| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We should tell Paizo what we want of course, but they're not going to make decisions affecting the livelihoods of so many people on the basis of internet chatter dissecting the editions of other games or how many feats there are. It'll be based on objective sales data.
They're cutting back on player companions and campaign setting books. Presumably that means there's been a drop in demand or that they anticipate one. With luck, Starfinder will take up the slack (it certainly looks like there's appetite for it out in the market and that paizo's only "error" was in underestimating demand).
I'm really glad Starfinder has got off to such a flying start and I'm really excited for the upcoming pathfinder products (even though I had enough feats and options to keep me happy in the CRB). If it it does come time for PF second edition, I'm very happy that it looks like there'll be another revenue stream to allow the company to support it during development.
|
I mean really, who actually takes Combat Expertise anymore now that Dirty Fighting replaced it as a feat tax (aside from ignorance of the latter)?
I might, for several possible reasons:
a) might be that the stuff from Dirty Tactics Toolbox isn't allowed for the campaign I'm playing in.
b)might be that I need Combat Expertise to gain access for something that isn't covered by the Dirty Fighting Special rule (for example the Armor tricks from Armor Master's Handbook; or 3PP feats that aren't Improved combat maneuver feats)
c) might be that my character isn't big on flanking for whatever reasons.
d) might be that my character doesn't care about combat maneuvers, but that he does care about the dodge bonus granted by combat expertise.
But honestly, mainly I simply read a feat, get an idea for a character to use that feat with, and then I simply do it without bothering with the question if there might be a better feat to replace that inspirational feat with. It's just how I roll.
|
|
They're cutting back on player companions and campaign setting books. Presumably that means there's been a drop in demand or that they anticipate one.
Might be, but wasn't the argument made that this was more because staff was busy with the Starfinder design, so they simply had to cut back workload elsewhere?
Sure, Athletic might be hypothetically useful in the great sandbox setting of sheer rock faces and oceans, but even in Skulls and Shackles I haven't seen people bother with it (although S&S has made people actually sink more than 1 point in Swim so that's a thing).
Kind of unrelated, and not applicable for PFS play, but this is a great place where house rules can step in.
Our group recently took a pass at all the CRB feats that are... Well, that are just awful, and we revised them.
Our Eureka moment with the +2 to two skills feats was to roll in the Signature Skill feats for those two skills into them (since we also found Signature Skill to be a very weak option.)
Instant interest in that cycle of feats (we obviously ended up adding Scholar and Prodigy in to cover the missing skills.)
Every single one of them is suddenly really interesting and useful.
They're cutting back on player companions and campaign setting books. Presumably that means there's been a drop in demand or that they anticipate one.Might be, but wasn't the argument made that this was more because staff was busy with the Starfinder design, so they simply had to cut back workload elsewhere?
If Pathfinder was going gangbusters and Starfinder was doing well, they could hire more creative staff. If they are shifting resources from PF to SF it could be indicative of the drop in demand.
I don't claim that it's definitely true though - I know Paizo have been historically leery of growing beyond a certain size, so perhaps they are deliberately crimping PF production in spite of demand to diversify.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Pathfinder was going gangbusters and Starfinder was doing well, they could hire more creative staff. If they are shifting resources from PF to SF it could be indicative of the drop in demand.I don't claim that it's definitely true though - I know Paizo have been historically leery of growing beyond a certain size, so perhaps they are deliberately crimping PF production in spite of demand to diversify.
Without being in the staff meetings, it's hard to know. To give a counterpoint to the drop in demand theory, it might also be that Paizo believes Pathfinder is so healthy they can afford to shift some resources away temporarily without harming their customer base. Then they can spend a few months post-Starfinder release and evaluate what would be the best plan to go forward (more/less Pathfinder, more/less Starfinder, staffing, release schedule, etc.)
Our Eureka moment with the +2 to two skills feats was to roll in the Signature Skill feats for those two skills into them (since we also found Signature Skill to be a very weak option.)
That's a really interesting idea. It certainly makes them much more powerful.
