Is it time for Pathfinder 2nd edition?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 611 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know this comes up every so often, so pardon me for re-asking ... but does Pathfinder need a second edition? We've got rulebooks and splatbooks galore now, along with Unchained's optional rules variants. These all have some good things, some bad things, and some neutral things. But it strikes me that we're reaching a certain critical rule mass, where the first step for a PF table is to run down a checklist of all the books to decide what is allowed and what isn't.

IMNSHO and after browsing this Reddit thread, I think we may be at a point where it's worth codifying some of these rules and lessons learned into a new edition of PF. If I had my druthers, it would look something like this:

A Core Rulebook that pulls in material from across the Player Companions, Unchained, APG, UMagic, and UCombat to codify the "core classes" and rebalance them. I particularly think it's worth giving each class a suite of talents (consolidating talents, discoveries, arcana, mercies, arcane exploits, and so forth), points pools (codifying arcane pools, inspiration, grit, combat stamina, hero points, and so forth), and archetypes (consolidating archetypes, bloodlines, mysteries, and so forth). It might even be worth consolidating some of the classes.

A GameMastery Guide that contains a lot of material in the current GMG (there's some truly excellent stuff there if you look for it), supplemented with optional systems from UCAM and from the Adventure Paths.

And, of course, new bestiaries and so forth.

Any thoughts in that direction?


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The general idea from previous thread could be summed up in 3 words: "Not gonna happen".

I like the current books and although it does make for quite a hefty bookshelf indeed, that's one aspect of the hobby that many people like: collecting books.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well put Wheldrake! I for one would not switch over to a second edition unless they were somehow comparable. I have WAY too much invested in this edition and myself and my players are happy with the system as it stands. Yes there are some rough spots but every system out there has some spots somewhere. One edition of Pathfinder is all I need!


I would suspect that the closest we're going to get is a consolidation... that will never ever be called a new edition. But I think that's three years off, yet.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Does it need one? Yes, badly.

Will it get one? Haha, no.

I don't like the second answer, try again? Okay, maybe in another 5 years or so, but don't get your hopes up.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

New edition? I don't think we're getting one, I don't think we need one, and I don't want one.

I'm perfectly happy with paizo continuesly adding to the existing system.

And as for the "what's allowed and what isn't"-talk, groups should always discuss the campaign they are about to start.

And I have heard a GM argue "I don't want to read five extra rulebooks to play", to which I suggest: just read the relevant bits; classes, feats, variant systems and say yes or no to each of those.

I love the amount of stuff that's available both as a player and a GM.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. We won't get Pathfinder 2.0. Why?

Because the game is fine as it is. It has problems, flaws, etc., but it's a solid game.

The closest we could get is a discontinuation of supplemental materials (excluding Adventure Paths), and Paizo making a different RPG to fill a different niche that isn't related to Pathfinder.

But it won't be Pathfinder 2.0. It doesn't make sense to do stuff like that.

Scarab Sages

9 people marked this as a favorite.

No.

Maybe they should just add this to the FAQ since it gets asked every week.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Duiker wrote:

No.

Maybe they should just add this to the FAQ since it gets asked every week.

But I haven't seen it this week, yet!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't been able to play too many different characters (bi-weekly play, longer campaigns), so I hope PF still has some years left.


I think it's a valid question to ask because we can see that the game itself is evolving with the addition of new archetypes, hybrid classes, and the whole field of psychic magic, etc. It sort of makes me ask: Where is it going? How can all of this work together? Does it all work together?

The problem would be stepping back and asking: Out of all of this, what would we want to establish as the new Core? And that can't really be answered because it is so dependent on play style, as well as campaign.

So - no - there won't be a PF 2.0 unless it is something entirely new.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought we already had a PF 2.0, though it's called by a different name: 5e.


Cerberus Seven wrote:

Does it need one? Yes, badly.

Will it get one? Haha, no.

I don't like the second answer, try again? Okay, maybe in another 5 years or so, but don't get your hopes up.

