| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to discuss Pathfinder 3.0 or maybe Pathfinder 11.3.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there should be one summoner that works, one barbarian that works, one rogue that works.
Like all options, the only 'bloat' is the one the each individual gaming group allows. Either you use an option or you don't. Why should the choices be reduced?
For example if someone else in your group wants to use Core Barb and you want to use Unchainedbarb and your GM is fine with both in the game where is the issue?
It is, IMO, always better to have more options than less.
If you want only one option in a given category, great. Choose the ones that you and your table want to use and go to town. Leave the other options alone and the rest of the world can choose what to use as well.
This is just my opinion, but the extent of changes that I'd like to see in a Pathfinder 2.0 is a restructuring and reclassification of the fundamental rules on how things like combat work.
Like, you don't need to reboot the whole game to clean up the combat section so rules are better organized within the text. (And really, the fact that rules are all over the place isn't really Paizo's fault—they were largely copying WoTC style, and you can't blame them for wanting to keep things as samey as possible during a time where Paizo wasn't known for game publishing.)
Exactly.
To be honest, most of the frequent complaints revolve around a handful of spells and corner rule cases, and a few specific classes (such as the wizard and fighter). You could probably do everything that Alexander talks about, and clean up the those problem areas, and still leave the game intact enough that folks could play there favorite APG or OA class or use Bestiary 3 without a problem.
Im not in favor of pathfinder 2.0. If that happens, Ill jump full time to DND 5e, and keep that as my sole fantasy role playing game.
Im not in favor of pathfinder 2.0. If that happens, Ill jump full time to DND 5e, and keep that as my sole fantasy role playing game.
I mean, it's not like there's not going to be a D&D 6e some day. No game is supported forever.
I mean, hell, GURPS had a 4th edition in 2004 and the Premise of GURPS is "you can run literally anything with it."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assume you can use starfinder to run fantasy games. so that could be 2.0 for you.Is Starfinder the test bed for Pathfinder II?
I extremely doubt it. Starfinder is pretty much it's own thing with a minimal compatiblity for accomodating standard Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I extremely doubt it. Starfinder is pretty much it's own thing with a minimal compatiblity for accomodating standard Pathfinder.I assume you can use starfinder to run fantasy games. so that could be 2.0 for you.Is Starfinder the test bed for Pathfinder II?
I think it's extremely likely Starfinder is being designed to address or avoid some of the problems that Pathfinder has had, though. If those solutions turn out to work well and be popular it's likely they will be implemented somehow in PF someday.
Like it would be silly if they didn't consider what lessons they've learned from Pathfinder over the past 7 years when designing the new game.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That reboot is past due.That reboot will cause more problems than it solves.
I 100% agree with this.
Everything I'm about to say is conjecture based upon my own business practices, rather than anything pertinent to Paizo.
So, Paizo's business model very strongly subscribes to this idea of, "Make as few GM-specific products as possible." Really, the AP line is the only one that usually doesn't have much for players, but Campaign Setting Guides are often laden with player-oriented options designed to support Golarion's flavor specifically. Now, generally speaking, when part of a game book becomes "obsolete," they consider the entire book to be "obsolete." This is why you don't often see the majority of Pathfinder players scrambling to pick up 3.5 books that are actually fairly applicable to Pathfinder, such as the Magic Item Compendium. "Its 3.5, so it must be obsolete for me."
This causes a problem with GM-oriented products that have been spiced with player content, as well as products that directly require the rules system. I'm talking specifically about the Campaign Setting line and the Adventure Path line. Even if all of the world flavor in Belkzan, the Orcish Horde is 90% setting flavor, there will be players who ignore it because of that 10% that uses outdated rules. That would put Paizo in a position of essentially "reinventing the wheel," by republishing those books with slightly updated content. While easy, that would likely lead to a situation of people being upset about having the repurchase "the same 90% of the book for a new edition."
When it comes to customers, there is literally no winning against whining.
Then comes the creative tedium of being expected to update everything that was already done for the new game (because that's what the same people who make threads like these would eventually move on to), all the while Paizo is left trying to juggle new ideas with old ideas. And that doesn't even begin to talk about what that would do the AP line. Let's say that Paizo announces at GenCon 17 that Pathfinder v2 is happening, and that there will be drastic mechanics changes. How many customers are going to avoid purchasing new product for Pathfinder until the new edition comes out because, "All this stuff is just going to be obsolete in a year anyway." The answer? A LOT. Which means the amount of money that Paizo would theoretically bring in with their biggest products would be slashed, all the while their staff is scrambling the write new rules, design adventures with rules that haven't been finished yet, and all the while the amount of money coming in starts shrinking and shrinking.