Our Eureka moment with the +2 to two skills feats was to roll in the Signature Skill feats for those two skills into them (since we also found Signature Skill to be a very weak option.)That's a really interesting idea. It certainly makes them much more powerful.
My solution was to take any skill bonus from feats and have them count as ranks for the purpose of signature skill.
I really hate it when non-narrative systems are all "PC's operate under a completely different set of physics to every single other form of life in the entire multiverse" just sounds so stupid whenever I read it in a system, it's one of the reasons I not sure whether or not to even buy starfinder.
An NPC with pc class levels and wbl has a cr equal to their level in sf per the core rule book.
In 5e, NPCs don't have class levels because fighting against them is mechanically unbalanced. The book recommends against it.
SF monsters are represented with short-hand. Stats are summarized as mods and stamina is rolled into HP. GMs are encourage to ignore resolve rules when NPCs are dying to speed up play, but doing so or not does not effect cr.
Pathfinder to SF monster conversion recommends a 25% increase in HP
An NPC with pc class levels and wbl has a cr equal to their level in sf per the core rule book.
In 5e, NPCs don't have class levels because fighting against them is mechanically unbalanced. The book recommends against it.
SF monsters are represented with short-hand. Stats are summarized as mods and stamina is rolled into HP. GMs are encourage to ignore resolve rules when NPCs are dying to speed up play, but doing so or not does not effect cr.
Pathfinder to SF monster conversion recommends a 25% increase in HP
I'm unsure why you guys keep talking about CR with my posts, when my issue is "monsters work completely differently to PCs" is the thing I dislike in non-narrative-based systems.
I'm unsure why you guys keep talking about CR with my posts, when my issue is "monsters work completely differently to PCs" is the thing I dislike in non-narrative-based systems.An NPC with pc class levels and wbl has a cr equal to their level in sf per the core rule book.
In 5e, NPCs don't have class levels because fighting against them is mechanically unbalanced. The book recommends against it.
SF monsters are represented with short-hand. Stats are summarized as mods and stamina is rolled into HP. GMs are encourage to ignore resolve rules when NPCs are dying to speed up play, but doing so or not does not effect cr.
Pathfinder to SF monster conversion recommends a 25% increase in HP
And if monsters can be NPCs with class levels, then they do work the same.
At least compared to systems like 5e, where monsters just don't work the same, thus the pc rules are useless for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^-^
Pathfinder 2.0 will be actually be focused on playing "Townies" who gain experience from overcharging and outright swindling Adventurers.
"Claude, that was brilliant selling that handle as a Monk weapon, but how are we going to get water from the well until we can make a new one?"
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am of the opinion that there's a sweet spot in a role-playing system's development, where there are enough options (classes, feats, spells) but not too many. Different people have different ideas about where this is, but I'm guessing that 500 or so feats, 20 or so classes, maybe 2000 different magic spells, would make most people happy. For Pathfinder, that was somewhere around "Ultimate Magic".
A new edition doesn't get us there. A new edition resets back to the base classes, the base spells and feats. And then we get the rest of the stuff we want, slowly, anew. Maybe all that process fixes something here, or tweaks a rule there. But mostly, it just involves re-learning the game again.
Here's my honest recommendation. It requires work.
If you are someone who is honestly bothered by Pathfinder's size, and who wants to fix that, then you should build a well-defined subset of the rules that you like. Write it down. Like Witches and Brawlers? Keep 'em. Don't care much for Arcanists or Kineticists? Drop 'em. (Aim for about 20 classes. That's the base 11 classes, plus 9 more.)
Add in the class options that give you the archetypes you like. Then add in the feats you think all those classes need. (Aim for about 500.) Then spell lists.
Make yourself a promise that you won't add a new feat or spell or magic item to your game without removing another one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My preference is a revised edition of the core rulebook that fixes minor elements and major often discussed problem areas (spells, certain classes, etc), but which otherwise still keeps an intact enough chassis that the majority of other already existing rulebooks are not obsolete.