This.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:

Does it need one? Yes, badly.

Will it get one? Haha, no.

I don't like the second answer, try again? Okay, maybe in another 5 years or so, but don't get your hopes up.

This.

That's two people saying it (badly) needs a new edition. Why is that? Is pathfinder really the system for you if it badly needs to be replaced?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
DonDuckie wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:

Does it need one? Yes, badly.

Will it get one? Haha, no.

I don't like the second answer, try again? Okay, maybe in another 5 years or so, but don't get your hopes up.

This.
That's two people saying it (badly) needs a new edition. Why is that? Is pathfinder really the system for you if it badly needs to be replaced?

You know, that's a really great question. Really great, because it forces me to look at the pile of books and software data packets (yes I use Hero Lab) that I've purchased over the years, and ask myself a really difficult question. Is it time to give up on it? Obviously a person doesn't like to look at multiple years' worth of money spent, and think it might have all been a waste. So, do you stick with something that is probably a lot broken in a lot of different ways, and has started to suffer from bloat. Or do you look at all those materials you've purchased as a lesson learned and move on to the next thing? Those are really difficult questions to answer.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

The fundamental problems can't be fixed and have any illusion of backwards compatibility. So it's not going to happen. If you just want minor tweaks, they already do that continuously via things like Unchained. Anything more major will cause a major revolt from the player base (see D&D 4).

If you are feeling overwhelmed, there are other systems you can try. 13th Age, Fantasy AGE, and D&D 5e all have their own strengths and take fantasy RPGs in different directions. And it turns out, Pathfinder adventures (the strongest products Paizo makes) can be relatively easily converted to other game systems, if you are willing to do a little work.

I should note that I've GM'd a Pathfinder campaign from 1-20, and probably won't do so again. I'm perfectly willing to play it (I'm in a Wrath campaign now), but as a GM I've found I prefer a tad lighter system. But I still pull stuff from 3.X/PF for my games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pennywit wrote:

I know this comes up every so often, so pardon me for re-asking ... but does Pathfinder need a second edition? We've got rulebooks and splatbooks galore now, along with Unchained's optional rules variants. These all have some good things, some bad things, and some neutral things. But it strikes me that we're reaching a certain critical rule mass, where the first step for a PF table is to run down a checklist of all the books to decide what is allowed and what isn't.

IMNSHO and after browsing this Reddit thread, I think we may be at a point where it's worth codifying some of these rules and lessons learned into a new edition of PF. If I had my druthers, it would look something like this:

A Core Rulebook that pulls in material from across the Player Companions, Unchained, APG, UMagic, and UCombat to codify the "core classes" and rebalance them. I particularly think it's worth giving each class a suite of talents (consolidating talents, discoveries, arcana, mercies, arcane exploits, and so forth), points pools (codifying arcane pools, inspiration, grit, combat stamina, hero points, and so forth), and archetypes (consolidating archetypes, bloodlines, mysteries, and so forth). It might even be worth consolidating some of the classes.

A GameMastery Guide that contains a lot of material in the current GMG (there's some truly excellent stuff there if you look for it), supplemented with optional systems from UCAM and from the Adventure Paths.

And, of course, new bestiaries and so forth.

Any thoughts in that direction?

No, not needed.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Duiker wrote:

No.

Maybe they should just add this to the FAQ since it gets asked every week.

But I haven't seen it this week, yet!

Given how angry some people are about the FAQ and errata being conflated, maybe they should release second edition Pathfinder on the FAQ.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I very much doubt that you will see a new edition within the near future, maybe not ever.

As pathfinder becomes harder and harder to figure out for new players it will probably lose many of those who hang on because they might like to introduce their friends and family to the game, but cannot due to assumed rules, wierdly functioning classes, abilities, spells, monsters, magical items and what-ever else you can imagine.

As customer numbers dwindle, and they most likely will, Paizo will find themselves in a spot where they have to re-invent Pathfinder or face the risk of dying from a lack of customers.

