Wait, equipment in Starfinder has level requirements?
It doesn't. It says that generally you should only be able to purchase gear equal to your level + 2, due to requirements or such, but there is nothing stopping a 1st level character from using a level 20 weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, equipment in Starfinder has level requirements?It doesn't. It says that generally you should only be able to purchase gear equal to your level + 2, due to requirements or such, but there is nothing stopping a 1st level character from using a level 20 weapon.
Getting it in the first place, then being able to keep it, are entirely different matters of course... ;)
Calling it: Gencon 2019.
Calling it: Gencon 2019.
Sounds good to me.
Getting it in the first place, then being able to keep it, are entirely different matters of course... ;)Wait, equipment in Starfinder has level requirements?It doesn't. It says that generally you should only be able to purchase gear equal to your level + 2, due to requirements or such, but there is nothing stopping a 1st level character from using a level 20 weapon.
Oh, completely correct! I never said getting it was easy or that you couldn't... oh, get shot in the head by a sniper who wants your scythe, but a level 1 character can totally wield a level 20 weapon!
Could be the source of a hilarious series of adventures, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be pretty annoyed if they dumped Pathfinder.
I think too significant change to the PF system would be a big mistake and they know it. As others have mentioned they just need to look at their history. The company is only in the place it is today because it stuck to a format that many people liked and were angry at losing.
I still remember getting the 4E whilst on holiday to the States and being really excited at the release and interested by the new classes an flavours (e.g. fey and void warlocks).
I think we played one game. It didn't take long for the disappointment to sink in and I haven't been back to WotC since.
And I am not a completely hardcore RPG player and even I quickly noticed how poor the system change was and how it was clearly an attempt to woo World of Warcraft players who were never realistically going to move away from the screen
That all said there might be something in the idea of Starfinder being a trial run of certain rules. It seems to have brought in (and tweaked) some of the unchained rules as well as common house rules I have read about...
Only way I see it happening is if star-finder sells like crazy. If people are just completely obsessed with SF then maybe. I think more likely then not starfinder will get reviews and people will report what they like and don't like. Then what comes of that will become pathfinder 2.0
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a matter of when, not if, there is a PF 2.0 or its equivalent. The d20 chassis is still there in SF. Compare PF to 3.5 and there's a big enough series of changes: combat maneuvers, at-will 0-level spells, HD tied to BAB, three different XP advancement tracks, archetypes, traits, et al. Many of these are significant changes from what came before. For the most part a lot of people have adapted to and gone along with these changes.
d20 is a 17 year old system. PF is, what, 8 years old at this point? Resistance to change seems to be human nature, despite the inevitability of change. Systems that do not adapt and improve wither and die. Sometimes the attempted improvements do not work out as planned.
Re: 4e, no small part of the furor against it was not derived from the systemic change. A good chunk came from the out-of-nowhere release literally on the heels of 3.5 material - within less than 30 days of hardback splat book(s) and other materials. The "you will submit or else"/super-snobby 'marketing campaign' really did not help. The utter lack of an OGL at release. Add in the 4e mechanics that, at release, were all "identical crunch, different flavor text" across the board for the last straw effect. The blatant MMO/CRPG compatibility of the rules. All of these combined into said backlash. IIRC WotC never recovered from it until 5e.
Re: acquiring stupefyingly powerful gear at 1st level. The same thing can happen in Pathfinder as well as Starfinder or any other game if the GM is of the mind to do so. A PC could stumble across the equivalent of the Sihedron at 1st level, or make off with mommy's +5 vorpal sword in a fit of teenage pique as part of running way. Whether or not said 1st level grub will last terribly long in the doing is another kettle of fish. Otherwise, by the rules, they can't/won't.
