEW edition?
If you stick to core only, you're fine.
If the game, after a few years, needs some more "fire" as we'll call it, then add in "Advanced Player's Guide." and maybe one other splat to help (like a Player Companion or two).
If, after a few years, it begins to get dry again, add Advanced Class Guide or maybe run an Occult themed or Mythic style campaign.
Seriously, the whole "There's too much material time to reset!" is utter garbage and nonsensical. Come up with a much better reason.
There have been quite a few already in this thread. I named at least 4.
Rules light =/= Options light.
You can still have a deep an immersive game with tons and tons of mechanically meaningful character options but still be rules light.
I don't disagree with this in theory, but I can't think of a game that has accomplished it yet. At least not within the vein of 3.X/PF/4e where the GM is expected to be neutral arbiter with the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it the only reason for a new edition is because of splat books?
That's a terrible reason.
It is a terrible reason. That's not the reason some of us would want a new edition. The problems I would want fixed are fundamental issues in core that weren't fixed because they were shackled to backwards compatibility with d20. Of course, if Pathfinder 2.0 is crippled by compatibility with PF 1.0, then the fundamental issues will remain and you are right, why bother?
So I don't expect any significant revisions to PF for the foreseeable future.
|
I strongly suspect that when we see the eventual product labeled Pathfinder 2.0 it will be more a consolidation and reorganization of what constitutes "core" rather than the types of seismic changes that WotC tends to prefer. That allows all the old material to be continue to be used while providing a clearer path of entry for new players and reduces the stress put on LPF DMs. Because the sales are primarily centered on APs, it's not going to be a deal breaker to not have everyone rush out and buy the new core book immediately if they want to keep using their existing material.
The core book will look a lot different, but the game as a whole will not. The biggest change I see happening is building archetypes and traits into the core while shifting around which classes (and to a far lesser extent, races) are considered core and how they are structured. Beyond that, the only thing I could see actually changing is the magic system and magic items, but even that isn't going to get a radical change; they've said many times that they like the Vancian system, and any new system is probably going to align in some form to the basic idea of Vancian casting. They may eventually offer a pure point system as an alternative, but it will never be the core. The biggest thing that can and needs to happen is a culling and rewriting of the core spells and spell lists to fit with newer classes and spells from newer sources, but that doesn't really require tinkering with the core magic system.
Everything else would be reorganization. They pretty much copied and pasted most of the basic structure of the core book this go around, and there's a lot of room for improvement in how the different rules are laid out and explained. However, things like a unified chart for saving throws doesn't actually change the rules for saving throws, and most of the problems people complain about seem to be rooted in poor organization; most of the rules aren't that bad to those people that actually figure out how to put all the disparate pieces...
+1
I totally agree on a reorganization.
A "Pathfinder 2.0" does not need to be a complete revamp of the game system. It really could just be a more cleaned up and clarified version of the current system.
Many of what is currently appearing in the FAQs and other rules that could use clarification or streamlined, could be made into the core of a "Pathfinder 2.0". Things like how grapple really works? Do spell features from different classes affect each other? Etc, could all be ironed out, reorganized and clarified in Pathfinder 2.0.
The Core Rule book alone is a good example. As is in its current state, it is clearly written by and for someone who already understood the 3.5 D&D rules. For a total newbie to the game system, the core book is a mess, with a totally new reader getting completely lost. Hence the need for the current Beginner Box and Strategy Guide.
Making the game more easier to understand, while keeping all the current content valid, should be the goal of any Pathfinder 2.0.
|
Backwards compabilty is all nice and well. Their also needs to be a reason to reinvest in a new edition as well. It's kind of limitless for myself to buy the same rpg with the same flaws a second time. I'm almost pretty sure any new edition of PF that has martial/caster disparity is just not going to do as well like the current edition has.
It's not like a new edition will suddenly make the previous editions material useless. I'm sure 2E books are still being used and played by those who stayed with that edition. I think gamers need to look at more than their gaming shelves and the game as a whole. A rehash of a rehash with little to no changes needs more than just being a rehash with better production values.
While we're at it, I would like to point out how a rules light-option light setting might differ and what I would look into a rules-light one.