In that case they will most likely attempt to consolidate their remaining customers, likely by lowering their prices and increasing their product output, which will not help the problem but increase it.

What do I base this on?

Well. Paizo is making their money keeping 3.5 dungeons and dragons alive. This means that they have not really re-invented anything, merely building on what was already there.

To make a new edition of Pathfinder, they would have to re-think how they do things, how they design and implement material.

The reason that this is impropable is that they have a small, but very vocal, fanbase that demands that things should remain the same. This fanbase usually point to, often unproven, claims that Pathfinder is the best selling game out there and that the fact that you can find organized play almost everywhere is an amazing thing.

What the vocal minority tends to forget is that many play pathfinder because it is the only game available near their home, while others play it out of habbit or a lack of local game stores where to find new games.

In the end, the vocal minority has, time and again, been proved to be the ones Paizo attempts to please. The company changes rules over and over again because the vocal minority is screaming about how this or that is overpowered.

And in the end, the vocal minority will be the ones standing in the way of a new edition of Pathfinder. Not necesserily because they are right, but because they are loud. And this way, Paizo's most hardcore fans may prove to be their undoing in the end.

I am not against Paizo's buisness model, though as a buisness management student it puzzles me. The way they have been doing things up to now, Paizo will not survive in the long run. They will not perish within 5 years, most likely not even within 10, but if they do not manage to re-invent their product, they will die. This isn't a matter of opinion, it is just how things are as a buisness, re-invent or die.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Nodachi Fred wrote:
I thought we already had a PF 2.0, though it's called by a different name: 5e.

This would imply 5e is an evolution of the Pathfinder formula, rather than an entirely different take on the genre that's going to appeal to an entirely different set of people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes it's time for Pathfinder 2E.... WHEN MARTIALS FLY!!!
*Sees Bloodrager*


Arachnofiend wrote:
Nodachi Fred wrote:
I thought we already had a PF 2.0, though it's called by a different name: 5e.
This would imply 5e is an evolution of the Pathfinder formula, rather than an entirely different take on the genre that's going to appeal to an entirely different set of people.

Did you see the extent to which D&D used their playtest as a formulary for what did and didn't make it into the game? Did you also notice, that the game itself, whether by coincidence or not (I happen to think not) addresses many of the "broken" complaints people have about Pathfinder? I'm not saying 5e is an evolution of Pathfinder. What I am saying, is that D&D 5e certainly took a look at the greater fanbase of fantasy themed RPGs and put out a product that addresses a lot of what those fans desire.

That, to me, is what a Pathfinder 2.0 would look like anyway.


Wouldn't that make 5e a copycat.

Grand Lodge

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

We've already had Pathfinder 2nd Edition. We've had the 3rd Edition. I don't even know what edition we're on now.

Pathfinder has evolved. Every new book has made incremental changes. Pathfinder today is a different game than it was at release.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I imagine that a new edition will come when sales of the current edition start to slow and Paizo decides that a revision of the game will kick things back into gear.

We already know that the GenCon release for 2016 is a new supplement focused on horror adventures, so that means any new edition probably won't happen until 2017 at the earliest.

While I would buy the heck out of a second edition, I'm also pretty happy waiting. The large amount of rules is mitigated by the fact that just about everything is accessible online. This means it's fairly easy for me to run a game of Core Rulebook + whatever addition stuff fits the campaign (all accessible from a few links on my tablet or phone) rather than carting a dozen different rulebooks to games like I did back in my AD&D days.


In a word No.

Pathfinder is as complicated as it was when the Core Rulebook was released. Everything after that point is optional. Traits; Archetypes; and non-core classes, feats, equipment and spellls can all be ignored by new players if you choose.

What the Pathfinder game gives you is choice, it doesn't force it on you.

Oh and fighters can fly... The party wizard casts fly on them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DonDuckie wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:

Does it need one? Yes, badly.