No, switching editions entirely is not a strong idea. Books in the style of Pathfinder Unchained, books that patch products instead of invalidate them, will always be superior—especially since the rules end up available to everyone for free in a few months regardless.
New editions should clean away outdated game design decisions that don't fit how gamers want to play now. The problem for Paizo is that they cannot remove/update the most contentious part of their system, Vancian spellcasting, without risking their business. Too many people like it and too many people don't. I bet that there's a strong correlation between not liking Vancian spellcasting and wanting a new edition.
The way I see it, Pathfinder 2 started when Spheres of Power was released. It's a shame to have to go to 3rd party for a second-edition-level update to Pathfinder's largest and most contentious system but Paizo is trapped by their split player base so it's what we got. I think major system overhauls, the stuff of new editions, will probably be relegated to 3rd party because Paizo will never risk a D&D 4th problem. Any updating Paizo does will be very safe and very incremental, and that won't ever satisfy some people, so they'll look elsewhere.
What makes you so sure there's such a split of the fan base.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What makes you so sure there's such a split of the fan base.
The size of the martial/caster disparity thread index, the popularity of magic systems in other games (and Spheres for that matter) that buck all of the Vancian design ideas, and personal anecdotes from people who wouldn't ever care enough to be on these boards but have tried things both ways and preferred Spheres. That's not to say there's not many who prefer Vancian as well; just rebuffing the idea that only super-experienced gamers who frequent these boards notice problems caused by Vancian casting and wouldn't prefer an alternative.
Vancian casting isn't bad, but it is very complex, very hard to balance, and does not mesh well with very many people's experience of what magic in fantasy should look like. I don't want to turn this thread into another C/D disparity thread, but this is something Vancian fans don't seem to get: Vancian spellcasting is *weird.* It doesn't mirror anything in our real world experience (like physical energy mirrors a mana bar, for example). It's strange that the most popular fantasy RPG line has such a niche system that so many people feel hinders tropy character concepts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like your ideal version of PF2.0 is one in which the GM is not allowed to make any decisions over what they want to allow in their game.
That's an unfair assumption. Many of those updates/systems aren't optional because they're contentious, they're optional because they change a core mechanic of the game. It's totally fair to say "I wish these were the default assumption because even my GM would really like them, but he's busy and not terribly adventurous so he won't even read optional subsystems." That's not a spoiled "I just want my way" argument at all.
|
I mean, it's not like there's not going to be a D&D 6e some day. No game is supported forever.I mean, hell, GURPS had a 4th edition in 2004 and the Premise of GURPS is "you can run literally anything with it."
Not to mention it suddenly does not make PF 1E suddenly unplayable. There people still playing older editions of D&D and other rpgs. I'm sure fans will stick with the current edition. I don't get the " a new edition came out I no longer can play the current one".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What makes you so sure there's such a split of the fan base.The size of the martial/caster disparity thread index, the popularity of magic systems in other games (and Spheres for that matter) that buck all of the Vancian design ideas, and personal anecdotes from people who wouldn't ever care enough to be on these boards but have tried things both ways and preferred Spheres. That's not to say there's not many who prefer Vancian as well; just rebuffing the idea that only super-experienced gamers who frequent these boards notice problems caused by Vancian casting and wouldn't prefer an alternative.
Vancian casting isn't bad, but it is very complex, very hard to balance, and does not mesh well with very many people's experience of what magic in fantasy should look like. I don't want to turn this thread into another C/D disparity thread, but this is something Vancian fans don't seem to get: Vancian spellcasting is *weird.* It doesn't mirror anything in our real world experience (like physical energy mirrors a mana bar, for example). It's strange that the most popular fantasy RPG line has such a niche system that so many people feel hinders tropy character concepts.
For each person that loudly claims that Pathfinder's Vancian system is dead, there's are hundreds who are using that system quite happily without bothering to proclaim so on this soapbox. the Martial/caster thing won't go away in any future version of Pathfinder... not unless they change the game so radically to trigger a mass abandonment of the kind that nearly killed D+D.