I am not terribly concerned with "obsoletion" of my Pathfinder rule books, as I am with seeing a reboot of the different lines. I don't want to have to wait around several years to get something like Occult Adventures, or to see the existing bestiaries rehashed over again before we get new monsters. What would almost certainly happen in these cases would be I just wouldn't buy the new material, and lose interest.
I would much rather see the rulebook lines become more periodic in output than that.
I figure if they did do a revised edition, it would be written with easy conversions from PF1.0 in mind. But what happens when you revise is that you don't want to tread the same ground again, so you focus on different things or do things in a different order.
But yeah, a game with all the classes available is easy. A game where all the spells and feats are available? That's a horse of a different color. When people need to pick new spells/feats and they pull up some SRD and they find 200 options having to sift through those is the opposite of fun.
My solution was to take any skill bonus from feats and have them count as ranks for the purpose of signature skill.
Well, given that you normally have to take a feat to get the Signature benefits, I moved each benefit forward four levels (1st, 6th, 11th, 16th). Yours seems to be a similar idea.
|
herolab has made it much easier for us but it does become expensive. I don't mind all the options we now have available, options are always good. We just take them to the table first to see if everyone is ok with it. If not we houserule (that's for you witches slumber) or forget about it.
The biggest problems we have are:
1) player power. It can become all too easy to build an optimised character if you take the time. If all the players do then the DM has too, then the fun leaves the game. So we talk it over and adjust.
2). High level play is still a slow old process. Spells become unbalanced, rounds take too long due to iterative attacks for example. That's were I think the streamlining needs to be done. Levels 1-10 are fine, things bog down after this. Rather than a new edition I'd like too see more books like unchained that refine the existing system - rebalance high level spells, maybe even take out level 8-9 spells, remove iterative attacks so combat doesn't bog down so much.
I'm happy now to have two systems, perhaps after I play starfinder for a while I'll review my feelings but I'm happy for pathfinder to keep growing
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
monsters/NPCs being built from the same set of Lego bricks as PCs have to go.
The transparency between how monsters, NPCs, and PCs are built was and remains the big attraction of d20 and its derivatives to me. From an ideological perspective, that which sets the PCs apart from the rest of the world in terms of the physics they follow is that which needs to be purged.
Simplify the whole character and monster creation system if you must, but put the PCs in a class of their own in terms of how they're built, and I'm walkin'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
monsters/NPCs being built from the same set of Lego bricks as PCs have to go.The transparency between how monsters, NPCs, and PCs are built was and remains the big attraction of d20 and its derivatives to me. From an ideological perspective, that which sets the PCs apart from the rest of the world in terms of the physics they follow is that which needs to be purged.
Simplify the whole character and monster creation system if you must, but put the PCs in a class of their own in terms of how they're built, and I'm walkin'.
I guess you're not a fan of OD&D, then. Or B/X. Or BECMI. Or 1E. Or 2E. Which is fine, but you should realize that 3E is the anomaly. The entire industry arose from games that you are apparently unwilling to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess you're not a fan of OD&D, then. Or B/X. Or BECMI. Or 1E. Or 2E. Which is fine, but you should realize that 3E is the anomaly. The entire industry arose from games that you are apparently unwilling to play.monsters/NPCs being built from the same set of Lego bricks as PCs have to go.The transparency between how monsters, NPCs, and PCs are built was and remains the big attraction of d20 and its derivatives to me. From an ideological perspective, that which sets the PCs apart from the rest of the world in terms of the physics they follow is that which needs to be purged.
Simplify the whole character and monster creation system if you must, but put the PCs in a class of their own in terms of how they're built, and I'm walkin'.
3E and its derivatives were without a doubt the most popular and successful versions of "d+d" so it shouldn't be that much of a surprise. Just because someone likes tequila doesn't mean they're going to enjoy chewing on an agave root.
3E and its derivatives were without a doubt the most popular and successful versions of "d+d" so it shouldn't be that much of a surprise. Just because someone likes tequila doesn't mean they're going to enjoy chewing on an agave root.
I'm not surprised; merely pointing out how ridiculous the "only RPGs that meet this (insert narrow criteria) are even worth playing" appears, especially to those of us who pre-date 3E. Don't get me wrong -- he can do what he pleases -- but walking away from the entire hobby over something like that seems...well, silly.
