So, Pathfinder 2.0 based on Starfinder chassis when?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 417 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Interesting debate.

What a lot of people like (currently) about Pathfinder that I talk to is the amount of flexibility in the system. That they can build what they want, not what the system cares to offer them. They don;t get this from 5e or 4e.

Also, there is a huge, huge restricting factor that I haven't seen mentioned (yet) in the comments here (mind you I only skim read the first and last pages): Backward compatibility.

Remember that Paizo's bread and butter is NOT selling rules, it's selling adventures. They need a rule set with which those adventures are compatible, so you won't see a new version of Pathfinder that isn't roughly compatible with the current version any less than Pathfinder is compatible with 3.5.

End of.

Yes, rules bloat is a thing. But re-consolidating and re-indexing the existing rules is a more likely prospect than an entire new edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:
Remember that Paizo's bread and butter is NOT selling rules, it's selling adventures.

I wonder how true that remains, especially from a revenue standpoint.

Regardless, it seems plain to me that they're well past "backward compatibility is a survival imperative." That's not to say that they will abandon it, of course. Merely that they could and expect to remain a going concern.


I think a more agreeable approach would be for Paizo to publish a 10th anniversary compilation guide that is just a re-consolidation and an indexing maybe pruning of some things that have previously published much like Dabbler said above.

But even this has its pitfalls I mean after 9+ years, there is just so much content, it would be difficult to decide what to include and what to take out.

Bloat is a problem. My recommendation would be to slow down product production, which will most likely end in layoffs unless other non-rpg book revenue streams are made. All I know is that my mancave has literally ran out of space for more bookcases and books. older stuff is now going in boxes and I am relying more and more on PDFs and D20PFSRD to look at the game information to build my characters and NPCs.

Using the Starfinder rule set to try out what may be implemented in a future re-imagining of the game system would be a way. I personally would prefer an open call very much like the when Pathfinder came out in 07-08'. I just would not deviate too much from the 3.X model and if they did then have a conversion document that seamlessly provides everyone with this information.


I'm good with fewer rulebooks just as long as they keep them APs comin!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Remember that Paizo's bread and butter is NOT selling rules, it's selling adventures.
I wonder how true that remains, especially from a revenue standpoint.

Given the specifics of the publishing industry, I believe it does remain so. Hardcovers have slim margins while the subscriptions are stable income.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Remember that Paizo's bread and butter is NOT selling rules, it's selling adventures.
I wonder how true that remains, especially from a revenue standpoint.
Given the specifics of the publishing industry, I believe it does remain so. Hardcovers have slim margins while the subscriptions are stable income.

In fairness, I specified revenue, not net income, and I said nothing about stability. We also don't know how many supplements they sell via subscription. Or at least I don't.

My guess is that the only people that may know work at Paizo (and I say "may" because you might be surprised by how little insight companies often have into their own data).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My group is pouring over starfinder. Some of the things that are different we've already had a version of for house rules. I think by the time we are done, we'll convert to a more SF based ruleset, than a PF one, for both fantasy and sci-fi games, or hybrid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

One thing about Starfinder I'm not sure whether I like it or not yet is the archetypes. It seems to be a mix of PF archetypes and a PF prestige class. I think the idea has merit, but not entirely sure on the execution. I need to see more examples than the two given in the book. One thing is, it may be harder for 3rd Party or Homebrewers to come up with archetypes in SF, because of how they work for all classes, vs just a single class being altered. As more classes are released for SF (this is bound to happen), the more you need to keep in consideration for 'gotchas' for certain classes/archtype options at any given level. Although, it does appear as if the SF devs were somewhat trying to keep what each class gets at certain levels to be similar in strength. I'll have to look over it more...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Just because someone likes tequila doesn't mean they're going to enjoy chewing on an agave root.

SURE, I'm the weird one.....