It is a matter of when, not if, there is a PF 2.0 or its equivalent. The d20 chassis is still there in SF. Compare PF to 3.5 and there's a big enough series of changes: combat maneuvers, at-will 0-level spells, HD tied to BAB, three different XP advancement tracks, archetypes, traits, et al. Many of these are significant changes from what came before. For the most part a lot of people have adapted to and gone along with these changes.
d20 is a 17 year old system. PF is, what, 8 years old at this point? Resistance to change seems to be human nature, despite the inevitability of change. Systems that do not adapt and improve wither and die. Sometimes the attempted improvements do not work out as planned.
Re: 4e, no small part of the furor against it was not derived from the systemic change. A good chunk came from the out-of-nowhere release literally on the heels of 3.5 material - within less than 30 days of hardback splat book(s) and other materials. The "you will submit or else"/super-snobby 'marketing campaign' really did not help. The utter lack of an OGL at release. Add in the 4e mechanics that, at release, were all "identical crunch, different flavor text" across the board for the last straw effect. The blatant MMO/CRPG compatibility of the rules. All of these combined into said backlash. IIRC WotC never recovered from it until 5e.
Re: acquiring stupefyingly powerful gear at 1st level. The same thing can happen in Pathfinder as well as Starfinder or any other game if the GM is of the mind to do so. A PC could stumble across the equivalent of the Sihedron at 1st level, or make off with mommy's +5 vorpal sword in a fit of teenage pique as part of running way. Whether or not said 1st level grub will last terribly long in the doing is another kettle of fish. Otherwise, by the rules, they can't/won't.
I don't remember the details of the 4E launch. Did it really come shortly after 3.5 hardcover releases (which one?).
I can believe it was out of no where because I think that is what annoyed Paizo (or the writers that formed it - not 100% certain of the history).
And I do remember the "you will submit" implicit message - in that all 3.5 stuff stopped
My biggest hate was the point you raise about "identical crunch, different flavor text" (along with what I mentioned about the similarity to MMO games). I remember Wizard and Fighter had pretty much the same daily ability. One added intelligence and one added strength. One was a magic blast and the other a sword spin. Same damage, same effect, same everything. Meant it pretty much didn't matter what class you picked
(As an aside I accept that treading over 4E ground almost 10 years on is probably not what we should be doing here)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say bring it. The 3.5 chassis is simply archaic at this point. Refine, tighten, streamline, and break the shackles of "3.5 compatible!"
Burn it all!
Strongly disagree, I GM a campaign that happily mixes 3.xx and PF and I'd rather things stay compatible
@Lanathar and the 4e argument... it's funny, but once I got shanghaied into playing it, I just loved it, the mechanics were so smooth and fun to play with. For the record, I could do some research in my books, I still have them, but I don't remember fighters and wizards having mechanically identical powers, fighters would have weapon dependent powers, while wizards would have fixed values. and class matters less than role in 4e... you can play a rogue, sorcerer, warlock, barbarian, or monk, you're still a striker, the damage dealer, whether you're melee or distance, weapon of fixed value... same thing with leaders, you can be a cleric, warlord, bard, shaman or ardent, your thing is more to enable your team and heal than to do anything else
I wonder what you find 'systemic problems' in PF that come from 3.x, but I guess that's matter for another thread.
Two of the first three editions of D&D had a "revised edition" roughly halfway in their life that changed a bunch of the core mechanics, while being simultaneously largely compatible with previously released material. Even though Pathfinder started as the revised edition of the revised edition, it wouldn't be unreasonable for a "revised edition" of Pathfinder to come out in a couple of years.
I mean, the lifespan of Pathfinder right now is roughly the amount of time that passed between 3e and 4e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To keep it succinct, stuff like the full attack paradigm for martials, vancian spellcasting (more specifically prepared casting), all the fiddly and obtuse subsystems like grappling/mounted combat, general caster/martial disparity, and the general style of combining a legion of small, disparate bonuses (or penalties) together for character construction/combat.
I'm being slightly glib with the whole "BURN IT ALL" thing, but I'd much rather the system be overhauled (or at a minimum trim off a lot of the fat the system has) rather than just bolting on more content to an already rickety system.