I suppose that may not be what he meant by "I'm walkin'," but it sure seems that way. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a current RPG line of any significant size OTHER than Pathfinder that works that way. Savage Worlds? Nope. 5E? Nope. Starfinder? Nope. OSR? Nope. In the grand scheme of RPGS, it's actually quite unusual.
3E and its derivatives were without a doubt the most popular and successful versions of "d+d" so it shouldn't be that much of a surprise. Just because someone likes tequila doesn't mean they're going to enjoy chewing on an agave root.I'm not surprised; merely pointing out how ridiculous the "only RPGs that meet this (insert narrow criteria) are even worth playing" appears, especially to those of us who pre-date 3E. Don't get me wrong -- he can do what he pleases -- but walking away from the entire hobby over something like that seems...well, silly.
I suppose that may not be what he meant by "I'm walkin'," but it sure seems that way. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a current RPG line of any significant size OTHER than Pathfinder that works that way. Savage Worlds? Nope. 5E? Nope. Starfinder? Nope. OSR? Nope. In the grand scheme of RPGS, it's actually quite unusual.
On the one hand i get it, on the other, constant calls to change the fundamental aspects of the game gave us 4th edition which was pretty clearly not a wise play on wizards part.
Screwing with the fundamental nuts and bolts of a successful system because a handful of forumgoers dislike "vancian casting" (and believe me, players who even know what that term means are a tiny tiny minority of the customer base) is lottery level gambling with your property.
Screwing with the fundamental nuts and bolts of a successful system because a handful of forumgoers dislike "vancian casting" (and believe me, players who even know what that term means are a tiny tiny minority of the customer base) is lottery level gambling with your property.
Well, you may be right. Personally, I think if Paizo released a revised edition (whatever they call it) with an eye toward clarity, conciseness, and presentation, they'll pick up more customers than they'd lose. After all, they could maintain a high degree of backwards compatibility and still do a great deal of clean-up. But I've been wrong before.
Hell, Pathfinder would greatly benefit from a complete re-write even if they didn't change a single actual rule. Though even I doubt that would be a commercially viable project.
I guess you're not a fan of OD&D, then. Or B/X. Or BECMI. Or 1E. Or 2E. Which is fine, but you should realize that 3E is the anomaly. The entire industry arose from games that you are apparently unwilling to play.3E and its derivatives were without a doubt the most popular and successful versions of "d+d" so it shouldn't be that much of a surprise. Just because someone likes tequila doesn't mean they're going to enjoy chewing on an agave root.As I understand it, AD&D was actually more popular and successful than 3.x or any derivative. Until it ran into trouble later in the 2E era.
3.x certainly revitalized the brand, but not up to the early levels I think.
Not that it really matters. This is a question of personal taste. IF you like that design decision, that's great. Just don't expect everyone to agree.
I also seriously doubt that particular idea or its lack played any significant role in the popularity of any version.
There's really no way thats true. 3rd edition had the advertising and backing of WoTC, at the height of their magic the gathering popularity. AD+D was the province of a small wargaming company, pre-internet era.
We're on the boards of a company that got as big as it did, precisely because it stuck to a familiar winning formula rather than implementing massive change. Yknow the #1 complaint about 4th edition? "It just doesn't feel like D+D"
There's really no way thats true. 3rd edition had the advertising and backing of WoTC, at the height of their magic the gathering popularity. AD+D was the province of a small wargaming company, pre-internet era.
Sorry, gotta call B.S. on that one. Seriously. There was a D&D Saturday morning cartoon. There were D&D lunch boxes, D&D coloring books, and D&D action figures. D&D was in ET, for goodness sake. Were you even alive in the 1980s? ;-)
We're on the boards of a company that got as big as it did, precisely because it stuck to a familiar winning formula rather than implementing massive change. Yknow the #1 complaint about 4th edition? "It just doesn't feel like D+D"
Again, nope. If it were as simple as "stick to a familiar winning formula," then 3E itself would have been destined to fail, as it represented a massive change from what came before.
