I'm starting to think pathfinder 2.0 should happen


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 924 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

People say that options are optional...but if I can't play the latest AP without those options, they're not optional. I can obviously write my own stuff, and I can look up the 'options' on the PRD, but frankly I've got better things to do with my time. Paizo is/was supposedly a setting company that needed to do the Pathfinder RPG to support the Pathfinder setting (Golarion) so that it could continue to sell adventures. But if people can't use those adventures because they don't have (or don't want to spend all their time online looking up) the new splatbooks, Paizo jeopardises their core business, as surely as they would with a v1.5 or 2.0 or whatever.

There are no good choices here, though there are certainly bad ones.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Rysky wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
But what if I want to play a character who is a tremendous swordfighter, or an academic magic theorist?
Do both. Play a Fighter and put your two skill ranks into Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft.
I said "or" not "and". Some concepts are best represented by a fighter (or otherwise non-magical character) and some concepts are best represented by a wizard (someone whose magic comes from intense study, rather than innate talent or faith). So saying "don't play those things" is akin to "give up on those concepts" which is unfortunate, so not really a good solution.

However, I think it might be the only solution for the kind of person who would complain on a martial/caster-disparity thread that martials lack narrative power because they can't teleport or create demiplanes.


Charlie Brooks wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
I wonder if Starfinder will be to Pathfinder what Star Wars Saga Edition was to 4th Edition--an experiment with new mechanics as prelude to a new edition of the core product.

Every time Pathfinder has come out with something new, the speculation is that it's a playtest for a new edition. Pathfinder Unchained was supposedly a secret playtest, but it's been out for at least a couple of years now.

I'm sure that the lessons they learn from Starfinder will work their way into a future edition, just as with lessons learned from Pathfinder Unchained, the Beginner's Box, and everything else.

One would almost guarantee this being the case if the people behind the curtain are any indication of what is to come.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
The Mad Comrade wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
I wonder if Starfinder will be to Pathfinder what Star Wars Saga Edition was to 4th Edition--an experiment with new mechanics as prelude to a new edition of the core product.

Every time Pathfinder has come out with something new, the speculation is that it's a playtest for a new edition. Pathfinder Unchained was supposedly a secret playtest, but it's been out for at least a couple of years now.

I'm sure that the lessons they learn from Starfinder will work their way into a future edition, just as with lessons learned from Pathfinder Unchained, the Beginner's Box, and everything else.

One would almost guarantee this being the case if the people behind the curtain are any indication of what is to come.

Well....we don't have the rule set yet, but it sounds like a large chunk of the rule modification is change the Pathfinder rules to something that fairly represents science fantasy/fiction tropes. I would guess that large chunks of it won't make sense to port into mainstream Pathfinder or involve un-needed systems in a fantasy game (like starships).

I think there is minimal chance starfinder mechanics are a test run for any updated Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me, I like Pathfinder 1.0 with all the options offerred in the various books & supplements. I don't use them all, but I might use any of them at some point.

I tried 5e for a while, but now I'm back with PF & 3.5 (with some 5e and 1e thrown in). Not looking for a PF 2.0. At least not one that isn't compatible with PF 1.0.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I loved what they did with Occult Adventures. :-)


Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

For me, I like Pathfinder 1.0 with all the options offerred in the various books & supplements. I don't use them all, but I might use any of them at some point.

I tried 5e for a while, but now I'm back with PF & 3.5 (with some 5e and 1e thrown in). Not looking for a PF 2.0. At least not one that isn't compatible with PF 1.0.

Pathfinder 2.0 will be at least as compatible with Pathfinder 1.0 as 5e and 1e are, I can guarantee it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Assuming there will be a Pathfinder 2.0 that is.

I'm not convinced. :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If Paizo's not going to do it, I will offer up the following as Pathfinder 2.0

- Everybody has Combat Expertise and Power Attack by default.
- All full BAB classes with no spellcasting feature get the Combat Stamina feat for free.
- Replace ersatz weapon training (e.g. the Crossbowman's "Crossbow Expert") with "When [this class] gains weapon training 1 at level 5, they must select the [appropriate weapon] group."
- Background Skills as part of the default game.
- There is no Summoner Class.
- Goblins have even bigger heads.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

If Paizo's not going to do it, I will offer up the following as Pathfinder 2.0

- Everybody has Combat Expertise and Power Attack by default.
- All full BAB classes with no spellcasting feature get the Combat Stamina feat for free.
- Replace ersatz weapon training (e.g. the Crossbowman's "Crossbow Expert") with "When [this class] gains weapon training 1 at level 5, they must select the [appropriate weapon] group."
- Background Skills as part of the default game.
- There is no Summoner Class.
- Goblins have even bigger heads.

