Why a new system (2.0) is being created?


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I completely echo Eryx_UK's sentiments. My group and I have invested hundreds of dollars into PF v.1 and just can't justify shelving those books in favor of a new addition. We didn't invest in D&D 4e or 5e for the same reason. We've spoken about it and have all agreed that PF v.1 will be our game of choice for fantasy gaming from now until we possibly one day "retire". I sincerely wish the best of luck to Paizo in this stage of their journey. But the players in my group won't be along for the ride.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Are we really going to have an edition war with ourselves people?

Who else would we have an edition war with?

Kolokotroni wrote:
There are lots of reasons for a new edition,

And also many reasons against a new edition.

Kolokotroni wrote:
and they are giving us a ton of lead time, as much as I didnt want to personally see a new edition, I think its fair to say it's time.

Why? Why would it be "time" now, rather than 5 years ago or 5 years from now?

Kolokotroni wrote:
They have done about as much as they could have with the 3.x ruleset. Its time to break the chains and start fresh.

Why do you say this? I mean, just off the top of my head I can think of several 3.X classes (and design spaces) Paizo hasn't messed with - and I didn't even play 3.5!

Kolokotroni wrote:
They have given us a literal decade of stories and fun,

So why stop now?

Kolokotroni wrote:
t boggles my mind that fans would loose faith now. Will pathfinder 2 be perfect? No obviously not, I don't think a perfect roleplaying game exists theres way too much that is subjective in there.

Honestly, I've been losing faith in Paizo's faith to handle the rules for a while now. Whether it's new splatbooks releasing feats that change how existing rules work, or Horror Adventures' bits with aligned spells, or the repeated nerfs into oblivion, or the messy/unreadable/unnecessary subsystems in Ultimate Intrigue... Some of the balance choices make me wonder if the developers and I are even playing the same game. And that's a known ruleset! This is one of several reasons I didn't pick up Starfinder.

Kolokotroni wrote:
But I bet it will be fun, and there will be cool adventures, and great art, and all sorts of fun support products. Which ultimately is what i want from paizo.

Which, as someone else stated, doesn't require a new edition. And even if it did... Paizo has had editing issues "recently." At least some of this is due to Starfinder splitting their resources, despite initial assurances that this would not happen. And now they need to split their resources THREE ways? PF1 (still being sold), Starfinder, and developing PF2 from the ground up? Unless something has changed, they don't seem to have the resources to do the job as well as they used to.


Stack wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Are we really going to have an edition war with ourselves people?...
This is the internet, so yes. Obviously. The boards now are but the opening skirmishes.

In the grimdark future of gaming, there is ONLY WAR!

...and for something totally different.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Are we really going to have an edition war with ourselves people? There are lots of reasons for a new edition, and they are giving us a ton of lead time, as much as I didnt want to personally see a new edition, I think its fair to say it's time. They have done about as much as they could have with the 3.x ruleset. Its time to break the chains and start fresh. They have given us a literal decade of stories and fun, it boggles my mind that fans would loose faith now. Will pathfinder 2 be perfect? No obviously not, I don't think a perfect roleplaying game exists theres way too much that is subjective in there. But I bet it will be fun, and there will be cool adventures, and great art, and all sorts of fun support products. Which ultimately is what i want from paizo.

"Let's not have an edition war. Also, we need a new edition, the old one sucks."

: /


6 people marked this as a favorite.

"Our edition wars were way better, with more flame and vitriol. Being a grognard used to mean something..."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Divorce from the tried and true (and weathered) half-orc, half-elf, gnome, halfling paradigm. Bring in the tengu, the wayang, the nagajii and... *shudder* kitsune..

Show a system that has learned from its mistakes and grows with the setting that it has developed over the years, build a whole new paradigm that fully extols and supports the new system 2.0 in a way that 1.0 sometimes could not.

*tranq-darted* zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Perhaps a massive marketing campaign boldly featuring the slogan, "And NO ELVES!"

Now, that is something that's never been done before.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I took a long time to switch over to from 3.X to 4th because there was so much content for 3.X. Because it stopped being supported, however, I eventually was unable to find games.

Unfortunately, when I did move 4th was on its last legs and I didn't know it. I basically gave up on d20 games after spending a good bit of money on 4e in a short period, only to have it all vanish in about a two years to a year and a half.