I am very interested in this topic, as I've been unable to really dive into SF as of yet and I want to really go over what the rules are and how the game plays before I invest, and I can't seem to find too many online resources that really go in depth into covering the differences (if anyone has links please share them if not itt then via PM) that the two systems really implement.

From what I can tell, the classes and ability system is redesigned from the ground up to better work in conjunction with each other and offer robust options for all classes, whether or not this fixes the 3.0 C/M balance issues has yet to be really covered from what I have read. But I do like that stats seem to be more generous and hopefully less important to the internal balance of the mechanics of the system, which means players can make the character they want (i.e. overpowered?) and it won't impact the execution of the game that much.

I really want to go over the action system in depth and see if it runs better than my own homebrew, and whether or not simply porting over the system transposes well into the system.

Feats and feat bloat are another big factor for a lot of people, and unfortunately a lot of what we now understand about it is nigh unfix-able in PFRPG since so much material still exists. That said, consolidating feat chains and removing feat taxes are endeavors I think everyone can agree upon. I really want to see how SF tackles this, because from what I've seen it's off to a good start.

RE: 5E- I hate it. Many of the mechanics seem to be divorced from the d20 system (since proficiency scales up to 6, rather than 10-11 or even 20 like 3.x), and on the whole it seems that the dice involved are there for variation and the system rewards less mechanically savvy players in favor of 'inspiration fishing' which is itself a big departure from 3.x which rewards reading and buying more products, and therein lies the rub. I hated DMing the system, since monster building is not at all similar to character building and thus homebrewing anything for the system requires a lot more effort and playtesting. When playing Pathfinder I love having the tools to design and create my own narrative through encounters. 5e's system is much less enabling in that regard. When building characters (assuming the feats optional rules are not in place) I really feel like all my decision making is done super early game and playing past a certain level just becomes bland and feels like going though the motions of just waiting for the class features I picked at 1st-3rd level to come online. Some people like this, I do not. It makes me feel less like the character is my own and that the only real difference between character builds comes down to background choices.

That doesn't mean 5e is all bad though, and from what I have read Paizo saw this and borrowed/incorporated some of the better things from it into SF. Stats is a big one, as are the action system and short rest(s). I myself am guilty of borrowing some of 5e's action mechanics for my own rules and I have juxtaposed the trait/background system in pathfinder to be more significant to my players in my own games which I think works well. I understand SF has something similar to 5e's approach to this but I have not read it and really want to know if it works better to have an entire background package put together for you like a class or to be able to modularly choose different aspects of your own background like traits in PF.

Lantern Lodge Customer Service Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Reminder, this thread is not a discussion area for the merits of 5e or any other edition of D&D. Take it elsewhere if you want to critique other systems. The thread is about Pathfinder/Starfinder. I understand that some folks will want to try to draw comparisons to the evolution of editions in D&D and that is okay for the intent of this thread, but what is not ok is to post about what you did or did not like about particular editions. That kind of commentary in this kind of thread leads to tangents running off into the weeds and edition warring. Further posts in this thread which veer off topic and edge toward inciting edition wars will be removed without warning.


Being perfectly honest, if Pathfinder 2.0 was made exactly like Starfinder, i wouldnt play it.

This mostly comes from the fact that to me magic on this type of fantasy setting must be the all powerful and starfinder, which is focused on the future and makes sense to have weaker magic overall if any, doesnt offers this.

Mages arent altering reality and warping time...? Nope, not buying into it.

Now assuming they return to full casters or just return the old completely crazy spells even in this new 6 spell levels tops? Sure, i would take a look.

Mind you, this isnt about me playing said mages, which i do rarely compared to the rest, i just think they are a must in this type of setting, for example i have never and dont plan to ever play a low magic campaing in pathfinder.

On starfinder ofc, it being futurisct, i honestly dont mind it as much whatever they do to magic, since the focus usually is technology, but i do find interesting how they kept it going with a new concept there.