I was with you, right up until the last two...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ultimately, the arguments of whether it's time, whether the system needs it, whether Paizo has learned a lot from Pathfinder, or in the future from Starfinder, none of that will be the primary reason for doing a 2.0 or not. Paizo is a book company so the biggest factor is whether they are making enough money on their books or not. Perhaps that's a cynical way of looking at it, but I don't mean that in a negative way. I heart Paizo!

And only Paizo knows what enough money is. Yes, the growth in previous years may have been faster but they may be perfectly happy with profit/growth right now and I suspect they are since they are still taking on new things (Starfinder) despite past missteps (PFO and that online tabletop thing that disappeared).

IMHO, what's best for a game system will never align with what's best for a book publisher. Life is full of compromises. A game system can theoretically become feature complete and only be adjusted for balance. You could have enough classes, spells, feats, and call a game done. But a publisher needs a stream of income. They can't just stop publishing rules and only publish setting material; they make the most money doing both.

To me, an entirely online rule set that references other rules via links, not page numbers, and that can be corrected, adjusted, and added to with the click of a button, is healthier than having rules stuck in dead trees. But that makes the game system either free or a subscription service. Maybe that's the future and someone at Paizo (don't remember who) addressed this and said the book model is still doing quite well for them.

-----

As a GM and player, I'm pretty happy with unchained. I think that's the best compromise for 2.0. There are two key problems with unchained and other optional systems:

1) PFS can't be everything for everyone. The more optional systems there are, the more people will be upset either because PFS is using them, or because they aren't.

2) Massive barrier of entry. I'm a hardcore Pathfinder player/fan and I don't even know where all these optional systems are. Some in hardcovers, some in adventure paths, some in companions, etc. Even if you know of all of them, that doesn't mean you know which ones will be right to you.

For example, I suspect very few people are using piecemeal armor, words of power, and several other systems that were neat ideas but didn't really work. But Unchained really did well on a lot of systems. I know that based on using some but also reading a lot of feedback on the forums.

When it comes down to it, you can't hand a new player the Core Rulebook and tell them "with this you are getting the best of Pathfinder."

-----

I know that all makes me sound cranky. Oh well :P I have confidence that Paizo with its current leadership will do the best they can for the game. And if that means eventually we get Pathfinder 2.0 with a new Core Rulebook to start it all off, I will buy it. And if I like it, I'll use rule zero to update Pathfinder 1.0 content I'd like to use, which is I suspect what Paizo will say to do right there in chapter 1.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I did not read the last page of the thread, but in the first two pages I think that there is a concept that no one is talking about.

I have said for years that the real difference between Paizo and WOTC is that Paizo's real focus is on the adventures. The adventure paths and the modules (also world building) are the real income stream that Paizo has on a monthly basis. PF came about because of 4e, and the change in the OGL to the GSL which was more restrictive, and could be pulled. WOTC's focus is on the rule books, and they do adventures to support that. Also, WOTC's adventures reach back into the past and rehash old material over and over. Sometimes this old material changes as part of their rehash like the current Temple of Elemental Evil book, sometimes it is just updated to the new rules. Do not get me wrong, I love my favorite ideas being updated. I like the rehash actually, but the focus of the companies are totally different.

Paizo does not die out if they stop creating new rule content because they continue to build the world, and create adventure paths. I also usually like what they have done with the rules, although there are more options than I will ever get to explore now...

I understand the appeal to 5e, I have not played it yet, but I still play 1e with my son from time to time... The simplicity of the old rules combined with some modern ideas of gaming is what appeals to me about 5e. I like the idea of faster combat, and as the DM not having so much happening to really play the NPCs and monsters to their potential.

Going back to a monsters that do not have feats or skills, and a simplified skill system, and feat system appeals to me, without THACO and some of the other things that were tough about the early game.

On the other hand the material I am running right now is in Pathfinder, and I am too busy to spend hours converting adventures to another ruleset.

So I think the differing philosophies of the two companies has a lot to do with the need for PF 2.0.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think so far after checking out some of the older ones this one is way more organized and rational. ... I'm jinxing us right now aren't I? I am so sorry.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They could do it like blizzard does it. pathfinder patch book 1.0.6.
World of war crafts's method works and leaves them with no reason to do a WOW2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

They could do it like blizzard does it. pathfinder patch book 1.0.6.

World of war crafts's method works and leaves them with no reason to do a WOW2.

That's kind of what most people are asking for - granted many want a more radical redesign, but what you're suggesting (more than the simple Xth printing of the same Core we're on now) is more along the lines of what I and many are hoping for.