When a player asks me if he can jump over the ledge, grab onto it, scurry to it's side, drop down to the balcony there behind the sniper aiming at a team member and trip him/disable him/point a gun pointblank a say "move and your brains'll do some out-door decor" I dont want to ask "did you take the Ledge Jumper Feat for the extra 7.3 feet, the Good Grip trait from Numerian Cat People Adventures, and the If I Shoot Point Blank It Actually Matters feat chain?". Sure, I can bend rules and omit some others, but then we're in 100% house rule territory, and we're talking about rule systems so everything can be standardised and therefore universally easy to assume things.
To summarise:
Question/Player - I would like to do this and that.
Answer - Roll X with Y modifiers and apply you Z to it. When XYZ are any number of dice, any fixed attribute, any spendable resource.
Yes it is simple, but with enough options that dont come down to "when they moon is half full apply +2 circumstance bonus if you're talking to butterfly people, round down, and if your bab is 14-28*2 then it is doubled but for rounds/level".
I admit that I dont know many systems apart from PF (Shadowrun, D&D), so I am open to suggestions! I heard the Starwars system is quite easy and with enough depth, albeit quite story-telling driven.
While we're at it, I would like to point out how a rules light-option light setting might differ and what I would look into a rules-light one.
When a player asks me if he can jump over the ledge, grab onto it, scurry to it's side, drop down to the balcony there behind the sniper aiming at a team member and trip him/disable him/point a gun pointblank a say "move and your brains'll do some out-door decor" I dont want to ask "did you take the Ledge Jumper Feat for the extra 7.3 feet, the Good Grip trait from Numerian Cat People Adventures, and the If I Shoot Point Blank It Actually Matters feat chain?". Sure, I can bend rules and omit some others, but then we're in 100% house rule territory, and we're talking about rule systems so everything can be standardised and therefore universally easy to assume things.
To summarise:
Question/Player - I would like to do this and that.
Answer - Roll X with Y modifiers and apply you Z to it. When XYZ are any number of dice, any fixed attribute, any spendable resource.
Yes it is simple, but with enough options that dont come down to "when they moon is half full apply +2 circumstance bonus if you're talking to butterfly people, round down, and if your bab is 14-28*2 then it is doubled but for rounds/level".
I admit that I dont know many systems apart from PF (Shadowrun, D&D), so I am open to suggestions! I heard the Starwars system is quite easy and with enough depth, albeit quite story-telling driven.
I'm in favor of a rule that essentially says, "anytime a single action requires multiple skill checks use the hardest and add 1 to the DC for each combined action. Any action that involves movement laterally on the grid can be combined with the move action for free." So in your example you would use the jump DC plus 3.
So, you (the DM) determines the hardest DC in the action described by the player, adds +1 for each roll-in action (even if the roll in isn't a defined action like "grabbing the chandelier and swinging"). If the check fails then the player suffers the penalty for failing the main check.
Then the trip check at the end of movement and free action to tell the guy to stand down. Not that the player could actually shoot the guy at that point because his turn would be over.
To me that is an example of a rules-light but still mechanically deep game. The "roll-in" mechanic is simple and allows for actions not specifically called out in the rules and eliminates the need to make multiple checks for a single action, but doesn't detract from the depth of the game.
While we're at it, I would like to point out how a rules light-option light setting might differ and what I would look into a rules-light one.
When a player asks me if he can jump over the ledge, grab onto it, scurry to it's side, drop down to the balcony there behind the sniper aiming at a team member and trip him/disable him/point a gun pointblank a say "move and your brains'll do some out-door decor" I dont want to ask "did you take the Ledge Jumper Feat for the extra 7.3 feet, the Good Grip trait from Numerian Cat People Adventures, and the If I Shoot Point Blank It Actually Matters feat chain?". Sure, I can bend rules and omit some others, but then we're in 100% house rule territory, and we're talking about rule systems so everything can be standardised and therefore universally easy to assume things.
To summarise:
Question/Player - I would like to do this and that.
Answer - Roll X with Y modifiers and apply you Z to it. When XYZ are any number of dice, any fixed attribute, any spendable resource.
Yes it is simple, but with enough options that dont come down to "when they moon is half full apply +2 circumstance bonus if you're talking to butterfly people, round down, and if your bab is 14-28*2 then it is doubled but for rounds/level".