Magic is weird. Are you really going to claim that a magic system that sounds and operates like it came out of a video game, is more "magic" than the classic style eiptomised by Jack Vance?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see much reason for Paizo to start a new edition, if they did they'd be jeopardising the AP's which is their main business and they'd get the "okay now we have to reprint/revise tonnes of content but people don't want to buy the new books because they are 90% the same as books that they already bought" and the fact that people who play PF rather than another system.... play PF rather than another system meaning a decent chuck wouldn't move to the new system or would only purchase the flavour-based books.
I mean, even though I know I might not buy another Paizo book because of how they are currently handling things, it doesn't mean that they should stop making the current edition. I am but one jerk on the internet, just because I dislike what they are currently doing doesn't mean they should listen to me and do a severe change.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For each person that loudly claims that Pathfinder's Vancian system is dead, there's are hundreds who are using that system quite happily...
Which is why I said there's a split in the fanbase. The popularity of Spheres and other alternative options proves there's a market. The many who like Vancian prove that both are liked. I'm not saying either is better. I'm saying one is classic and another is being introduced as a new-age, if you will, take on magic for D&D.
the Martial/caster thing won't go away in any future version of Pathfinder...
Because Vancian magic lends itself to that problem and Vancian isn't going away. We're in agreement, which is why I personally use Spheres (not perfect, but better).
Are you really going to claim that a magic system that sounds and operates like it came out of a video game, is more "magic" than the classic style eiptomised by Jack Vance?
Nope. I'll claim instead that the magic of Lord of the Rings and Wheel of Time and Harry Potter, the Force from Star Wars, bending from Avatar cartoons, superpowers from Marvel comics, and countless other supernatural abilities from the ingenious minds of thousands of other authors are not even remotely Vancian. They do not involve discrete uses of specific, named abilities organized into levels and switched out after an hour of meditation in the morning. They instead almost always involve learned abilities that tire the user eventually.
That's what I mean by Vancian is weird. And it's cool too! It's just crazy specific. It's a single system. A more basic approach to magic, like Spheres, makes it possible to model many of the abilities from the series I listed with no modifications whatsoever. It's also designed to be fiddled with to create new, specific magic systems like in those stories. I have no issue with Vancian magic in a tabletop RPG. I find it weird that it's the only system when it is so unlike and incompatible with so much other speculative fiction out there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. I'll claim instead that the magic of Lord of the Rings and Wheel of Time and Harry Potter, the Force from Star Wars, bending from Avatar cartoons, superpowers from Marvel comics, and countless other supernatural abilities from the ingenious minds of thousands of other authors are not even remotely Vancian. They do not involve discrete uses of specific, named abilities organized into levels and switched out after an hour of meditation in the morning. They instead almost always involve learned abilities that tire the user eventually.
That's what I mean by Vancian is weird. And it's cool too! It's just crazy specific. It's a single system. A more basic approach to magic, like Spheres, makes it possible to model many of the abilities from the series I listed with no modifications whatsoever. It's also designed to be fiddled with to create new, specific magic systems like in those stories. I have no issue with Vancian magic in a tabletop RPG. I find it weird that it's the only system when it is so unlike and incompatible with so much other speculative fiction out there.
And against those, I'll pit the entire Bibliography as printed from the original AD+D players manual as far more representative of the traditions this game is based on. The only reason Vancian seems "weird" to you is that you come from a much more recent and media-soaked generation than us old-guard, most of us that don't think that Harry Potter or Avatar, and certainly not Star Wars, is anything near the embodiment of the classic spirit of heroic fantasy as embodied by the game.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
And against those, I'll pit the entire Bibliography as printed from the original AD+D players manual as far more representative of the traditions this game is based on.
I'm not disputing the history of D&D. I called Vancian classical in one of my posts for a reason. My point, that you haven't really responded to besides "old is better," is that it doesn't necessarily make sense for D&D to support only one concept of magic and exclude so much of the greater fantasy genre it belongs to.
The only reason Vancian seems "weird" to you is that you come from a much more recent and media-soaked generation than us old-guard, most of us that don't think that Harry Potter or Avatar, and certainly not Star Wars, is anything near the embodiment of the classic spirit of heroic fantasy as embodied by the game.
And now you're discussing in bad faith. Your argument is only a call to your own credibility as an "old-guard" and insulting me (don't be coy, media-soaked is not and has never been a compliment) rather than providing a real argument for the value of Vancian casting as a part of fantasy role-playing games. I'm sure there are some good ones. As much as I like a good discussion, I'm done replying to you if you don't stop assuming who I am, without any information even, and assuming you must be more right because of it.