What i liked the most in starfinder is the themes. The idea of dividing what your character actually seeks from his class in the very books to me is quite nice. It wasnt a must ofc, quite sure we all already did this in our games anyway, but to me having this in the book is great.


Sara Marie wrote:
Reminder, this thread is not a discussion area for the merits of 5e or any other edition of D&D. Take it elsewhere if you want to critique other systems. The thread is about Pathfinder/Starfinder. I understand that some folks will want to try to draw comparisons to the evolution of editions in D&D and that is okay for the intent of this thread, but what is not ok is to post about what you did or did not like about particular editions. That kind of commentary in this kind of thread leads to tangents running off into the weeds and edition warring. Further posts in this thread which veer off topic and edge toward inciting edition wars will be removed without warning.

While it is easily understood not to start an edition war, is it not important to compare the changes from PFRPG to STRPG based on what we've experienced in other systems?

Very clearly there is some influence in the execution of SFRPG, which seems to have borrowed some of the mechanics straight from 5e, and that seems to make it nigh impossible to simply bar 5e from being discussed at all as if it was voodoo talk.

I just need to know where the line is so I can better comply with the direction you want this thread to go/stay in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"I enjoy running systems with quick-and-dirty skill resolution. Like those games with a simple, blanket +2 bonus at the DM's discretion. Glad Starfinder includes that"

is fine

"5E's advantage mechanic sucks. Glad Starfinder doesn't do that"

isn't.

Sara Marie wrote:
Take it elsewhere if you want to critique other systems.
Sara Marie wrote:
I understand that some folks will want to try to draw comparisons to the evolution of editions in D&D and that is okay for the intent of this thread


Starfinder is not D&D.

So no comparisons should be needed.


captain yesterday wrote:

Starfinder is not D&D.

So no comparisons should be needed.

Except that there are mechanics in SFRPG that are drawn from 5e, that do not exist in PFRPG, and I don't think we can understand the real merits of these changes from PFRPG to SFRPG without comparing our experiences with said mechanics from 5e since we otherwise have no reference.

Starfinder iirc is 3.0 OGL is it not? That makes it inexorably tied to D&D, as is Pathfinder. This is important since a lot of the 'fixes' that we're talking about showing up in SFRPG are ones that have become glaringly apparent as we progress farther and farther from our 3.0 roots, the core of the system is still largely based upon that chassis.

The two biggest things that Starfinder seems to have gained from Pathfinder's tenure are the classes all being designed around a point buy system; where the original core classes were not as they maintained their skeletons mostly in tact from 3.5, with the main exception being the paladin; and the other being an overhaul of feats and their inherent relationship to how classes function. These are the good things that we want to see brought in from what I understand.

I still have no real idea on how the action system works, I would like to change that to better participate in this discussion.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Copenhagen, early morning ...

I just bought the Starfinder Corebook, and I'm looking forward to read though it properly - could be cool!

But, I love Pathfinder and I've bought a lot of books, just like I did with 3.5. I mix materials from both and I would not jump to a new system. I love the PF version of D&D.

At our table we play GURPS, FATE and 12th Age - all good games. But Pathfinder is our go-to for fantasy. we're around 50, but our boys are playing in the group as well - (they in their middle 20s.) the "boys" are Pathfinder fans and the fact that the game has old roots seems to appeal to them ...

Higly subjective I know, but I would go where the good 3.5 editions are, and right now that's Paizo (THANKS!!! PAIZO!)

Good Gaming to you All:-)

Gruzom

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Good artists copy. Great artists steal.

I have no problem with a system utilizing a good idea from another game or system or even genre or philosophy. I enjoy playing 5e and I see pieces there that could improve Pathfinder. I have run seven tables of SFS, but I have yet to play and I like what I see so far. I especially like the everyone participates school of space combat, which is a HUGE bonus and any lessons learned from that could be applied to Pathfinder and such a move would be wonderful to see.