I admit that I dont know many systems apart from PF (Shadowrun, D&D), so I am open to suggestions! I heard the Starwars system is quite easy and with enough depth, albeit quite story-telling driven.
I keep seeing this problem coming up but in the context of Pathfinder I've never really had this problem so it's hard for me to relate.
Besides that, I was under the impression that rules-lite meant that the engine was different as opposed to the amount of codified options. having a lot of options does kind of inherently create the Magic: the Gathering rules problem. (What I mean by that is that Magic: the Gathering is pretty easy to learn and there aren't that many rules. However with so many cards that thrive to be interesting and dozens of sets with their own themes the basics of the rules expand to comprehensive rules which is a mile long document. Seriously look at this, and I swear this is shorter than I remember. I remember the txt document being 900 pages long a few years ago.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That Magic document wahahahahaa!
BigDTBone that's definitely the kind of system change I'd like to see, something that can be calculated easily and is open. The current system makes some players, specially veterans, get stuck into Standard-Move squareness that can sometimes threaten the bold/more imaginative options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder tries to include various monsters with different cultures, and it also has varying power levels. The first few levels the characters are mostly like ordinary people, and later they are like super heroes.
I thought about the idea of capping the power level of casters at to be close to a full caster's power when they get 7th level spells.
That however makes it really hard to have them fighting demon lords and other similar monsters. I know that is a rare event, but many still like the idea that it should be possible. The demon lords could be powered down, and the leveling system could change so that people still have a wide scope of power between levels 1 and (insert level cap).
In the end I think it would have to be more modular if you want to make most of us happy, but that may put a lot more work on the devs and GM's.
There is also the issue of many people wanting the game to be very similar to what it is now, even if they want some things fixed.
Paizo may need someone who is a technical writer, and who also understands the game to work with the dev team. I am sure people will still think of combinations of feats, magic items, and so on that were not thought of, but I think it would happen less.
I also think that Paizo to a large extent should rely on GM's to make rulings in corner cases, and they should make this known. Each splat book should work with the core book, unless the new ____ references another splat book. Of course there will be exceptions and the devs will have to come up with guidelines for that.
We as posters(not all of us) also have to get better at not trying to read the rules as loosely as possible to get everything we can out of them. Making FAQ's when you know how something works, but you just don't like the wording should have a lower priority than something that was really worded badly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder tries to include various monsters with different cultures, and it also has varying power levels. The first few levels the characters are mostly like ordinary people, and later they are like super heroes.
I thought about the idea of capping the power level of casters at to be close to a full caster's power when they get 7th level spells.
That however makes it really hard to have them fighting demon lords and other similar monsters. I know that is a rare event, but many still like the idea that it should be possible. The demon lords could be powered down, and the leveling system could change so that people still have a wide scope of power between levels 1 and (insert level cap).In the end I think it would have to be more modular if you want to make most of us happy, but that may put a lot more work on the devs and GM's.
There is also the issue of many people wanting the game to be very similar to what it is now, even if they want some things fixed.
Paizo may need someone who is a technical writer, and who also understands the game to work with the dev team. I am sure people will still think of combinations of feats, magic items, and so on that were not thought of, but I think it would happen less.
I also think that Paizo to a large extent should rely on GM's to make rulings in corner cases, and they should make this known. Each splat book should work with the core book, unless the new ____ references another splat book. Of course there will be exceptions and the devs will have to come up with guidelines for that.
We as posters(not all of us) also have to get better at not trying to read the rules as loosely as possible to get everything we can out of them. Making FAQ's when you know how something works, but you just don't like the wording should have a lower priority than something that was really worded badly.
The more I learn about the PFS team, the more respect they get. It's rough to bridge the gap between all of the varying, different rulesets.
What PF does need are a team of technical writers. Not one, but a team, and a republishing of the CRB. If PF will stay relevant to new players, then it needs better approachability.
If your core book is streamlined and referencable, much of PF is modular to begin with. For example, publishing a spell compendium that cleans up, rebalances, and restrealines many of them would go a long ways. Perhaps it outlines Occult-style under and over-casting.