"(Mostly) the same game, shiny new package, with less errors, and more clearly explained system!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mudfoot wrote:

People say that options are optional...but if I can't play the latest AP without those options, they're not optional. I can obviously write my own stuff, and I can look up the 'options' on the PRD, but frankly I've got better things to do with my time. Paizo is/was supposedly a setting company that needed to do the Pathfinder RPG to support the Pathfinder setting (Golarion) so that it could continue to sell adventures. But if people can't use those adventures because they don't have (or don't want to spend all their time online looking up) the new splatbooks, Paizo jeopardises their core business, as surely as they would with a v1.5 or 2.0 or whatever.

{. . .}

What, aren't the latest APs perfectly playable with just the Core Rulebook and going online on the PRD in the event of having to run an NPC that is of a non-Core class or a monster that isn't in Bestiary 1 and not in the AP text? (Same with non-Core feats, spells, etc.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Mudfoot wrote:

People say that options are optional...but if I can't play the latest AP without those options, they're not optional. I can obviously write my own stuff, and I can look up the 'options' on the PRD, but frankly I've got better things to do with my time. Paizo is/was supposedly a setting company that needed to do the Pathfinder RPG to support the Pathfinder setting (Golarion) so that it could continue to sell adventures. But if people can't use those adventures because they don't have (or don't want to spend all their time online looking up) the new splatbooks, Paizo jeopardises their core business, as surely as they would with a v1.5 or 2.0 or whatever.

{. . .}

What, aren't the latest APs perfectly playable with just the Core Rulebook and going online on the PRD in the event of having to run an NPC that is of a non-Core class or a monster that isn't in Bestiary 1 and not in the AP text? (Same with non-Core feats, spells, etc.)

Don't even need the CRB or B1.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
M1k31 wrote:
Gregg Helmberger wrote:


....
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.

Personally... I'd like them to create a "new edition" without a core rule book... compartmentalize and re-release everything in condensed form, with clear titles for what everything is for new players.

So rather than "CRB", "APG", etc... we get separate book lines like "rules"(consisting of the standard/core rules as book 1, then additional/obscure rules for book 2, then every book after consisting of "optional" rules systems), "x class", "Feats", "Magic", "spells", "x Race", etc... that way Pathfinder can eventually be more friendly to those who are unfamiliar with its roots, while still allowing older fans to use 1st edition.

Kind of like computer game expansions?

I like it on principle the problem I see is having to buy a series of books to get started and then dragging them around with you.

Not quite, I'm saying an entirely modular release system...

So say a new player wants to buy into 2.0, you have the choice of buying x number of races books(individual including All Racial FCB's, traits, weapons, feats, spells, etc, these could be combined with sub-races depending on length), x number of classes books, the first "Feats" line book, the first "spells" line book, the first "equipment" line book, and the first "rules" line book(maybe requiring an "NPC" book with all their data, and a Bestiary, for the GM).

Or, alternatively, you just buy the 2.0 "Rules" and use any other 1.0 resources you buy, building your library to taste... want a fighter? Buy the 2.0 fighter book with the newly revised and updated(I'm thinking they should gut fighter archetypes, adding certain ones abilities onto the base chassis, then modifying what's left to work with the new base and replace other features, including all "fighters only" feats, traits, the materials from the new handbooks, stamina system references, etc).

I'm thinking these would each be smaller, cheaper books often sold in bulk at discount, so new players could invest minimally, while older players of 1.0 would be rewarded with having far more options right off the bat but could minimize their reference material buy buying into 2.0 those classes/races they wish to use in depth.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

You want a Pathfinder 2.0? I STRONGLY suggest looking into "Kirthfinder." Really fixes a lot of problems people have with the system while keeping in tune with the original source material. It actually draws from a wide array of sources, really. Martial characters and feats scale well into the late game, and are necessary members of the party, with a wide array of means to affect both combat and social scenarios.

Honestly, it's probably a lot better than anything you can expect from Paizo, which is getting to be a bit too restrictive and errata-happy for my tastes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why does a 2nd Edition of Pathfinder NEED to be radically different? Paizo doesn't need to change it up so much that it invalidates all the old material (like what WotC). It doesn't need to be a completely brand new game with a new edition.

If there would be a 2nd edition (I refuse to call it 2.0, as it isn't a computer program), they should go the TSR route. The differences between 1st and 2nd edition AD&D is rather minimal, especially compared to the differences between 2nd edition AD&D, 3rd edition D&D, 4th edition and 5th edition D&D. Make minimal changes to where the original Patfinder material isn't invalidated and you get the same things reprinted. Just update the CRB, maybe take out the GMing portion of the book and replace it with all the classes they have added (ACG, APG, UM, OA, etc).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mudfoot wrote:

People say that options are optional...but if I can't play the latest AP without those options, they're not optional. I can obviously write my own stuff, and I can look up the 'options' on the PRD, but frankly I've got better things to do with my time. Paizo is/was supposedly a setting company that needed to do the Pathfinder RPG to support the Pathfinder setting (Golarion) so that it could continue to sell adventures. But if people can't use those adventures because they don't have (or don't want to spend all their time online looking up) the new splatbooks, Paizo jeopardises their core business, as surely as they would with a v1.5 or 2.0 or whatever.