There's really no way thats true. 3rd edition had the advertising and backing of WoTC, at the height of their magic the gathering popularity. AD+D was the province of a small wargaming company, pre-internet era.Sorry, gotta call B.S. on that one. Seriously. There was a D&D Saturday morning cartoon. There were D&D lunch boxes, D&D coloring books, and D&D action figures. D&D was in ET, for goodness sake. Were you even alive in the 1980s?
P.S. Get off my lawn! ;-)
Yes, i was. I also know better than to ascribe using it as a cultural touchstone to emphasize "this person is a nerd/geek" throughout the 80's to financial success. TSR was bankrupt when WoTC bought it and revitalized the property.
Yes, i was. I also know better than to ascribe using it as a cultural touchstone to emphasize "this person is a nerd/geek" throughout the 80's to financial success. TSR was bankrupt when WoTC bought it and revitalized the property.
So because TSR mismanaged itself into the ground, AD&D was never a success? That's just a little more goal-post moving than I'm interested in pursuing. Suffice to say that the idea that D&D 3E was the most successful D&D ever is highly questionable, to say nothing of the inference that that success must be attributable soley to the aspects that please you.
Play what you want, but you're kidding yourself if you believe your preferences are somehow objectively "correct."
I think what you're both describing is that the RPG industry has always gone through expansion/contraction cycles and "getting out of a contraction" is one of the primary reasons we get new editions of things. I mean, if things are going great why bother with a new edition? This is more or less why I figure a new edition of PF is inevitable.
That being said, I did have one of these as a small child, and it was rad.
Yes, i was. I also know better than to ascribe using it as a cultural touchstone to emphasize "this person is a nerd/geek" throughout the 80's to financial success. TSR was bankrupt when WoTC bought it and revitalized the property.So because TSR mismanaged itself into the ground, AD&D was never a success? That's just a little more goal-post moving than I'm interested in pursuing. Suffice to say that the idea that D&D 3E was the most successful D&D ever is highly questionable, to say nothing of the inference that that success must be attributable soley to the aspects that please you.
Play what you want, but you're kidding yourself if you believe your preferences are somehow objectively "correct."
Well i mean the changeover from d+d to pathfinder as top rpg line only occurred because they changed the principles 3rd edition was based on, and people gravitated to pathfinder because it was familiar and somewhat compatible with what they already had. So there's a little more empirical evidence of what i'm saying than there is that 2nd edition ad+d was somehow more financially successful and popular. It was the 80's, every crappy toy line had a saturday morning cartoon, its why saturday morning cartoons existed in the 80's.
I did have one of these as a small child, and it was rad.
Oh man, I'm jealous. Of course, I tended to shred the wheels on these due to "braking" too hard on cement...
Edit: That is the least threatening "dragon head" I can imagine.
Calling it: Gencon 2019.
It does make sense in a certain way... Besides it being the ten year anniversary, 2019 also allows Paizo one year before to get feedback on Starfinder before announcing the release of a new edition and giving themselves one year to hype and develop and play test it...
EDIT: By "playtest" I mean a designers/internal playtest. Whether you know it or not, we have all been engaged in a massive open playtest for the 2nd edition since the Advanced Players Guide introduced traits, archetypes and other concepts.
Saying that one's current library becomes obsolete is not a sufficient argument against a new edition: by that logic a new edition may NEVER be released, ever. It's just a question of timing.
Calling it: Gencon 2019.It does make sense in a certain way... Besides it being the ten year anniversary, 2019 also allows Paizo one year before to get feedback on Starfinder before announcing the release of a new edition and giving themselves one year to hype and develop and play test it...
They also have a fair amount of experience now developing a new system that is largely compatible with minor conversion with all the Pathfinder bestiaries (and by extension all the APs) and those are the things that *keeping compatible* would most prioritize for a new set of rules for a fantasy game on Golarion.
If the APs start building towards some major world-altering event (so they can jump forward in time to reset a lot of setting details) that will be a big giveaway.