Backwards compabilty is all nice and well. Their also needs to be a reason to reinvest in a new edition as well. It's kind of limitless for myself to buy the same rpg with the same flaws a second time. I'm almost pretty sure any new edition of PF that has martial/caster disparity is just not going to do as well like the current edition has.
It's not like a new edition will suddenly make the previous editions material useless. I'm sure 2E books are still being used and played by those who stayed with that edition. I think gamers need to look at more than their gaming shelves and the game as a whole. A rehash of a rehash with little to no changes needs more than just being a rehash with better production values.
But anything without 100% backwards compatible you are going to lose people who don't want to go to a new system.
Since Pathfinder is built on a community who didn't want to go to a new base system when Wizards ditched 3.5 to think that those people, who are the most loyal fans and have supported the company are going to go along for the ride when Pathfinder 2.0 makes its D&D 4.0 style conversion is highly unlikely.
Paizo can keep publishing Adventure paths and new options forever, and until their sales dip below replacement level there is literally no incentive to throw away those customers on the possibility that Pathfinder 2.0 will be a hit instead of a flop. (when is has at best equal odds, more likely slanted towards a flop.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder didn't grab part of the market by saying "buy the exact same game," they did it by saying "It's the game, with changes to make it better, and some backwards compatibility."
I would also appreciate the market research you did that shows Pathfinder 2e is more likely to fail than succeed.
^Right on. Compare the class tables between Fighter in D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder. They kept most of the backwards compatibility, but fixed some things, and added some new cool stuff. If Pathfinder 2.0 was to Pathfinder 1.0 what Pathfinder 1.0 was to D&D 3.5, it would do pretty well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But anything without 100% backwards compatible you are going to lose people who don't want to go to a new system.
Anything WITH 100% backwards compatibility is going to lose people too. Going to any new system is going to lose you people. It's just a question of what the market looks like and what you want to do with that new system, that determines how much compatibility you keep.
|
|
If all your going to do is rehash the same rpg yet again. With little to no changes. Why would some fans buy the same product twice. If the next edition still has martial/caster disparity. its not a matter of market research. Simple common sense IMO. I never said it would fail either. All I said is that it would not sell as well as the current edition. Whatever they choose to do it's going to alienate some of the fanbase. Too much change might chase away fans. A rehash of a rehash of a rehash with better production values might do the same thing as well.
If all your going to do is rehash the same rpg yet again. With little to no changes. Why would some fans buy the same product twice. If the next edition still has martial/caster disparity. its not a matter of market research. Simple common sense IMO. I never said it would fail either. All I said is that it would not sell as well as the current edition. Whatever they choose to do it's going to alienate some of the fanbase. Too much change might chase away fans. A rehash of a rehash of a rehash with better production values might do the same thing as well.
Eh, many games are a rehash with better pictures or slightly tweaked mechanics. The last several editions of D&D/Pathfinder have had martial/caster problems, so it isn't like we didn't know what we were in for.
If you change too little, some people will walk. If you change too much, some people will walk. If you change nothing, some people will walk. You roll the dice and take your chances and try to make the game you want to make.
|
|
True but the same circumstances that lead to the creation of Pathfinder are not there imo. Those who liked 3.5 have their edition. A new edition of D&D from Wotc while having lackluster support was well received than the previous one (5E). As well as fixing the flaws of 3.5. Some of the fanbase wanting more than just another repeat of the same material with house rules. The next edition if there is one needs more than just "3.5. Thrives" imo. Otherwise some of the fans will go "3.5 thrives and what else". Paizo needs more than just promoting 3.5. Espcially with them giving it away for free. All I would have to do is wait and take what I can from the free SRD if I liked the changes. If not I' going to stick with the current edition.
Mind you whatever they do they need to split the core into two books. A player handbook and a DMG. The current book while one of my favorite rpg books. Is dense and heavy. I rather not have to lug around parts of the rpg that are to only be used by the DM. As well they need to take a good long hard look at the spells. Rope Trick is second level yet Tiny Hut is third level. When the first imo is more effective than the second. More effective and useful options. Not fluff for the sake of fluff and more often useless at that. Give us a good mix of fluff and crunch. There is zero reason for a option in the game to be either too powerful or not worth taking.