Will it get one? Haha, no.

I don't like the second answer, try again? Okay, maybe in another 5 years or so, but don't get your hopes up.

This.
That's two people saying it (badly) needs a new edition. Why is that? Is pathfinder really the system for you if it badly needs to be replaced?

Try teaching Pathfinder to a few friends who aren't incredibly numbers-savvy and who don't have much (if any) experience with TTRPGs. It's not an easy task. The rules for interactions between items, spells, feats, the environment, and different actions can get really confusing. Too many options are of the boring, "Add this number to that statistic in this circumstance" variant. There's no incentive to role-play besides what that person brings to the table. I'm not even going to mention the #1 favorite topic of the board. It's an inflexible system with a huge learning curve and an obsession for adding little numbers together in lieu of real creative options.

For the sake of its future, Pathfinder needs a more streamlined model that does a better job of balancing various player options while incorporating actual role-playing mechanics and benefits. After 8 years of this system, though, it doesn't appear Paizo wants to go this route. If anything, they're pushing the opposite direction. It's gotten a lot of mileage off of being the successor to 3.X, but that's only going to take it so far. Eventually, the geeks this works on are going to stop playing and new blood will be needed to keep the system viable. Whatever future of the game is offered will have to be able to successfully compete with the desire to spend hard-earned money and precious time on sitting down at a table with friends and playing this over simpler TTRPGs, video games, Cards Against Humanity, etc. It's good that Paizo is always introducing new options and sub-systems and I hope it works out for them in the long run, but that's not how I'm hedging my bets.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally wouldnt use it for about 4/5 years , the reason i like PF is mostly the bloat , which to me just means tons and tons of options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens Subscriber

I think it is up to the GM and the group to decide what rules they use. That implies compiling some sort of house rules and a list (written down or not) of rules being used. An updated core rulebook might be an idea, as some errors and some clarifications are probably needed, but for the most part, it will probably stay the same. Any rules transition is spelling trouble for the company as well as the fans - each and every XD&D edition was disputed hotly, even from 3.0 to 3.5, not to mention any change in the main numeral. Changing the main body of rules is a tricky thing (rules writing DC 20, marketing DC 25 ;-)), so the best bet not to change a thing until the customers are running away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder is getting pretty clunky. More options are nice and can be ignored, but puts more onus on home groups to ban/allow/houserule things they don't want to deal with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nodachi Fred wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Nodachi Fred wrote:
I thought we already had a PF 2.0, though it's called by a different name: 5e.
This would imply 5e is an evolution of the Pathfinder formula, rather than an entirely different take on the genre that's going to appeal to an entirely different set of people.

Did you see the extent to which D&D used their playtest as a formulary for what did and didn't make it into the game? Did you also notice, that the game itself, whether by coincidence or not (I happen to think not) addresses many of the "broken" complaints people have about Pathfinder? I'm not saying 5e is an evolution of Pathfinder. What I am saying, is that D&D 5e certainly took a look at the greater fanbase of fantasy themed RPGs and put out a product that addresses a lot of what those fans desire.

That, to me, is what a Pathfinder 2.0 would look like anyway.

If what the "greater fanbase" wants is a watered down system where every character of a given class is functionally identical then I'm glad to not be part of that mob.

I'm quite happy with Pathfinder. What you consider bloat I consider depth. You already have 5e for what you want, changing Pathfinder to be more like 5e just makes it so that I don't have what I want anymore.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Nodachi Fred wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Nodachi Fred wrote:
I thought we already had a PF 2.0, though it's called by a different name: 5e.
This would imply 5e is an evolution of the Pathfinder formula, rather than an entirely different take on the genre that's going to appeal to an entirely different set of people.

Did you see the extent to which D&D used their playtest as a formulary for what did and didn't make it into the game? Did you also notice, that the game itself, whether by coincidence or not (I happen to think not) addresses many of the "broken" complaints people have about Pathfinder? I'm not saying 5e is an evolution of Pathfinder. What I am saying, is that D&D 5e certainly took a look at the greater fanbase of fantasy themed RPGs and put out a product that addresses a lot of what those fans desire.