I remember having some D&D toys(or at least similar) of a hydra, fire elemental, and a roper I think. I really wish I still had them:(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I couldn't care either way. Aside from APs I kind of became 'done' with Pathfinder, in the sense that I feel like I have everything I need and more from Paizo and third party that can be played easily with the Pathfinder chassis so I won't be going out of my way to get more. The Adventure Paths are the only thing that holds any interest for me and even there I don't run enough games to play the stuff I have let alone keep a subscription of these things.
Because abandoning the trove of material that does exist in favor of a new edition would benefit newer players than older ones so there's only two kinds of Pathfinder 2.0 that I would find useful at all:
Pathfinder lite; Something I mentioned before. Basically a 20 level version of the Beginner box that's basically diet Pathfinder. It could be played for entire campaigns by newer players and players that don't want all the crunchy bits but can be quickly upgraded to normal Pathfinder if they get board with that. Keep it at three books and be done with it. Then you have a sleek and simple gateway drug to Pathfinder proper that can still be a full on game.
Dimensionfinder; A genericized Pathfinder resembling a mix of d20 Modern and True 20. You get around six chassis as classes and packages that resemble Starfinder/Pathfinder/Cavefinder/Dojofinder/SecretOriginfinder/Streetfinder classes. Then you can run any game you want with a streamlined system and import creatures and stuff from Pathfinder and Starfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder lite; Something I mentioned before. Basically a 20 level version of the Beginner box that's basically diet Pathfinder. It could be played for entire campaigns by newer players and players that don't want all the crunchy bits but can be quickly upgraded to normal Pathfinder if they get board with that. Keep it at three books and be done with it. Then you have a sleek and simple gateway drug to Pathfinder proper that can still be a full on game.
I would buy this twice, but I think it's highly unlikely.
Pathfinder lite; Something I mentioned before. Basically a 20 level version of the Beginner box that's basically diet Pathfinder. It could be played for entire campaigns by newer players and players that don't want all the crunchy bits but can be quickly upgraded to normal Pathfinder if they get board with that. Keep it at three books and be done with it. Then you have a sleek and simple gateway drug to Pathfinder proper that can still be a full on game.I would buy this twice, but I think it's highly unlikely.
5E is very much like that. I think PF is stuck in a complex/crunchier than D&D spot for sometime forward.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5E is very much like that. I think PF is stuck in a complex/crunchier than D&D spot for sometime forward.Pathfinder lite; Something I mentioned before. Basically a 20 level version of the Beginner box that's basically diet Pathfinder. It could be played for entire campaigns by newer players and players that don't want all the crunchy bits but can be quickly upgraded to normal Pathfinder if they get board with that. Keep it at three books and be done with it. Then you have a sleek and simple gateway drug to Pathfinder proper that can still be a full on game.I would buy this twice, but I think it's highly unlikely.
Why 'stuck in/?' Don't you realize that for some of us, that is not a problem, but rather Pathfinder's greatest feature? There is all the fun crinkly number crunching in between game sessions, but the math is still simple enough to just slide out of sight during gameplay so that the story can dominate. I don't want something simpler or easier; if that was what I wanted, there are many other systems I could be using.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why 'stuck in/?' Don't you realize that for some of us, that is not a problem, but rather Pathfinder's greatest feature? There is all the fun crinkly number crunching in between game sessions, but the math is still simple enough to just slide out of sight during gameplay so that the story can dominate. I don't want something simpler or easier; if that was what I wanted, there are many other systems I could be using.5E is very much like that. I think PF is stuck in a complex/crunchier than D&D spot for sometime forward.Pathfinder lite; Something I mentioned before. Basically a 20 level version of the Beginner box that's basically diet Pathfinder. It could be played for entire campaigns by newer players and players that don't want all the crunchy bits but can be quickly upgraded to normal Pathfinder if they get board with that. Keep it at three books and be done with it. Then you have a sleek and simple gateway drug to Pathfinder proper that can still be a full on game.I would buy this twice, but I think it's highly unlikely.
"Stuck in" isn't pejorative.
It kind of implies it's trying to get out though.
5E is very much like that. I think PF is stuck in a complex/crunchier than D&D spot for sometime forward.