If paizo could make something that was as fun as 5e with the mechanical depth and objective rules philosophy of pathfinder, I would buy every book.
At the moment, I don't GM pathfinder. I have fun playing with a few classes, most of them 3rd party. The rules are clunky and paizo's current power curve leads to tons of less-than-fun options while still being terribly balanced in the sense that many character concepts are just bad. I don't seek out PF games anymore, I start groups with systems I actually want to play.
Pathfinder is status quo.
Where is there to go if lack of change was the original appeal?
No where!
Both Pathfinder and 5e are very different games. Each caters to a different style of game. I don't see them as evolutions of each other, I see them as different forks in the path from 3.5.
Pathfinder is status quo.
Where is there to go if lack of change was the original appeal?
No where!
It has worked for us for the last 8 years ? Obviously continuation and slow evolution is attractive to a lot of people.
Expecting a 2nd editions to fix martial/caster disparity is like trying to equalise science and god. They are non-overlapping magisteria.
Two years ago I would have said, "Yes." With the latest book line-ups and designers who think that "extra X" feats were a mistake that need to be reigned in, I'm kinda over it. I'm using 3rd party and homebrew rules to correct the problems I see in the game. If paizo had made the jump 2 years ago I would have been on-board but now I don't think I'll spend money on a paizo rules product ever again. Hopefully they keep churning out the adventure material because that is where they shine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder didn't grab part of the market by saying "buy the exact same game," they did it by saying "It's the game, with changes to make it better, and some backwards compatibility."
I would also appreciate the market research you did that shows Pathfinder 2e is more likely to fail than succeed.
The RPG market is a small, saturated market.
The chances of success for any game in this market are small; the chances of the same company succeeding twice are similarly small.
Look at how many games come and go quickly from start up companies.
Look at the recent major failures from big companies-- 4th edition D&D and the "New" World of Darkness that either did or nearly brought down established brands/companies.
Look at all the games with established IPs and fan bases that have churned through multiple company failures and have to be repeatedly rescued-- Battletech/ Mechwarrior, Shadowrun.
The first 3 editions of D&D came out in a different world where there was a lot less competition.
To think that Paizo could do a Pathfinder 2.0 that was competing with both 5e D&D, with the concept of just continuing to play Pathfinder, with all the other games out there you have to acknowledge that there are long odds of success.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder didn't grab part of the market by saying "buy the exact same game," they did it by saying "It's the game, with changes to make it better, and some backwards compatibility."
I would also appreciate the market research you did that shows Pathfinder 2e is more likely to fail than succeed.
The RPG market is a small, saturated market.
The chances of success for any game in this market are small; the chances of the same company succeeding twice are similarly small.
Look at how many games come and go quickly from start up companies.
Look at the recent major failures from big companies-- 4th edition D&D and the "New" World of Darkness that either did or nearly brought down established brands/companies.
Look at all the games with established IPs and fan bases that have churned through multiple company failures and have to be repeatedly rescued-- Battletech/ Mechwarrior, Shadowrun.
The first 3 editions of D&D came out in a different world where there was a lot less competition.
To think that Paizo could do a Pathfinder 2.0 that was competing with both 5e D&D, with the concept of just continuing to play Pathfinder, with all the other games out there you have to acknowledge that there are long odds of success.
Agreed.
Pathfinder originally emerged (and succeeded) at a very particular time - when 4th Edition D&D lost a lot of customer loyalty because it strayed so far from what people knew and loved. At present, D&D 5e is thriving and drawing a lot of attention. That's not a time when you want to be shutting down your game system and starting fresh. D&D is by far the most recognizable brand in roleplaying - Pathfinder has done amazing work in making that D&D system shine in a different way, but it could only have happened with such success because D&D basically turned their backs on their existing fan base for 4e.
That being said, I do think it would be possible to release a Core Rulebook 2.0 that was backwards compatible and basically gave you Unchained (i.e. revised and rebalanced) versions of each Core class. But that 2.0 -must- be completely backwards compatible to retain the playability of existing AP's, and the interest of PF fans who have already invested so much into the system.
It's a challenging problem for Paizo, that's for sure. I love both systems and just want RPG's to succeed and thrive overall, so I'm cheering for all camps.