A revised Pathfinder that is still compatible with existing product and setting materials would be my preference. I don't think the flaws in Pathfinder require a new system, just tweaking.


^-^
James,

I am embarrassed for you. The correct term is never "steal", it is "leverage".

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I type corrected. ;)


Daw wrote:

^-^

James,

I am embarrassed for you. The correct term is never "steal", it is "leverage".

I personally prefer "homage" myself.


I always thought feats being granted from racial hd in 3.5, which didn't happen in 3rd edition, unnecessary. For me you don't need to make monsters not follow the normal rules of the game, but I don't see any problem with removing feats from racial hd.

Removing 7-9 level spells from pathfinder/dnd will make a lot of people salty.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Daw wrote:

^-^

James,

I am embarrassed for you. The correct term is never "steal", it is "leverage".

I personally prefer "homage" myself.

Obviously only good artists, not great ones.


John John wrote:

I always thought feats being granted from racial hd in 3.5, which didn't happen in 3rd edition, unnecessary. For me you don't need to make monsters not follow the normal rules of the game, but I don't see any problem with removing feats from racial hd.

Removing 7-9 level spells from pathfinder/dnd will make a lot of people salty.

10 levels of spells is an inherent part of the game, because it's based on a 20-level system.

A lot of these alternate games that run different chassis while trying to maintain the D&D or OGL brand that divulge from that too much are mathematically better off divorcing themselves from the d20 completely.

Honestly, if we got a more expanded Unchained like release that juxtaposed the 'newer' design philosophy of classes (stats based on Point Buy being the standard, All classes having a degree of MAD, free feats baked into the class features that otherwise would be mandatory, bypassing of certain rules to facilitate spellcasting in armor, etc) onto the core classes in a way that makes them build similarly; then we attack the action economy system in a way that streamlines ease of play (RAE was a good start, I keep plugging my own because it works); then the genuine need for a second edition of the game that nixes the existing materials would not exist.

Unchained was a really good start. A Pathfinder 1.5 would be undeniably better both conceptually and financially than a 2.0 since the current release schedule and plans for oncoming content would not have to cease or even slow down.

From what I'm currently reading on SFRPG, the action system is not better than Unchained's RAE. I want a better RAE, because (this is not a joke) it damn near fixes C/M disparity in combat.

Hell, even if we get more books that simply compile the newer options from non open content books like Weapon/Armor Master's Handbook into a core OGL release (like how we got with Adventurer's Guide) then the company and game can move forward in a really positive way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
John John wrote:
Removing 7-9 level spells from pathfinder/dnd will make a lot of people salty.
10 levels of spells is an inherent part of the game, because it's based on a 20-level system.

Well, first there aren't 10 levels of spells. Second, the 9 levels of spells predate the "20-level system", so I think your cause and effect are faulty.

I'm not sure there's any inherent need for 9 levels of casting, other than "it's always been that way", which might be sufficient.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

... uh... thejeff... you forgot cantrips.


thejeff wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
John John wrote:
Removing 7-9 level spells from pathfinder/dnd will make a lot of people salty.
10 levels of spells is an inherent part of the game, because it's based on a 20-level system.

Well, first there aren't 10 levels of spells. Second, the 9 levels of spells predate the "20-level system", so I think your cause and effect are faulty.

I'm not sure there's any inherent need for 9 levels of casting, other than "it's always been that way", which might be sufficient.

0-9 makes for 10 levels as it happens.

That said, I don't think you need 10 levels because 20 class levels. I mean, 4 and 6 level casters managed to make do fine...


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
thejeff wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
John John wrote:
Removing 7-9 level spells from pathfinder/dnd will make a lot of people salty.
10 levels of spells is an inherent part of the game, because it's based on a 20-level system.

Well, first there aren't 10 levels of spells. Second, the 9 levels of spells predate the "20-level system", so I think your cause and effect are faulty.

I'm not sure there's any inherent need for 9 levels of casting, other than "it's always been that way", which might be sufficient.