That, to me, is what a Pathfinder 2.0 would look like anyway.

If what the "greater fanbase" wants is a watered down system where every character of a given class is functionally identical then I'm glad to not be part of that mob.

I'm quite happy with Pathfinder. What you consider bloat I consider depth. You already have 5e for what you want, changing Pathfinder to be more like 5e just makes it so that I don't have what I want anymore.

Which brings me back to my original statement. Now if you go back and read it again, after reading what you just said here. I think you'll understand exactly what I meant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Listening to the "greater fanbase" of d+d is what gave wizards 4th edition, as well as the abomination of what they did to their realms setting.

5e is better, but its still the edition where no one gets to be epic, and that isn't going to hold people's attention for as long as folks think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it is getting close to a time where it need to be update to 2.0 but a little too soon to do it now. maybe in 2 or 3 years. We are just starting to see things that would be a good ground base for a rebuilt system. Such as Unchained new action economy, background and condensed skill system. We also new and improved spell casting system based on how the Anarchist cast spells, with the ability to prepare and spam those spells.

These are all great things that gets away from the old clutter and clunky system, but they are not going to get much support or clarification unless they make a whole new version of the game based around them. Even has some good options but I don't see it getting much more support then it already has. but would be great to implement in a new core system.

There are a lot of things in the system now that are just clunky and don't work and will not be fixed unless they go to a new version due backward compatibility. Other wise after 6 printing of the core rule would have seen them fixed by now. Such as mounted combat, over run and charging, prestige class, multi-classing, overly complex grapple rules, caster martial power disparity. Cleric and Druid being over powered monsters, because they are both martial and full 9 level casters with no real down side. It also why you will never see a d6 hit dice divine full casting class, as the class starts out weaker then core options.

A new version of the game is required to fix those things and we are just test out things in the optional rules or add ons that can be good test for a base of a new system. So I say a few more years before it should happen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You're going to many more unchained classes before a new version. You will see consolidation before a new version. Heck I'd just like to see clerics get at least 4 skill points.

It is hard to imagine that there is economic and marketing incentive for PF 2.0 now; but let's check back in a month from now when this thread pops up again so the same answer can be given.


When it comes to an issue of Paizo losing money and has to lay off staff or come up with a 2nd edition to boost sales, I guarantee there will be a 2nd edition at some point. Its probably at least 2 years out, but 5e out sells Pathfinder in most local games stores so there will be a breaking point at some time.

Too be honest it looks to me Paizo is running out of sales ideas. The early books everyone in my game group bought, that would be 6 copies of each book, but by bestiary 4 & 5 by group had no interest, inner race guide, also no interest, the strategy guide sits as my local game store without a single copy purchased, so now my local game store only stocks 1 book instead of the before 3 books. I have only seen the Inner Sea Race Guide in 1 of the 6 games stores I frequent. The stores simply didn't stock it.


To be fair "strategy guides" are a poor choice to begin with.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
roysier wrote:

When it comes to an issue of Paizo losing money and has to lay off staff or come up with a 2nd edition to boost sales, I guarantee there will be a 2nd edition at some point. Its probably at least 2 years out, but 5e out sells Pathfinder in most local games stores so there will be a breaking point at some time.

Too be honest it looks to me Paizo is running out of sales ideas. The early books everyone in my game group bought, that would be 6 copies of each book, but by bestiary 4 & 5 by group had no interest, inner race guide, also no interest, the strategy guide sits as my local game store without a single copy purchased, so now my local game store only stocks 1 book instead of the before 3 books. I have only seen the Inner Sea Race Guide in 1 of the 6 games stores I frequent. The stores simply didn't stock it.

Meanwhile, the store I go to has an entire section devoted to Pathfinder and has more books for older editions than it does for 5e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MendedWall12 wrote:
DonDuckie wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:

Does it need one? Yes, badly.