There are no good choices here, though there are certainly bad ones.

What are you talking about?


Adjule wrote:

Why does a 2nd Edition of Pathfinder NEED to be radically different? Paizo doesn't need to change it up so much that it invalidates all the old material (like what WotC). It doesn't need to be a completely brand new game with a new edition.

If you're going to throw away the old magic system in favor of new and/or re-build classes and mechanics to that level, you're pretty much chucking every bestiary and adventure ever written and having to redo from scratch.

There's not much more than cosmetic changes that can be made without making a successor edition incompatible with the first.. for the same reason you couldn't play AD+D modules with Third Edition without massive rework.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


There's not much more than cosmetic changes that can be made without making a successor edition incompatible with the first.. for the same reason you couldn't play AD+D modules with Third Edition without massive rework.

But you can play third edition modules in 3.5 and modules from both in Pathfinder with only minimal work and the differences between those three are hardly just cosmetic.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


There's not much more than cosmetic changes that can be made without making a successor edition incompatible with the first.. for the same reason you couldn't play AD+D modules with Third Edition without massive rework.

I disagree.

One could make a second edition by(for example, list incomplete)
1) simplifying lots of places where there are 2+ nearly identical rules. Eg, various types of terrain that slow down movement add complexity for very little gain
2) remove the garbage spells, feats, archetypes, classes, etc
3) somewhat normalize in power the remaining spells, classes, etc. Of course, to do this would require admitting that the caster/martial diversity IS a thing.
4) somewhat reduce how much effects can stack (or put limits on them).

Done right, you could come up with a system that was significantly simpler and more balanced while allowing all existing AOs and modules to be run unchanged.

A lot of this could actually be done by JUST selecting existing options. Eg, rogues and barbarians are all unchained, fighters automatically get some of the new goodies, etc


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
If you're going to throw away the old magic system in favor of new and/or re-build classes and mechanics to that level, you're pretty much chucking every bestiary and adventure ever written and having to redo from scratch.

I disagree, people play through adventures and fight monsters that were written before the classes, feats, spells, or items they were using even existed all the time; I personally played through RotRL as a Kineticist, a class that postdates the anniversary edition by 3 years.

I don't see how playing through "insert your favorite published adventure here" with a class with a completely different magic system would really be different than playing through RotRL with a Kineticist. The CR system is already wonky and unreliable as is, anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Adjule wrote:

Why does a 2nd Edition of Pathfinder NEED to be radically different? Paizo doesn't need to change it up so much that it invalidates all the old material (like what WotC). It doesn't need to be a completely brand new game with a new edition.

If you're going to throw away the old magic system in favor of new and/or re-build classes and mechanics to that level, you're pretty much chucking every bestiary and adventure ever written and having to redo from scratch.

There's not much more than cosmetic changes that can be made without making a successor edition incompatible with the first.. for the same reason you couldn't play AD+D modules with Third Edition without massive rework.

A weird response given that Adjule never once suggests tossing out the magic system, nor the degree he would tinker with classes.

As long as you don't go outside the current power level range, you could very easily modify classes without hurting compatibility with other books. The fact that Pathfinder has steadily added new classes over the years, as well as the existence of things like the unchained Rogue, is proof positive they can do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now if they were going to do a PF 2.0 the one thing I would like to see is a more built in archetype system. sort of like how 5th edition does it. Base class archetype so the classes as you know them with some easily exchangeable abilities. They wouldn't be archetypes at this point more so class talents that fit a theme.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I feel more Unchained books would be the way forward; having variant rules that can be used (optionally) to fix problems in the system seems like a better way to do things than making a new system that runs a risk of dividing fans. I think Unchained Magic and Unchained Combat could really help with many of the complaints without forcing changes on those who like the current rules and those who don't feel comfortable playing anything but what's in the CRB.

I'm no expert, but Pathfinder as a system seems to work as intended at a very base level - it just has a lot of problems that many would liked ironed out (such as martial-caster disparity). I don't think ironing out those problems requires a rework of the entire system more so than Unchained-style rules that target them precisely.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
That reboot is past due.
That reboot will cause more problems than it solves.

I 100% agree with this.

Takes off Freelancer Hat, puts on Everyman Gaming Publisher hat.

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."