{. . .} That's not a time when you want to be shutting down your game system and starting fresh. {. . .}
But that's not what at least some of us are talking about. Even D&D didn't do this when going from 1st Edition to 2nd Edition, or from 3rd Edition to 3.5th Edition -- the intent was for you to be able to keep using your older material along with it, like going from D&D 3.5th Edition to Pathfinder. Not 100% successfull in each instance, but close enough to get people to make the transition. Pathfinder Unchained represents a bit of a piecemeal approach to doing this, although it would be nice to have a reorganized new Core Rulebook that retains (most) compatibility, but contains bugfixes, and is reorganized so that you don't have to search in so many places to find the most commonly used stuff (the organization has gotten to the point where it is real easy to miss stuff in the online material, even freely available as it is).
{. . .} That's not a time when you want to be shutting down your game system and starting fresh. {. . .}But that's not what at least some of us are talking about. Even D&D didn't do this when going from 1st Edition to 2nd Edition, or from 3rd Edition to 3.5th Edition -- the intent was for you to be able to keep using your older material along with it, like going from D&D 3.5th Edition to Pathfinder. Not 100% successfull in each instance, but close enough to get people to make the transition. Pathfinder Unchained represents a bit of a piecemeal approach to doing this, although it would be nice to have a reorganized new Core Rulebook that retains (most) compatibility, but contains bugfixes, and is reorganized so that you don't have to search in so many places to find the most commonly used stuff (the organization has gotten to the point where it is real easy to miss stuff in the online material, even freely available as it is).
I completely agree. Read my second paragraph. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"New" World of Darkness that either did or nearly brought down established brands/companies.
What are you talking about. NWOD or darkness in no way shape or form brought down it's establishee brand or company. If anything NWOD renergized a company that metaplot wise had painted itself into a corner. No matter what anyone did the world was going to end. Not to mention both old and new world of Darkness material was and is being released. I follow their monday morning meetings blog and anything they can say about new material. They are not in trouble in any shape or form. They can very well be hiding but I just don;t see it. I get you dislike change but please don't make stuff up.
Look at all the games with established IPs and fan bases that have churned through multiple company failures and have to be repeatedly rescued-- Battletech/ Mechwarrior, Shadowrun.
Shadowrun needed new editions because between 1 and 3rd edition you essential had Pathfinder editions with very little rules changes. Decking and Rigging were a pain to run in all three editions. Or at the very least needed another sourcebook to make functional imo. Fourth and now fifth actually made it easier and fun to play both riggers and deckers. I will concede that Catalyst Games needs better proof reading and edition. A failure hardly imo. I'm not a fan of mechwarrior or Battletech but I'm assuming that a slow steady release schedule as told by my gaming buddies again is not a failure to me anyway.
|
|
So beyond backwards compiablity what would be their main selling feature. All some want to offer hear is a rehash. Which I don't think well sell as well. New material risks alienating older fans but at least their is the promise of new material. I see why some want no change. I just can't see myself wasting time or money on something I already have. So if they do that I wish Paizo good luck. They are going to need it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because, of course, you are absolutely representative of the entire customer base.
Which I never ever said I was. So kindly stop making up stuff up. I get your trying to get me angry enough to leave the thread. So that only the voices that don't want any change can contribute. It's not going to happen. So nice try.
I just feel that PF needs more than just backwards compiability and few more houserules a second time around. It will be a harder to sell and promote imo. Those who like the system as is may not want to reinvest in a edition where no major changes are implemented. If a gamer dislikes martial caster/disparity and how high level play can slow down the game. It's not addressed in the next edition. Chances are good they will remain with the current edition. Why would anyone buy the same rpg with the same flaws and benefits again. I certainly don't have 120$+ to do so. I'm pretty sure some gamers feel the same way.
Would I like a edition that ditches some of the legacy problems of course. I don't think I'm going to get it. I will say this I rather reinvest in something that offers at least 50%+ new material than another rehash. Or at the very least some find of fix major or minor to the martial/caster disparity and high level play problems.Even a edition where different bonuses stack would be a plus imo. Nothing slows a session down more than having to figure out which bonuses will and will not stack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the process of how the rules are written, and updated is needed if a 2nd edition is ever done*, which is why I suggested hiring technical writers earlier, assuming they can afford to do so. If things are done in the same manner the results will be the same.