0-9 makes for 10 levels as it happens.

That said, I don't think you need 10 levels because 20 class levels. I mean, 4 and 6 level casters managed to make do fine...

4 and 6 level casters also tend to be full and 3/4 bab armor wearing classes with a slew of special abilities and higher HD though.

I think itd be a LOT easier to dig through the problem spells and remove or alter (the way haste got altered from the original 3.0) in order to make them work than it would be to make a fantasy setting where full casters only get 6 levels of spells.

Example: Summons are a problem.
1. Remove minute/level options from the game
2. Shorten the cast time to a standard action but don't let summoned creatures act on the round they're summoned so as to give opponents a round to deal with them before they unload (summoning sickness?)

Thats just spitballing with not much thought behind it but a lot of tweaks like that could significantly change the dynamic of high level play.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
I'm not sure there's any inherent need for 9 levels of casting, other than "it's always been that way", which might be sufficient.

A big issue was also the stretching of 7th level cleric spells to fill 7th-9th level spells. Just not enough classic options there, so new ones need added. There has been some work on that, but those are the hardest levels to write for.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If we accept backwards compatibility with existing Pathfinder material (especially adventures and bestiaries) as a requirement for a new edition of Pathfinder, there would be a natural limit to what can be changed. Any change that can't be summarized in a PDF of this size is probably beyond the scope of anything that Paizo is likely to put into a new edition of Pathfinder.

So I am thinking that major changes to armor/weapons/spells are probably out of the question, but changes to point buy, racial features, skills, and various unchained options are still on the table.


thejeff wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
John John wrote:
Removing 7-9 level spells from pathfinder/dnd will make a lot of people salty.
10 levels of spells is an inherent part of the game, because it's based on a 20-level system.

Well, first there aren't 10 levels of spells. Second, the 9 levels of spells predate the "20-level system", so I think your cause and effect are faulty.

I'm not sure there's any inherent need for 9 levels of casting, other than "it's always been that way", which might be sufficient.

For full caster progression to work as is, gaining a new level of spells every other level is the main attraction to the design of the class.

The game is designed around this paradigm, at least the 3.0 OGL version of the game that PFRPG is based on.

That isn't to say that a different system couldn't exist, but the already existing skeleton to the game would change and thus we're talking about a game that isn't Pathfinder. Classes would be designed very differently (reading the SFRPG CRB now) and the roles of spellcasting would be entirely changed.

3.x is and always has been designed around every other level stepping the level of magic up by one, literally. If not by the characters themselves, then by the enemies as well. It is scaled in such a way to denote progression in a 20-level system and changing from that would require adding in other mechanics to these classes which may take away player choices. For instance, the magus has a slew of features based around combat where a wizard that simply gets 6th level spells as a cap would lose out a lot more than just spells.

The Exchange

master_marshmallow wrote:
That isn't to say that a different system couldn't exist, but the already existing skeleton to the game would change and thus we're talking about a game that isn't Pathfinder. Classes would be designed very differently (reading the SFRPG CRB now) and the roles of spellcasting would be entirely changed.

YES!!!

I know they'll never do it (and for good reason, see the following), but in my mind, full casters need to be nerfed so hard, that they would probably lose anyone that likes those classes immediately.


WormysQueue wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
That isn't to say that a different system couldn't exist, but the already existing skeleton to the game would change and thus we're talking about a game that isn't Pathfinder. Classes would be designed very differently (reading the SFRPG CRB now) and the roles of spellcasting would be entirely changed.

YES!!!

I know they'll never do it (and for good reason, see the following), but in my mind, full casters need to be nerfed so hard, that they would probably lose anyone that likes those classes immediately.