But 3.5 is "compatible" according to Pathfinder, thus they should.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
1) simplifying lots of places where there are 2+ nearly identical rules. Eg, various types of terrain that slow down movement add complexity for very little gain

Shrug. Without examples I'm not sure where this is going.

Quote:
2) remove the garbage spells, feats, archetypes, classes, etc

One man's garbage is another man's treasure.

Quote:
3) somewhat normalize in power the remaining spells, classes, etc. Of course, to do this would require admitting that the caster/martial diversity IS a thing.

Disparity, you mean. But hey, it IS a thing. That thing is: a feature, not a bug. I can only speak for myself, and clearly a lot of people disagree, but that disparity is a selling point for me. Having classes who can truly influence the world (via spells) is a whole "advanced" game, for when a player masters "flank, Power Attack, full attack". Normalizing means "removing powerful spells", which means vanilafying the game. My Pathfinder goes to 11. I'll vote no for making it only go to 10.

Quote:
4) somewhat reduce how much effects can stack (or put limits on them).

Also disagree. The variety of different bonuses that exist are a feature. It lets players add an entire game of looking for ways to succeed. Again, Pathfinder is playable and fun for new players, but also still fun for people who are looking for more challenge.

Quote:

Done right, you could come up with a system that was significantly simpler and more balanced while allowing all existing AOs and modules to be run unchanged.

A lot of this could actually be done by JUST selecting existing options. Eg, rogues and barbarians are all unchained, fighters automatically get some of the new goodies, etc

Do not want.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starbuck_II wrote:


But 3.5 is "compatible" according to Pathfinder, thus they should.

They should. Many simply won't. Whether it's because they are misinformed about how broken some of the 3.5 material is. Some like me too lazy to convert the material over. More often than not some insist and still insist on Pathfinder and/or Pathfinder compitable only. I think since the PF core has been released I have been in three games where 3.5 material was used. Even then very little. I'm not saying that gamers in the hobby don't. It's probably not as big of a group as we think it is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

back when Pathfinder was just the core book, compatability with 3.5 was probably a big thing and much 3.5 material I'm guessing was used. But as pathfinder has moved further and further away from relying on 3.5 material to supplement it, and as they've made rules that are opposite 3.5 rules, and as new people to the game probably don't have 3.5 material, 3.5 is less a part of the game.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the other end of the spectrum one has those who still play 3.5. and refuse to convert to PF. While at the same time wishing Wotc would make new material. It's like their a new source of non-Wotc materai already to be useed. Personally I could never go back to 3.5. I like what they did with the Paladin and sorcerer.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
back when Pathfinder was just the core book, compatability with 3.5 was probably a big thing and much 3.5 material I'm guessing was used. But as pathfinder has moved further and further away from relying on 3.5 material to supplement it, and as they've made rules that are opposite 3.5 rules, and as new people to the game probably don't have 3.5 material, 3.5 is less a part of the game.

Yeah, it's hard to overstate how valuable backwards-compatibility was seen by the fans back when PF was being playtested.

Now, I suspect it's a very, very small minority who think it's important.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's nice being able to use monsters and spells and classes (with some modification) from 3.5. But by this point, we could've converted most of that s%&~ anyway.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
back when Pathfinder was just the core book, compatability with 3.5 was probably a big thing and much 3.5 material I'm guessing was used. But as pathfinder has moved further and further away from relying on 3.5 material to supplement it, and as they've made rules that are opposite 3.5 rules, and as new people to the game probably don't have 3.5 material, 3.5 is less a part of the game.

Yeah, it's hard to overstate how valuable backwards-compatibility was seen by the fans back when PF was being playtested.

Now, I suspect it's a very, very small minority who think it's important.

I would wager that, as important as backward compatibility to 3.5e was to gamers here during the initial PF transition, backward compatibility to PF1e will be just as important in any future transition to PF2e.

There are a lot of people who would just as soon throw up their hands and say, "I have enough PF1e material to last me a lifetime!" Except now, people that have been on-board since the beginning have even more material than they did back then. It's especially so in a community that was (more or less) founded on people who refused to move during the 3.5e->4e edition change.

-Skeld


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My group usually plays AP because there's not enough time to create worlds and adventures.
Then something like PUchained comes along and I love it, but most of the stuff in there can't be implemented.

Action Economy seems cool, until you realize some classes stop working as they were, or enemies might not work when using the preformatted actions.

Also rules, rules everywhere. Making a Wizard is the easiest thing ever. You just pick up spells, you don't even have to worry about how bad they're, because most of them are easy to find and they're OP.