Will it get one? Haha, no.

I don't like the second answer, try again? Okay, maybe in another 5 years or so, but don't get your hopes up.

This.
That's two people saying it (badly) needs a new edition. Why is that? Is pathfinder really the system for you if it badly needs to be replaced?
You know, that's a really great question. Really great, because it forces me to look at the pile of books and software data packets (yes I use Hero Lab) that I've purchased over the years, and ask myself a really difficult question. Is it time to give up on it? Obviously a person doesn't like to look at multiple years' worth of money spent, and think it might have all been a waste. So, do you stick with something that is probably a lot broken in a lot of different ways, and has started to suffer from bloat. Or do you look at all those materials you've purchased as a lesson learned and move on to the next thing? Those are really difficult questions to answer.

It wasn't meant as an 'accusation' or trick question, I have a near complete collection of rulebooks and campaign setting lines plus some 3pp, and I'm still accumulating more books every month - one of the things I love about pathfinder is the constant flow of material, and "better" systems don't deliver on this (addiction). As for financial advice: don't throw good money after bad. :)

Cerberus Seven wrote:

Try teaching Pathfinder to a few friends who aren't incredibly numbers-savvy and who don't have much (if any) experience with TTRPGs. It's not an easy task. The rules for interactions between items, spells, feats, the environment, and different actions can get really confusing. Too many options are of the boring, "Add this number to that statistic in this circumstance" variant. There's no incentive to role-play besides what that person brings to the table. I'm not even going to mention the #1 favorite topic of the board. It's an inflexible system with a huge learning curve and an obsession for adding little numbers together in lieu of real creative options.

For the sake of its future, Pathfinder needs a more streamlined model that does a better job of balancing various player options while incorporating actual role-playing mechanics and benefits. After 8 years of this system, though, it doesn't appear Paizo wants to go this route. If anything, they're pushing the opposite direction. It's gotten a lot of mileage off of being the successor to 3.X, but that's only going to take it so far. Eventually, the geeks this works on are going to stop playing and new blood will be needed to keep the system viable. Whatever future of the game is offered will have to be able to successfully compete with the desire to spend hard-earned money and precious time on sitting down at a table with friends and playing this over simpler TTRPGs, video games, Cards Against Humanity, etc. It's good that Paizo is always introducing new options and sub-systems and I hope it works out...

I do try to teach and I just give it a little at a time, nobody learns it all before playing - a lot. I'm not too keen on RP incentive mechanics, but that might just be my experience with GMs who almost punish players for not RPing to their satisfaction, or RPing passive/shy/careful characters simply doesn't get you anything.

I don't think paizo will run out of players for this style of expanding game system. But yes it does target other groups than lighter TT/video games. Although there is a PF MMO on the way if it's not released by now (haven't kept up with news for a while).

Thanks for the answers.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Cerberus Seven wrote:


Try teaching Pathfinder to a few friends who aren't incredibly numbers-savvy and who don't have much (if any) experience with TTRPGs. It's not an easy task.

Actually, it is relatively easy. I'm doing it now for my youngest son and four of his friends (age 10).

Character creation was done before the first session. I explained the RPG concept, provided a few examples, and asked what kinds of abilities/skills they wanted to have in general, non-game specific terms.

Next, based on their answers, I provided them with examples, primarily comic-book, movie, TV and video game references plus the PF strategy guide or the relevant supplement. Then they chose their race & class and we made characters. They arrived at:
2 rogues
1 fighter
1 magus
1 conjurer

Die mechanics, combat basics, skill checks, and starting spells were understood before the end of the 1st session.

What I didn't do was plop 6-7 books on a table and expect them to absorb it. Each session, you add another element as needed.

It's easy. I know there are those who like to claim otherwise, but either they are unintentionally boiling the ocean, they aren't trying to teach, or they're exaggerating the magnitude of the challenge.