I don't think "Vancian Magic is weird and obscure" is the problem so much as "it's arguably a causal factor as to why casters can be so wildly unbalanced compared to the entire rest of the game" (not just other classes, but how they can easily bypass basically any challenge posed to them by the world short of a caster of equal power.)
If bring magic down to earth, as it were, it really shouldn't matter what system of magic you're using.
The problem is that magic in Pathfinder is unbalanced, and that it's unbalanced to a degree that sometimes hurts the game, not that it's based on something from a collection of short stories published in 1954. Plenty of games have magic, fairly few of them have magic that's as unbalanced as this one does.
The rift is between people who like it this way, and people who don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think "Vancian Magic is weird and obscure" is the problem so much as "it's arguably a causal factor as to why casters can be so wildly unbalanced compared to the entire rest of the game" (not just other classes, but how they can easily bypass basically any challenge posed to them by the world short of a caster of equal power.)
If bring magic down to earth, as it were, it really shouldn't matter what system of magic you're using.
The problem is that magic in Pathfinder is unbalanced, and that it's unbalanced to a degree that sometimes hurts the game, not that it's based on something from a collection of short stories published in 1954. Plenty of games have magic, fairly few of them have magic that's as unbalanced as this one does.
The rift is between people who like it this way, and people who don't.
A lot of the issues with magic isn't solely due to it being Vancian, it's mostly in how some of the legacy magic-using specialist classes are designed, and individual spells. You can fix those concerns while leaving Vancian magic in place, and with minimal overall changes to the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And against those, I'll pit the entire Bibliography as printed from the original AD+D players manual as far more representative of the traditions this game is based on.I'm not disputing the history of D&D. I called Vancian classical in one of my posts for a reason. My point, that you haven't really responded to besides "old is better," is that it doesn't necessarily make sense for D&D to support only one concept of magic and exclude so much of the greater fantasy genre it belongs to.
The only reason Vancian seems "weird" to you is that you come from a much more recent and media-soaked generation than us old-guard, most of us that don't think that Harry Potter or Avatar, and certainly not Star Wars, is anything near the embodiment of the classic spirit of heroic fantasy as embodied by the game.And now you're discussing in bad faith. Your argument is only a call to your own credibility as an "old-guard" and insulting me (don't be coy, media-soaked is not and has never been a compliment) rather than providing a real argument for the value of Vancian casting as a part of fantasy role-playing games. I'm sure there are some good ones. As much as I like a good discussion, I'm done replying to you if you don't stop assuming who I am, without any information even, and assuming you must be more right because of it.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but all of the examples you put out, one was space opera, and the others all came into being after Dungeons and Dragons narrowly escaped extinction as a brand. And among them, Harry Potter has got to be the most overrated example of either film or literature. The value of Vancian casting is that it echoes the casting of magic as aspecial thing as opposed to another way of exhausting power points. I also simply don't feel that video games no matter how they're dressed up echo the classic feel of magic. Vancian magic echoes the need for preparation and preciseness of wielding the arcane. I do have a fondness for noun-verb magic but every game that does it succesfully, does so by useing magic that is far below the power level of D+D style magic, which is why I have had major issues with Paizo's own take on noun/verb magic, Words of Power.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hold on, I'm still trying to figure out what my THAC0 is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the issues with magic isn't solely due to it being Vancian, it's mostly in how some of the legacy magic-using specialist classes are designed, and individual spells. You can fix those concerns while leaving Vancian magic in place, and with minimal overall changes to the game.
Bingo. Each class is supposed to be playable from 1 to 20, but spell slots are so limited, that the effects need to be dramatic. If you were to massively increase "how much magic you can do in a given day" but commensurately decrease the power of each slot, you would get a lot closer to something reasonable, and you wouldn't need to drop the Jack Vance stuff.
That "people who aren't already playing this game or things similar to it find Vancian magic weird and unfamiliar" is an entirely separate issue.
Hold on, I'm still trying to figure out what my THAC0 is.
It's basically 20 - BAB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hold on, I'm still trying to figure out what my THAC0 is.
I've always hated THACO with an icandescent passion (saved a lot on utility bills). It is one of various things I don't miss from the old days.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, even though I know I might not buy another Paizo book because of how they are currently handling things, it doesn't mean that they should stop making the current edition. I am but one jerk on the internet, just because I dislike what they are currently doing doesn't mean they should listen to me and do a severe change.