If I wanna make a Hunter Mounted on an AC, well, I need to look for so many things to work together it doesn't make sense.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Skeld wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
back when Pathfinder was just the core book, compatability with 3.5 was probably a big thing and much 3.5 material I'm guessing was used. But as pathfinder has moved further and further away from relying on 3.5 material to supplement it, and as they've made rules that are opposite 3.5 rules, and as new people to the game probably don't have 3.5 material, 3.5 is less a part of the game.

Yeah, it's hard to overstate how valuable backwards-compatibility was seen by the fans back when PF was being playtested.

Now, I suspect it's a very, very small minority who think it's important.

I would wager that, as important as backward compatibility to 3.5e was to gamers here during the initial PF transition, backward compatibility to PF1e will be just as important in any future transition to PF2e.

There are a lot of people who would just as soon throw up their hands and say, "I have enough PF1e material to last me a lifetime!" Except now, people that have been on-board since the beginning have even more material than they did back then. It's especially so in a community that was (more or less) founded on people who refused to move during the 3.5e->4e edition change.

-Skeld

I agree. I don't see it happening soon (other than via errata/unchained options they've been using to essentially achieve a similar goal).

Although it does feel to me that it's been a long time between CRB reprints this time around, so perhaps there is commercial pressure for a reboot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Or a thirst for Starfinder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
captain yesterday wrote:
Or a thirst for Starfinder.

Perhaps. I don't think that would have a significant impact on CRB demand, personally. Many potential new PF players are probably largely unaware of Starfinder's looming release.

I can imagine Starfinder leading to a drop in demand for some other product lines though as people prioritise. Hopefully the net effect is positive.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Now, I suspect it's a very, very small minority who think it's important.

I suspect we're at a point where "Pathfinder 2nd Edition is also compatible with D&D 3.5" would be counted as a negative by more people than it would be a positive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Now, I suspect it's a very, very small minority who think it's important.
I suspect we're at a point where "Pathfinder 2nd Edition is also compatible with D&D 3.5" would be counted as a negative by more people than it would be a positive.

Maybe, but I think both groups are negligible.

I agree with skeleton that PF2.0's compatibility with PF1.0 would be a far bigger factor.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which again brings up the issue of attracting the same fans or new fans with no or little changes. To too much new material and alienate some fo the current fans. Possibly more unchanged books is the key. Reprints with little to no changes are not imo.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
(paraphrased) I like Pathfinder's complexity

Complexity for complexity's sake is not a good thing. Indeed, complexity is a turn off almost universally*. Depth (the main benefit of complexity) is what is usually chased.

For example, having to stack different bonus types. Does that actually accomplish anything? All that rewards is players who delve through the various books for all the different ways to combine all the different bonuses. Is it nice to figure out the optimal way to make that combination? Sure. It's kind of like a puzzle. Does it make a better system? Not really. It makes a harder to balance system. You create a new item that you want to give a bonus to AC. What type of bonus? Morale (it can be increased by moment of greatness)? Luck (it can be increased by that trait everyone takes)? Armor? Does it stack with magically enhanced armor? Natural armor (similar question)? Sacred because you want it to stack without making an exception to the "no same bonuses stacking" rule? Untyped? But if you have untyped, why all the different kinds? Is it important to the system that shield and armor bonuses stack, but shield bonuses do not? Indeed, why don't shield bonuses stack? Can I not defend myself with a shield while another magical shield defends another flank? (maybe this paragraph got a little verbose...)

The system as a whole is messy. And while one can say "well you don't have to use everything" how do I know what I want to use? If I'm in the CRB, and want to play a combative character with an array of supporting skills, but who isn't a ranger (because I don't like favored enemy, or don't want casting, whatever), what do? The slayer would be great for my concept, but that's in a later book. Unless I've read everything I don't know what options exist for me to ignore. Unless I've read the thousand and a half feats (which I have, not that I remember even a quarter of that...), how do I know which ones best fill out a concept I have? Should I take Gory Finish or Killing Flourish? The latter is better and can be expanded by Gruesome Slaughter, but I have to be a slayer, and be using those feats. Will my gm allow that class? Those specific feats? I was initially planning to take just cornugon smash to use intimidate in combat, but those two feats would better fill the idea of "showy & terrifying combatant." Of course, if I hadn't gone through the enormous list of combat feats, I wouldn't know they existed. And while the game is still playable without all the expanded material, a lot of character concepts are severely limited (I believe throwing weapons were expanded with weapon master's handbook, but I've not tried assembling such a build so am not sure).

*I can't think of anything off hand where one say "I like X because it's dense and incredibly difficult to get into, but no deeper than some other system"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Complexity for complexity's sake is not a good thing

It isn't, but you not liking something doesn't necessarily make it complexity for complexity's sake either (it's also an ironic statement given that you follow this with a needlessly complex and convoluted rant).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:

Yeah, it's hard to overstate how valuable backwards-compatibility was seen by the fans back when PF was being playtested.