More than a few also like to say things like "I like 5e because it's leaner/has fewer supplements." This is often followed with "I wish Paizo made 5e material...."

YMMV


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd be up for a re-organization of the rules, but not a new edition (a la D&D 2->3, 3->4, or 4->5).

Arachnofiend wrote:
Meanwhile, the store I go to has an entire section devoted to Pathfinder and has more books for older editions than it does for 5e.

How many books are out for 5e? I don't actually know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well , i admit i dont have the sale figures for either pathfinder or DnD 5.

Anyone actually got said numbers?

Cause saying one or the other is booming is easy , but without actual numbers one claim or the other is almost worthless.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In a word: no.

I don't want one, because I like the system where you can more stuff and alternate rules just keeps getting added.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DonDuckie wrote:
I do try to teach and I just give it a little at a time, nobody learns it all before playing - a lot. I'm not too keen on RP incentive mechanics, but that might just be my experience with GMs who almost punish players for not RPing to their satisfaction, or RPing passive/shy/careful characters simply doesn't get you anything.

Oh, punishing a player for not roleplaying (at all or enough) is NOT how it should be done. It should be an incentive rather than a mandate, something to encourage people to have fun getting into character. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

DonDuckie wrote:
I don't think paizo will run out of players for this style of expanding game system. But yes it does target other groups than lighter TT/video games. Although there is a PF MMO on the way if it's not released by now (haven't kept up with news for a while).

Roysier made some pretty good points that address this line of thinking, so I'll just point out his post above mine and leave it at that.

Yeah, I need to check on the MMO status too. I couldn't get the alpha setup for some reason and stopped trying way back.


Nox Aeterna wrote:

Well , i admit i dont have the sale figures for either pathfinder or DnD 5.

Anyone actually got said numbers?

Cause saying one or the other is booming is easy , but without actual numbers one claim or the other is almost worthless.

FWIW, whenever I'm in a bookstore, I see roughly equal numbers of each. On the face of it, that seems a good thing for both. However, considering just how new 5E is and how much less material it's had published than PF, that's a significant gain in market share compared to time/energy investment for the newer system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If they have to do something, I hope it'll be an entirely new game, not another re-heated soup. It's time we quit it with the "new edition" thinking. Not just for Pathfinder.
Worse, in the case of Pathfinder, there is too much that would need to be updated, and there's no way I'd fall again in the trap of a new edition, so I'd largely prefer to not have it at all. Especially since I don't have any of all the issues people complain about with the current system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Well , i admit i dont have the sale figures for either pathfinder or DnD 5.

Anyone actually got said numbers?

Cause saying one or the other is booming is easy , but without actual numbers one claim or the other is almost worthless.

Both are doing well.

Here's a small slice of numbers, from one store in the bay area. But a large enough store that it probably represents trends throughout the US. And anyone interested in the business behind game stores should follow the Quest for Fun blog.

Some RPG Numbers

D&D and 3PP

Piepocalypse D&D vs Pathfinder Sales

Short answer is, they are both doing well, but D&D does so with far fewer products.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

I 100% completely disagree with the idea that it's time for a new edition. The last 3 hardcovers are literally my favourite books in Pathfinder, so to me it seems like Pathfinder is getting better over time not worse.

But either way, I do wonder how the "pro-Pf2" people think hitting the reset button would help with getting what they want. If paizo did make a PF 2, there is a 90% of it being ridiculously similiar to PF1 to ensure backwards compatibility with the adventure paths... You know, since the whole reason why PFRPG exists at all is so that they could keep making adventure paths and that their old adventure paths don't become outdated.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

+1 Milo

Adventure paths were always the core product and everything else flowed from them. There is lots of ideas left and things show now sign of slowing. Look at the products released and see how many are hardcover rule books as opposed to setting books detailing people/places/adventures?

On a business point the 'rules' are open source the setting and adventures are not...

1 to 50 of 611 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is it time for Pathfinder 2nd edition? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.