In addition I want a clear line between flavor text and mechanical text. Some people can not tell the difference.
Telling someone they are cheating if they are not following the flavor of a class is asinine. Restricting a class based on a name is silly.
Example: You can't use the ninja as magical theif because the class is named ninja
Remove reliance on the stat boosting items. They can exist, but they should be a bonus, not a requirement. Now if people still choose to pick them up that is on them, but at least they won't be a requirement.
No more classes like the fighter who can just hit stuff or classes like the core rogue or monk, which require a PHD in optimization or a nice GM to get by with.
I personally don't mind full casters being powerful. I actually expect magic to be powerful. I would just like for classes to at least be as useful as the 4 and 6 level casting classes, even if they do not get spells.
I would not really expect backwards compatibility after all of this so many people would be disappointed.
During the playtesting remind people that what is best for their game, may not be best for "the game".
They(forum posters) also need to remember that actual gameplay at someone else's table does not equate to theorycraft, just because the experience is different.
*I'm not looking for a 2nd edition, just throwing ideas out there.
|
|
Good suggestions Wraithstrike.
My fix though it maybe too much of a change for the system and fans. Is decoupling stats from the game. As it stands a Bard needs a high cha to have a decent DC for his spells. One can make say a Bard with a cha of 12 and another with a 18. But the second has better DCs then the first. A Fighter needs high sTr to not only hit and damage creatures. He also needs it to carry his armor and weapons around.
I'm not sure how to do that without making it a entirely different rpg.
During the playtesting remind people that what is best for their game, may not be best for "the game".
Seconded. There was a pretty vocal segment that kept chasing away any fans that wanted any change beyond keeping the status quo during this editions playtest.. Anyone who does that or any similar kind of behavior given a warning. If that does not work a permaban. Nothing ruins a playtest more than when overzealous fans chase away others.
Good suggestions Wraithstrike.
My fix though it maybe too much of a change for the system and fans. Is decoupling stats from the game. As it stands a Bard needs a high cha to have a decent DC for his spells. One can make say a Bard with a cha of 12 and another with a 18. But the second has better DCs then the first. A Fighter needs high sTr to not only hit and damage creatures. He also needs it to carry his armor and weapons around.
I'm not sure how to do that without making it a entirely different rpg.
During the playtesting remind people that what is best for their game, may not be best for "the game".
Seconded. There was a pretty vocal segment that kept chasing away any fans that wanted any change beyond keeping the status quo during this editions playtest.. Anyone who does that or any similar kind of behavior given a warning. If that does not work a permaban. Nothing ruins a playtest more than when overzealous fans chase away others.
I think getting rid of stats would change the game way too much for people. I also dont think people want all bards to have the save spell save DC's. The ability to make one character better at one thing, and worse at another thing as a trade off is part of it's charm IMO.
I do admit that 6th level caster spells are not as hard to resist. That can be fixed by various means. I won't bother going into that because how well each solution would work would depend on how the rest of 2.0 played out.
|
|
The issue I see is that those with the lower charisma want to be as effective as the one with higher charisma in terms of DCs from the start. You are correct that at least by later levels with items and the right investment of attribute points it can be fixed at later levels. More often than not sometimes a player with low charisma even after warned not to make it so low. Expects to be on par with the one with the high charisma. The system as is does not allow it imo.
|
|
Need to make sure people who aren't as strong are just as good at lifting heavy loads right out of the gate as well?
It's not so much that so much that at lower levels encumberance is a factor as well. When your higher level with more funds. Haversacks and stat boosting items help but don't remove the problem. If your playing a standard fighter your going to start taking penalties to movement and AC with low str.
You're not describing a statless system, you're describing a system in which character choices have no consequences. That's never going to be the case, in a system like Pathfinder or even a free form system like Fate. Choices without consequences aren't choices at all.
You don't have top convince me. It's just that their certain players who want to have a low stats without the consequences. A low cha Bard who wants to use Enchantment spells runs the risk of them failing more than succeeding at beginning to mid levels.