Some of us like that stuff, you know. A lot of us. It isn't like there aren't other games to play that don't have it. Some of us like those too, judging by the number of "been playing so-and-so AP using (insert other system here) and having a blast". And that's fine too. : D
I think they go a better route by gradually updating the rules. Unchained was good at this, and people usually hold it in high regards. Other hardcovers collect and change previous material, which gets mixed reactions. And finally many of the character options coming in every month address perceived shortcomings of classes (and races, and maybe other things). Weapon Master's Handbook is the most famous example, but you can now also get darkvision as a human, have a 25% change to ignore sneak immunity as a rogue and surprise your players with new maneuvers like Uncivilized Tactics.
Altogether it seems to appeal more to players than a sudden system change. The only complaint I notice is about too much content. But even if they double the amount of content again, who is really affected? People who find it too much now will find it too much then, just the numbers change. And they can always use what they know, a power-attacking two-handed wielder and a fireball sorcerer will still work in 2020 (I assume).
Starfinder is totally a test run for whatever comes after pathfinder. I still have a lot of reading to do but it seems obvious to me that the changes will continue in any future games paizo makes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't that such things don't work. It's that the price often becomes giving up other things that are often deemed essential to survival - not always, but often.
Sometimes, for me at least, a lot of things that are introduced take up valuable character space when they don't need to, some of which go back to the first day of 3.0's release. Requiring such things as feats is one thing when the game has, what, 150-175 feats in the CRB/PHB? Balloon it up to 3,000 and those "feat taxes" go from annoying to ludicrous.
Stuff that should not be feats any more:
- background stuff whether country born, noble scion or Former Gang-banger (just wait, it's coming). Anything that fits better under Starfinder's themes qualify in current parlance.
- for combat maneuver proficiency - this is all of the Improved [combat maneuver feats]. The rest are unlocked as options upon attaining base attack bonus thresholds.
- combat options such as Deadly Aim, Piranha Strike, Power Attack, Combat Expertise/fighting defensively, Shot on the Run, Spring Attack and especially Weapon Finesse. For Weapon Finesse apply the size Tiny 'switch' for characters and critters that have Dex higher than Str, apply to attack and weapon damage and be done with it. For feat chains the character has to meet the non-feat prerequisites in order. I can't imagine that this would take an inordinate amount of work.
- For item creation - hit the required CL, set item DC to [desired value], tack on applicable Craft/Profession skills for the masterwork/mundane component, voila. Ye Olde Days you had to attain [class level] and then figure out the item's construction formula and requirements. Happy medium is Caster Level and required ranks of whichever skills, mundane component cost, enchantment cost. Or something very similar.
- Metamagic feats, period. Require skill ranks and/or Spellcraft ranks at [threshold], *pouf*, done. As with combat feats these really should be options for spell casters. Certain ones are probably best left as feats such as Dazing Spell and other metamagic feats that are generally written as too good to pass up, or removed.
- Other things could be boons straight up, including additional themes and perhaps even secondary archetypes based on accomplishments. Massacre a community and its worthy champions by your lonesome? *boon* achievement feat unlocked and awarded. Save a community from being devoured by tentacled eldritch horrors? *boon* social benefits and added resilience (Iron Will, Improved Iron Will or an improvement upon Iron Will) against the horrors that were endured.
There are numerous instances of small boons throughout the history of the game, from the NPC trained boons in Ch 1 of Serpent's Skull to the bonus feats and skill ranks obtained throughout Hell's Rebels as the group's rebellion attains greater success.
Naturally this goes much, much further back. One such example is the unnamed pitcher in the Ruins of Greyhawk one could find that would make any potion permanent upon its imbiber so long as potions weren't duplicated. it never made it into the late 2e Encyclopedia Magica, but it's there, if you know where to look.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2.0 is the day I stop playing. Invalidate my shelf and I'll just walk away.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2.0 is the day I stop playing. Invalidate my shelf and I'll just walk away.
Pathfinder 2.0 would be fine for me as long as it was closer to 3.0 to 3.5 than it would be 3.5 to 4th or 5th.