Now, I suspect it's a very, very small minority who think it's important.

Tome of Battle, Spell Compendium, and Magic Item Compendium all still get lots of use at my table.

But here's the important bit: if you break 3.5e compatibility, you're breaking Pathfinder compatibility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Quote:
Complexity for complexity's sake is not a good thing
It isn't, but you not liking something doesn't necessarily make it complexity for complexity's sake either (it's also an ironic statement given that you follow this with a needlessly complex and convoluted rant).

My communication is impeccable thank you!

Still, do we need both Gory Finish & Killing Flourish? Do we need both Bullseye Shot & Pinpoint Targetting? Do we need a Paladin class at all when a specifically built cleric would do? Do we need a magus if multiclassing well supported a hybrid wizard / fighter? Do we need versatile training when the fighter could have simply been given extra skill points (or with the new cunning feat from the villain codex), or the concept of trading weapon / armor training reworked so as to not have a specific list of specialty feats they related to? Do combat styles as a whole need to exist as their own feat subset? (the answer to some of these may be "yes," but none to me at the moment).

At the very least, one must acknowledge that Pathfinder is more complex than it needs to be, in part because of how it's developed (that is, expansions released over time. Some books like to impart new systems or concepts, and those systems / concepts don't always meld with the existing rules very well). New editions have the advantage of being able to restructure all the good ideas (and remove the bad) that have been proposed over the years of development.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Ranishe wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Quote:
Complexity for complexity's sake is not a good thing
It isn't, but you not liking something doesn't necessarily make it complexity for complexity's sake either (it's also an ironic statement given that you follow this with a needlessly complex and convoluted rant).

My communication is impeccable thank you!

Still, do we need both Gory Finish & Killing Flourish? Do we need both Bullseye Shot & Pinpoint Targetting? Do we need a Paladin class at all when a specifically built cleric would do? Do we need a magus if multiclassing well supported a hybrid wizard / fighter? Do we need versatile training when the fighter could have simply been given extra skill points (or with the new cunning feat from the villain codex), or the concept of trading weapon / armor training reworked so as to not have a specific list of specialty feats they related to? Do combat styles as a whole need to exist as their own feat subset? (the answer to some of these may be "yes," but none to me at the moment).

At the very least, one must acknowledge that Pathfinder is more complex than it needs to be, in part because of how it's developed (that is, expansions released over time. Some books like to impart new systems or concepts, and those systems / concepts don't always meld with the existing rules very well). New editions have the advantage of being able to restructure all the good ideas (and remove the bad) that have been proposed over the years of development.

The "simplified" version of DnD exists in the form of 5E. I think it would be an incredibly bad idea for Paizo to move in that direction, since that niche is already occupied, and I would argue that many folks complaining about that complexity have already invested in 5E. As for things getting spread out...that is basically destined to happen with a complex system you support with expansions. As others have said..no one forces you to wade through every single book to construct a character


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Note: some of my post may read as sarcastic. It's not. I'm grinning and being friendly. And yes, the depth of reply is in itself parody.

Ranishe wrote:
Complexity for complexity's sake is not a good thing. Indeed, complexity is a turn off almost universally*. Depth (the main benefit of complexity) is what is usually chased.

swoosh put it best, but I'll go ahead and agree with you. Complexity for its own sake is a bad thing. Fortunately Pathfinder's complexity is purposeful, with that purpose being fun. Yay!

Quote:
For example, having to stack different bonus types.

Wait, wait, wait. You've got a typo there. You used "having" instead of "being able". Being able to stack different bonus types.

Quote:
Does that actually accomplish anything? All that rewards is players who delve through the various books for all the different ways to combine all the different bonuses.

Well, screw them, right? Because they're having WrongBadFun. Look. There's maybe a half-dozen different types of bonuses. And spells and magic items tell you what they are. You act like it's some sort of insurmountable difficulty to see that a cleric's guidance spell still works if someone's wearing a cloak of resistance +1.

Quote:
Is it nice to figure out the optimal way to make that combination? Sure. It's kind of like a puzzle. Does it make a better system? Not really.

Yes, really. Because all of the sudden your cleric player has something that they can do to help other PCs make their saves. If your next move is to pull out the "dependency on magic items sucks" card, well, let's keep in mind that there are other spells and class abilities that impact saving throws and may or may not stack with guidance, often lending itself to... TEAMWORK. Right. Dirty word. It's a better system when multiple characters can work together to get a job done. Hence things like Aid Another and flanking.