Pathfinder's numbers are down and 5E is the new 800-pound gorilla. I know a lot of people who've switched from Pathfinder to 5E, partially because it's the new thing (and the new thing always has attraction) and partially because it does actually provide a different experience at the table.
So it's not just one clown on the internet (or two clowns, since I want it too). It's a lot of people who are silently dropping away and moving their money to other products without bothering to come to this forum and tell the world about it. And as long as Pathfinder continues without a shakeup significant enough to pull attention back to it, that trend will continue and maybe even accelerate.
It's not a case of "don't rock the boat because it's winning the regatta," not anymore. There's a new big kid on the playground and you can't beat him doing the same things you were doing before he showed up.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, even though I know I might not buy another Paizo book because of how they are currently handling things, it doesn't mean that they should stop making the current edition. I am but one jerk on the internet, just because I dislike what they are currently doing doesn't mean they should listen to me and do a severe change.
Pathfinder's numbers are down and 5E is the new 800-pound gorilla. I know a lot of people who've switched from Pathfinder to 5E, partially because it's the new thing (and the new thing always has attraction) and partially because it does actually provide a different experience at the table.
So it's not just one clown on the internet (or two clowns, since I want it too). It's a lot of people who are silently dropping away and moving their money to other products without bothering to come to this forum and tell the world about it. And as long as Pathfinder continues without a shakeup significant enough to pull attention back to it, that trend will continue and maybe even accelerate.
It's not a case of "don't rock the boat because it's winning the regatta," not anymore. There's a new big kid on the playground and you can't beat him doing the same things you were doing before he showed up.
Funny thing is, people were saying this during 4E as well. And they'll say it when D&D moves to 6E. Some people want the newest and shiniest, and some don't. What we also don't see/hear are the people who move away and then come back, or play multiple systems at the same time.
Just because 5E or 4E or another game system entirely exists or was updated or some people have moved to it because they believe it fixes some problems doesn't mean that Paizo needs to suddenly ditch everything to somehow keep up with the Joneses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because 5E or 4E or another game system entirely exists or was updated or some people have moved to it because they believe it fixes some problems doesn't mean that Paizo needs to suddenly ditch everything to somehow keep up with the Joneses.
But when your revenue starts contracting because you're moving fewer units (and ask any FLGS if that's what's happening to Pathfinder) then you DO have to make a change. No market stays static, and companies either adapt or die.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps they are adapting by creating new and interesting content (Starfinder, different APs, rule expansions) rather than slapping a big ol' Now New Edition! on the same three books and remaking the same material with the new edition's stats?
I've wandered through a number of editions of a number of games, and not all of them were better than their predecessors. Some went off in directions, both in rules or support material, that many fans were less than happy with.
For that matter, if I asked the local game stores their opinions they'd tell me that most of the RPGs should shut down since they sell more Pokemon, YuGiOh, Magic, and Warhammer minis than RPGs by a wide margin. I am less than convinced the average game store has a firm take on Paizo's financial situation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder's numbers are down and 5E is the new 800-pound gorilla. I know a lot of people who've switched from Pathfinder to 5E, partially because it's the new thing (and the new thing always has attraction) and partially because it does actually provide a different experience at the table.
And I'm pretty sure some of it is because the Forgotten Realms setting has a lot of fans,and 5E is an express gateway back into it. I've played 5E in addition to Pathfinder for that reason.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
But when your revenue starts contracting because you're moving fewer units (and ask any FLGS if that's what's happening to Pathfinder) then you DO have to make a change. No market stays static, and companies either adapt or die.
Just because 5E or 4E or another game system entirely exists or was updated or some people have moved to it because they believe it fixes some problems doesn't mean that Paizo needs to suddenly ditch everything to somehow keep up with the Joneses.
So, there are a bunch of problems with this idea, and part of that is the idea that Dungeons and Dragons is a force that you can beat simply by changing your product slightly. This isn't Paizo loosing to another small company—this is Dungeons and Dragons returning to its place as the leader in Tabletop Roleplaying Games, and for what its worth it might not simply be because of the quality of 5th Edition. Like it or not, Dungeons and Dragons is a brand name with over 30 years of history behind it—when people ask, "What game are you playing?" People usually answer, "Pathfinder. Its kind of like Dungeons and Dragons." To put it another way, D&D is the Kleenex of roleplaying games—people associate the brand name (Kleenex) with the product itself (tissues). That is a level of entrenchment that you cannot beat simply by optimizing your numbers and making the Stealth rules work a little better.