Yup. And if WotC sold PDFs of the 5E core, I may well have jumped ship entirely. But they don't, so I haven't (well, that and the fact that they regularly make what I perceive to be customer-hostile decisions, but that's beside the point).
It kind of implies it's trying to get out though.
Fair enough. The thing is, it seems entirely possible to develop a revised edition that doesn't abandon that niche, yet is better presented, more consistent, better balanced at higher levels, etc. than Pathfinder. I also believe that some of the Starfinder changes could very well be the basis of a move in that direction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I couldn't care either way. Aside from APs I kind of became 'done' with Pathfinder, in the sense that I feel like I have everything I need and more from Paizo and third party that can be played easily with the Pathfinder chassis so I won't be going out of my way to get more. The Adventure Paths are the only thing that holds any interest for me and even there I don't run enough games to play the stuff I have let alone keep a subscription of these things.
While I do cherry-pick an awful lot from more recent publications, I wouldn't go so far as to say I am disinterested in new material.
Table-top gaming is about the players and the fantasy. It's about characters being larger than life, struggling and achieving great feats (usually of heroism), sometimes at the cost of their own lives.
In many ways, it's about the characters.
And in that regard, new material is always welcome. New options, new inspirations, new possibilities. Albeit I feel that Paizo have gotten crunchier, more specialised and a tad overcomplex on some of their most recent offerings. Kineticist being a good example.
Pathfinder lite; Something I mentioned before. Basically a 20 level version of the Beginner box that's basically diet Pathfinder. It could be played for entire campaigns by newer players and players that don't want all the crunchy bits but can be quickly upgraded to normal Pathfinder if they get board with that. Keep it at three books and be done with it. Then you have a sleek and simple gateway drug to Pathfinder proper that can still be a full on game.
I don't think expanding the Beginner Box to 20 levels is actually necessary, as people will generally either want new options well before they ever hit level 20, or the GM can simply transition to a CRB only campaign. That said, there may be a market for it. Who knows?
Ironically, "Pathfinder Lite" is our nickname of the set of house rules that were assembled to cut down the crunch of the game, and constrain the power level (lowering ceiling and raising floor) of characters.
As for Pathfinder 2.0... It's likely to happen.
Pathfinder is not a refined, carefully mastered work of art. It's a polished up version of 3.5 that Paizo were forced to release so as to avoid going out of business as Wizards ripped the carpet out from under their feet. It outsold 4th edition and most other roleplaying games for years, in part due to 4th edition not actually being D&D and paying no heed to their customer base. But now 5th edition is out in the wild and it's doing pretty well, taking the top spot from Pathfinder, even.
Paizo need to sell things. It's not just about the game, it's about publishing and selling additional material to keep the power on and the printers running, and eventually Pathfinder is going to start feeling old and outdated - to many I know, that's already happened. For those who don't want a new edition... you don't actually need to throw away your bookshelf of hardcovers. I know people who still play 3.5. I know people who still play 2nd edition AD&D. I know people who still play 1st edition AD&D. The books don't vanish just because new ones aren't produced in that system.
Could Paizo put something better together than Pathfinder? Yes. I'm pretty sure they could. It won't be for a few years yet at least, because I suspect they need to see how Starfinder fares out in the wild, and find out the bugs before they even started the monolithic task of a new Pathfinder edition.
And odds are, there will be some backwards compatibility with Pathfinder, much as there is between Starfinder and Pathfinder. What I found with 5th edition is that changing the core mechanics of a game somewhat aren't actually as big an impediment to converting material as mucking around with the details. I've converted a Pathfinder AP or two to 5th edition and run it, and it was a lot less fun for me than I expected, simply due to the fact that none of the monsters or published NPCs were directly translatable as 5th edition decided to remove NPC building rules and randomly reassign CR or completely re-envisage 75% of the creatures, so even if they published them, they're not usable in as intended in the adventure. In Pathfinder 2.0 if a troll is a troll, and a chimera is a chimera, then you'll be able to play 3.5 publications in it a lot easier than you'd think.