Make some of the unchained things standard, discard tons of useless feats, shrink feat chains, make combat maneuvers more solid, nerf some of the more problematic spells and class choices, institute solid rules about good/evil spells and spellcasting. Rework classes like gunslinger from the ground up.
It would have made no sense to just release a unchanged Pathfinder in Space. They had to put some new stuff into Starfinder. What would have been the point to buy exactly what one has. At the very least if they were going to change nothing Starfinder should have been a add sci-fi on to Pathfinder. They would have received more flak for releasing a rehash at Gencon than one which is still the same system yet with some new tweaks to the system.
Whatever they do they will alienate some of the fanbase. Change nothing and some fans wonder why they should buy it if they already have it. Change to much and the same happens. Personally I would like to see major changes while still allowing if not backward compability then easy converting between old and new. Or they could go with the route that the devs at onyx path did with World of Darkness. Support both old and new editions.
I have reached a point in my life where a new edition has to fix the flaws of a rpg. At the very least streamline and make running and playing the game easier. If not I can't justify buying more of the same Then again I'm also beginning to settle into my "can't teach a old gamer new tricks" phase as well. I tried to get into both the new Star Wars and Star trek Rpgs and they just don't do it for me. I'm finding myself going back to the old WEG and LUG versions of the rpgs.
Pathfinder 2.0 is the day I stop playing. Invalidate my shelf and I'll just walk away.
I don't think that my AD&D stuff is invalitaded; or my 2e stuff is invalidated; or my 3e stuff; or my 2nd and 3rd edition GURPS; or my 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 20th anniversary edition of Shadowrun; or my 4th, 5th, or 6th edition of Call of Cthulhu etc.
But to each their own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2.0 is the day I stop playing. Invalidate my shelf and I'll just walk away.I don't think that my AD&D stuff is invalitaded; or my 2e stuff is invalidated; or my 3e stuff; or my 2nd and 3rd edition GURPS; or my 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 20th anniversary edition of Shadowrun; or my 4th, 5th, or 6th edition of Call of Cthulhu etc.
But to each their own.
I usually hear this a lot but i also almost never see people looking for 2nd edition games or players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
God's I hope never.....
Pathfinder 2.0 is the day I stop playing. Invalidate my shelf and I'll just walk away.I don't think that my AD&D stuff is invalitaded; or my 2e stuff is invalidated; or my 3e stuff; or my 2nd and 3rd edition GURPS; or my 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 20th anniversary edition of Shadowrun; or my 4th, 5th, or 6th edition of Call of Cthulhu etc.
But to each their own.
Gold mines of stuff, all you have to do is add a bit of spice. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2.0 is the day I stop playing. Invalidate my shelf and I'll just walk away.I don't think that my AD&D stuff is invalitaded; or my 2e stuff is invalidated; or my 3e stuff; or my 2nd and 3rd edition GURPS; or my 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 20th anniversary edition of Shadowrun; or my 4th, 5th, or 6th edition of Call of Cthulhu etc.
But to each their own.
You know what he means, launching a new game where that bookshelf becomes totally useless for lack of backward compatibility, unless you want to play a retro game. Stop supporting the game into which I've sunk so much, and I'll stop supporting you, period [Summons Tableflip MC Ragequit]
You know what he means, launching a new game where that bookshelf becomes totally useless, unless you want to play a retro game.
Unless you're just mining old stuff for ideas or inspiration, which is something I do a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2.0 is the day I stop playing. Invalidate my shelf and I'll just walk away.
...or don't, and eventually the complexity and size of the system chokes off the supply of new players. Sooner or later, the balance will tip in favor of a new edition; it's really more a matter of when than if. I'm afraid the "never a new edition" crowd is in for a very unpleasant surprise.
Personally, I'd welcome a new edition. The current one has some major issues, which it has succeeded in spite of.