Basically, Wizards of the Coast is a farm that specialized in one, specific cash crop (let's say corn), and until the early 2000s Paizo was the company that sold seed to said farm. When 4th Edition was released, WOTC placed heavy restrictions on the amount of corn seed that they would buy from Paizo because they decided to just replant corn kernels they already had, so Paizo said, "Well, I can keep doing this like I always have, or I could strike out on my own and start my own little farm." Paizo chose to start its own farm, and sure enough people bought their corn (because it was the same as WOTC's, essentially) while WOTC's corn caught a bad case of blight and withered drastically while Paizo's corn business boomed.
Now, years later, WOTC has come out with GMO corn that it made from cross-breeding last year's corn with their blight-resistant corn seed from several years ago, and they're back to their plan of largely doing stuff on their own. People are flocking to buy the WOTC's corn because they remember the "Good 'ole days," of buying WOTC corn, and despite Paizo's efforts they never managed to gain as much name recognition as WOTC. (Because fighting 30 years of customer loyalty is tough). So now WOTC is doing great, Paizo's sales are still strong, but there's less growth, and now Paizo has a choice—stick with the cash crop it has and compete with WOTC, or try a new crop (maybe rice) and see if they can not only regain reveune from other sources, but entrench themselves in a cash crop the same way WOTC did.
And considering Starfinder is due out in 2017, I think the battle plan is pretty clear. (Even if my analogy isn't!)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I wouldn't take "FLGS have less sales so Pathfinder is dying," as a good indicator. All sales data I've seen over the years seems to indicate that the majority of Paizo's eggs are in subscriptions and online sales, which have arguably been a thing that FLGS have complained about with Paizo's business model. (I know the guys at the store I VA at note it all the time.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the analogical situation I see.
For along time America's domestic automakers were in a boom state with unbelievable sales.
What many people don't realise is that a large reason for this was the literal fact that the bulk of America's auto competition had literally been bombed down to the foundations in world war 2, and for quite awhile the Big Three prospered with no competition.
A simmilar situation occured with WOTC. Faced with declining revenue from 3.5, WOTC made the decision to abandon 3.X together with the idea that a new incompatible version would divert market away from the 3rd party companies who had grown under the windfall of the OGL letting them take on the brand blessing from D+D. The failure of 4.0 to catch on essentially meant that Paizo launched and spent it's first few years with essentially no compeitition.
Like America's automakers have found, Paizo itself now has serious competition in the form of WOTC. There simply is no magic formula that will eliminate WOTC as a competitor any more than American automakers can expect a repitition of World War 2 to shut its competition down.
The moral here is that expectations have to be tempered in the face of a permanent change in reality... one in which Paizo has competition that's not going away.
I think If they were going to do something like a 2.0 they would be better off doing it as 1.5 much like how 3rd edition did it just rehash the core classes maybe spruce up a few of the core rules here and there but try to keep everything that came before or at least a fair portion.
For example I wouldn't want to have to buy the bestiary one all over again with some minor changes. The changes should not be Hugely substantial like say going from one edition of dnd to the next (which i feel most can agree its like going to a completely different game but with the same theme.)
Have we gotten to the car analogies yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know anything about the industry but I don't see how Paizo survives without publishing a new edition periodically.
In order to keep the lights on, Paizo needs to keep publishing books. If Paizo keeps publishing books the number of options, rules, subsystems and so on grow until the sum is bloated, unlearnable, and unworkable. The only solution seems to be to reboot from scratch periodically, and redo everything with the benefit of however many years of experience and insight they managed to keep the cycle going for.
What's the alternative? Stop publishing new player options/rules and just write increasingly detailed setting information? Ignore bloat until it scares away all your potential new customers?
"Bloat" is the all-too-human need to have everything or else one believes they are missing out. You need the Core book to play, or an internet connection and the resources that are provided. There is as much bloat as you buy into.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder's numbers are down and 5E is the new 800-pound gorilla.
So? That's because it's D&D that was recognisable as D&D (rather than 4e which had a severe initial reaction because of it's alterations) so tonnes of people latched onto it. Pathfinder doesn't have that as an option, so they have to understand
I know a lot of people who've switched from Pathfinder to 5E, partially because it's the new thing (and the new thing always has attraction) and partially because it does actually provide a different experience at the table.
*shrug* Only people I know who play 5e are people who are new to RPG's and went to 5e because it's the current D&D.