Quote:
It makes a harder to balance system. You create a new item that you want to give a bonus to AC. What type of bonus? Morale (it can be increased by moment of greatness)? Luck (it can be increased by that trait everyone takes)? Armor? Does it stack with magically enhanced armor? Natural armor (similar question)? Sacred because you want it to stack without making an exception to the "no same bonuses stacking" rule? Untyped? But if you have untyped, why all the different kinds?

Hey look... themed bonuses. That's so cool! It's like there's a richness to the underlying numbers that supports immersion.

Quote:
Is it important to the system that shield and armor bonuses stack, but shield bonuses do not? Indeed, why don't shield bonuses stack? Can I not defend myself with a shield while another magical shield defends another flank? (maybe this paragraph got a little verbose...)

It's important to the system because there's an mathematical expectation of a certain range of numbers. Attacks at such-and-such a level should be a certain number, plus/minus acceptable variance. Giving players choice as to how to assemble their character is awesome. There's a trade-off between offense and defense when you go sword & board. There's a trade-off between mobility and heavy armor. The base rules on stacking - why you can't use a magical shield and a physical shield and benefit from both - simply keep the numbers sane (mostly).

Quote:
The system as a whole is messy.

And yet... the 3.x rule-set is the longest-lived ever. And I'm sure - but can't produce a citation - best-selling ever.

Quote:
And while one can say "well you don't have to use everything" how do I know what I want to use?

Wait a minute. That argument literally breaks down to "I want there to be fewer choices so I don't have to know what I'm missing."

Quote:
If I'm in the CRB, and want to play a combative character with an array of supporting skills, but who isn't a ranger (because I don't like favored enemy, or don't want casting, whatever), what do?

1} Post a thread and ask for advice?

2} Recognize that if you had a Pathfinder 2.0 without all the extra option books you object to, you couldn't do #1, so the answer to your question would be: suck it up, buttercup.

Quote:
The slayer would be great for my concept, but that's in a later book. Unless I've read everything I don't know what options exist for me to ignore.

I don't think it works that way. If you haven't read something, you've ignored it. Mission accomplished!

Quote:
Unless I've read the thousand and a half feats (which I have, not that I remember even a quarter of that...), how do I know which ones best fill out a concept I have?

Starts with G, ends with "oogle.". I use it a lot and I too have read a tonne of this stuff. "Pathfinder increase earlobe size" is almost guaranteed to find a trait or spell, or magic item. But again, my point is that because of the bloat that you're carefully not naming by name, you CAN find enlarge cartilage.

Quote:
Should I take Gory Finish or Killing Flourish? The latter is better and can be expanded by Gruesome Slaughter, but I have to be a slayer, and be using those feats.

Screwed if I know. I'll research that when a} I'm building my own character, or b} feeling helpful and decide to post in an advice thread.

Quote:
Will my gm allow that class? Those specific feats?

Does your GM have an e-mail address, or is this 1952?

Quote:
I was initially planning to take just cornugon smash to use intimidate in combat, but those two feats would better fill the idea of "showy & terrifying combatant."

Okay.

Quote:
Of course, if I hadn't gone through the enormous list of combat feats, I wouldn't know they existed.

A quick search nets me the alleged statistic that the average person spends over 80 minutes a week on the crapper. I'm going to go ahead and suggest that feat-reading is a great way to optimize that time. Heck, I'll offer that empirical testing has very much proved the theory. I know whereof I speak.

Quote:
And while the game is still playable without all the expanded material, a lot of character concepts are severely limited (I believe throwing weapons were expanded with weapon master's handbook, but I've not tried assembling such a build so am not sure).

Aaaand full circle. Back in the pre-APG golden days, all you had was one, nicely managed and memorized 500 page book. All I had was the aching yearning for more variety in my Lego box. The good news is that today you and I can both be happy. All you need to do is disregard everything that isn't the CRB and you've got your bloatless Pathfinder 2.0 All I need to do is not be you. Win-win!

Quote:
*I can't think of anything off hand where one say "I like X because it's dense and incredibly difficult to get into, but no deeper than some other system"

Mmmm. Look, I get it, humour aside. Sometimes a nice Kevin Smith fart & poop & pot movie is exactly what the mind needs. But sometimes you just want to sit down and watch True Detective or Westworld or Battlestar Galactica and spend an hour riveted by complex plotting and intricate detail. OMFG what is Rust/Maeve/Adama going to do next?!? <<By the way, if you spoil this week's Westworld season finale on me, I'm going to have to hurt you.>>

Feats, spells, classes, items, archetypes, traits, and gods you don't know about aren't a problem. So if you don't like bloat, stop reading about Ultimate Whatever. It's a crunch book. It's not for you. Don't worry about if there's something awesome in there. It's not for you.

151 to 200 of 924 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / I'm starting to think pathfinder 2.0 should happen All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.