I don't think that my AD&D stuff is invalitaded; or my 2e stuff is invalidated; or my 3e stuff; or my 2nd and 3rd edition GURPS; or my 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 20th anniversary edition of Shadowrun; or my 4th, 5th, or 6th edition of Call of Cthulhu etc.
But to each their own.
I never understood the whole " new edition suddenly makes my current books useless argument". Some gamers will stick with the edition they are comfortable with. I get not being happy because of a new edition. I just can't see why if someone likes second D&D they have to suddenly stop playing it because third edition was released. Their are some in the hobby who will not play Pathfinder and stick with 3.5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2.0 is the day I stop playing. Invalidate my shelf and I'll just walk away....or don't, and eventually the complexity and size of the system chokes off the supply of new players. Sooner or later, the balance will tip in favor of a new edition; it's really more a matter of when than if. I'm afraid the "never a new edition" crowd is in for a very unpleasant surprise.
Personally, I'd welcome a new edition. The current one has some major issues, which it has succeeded in spite of.
I must admit that the new occult and horror stuff, not to mention the mythic ad on has mad me a lot colder toward that game... let's face it, there's a whole huge big lot of material for which I have neither the space nor the budget, and if PF did not correct a number of defects from 3.5, I'd just dump it and go back there...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IThe only thing that truly disappointed me with Pathfinder is the Mythic rules. They could have done so much more and better. It does have other flaws but I can work around those. I do understand the reluctance on a new edition as Wotc did release too many too fast. I don't fault them for doing it. After all they like Paizo are a business. I did get burnt somewhat when it comes to new editions. I think a new edition is simply a matter of when. Possibly within the next 3-5 years is my guess.
They are starting to have the same trouble with Bestiaries that Wotc did with their Monster Manuals. Too many creatures are just the same with a template added on. Or reprinted from exist material. If it was up to me a freeze on Bestiaries for at least the next 3-5 years. I don't think their is enough new material to warrant a new one every year imo.
It is my fervent belief that at GenCon (or maybe PaizoCon) next year, Paizo will announce the Pathfinder Core Book 10th Anniversary Edition Revised for 2019. You will never hear developers use the E-word, as Pathfinder was a direct response to the hate over 4E.
I think this revision will be informed by what people like and use from Starfnder, just as Starfinder was influenced heavily by Unchained. This revision will be at least as compatible to original PF as PF was to 3.5.
One of the design mandates behind Starfinder was that the PF Bestiaries be usable with minimal tweaking. Any revision will be the same, because if you can use the Bestiaries, then you can use the Adventure Paths. The very last thing Paizo wants is to render everyone's PF books useless because that will literally kill the company faster than a fiendish dire terrasque.
Conspiracy theory time: one of the last 1st edition books was Wlderness Handbok
One of the last 3rd edition books was Exemplars Of Evil
Some of the last 4th edition books were the pocket editions
Pathfinder pocket editions are already out, Ultimate Wilderness and Book Of The Damned are coming this fall :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never understood the whole " new edition suddenly makes my current books useless argument". Some gamers will stick with the edition they are comfortable with. I get not being happy because of a new edition. I just can't see why if someone likes second D&D they have to suddenly stop playing it because third edition was released. Their are some in the hobby who will not play Pathfinder and stick with 3.5.
I don't think that my AD&D stuff is invalitaded; or my 2e stuff is invalidated; or my 3e stuff; or my 2nd and 3rd edition GURPS; or my 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 20th anniversary edition of Shadowrun; or my 4th, 5th, or 6th edition of Call of Cthulhu etc.
But to each their own.
People say this constantly but the reality is that once a game edition stops being current the number of people familiar with it begins to drop. The number of people with access to the materials begins to drop. Books get old, worn out, damaged, or lost and there's no reliable means of replacement. 2 years later and suggestions of an old edition are met with "just play this, its what everyone knows" and the pool of available players or players with the interest in the system dwindles away.