Hypothetically, if a system completely changed spellcasting from a 9 level system to a 6 level system I would say the classes that change need to have more added as part of their core features. For instance, the wizard would focus more on class features from their selected school, that scale better than what already exist in giving them 2 abilities over the course of a 20-level character. Similar to something like Arcanists, Witches, Oracles, and every other post core full caster gets. Make force missle, frost ray, etc., scale better with level and make them matter.

But again, at that point we're talking about an genuine 2.0 release that has to nix backward compatibility all but completely thus alienating a large portion of the player base. The entire framework of the chassis would have to change.

In reading through SFRPG, I'm starting to see how some things could work well, though it really wouldn't be all that different from 5e in execution tbh. If PFRPG 2.0 happens, it has to be a different enough product to be profitable otherwise the game (and Paizo) dies.

RE: action economy -> so far I do not like SFRPG's approach to iterative attacks. I do not like that full round actions still exist, I do not like that it seems martial characters are still gated by movement. As far as flow of play is concerned, it's not better, just slightly different. I'll continue to read.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

master_marshmallow, can you elaborate on what you mean by martial characters 'gated by movement?' I don't understand what you're saying here.


James Martin wrote:
master_marshmallow, can you elaborate on what you mean by martial characters 'gated by movement?' I don't understand what you're saying here.

The full attack gate basically. They can do competitive or even better damage than casters but they have to move so end up stuck with 1 attack


For what it's worth, there's a game that caps the powerful spells no matter your stats and level unless you achieve certain circumstances that lets you bypass that limit. Converted to 3.x/path rules would be something like 6th and 7th spells "inhuman" and 8th and 9th spells "godlike".

Also once in a while the classic joke always come up in our table, how funny is to see that full spellcasters at high level can bend the cosmic laws at their will for granted (limited, but still granted), and martial types still have to take a feat if they want to deal non lethal damage without penalty with their loyal, trusty, irreplaceable weapon or even throw a decent punch.

Idiotic question of mine, what are "the big six"?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

They are the six magic items pretty much every character gets:


  • Magic Weapon
  • Magic Armor
  • Cloak of Resistance
  • Stat-boosting item (headbands for mental stats, belts for physical)
  • Ring of Protection
  • Amulet of Natural Armor


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
James Martin wrote:
master_marshmallow, can you elaborate on what you mean by martial characters 'gated by movement?' I don't understand what you're saying here.
The full attack gate basically. They can do competitive or even better damage than casters but they have to move so end up stuck with 1 attack

That is a Starfinder difference that probably can be ported over to a revision of Pathfinder pretty easily. Somewhere between the Starfinder rules and Pathfinder Unchained's rules for removing iterative attacks, someone probably could come up with a combat system that does not so harshly punish moving when BAB reaches +6 or higher.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

Ryan Freire wrote:
James Martin wrote:
master_marshmallow, can you elaborate on what you mean by martial characters 'gated by movement?' I don't understand what you're saying here.
The full attack gate basically. They can do competitive or even better damage than casters but they have to move so end up stuck with 1 attack

So that applies to melee characters, but not ranged attackers? I'm trying to be sure I understand the argument.


We have been talking about replacing iterative attacks with a BAB based increase in Crit Ranges, Full round combat actions will only apply to the Cinematic attack options.


David knott 242 wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
James Martin wrote:
master_marshmallow, can you elaborate on what you mean by martial characters 'gated by movement?' I don't understand what you're saying here.
The full attack gate basically. They can do competitive or even better damage than casters but they have to move so end up stuck with 1 attack

That is a Starfinder difference that probably can be ported over to a revision of Pathfinder pretty easily. Somewhere between the Starfinder rules and Pathfinder Unchained's rules for removing iterative attacks, someone probably could come up with a combat system that does not so harshly punish moving when BAB reaches +6 or higher.

My homebrew system does this, based on the RAE from Unchained.

All attacks are separated into two categories: Primary and Secondary. Every character can make a single Primary Attack per turn, and any attacks after this are considered Secondary, which means they take a -5.