To be honest, PF is already trying at the "providing a different experience at the table" game with the "x Adventures" books, Unchained and Starfinder. There's no real reason to do PF 2e for that purpose when they are already doing it, especially since a 2e that gave a bigger "different experience" than something like those methods would render a colossal amount of books redundant and reduce the amount of people buying them by a rather significant amount.
So it's not just one clown on the internet (or two clowns, since I want it too).
To clarify, I don't want a 2e. I just don't like how they are currently handling some things and in the area of my complaints my view in the minority.
It's not a case of "don't rock the boat because it's winning the regatta," not anymore. There's a new big kid on the playground and you can't beat him doing the same things you were doing before he showed up.
You also cannot beat him by taking away 80% of the things that people like you for.
I think the likely lesson to take from the 4e transition is that the most important thing when trying to shift editions is to keep a steady stream of new content. Just beyond "if you don't have the options to play your favorite thing in this game, people will play their favorite thing in another game" you have to actually get people excited to keep playing once the novelty wore off.
I have some friends who really really liked 4e and they were continuously disheartened by the slow release schedule. By the time PHB3 came out, there was a good game there, but that took like 2.5 years.
Pathfinder did fine in its inception since it had the framework of 3.5 to build on, so 2.5 years between the CRB and the ARG was tolerable. This would be a serious problem for PF 2.0 though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think If they were going to do something like a 2.0 they would be better off doing it as 1.5 much like how 3rd edition did it just rehash the core classes maybe spruce up a few of the core rules here and there but try to keep everything that came before or at least a fair portion.
{. . .}
Well, in some ways, Pathfinder (D&D 3.75) was to D&D what D&D 3.5 was to D&D 3.0. So if Pathfinder 2.0 continues along this line, it will be equivalent to D&D 3.875.
I'd like to discuss Pathfinder 3.0 or maybe Pathfinder 11.3.
Continuing along this line, Pathfinder 3.0 would be equivalent to D&D 3.9375. Calculating what Pathfinder 11.3 would be takes a bit more doing, but it comes out to being equivalent to D&D 3.9998016961923.
{. . .}
In order to keep the lights on, Paizo needs to keep publishing books. If Paizo keeps publishing books the number of options, rules, subsystems and so on grow until the sum is bloated, unlearnable, and unworkable. {. . .}
For a few moments my brain changed the last part of this into "grow until the sun is bloated, unlearnable, and unworkable".
I think by the time Earth becomes like Athas, Paizo will have come out with a couple of new editions of Pathfinder.
|
|
From what I can see they have to offer something new imo. If the flaws of the Fighter persist with a 1.5 version of Pathfinder I'm probably not going to buy it. Same thing with high level play. I get not wanting to have ones library invalidated. Yet at the same time some want a product that changes nothing, compitable with the current edition. Yet also have the same amount sales. Which imo is not going to happen. If one does not offer nothing new or the amount is small. The update CRB is going to stay on shelves. Going to the lgs and not the internet. I can't justify a 120$ purchase for what I already have.
While I would like a new edition I understand that it will not happen. Yet at the same time it's no longer the same market as when Wotc stopped publishing 3.5. With 5E that actually address the flaws. %e is not perfect but it to me at least it fixed some of the flaws of PF. Paizo needs something more than the status quo if they ever attempt a actual revision or even a streamlining of the system. If fans left for 5E because of certain elements in PF. Those elements remain they are not coming.
At the very least even making it so that the various bonuses stack with one another will simply the game. All the different bonuses slow the game down. You can keep the Fighter as is. Just give him decent class abilites. Even scaling feats like spells would do the trick imo. I can see with the Bestiaries they are running out of ideas. Unique monsters are getting less and less. Is a Ocean, River, Lake, Pond, Giant really that different from one another.
A good example of a rpg company hurt by a lack of change is Hero Games. Their Sixth Edition was a Pathfinder edition. It went from one big book to two. The complexity and crunchiness remained with no attempt to simply the system. Their changes were very minor imo. Certainly not enough to justify buying the two volume set. All attempts were made to satisfy just the fans who wanted the status quo and only that. Now their on life support. Not dead but damn close imo. When the only new products being released as a company are third party and nothing else it's not a good sign. They are so broke they can't even reprint the core set. Which you need because no one is going to buy other books with the core. Many people are not going to be the ones spending money to reprint two books at 780+ pages.