I'm sure many of you have some personal anecdotal evidence otherwise but take a moment to consider that simply by being the kind of fan who posts on rpg forums, you're not the standard rpg player. You're the enthusiast, maybe 5 to 10% of the totality of people playing the game, if that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just popping in to add my obligatory statement that:
if Paizo launches PF 2.0, I'll never buy another product from them again.
As Brother Fen eloquently put above, the day you invalidate my shelf is the day you lose me (and my 8-player gaming group) as a customer.
We'll continue to play, but we will no longer buy new Paizo products. I will *vindictively* go out of my way to purchase used physical copies of products (which will be effortless as PF players purge their libraries) to ensure that Paizo doesn't receive a dime.
Paizo got my business *because* I was a disgruntled 3.5 player. I did it to WotC, I'll do it to Paizo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2.0 is the day I stop playing. Invalidate my shelf and I'll just walk away.Pathfinder 2.0 would be fine for me as long as it was closer to 3.0 to 3.5 than it would be 3.5 to 4th or 5th.
Make some of the unchained things standard, discard tons of useless feats, shrink feat chains, make combat maneuvers more solid, nerf some of the more problematic spells and class choices, institute solid rules about good/evil spells and spellcasting. Rework classes like gunslinger from the ground up.
More "Unchained" rules would be perfectly acceptable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As Brother Fen eloquently put above, the day you invalidate my shelf is the day you lose me (and my 8-player gaming group) as a customer.
I mean, isn't this going to happen eventually anyway? In the history of tabletop RPGs has there ever been an RPG that didn't either:
- Release a new editionor
- Simply stop releasing new material.
So no matter what games you or your gaming group enjoy now, eventually there's either going to be revised rules for it, or whoever published it is going to stop supporting it. That doesn't mean, however, you have to stop playing it, however (we play Castle Falkenstein regularly, and that game's been out of print for 20 years.)
So what's the difference between "We're going to drop Pathfinder are just support Starfinder" and "We're going to release new rules for Pathfinder" that makes the latter so much more irritating to people?
As Brother Fen eloquently put above, the day you invalidate my shelf is the day you lose me (and my 8-player gaming group) as a customer.I mean, isn't this going to happen eventually anyway? In the history of tabletop RPGs has there ever been an RPG that didn't either:
- Release a new edition
or
- Simply stop releasing new material.So no matter what games you or your gaming group enjoy now, eventually there's either going to be revised rules for it, or whoever published it is going to stop supporting it. That doesn't mean, however, you have to stop playing it, however (we play Castle Falkenstein regularly, and that game's been out of print for 20 years.)
So what's the difference between "We're going to drop Pathfinder are just support Starfinder" and "We're going to release new rules for Pathfinder" that makes the latter so much more irritating to people?
You should probably read the point where he commented on how more 'unchained' style rules would be fine. I strongly suspect that if it came along easy to convert to the new edition (like 3.0 to 3.5) their issue ceases to be much of one.
For all the "3.0 style is obsolete" wailing, sticking with 3.x really made paizo the successful company it is today, the #1 rpg for years and the #2 rpg as of last year. You can view it as petty but gulthor has a point. Cease to support the ruleset and people make room for other books/games. I frankly think paizo would take a pretty huge hit if they did it, they're not WoTC, backed with MTG money to engage in a MASSIVE advertising blitz to herald their new edition.
I would think the changes would be like many have mentioned - using lots of unchained stuff (like starfinder does) and starfinder stuff : notably merging and eliminating many useless feats
I am a purest and despite that if it wasn't for PFS games I would be constantly looking to houserule out a bunch of feats and many people are the same. And the changes to feats and addition of unchained rules would make the game relatively easy to make compatible with standard pathfinder material. So those types of changes would not invalidate libraries. In fact it might make half the feats MORE valid as people have space (and perhaps ability scores if those are changes) to actually use more of them
It would be if a change like 4e is made where loads of spells disappear, everyone gets encounter and daily powers and it plays like a computer game complete with an unashamed point to party roles (rather than the thinly veiled approach they use now that pretends this in not the case enough to make people happy)
As an aside people mention wanting to see a jump more akin to 3 to 3.5. Can someone briefly explain what where the main changes there . I played both but played 3 so briefly (first I ever played) that I do not remember much of it. I only seem to remember rangers gaining endurance, more skill points and a lower hit die . That is the only change I remember !