Any abilities that refer to the first attack you take in a round, or an attack at full BAB instead refer to Primary attacks, and any additional attacks at full BAB are considered Primary attacks and they are always calculated the same way. This has made combat flow much faster and easier for everyone at my table and playtesting has pretty much ended for us as far as attack rolls go. There's a link to the discussion in my post upthread.


I, personally, think a rolling edition change would be more suitable to Paizo's business model. With continuous Adventure paths and a lot of core rule books at this point, we need neither a completely new entity nor a backwards compatible 2.0

With tabletop games and this game especially, one of the biggest strengths is modularity. It is not impossible to replace and add rules to this framework. And I think we all agree that there is a lot of good in the system. I think we agree, at least.

So, modular approach to updating rules, like all the optional rules systems dropped in over various books (but especially Unchained).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:

I, personally, think a rolling edition change would be more suitable to Paizo's business model. With continuous Adventure paths and a lot of core rule books at this point, we need neither a completely new entity nor a backwards compatible 2.0

With tabletop games and this game especially, one of the biggest strengths is modularity. It is not impossible to replace and add rules to this framework. And I think we all agree that there is a lot of good in the system. I think we agree, at least.

So, modular approach to updating rules, like all the optional rules systems dropped in over various books (but especially Unchained).

A series of books in the same vein as Unchained I agree is the better option, since it enables their entire product catalog to remain relevant.

I think the biggest substantial change that people would want is a revision of the core classes to better adhere to the newer design chassis that more recent classes are built upon, including but not limited to point buy being considered the standard paradigm of class design not present in 3.x's classes which made it into the CRB of Pathfinder mostly due to legacy reasons.


James Martin wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
James Martin wrote:
master_marshmallow, can you elaborate on what you mean by martial characters 'gated by movement?' I don't understand what you're saying here.
The full attack gate basically. They can do competitive or even better damage than casters but they have to move so end up stuck with 1 attack
So that applies to melee characters, but not ranged attackers? I'm trying to be sure I understand the argument.

Thats the gist of it, its why archery is usually touted as the most damaging combat style, because despite the high feat investment, you get to full attack from the earliest level you take rapid shot.


Rolling Edition Changes, while less disruptive at the play level, have serious disadvantages at the design level. It penalizes substantive changes seriously. Removing full round actions/iterative attacks effects nearly every published rules containing work, so you can just throw that out if you want to avoid chaos. Same with any other serious change. It also makes overseeing PFS a nightmare. Unchained is OK, but most of the content is going to have to be optional, which, as the options multiply, causes confusion and discontent, and will change the whole optimal landscapes


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Only way I see it happening is if star-finder sells like crazy. . . .

It looks like your condition was met.


Danbala wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Only way I see it happening is if star-finder sells like crazy. . . .
It looks like your condition was met.

Probably best to wait and see if sales continue past "brand new game's core rulebook" stage. People got excited about and bought a lot of 4th ed when it first came out too. Takes time to decide if you like a game system or not usually.


Right now, I'm not ready for Pathfinder 2.0.

Still have a lot to explore in the original Pathfinder. A whole lot.

But, if there is a Pathfinder 2.0, I hope it remains compatible with Pathfinder's current catalog.


John John wrote:

I always thought feats being granted from racial hd in 3.5, which didn't happen in 3rd edition, unnecessary. For me you don't need to make monsters not follow the normal rules of the game, but I don't see any problem with removing feats from racial hd.

Removing 7-9 level spells from pathfinder/dnd will make a lot of people salty.

Salty enough to boycott, yes...I'm all for a mix of magic and SF, but not at the cost of nerfing the magic.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


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.

Another reason could be creative. They have put out many, many books for Pathfinder and it could be that they are simply running out of material that is of interest to the designers. Starfinder might feel like a creative breath of fresh air.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder Modern was so bad, they blew up the planet!

301 to 350 of 417 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / So, Pathfinder 2.0 based on Starfinder chassis when? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.