Now I'm not saying change for the sake of change. keeping the status quo is also not the way to go imo./
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think If they were going to do something like a 2.0 they would be better off doing it as 1.5 much like how 3rd edition did it just rehash the core classes maybe spruce up a few of the core rules here and there but try to keep everything that came before or at least a fair portion.
{. . .}Well, in some ways, Pathfinder (D&D 3.75) was to D&D what D&D 3.5 was to D&D 3.0. So if Pathfinder 2.0 continues along this line, it will be equivalent to D&D 3.875.
I'd like to discuss Pathfinder 3.0 or maybe Pathfinder 11.3.Continuing along this line, Pathfinder 3.0 would be equivalent to D&D 3.9375. Calculating what Pathfinder 11.3 would be takes a bit more doing, but it comes out to being equivalent to D&D 3.9998016961923.
{. . .}
In order to keep the lights on, Paizo needs to keep publishing books. If Paizo keeps publishing books the number of options, rules, subsystems and so on grow until the sum is bloated, unlearnable, and unworkable. {. . .}For a few moments my brain changed the last part of this into "grow until the sun is bloated, unlearnable, and unworkable".
I think by the time Earth becomes like Athas, Paizo will have come out with a couple of new editions of Pathfinder.
Math Major UGH!
(I'm kidding I found your post amusing)
Edit: When the heck did I say smurf?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think by the time Earth becomes like Athas, Paizo will have come out with a couple of new editions of Pathfinder.
There's going to be two new editions of Pathfinder by 2020? :-)
Standing pat isn't an option. Well, it *is* an option, obviously -- I use a rhetorical device when I claim it's not. You get the point. Standing pat means you keep going as is, issuing more and more new doodads and gewgaws on an already too-fussy system, watching CRB sales decline, watching players drift away. It means stagnation and decay.
People say they just want the basics cleaned up. What does that mean? A new CRB? A new APG? UM and UC? Campaign setting material? Bestiaries, to bring them in line with the new rules? Once you've done that, what's the difference between that and a new edition as far as the money you've spent? And it's not like they aren't putting out updated setting books (Cheliax and Andoran for sure, and I don't even pay attention to that line anymore so there may be more for all I know), so subscribers and completists have already bought the same material twice. It's not like there's no precedent.
Insisting on backwards compatibility is insisting nothing of significance change. That's why we're still dealing with the martial/caster disparity (and for the record I like Vancian magic in D&D, there's just got to be a better way to implement it than we've got). For Pathfinder, backwards compatibility between a first and potential second edition means backwards compatibility to D&D 3.5, because Pathfinder was designed to be compatible with 3.5. In other words, demanding backward compatibility is demanding all new products be fully compatible with 10+ year old products produced by competitors. That's not reasonable, and it's not a way to keep a favorite game growing and vital -- Paizo makes no money off those old products. They make money off selling things now, today, things that they produce.
And Starfinder? Yeah, I have no intention of ever even looking at a Starfinder book because it holds as much appeal for me as an RPG about baking. If I'm playing a D&D-offshoot, I want it to be a D&D-offshoot, not some sci fi Frankenstein's monster. And I refuse to even consider the possibility that fewer customers would be lost by expecting them to buy Starfinder in order to cobble together a fantasy campaign than by a second edition of Pathfinder.
Hold on, I'm still trying to figure out what my THAC0 is.
Ha.
It is precisely the "distance" between what you need to hit and your opponent's AC.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate talk about bloat. There is no Bloat. Bloat is not the problem. Those are OPTIONS for people who want them. Starting over with a new system doesn't erase bloat... it just starts the clock over again.
They will not 'fix' the Core Rulebook with a 2.0. They are STILL errating the CRB now... it's ever evolving. The moment 2.0 comes out there would just be a whole new list of things that people hate that need to be clarified, codified, or redone...
I personally do not want to start over with the base what? 7 classes??? We waited almost 10 years to get a swashbuckler base class... and the psychic magic, and all the other cool stuff... why would I want to reset the clock and buy all new again??
I think they can keep doing things like unchained with redone versions of classes giving us MORE choices... but to just disqualify the entire Advanced/Ultimate line?? Yeah, I don't see that solving any problems.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The newness is starfinder folks. 5E is a similar yet different experience and folks who want gonzo fantasy stick with PF and thats not going to change soon. IMHO of course.
Half of my current group defected from 5e. I think of it as a promotion.
They all say that they wanted (and I quote) "more".