As Brother Fen eloquently put above, the day you invalidate my shelf is the day you lose me (and my 8-player gaming group) as a customer.I mean, isn't this going to happen eventually anyway? In the history of tabletop RPGs has there ever been an RPG that didn't either:
- Release a new edition
or
- Simply stop releasing new material.So no matter what games you or your gaming group enjoy now, eventually there's either going to be revised rules for it, or whoever published it is going to stop supporting it. That doesn't mean, however, you have to stop playing it, however (we play Castle Falkenstein regularly, and that game's been out of print for 20 years.)
So what's the difference between "We're going to drop Pathfinder are just support Starfinder" and "We're going to release new rules for Pathfinder" that makes the latter so much more irritating to people?
You should probably read the point where he commented on how more 'unchained' style rules would be fine. I strongly suspect that if it came along easy to convert to the new edition (like 3.0 to 3.5) their issue ceases to be much of one.
For all the "3.0 style is obsolete" wailing, sticking with 3.x really made paizo the successful company it is today, the #1 rpg for years and the #2 rpg as of last year. You can view it as petty but gulthor has a point. Cease to support the ruleset and people make room for other books/games. I frankly think paizo would take a pretty huge hit if they did it, they're not WoTC, backed with MTG money to engage in a MASSIVE advertising blitz to herald their new edition.
Wizards also have substantially more brand recognition. It sounds like you are saying Paizo overtook them due to the 4e debacle. I don't see wizards making the same mistake again and 5e is an acknowledgment that they were wrong and paizo was right but that doesn't stop them now throwing extra resources at 5e or what could arguably be called 3.75 (WotC version) or even 3.8 or 3.9 :-P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards also have substantially more brand recognition. It sounds like you are saying Paizo overtook them due to the 4e debacle. I don't see wizards making the same mistake again and 5e is an acknowledgment that they were wrong and paizo was right but that doesn't stop them now throwing extra resources at 5e or what could arguably be called 3.75...As Brother Fen eloquently put above, the day you invalidate my shelf is the day you lose me (and my 8-player gaming group) as a customer.I mean, isn't this going to happen eventually anyway? In the history of tabletop RPGs has there ever been an RPG that didn't either:
- Release a new edition
or
- Simply stop releasing new material.So no matter what games you or your gaming group enjoy now, eventually there's either going to be revised rules for it, or whoever published it is going to stop supporting it. That doesn't mean, however, you have to stop playing it, however (we play Castle Falkenstein regularly, and that game's been out of print for 20 years.)
So what's the difference between "We're going to drop Pathfinder are just support Starfinder" and "We're going to release new rules for Pathfinder" that makes the latter so much more irritating to people?
You should probably read the point where he commented on how more 'unchained' style rules would be fine. I strongly suspect that if it came along easy to convert to the new edition (like 3.0 to 3.5) their issue ceases to be much of one.
For all the "3.0 style is obsolete" wailing, sticking with 3.x really made paizo the successful company it is today, the #1 rpg for years and the #2 rpg as of last year. You can view it as petty but gulthor has a point. Cease to support the ruleset and people make room for other books/games. I frankly think paizo would take a pretty huge hit if they did it, they're not WoTC, backed with MTG money to engage in a MASSIVE advertising blitz to herald their new edition.
I mean paizo absolutely overtook them because of the 4.0 debacle. They were one of the first to get a reasonably generic, similar to 3.5 system out of the gates without deciding to tweak too much because "they dont like vancian casting" or whatever rpg design bone they have to pick. Frankly if wizards had done 4.0 as an evolution of 3.5, tightened weak rules, tweaked overpowered spells and options and kept the game reasonably convertable from old edition to new pathfinder probably wouldn't even be much of a thing.