I was introduced to Pathfinder in 2015 and really enjoyed it. Oops.

Unfortunately the primary reason I decided to invest in Pathfinder was because of the plethora of good, pre-published adventures, from PFS scenarios to full APs. I really don't have the time or inclination to make my own adventures, or sit around for hours back-converting PF2e stuff into PF1e stuff (at that point, I might as well write my own adventure).

I will say, after reading the FAQ, I'm glad that Paizo has decided to keep all PFS scenarios available for play. However, once I've gone through all of the PF1e published adventure content, I will probably no longer be a customer, as the last thing I want to do is repeat my old mistakes of jumping in on a system at the end of its life span.

I wish them luck with this new edition.

EDIT: Also, this marks the death knell of the 3.X d20 system, which makes be a bit sad because it was the one I really got into gaming with (I was 16 in 2000).

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:

Most of the arguments here for a new system are reminiscent for 4e, yet gamers still felt that they were losing a great deal of support with it coming out. I myself felt that way when all the splat books I got really were worthless. Especially if I wanted to continue doing organized play. And then Paizo came along with Pathfinder and gave us something to use our old stuff while also getting more support, both rules-wise and adventure-wise.

The thing people are forgetting is that Pathfinder was built on giving 3.5 fans most support, both ruleswise and adventurewise. And now a decade later, we're faced with the same issues that WotC dealt us. I'm not really happy about this, no. I like 3.5 and I'd rather not see a full blown new edition that invalidates any support for the books I bought from Paizo. I don't like 5e and truthfully, I'm not a fan of Starfinder. If Pathfinder 2e is going to be like those, I just don't see myself shelling out more money for it. Especially if they are pulling the plug on supporting PF1.

I'm not happy with this. If my GM were still alive, he'd be very sad about hearing this.

I agree, old ads for pathfinder stated that not only is 3.5 alive its Thriving over at Pathfinder. I don't want a new system. I liked 3E, which is why I jumped ship when 4E came out. Now they are saying buy our new system. No, i like Pathfinder the way it is. if I wanted a new system I wouldn't have bought Pathfinder in the first place.

Any opinion on this Erik Mona? How are we not supposed to feel left out in the cold when you are CHANGING the game we love?

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Divorce from the tried and true (and weathered) half-orc, half-elf, gnome, halfling paradigm.

You're in for luck, goblins will be core.

How in the world can you make goblins core? They are an evil race that are generally killed on sight. Now I'm supposed to believe that they are tolerated in cities? Why on earth would that happen?

This is precisely the kind of bull crap I don't want in my games.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, this is all very interesting, but far too painfully familiar to me. I have, like others, played since Red Box, actually before, when we were allowed to have Hobbits, Ents, Balrogs and Nazghul. I am also from the group of 3rd ed players who saw 4th edition (especially the things they did to the Realms) as a betrayal.
I DM a very homebrewed version of PFS, with Mythic, items that grow with characters, and, to be honest, quite a bit of Monty Haul type play (Google it).We have been playing through The Emerald Spire for over 2 years now, and they are about to finally encounter the BBEG, Nhur Athemon!
I have only last year attended my first PFS outing, in the form of the very fantastic PaizoCon UK, and will be attending this year with my 13 year old son.
So, with all this in mind, what do I think of PF2.0? Well, I definitely have issues with PF1.0, but not with the system, as, at its heart, it is still my beloved 3rd edition. Complex? Yes. Heavy with options? Yes. Unsaleable for new, younger players? NO! I have a group of 13 year olds (with my son) getting straight into it from knowing NOTHING about roleplaying! As trainee geeks and Overwatch/Minecraft obsessives, they love the option bloat...and always suck up more!
Time for a new edition? No. Time for more optional elements that I can bolt onto my game , like mythic or levelling items? Yes!
My biggest reason to oppose a new edition is to do with PFS. I have an element of choice with my home games - if you don't like the program, switch channels...no problem, we can keep running the way we want. I am still using 2nd Ed, 3.0 and 3.5 resources and ideas in my PFS game, so, fine. However, I have 2 PFS 'official' characters of 2nd and 3rd level. According to what I have read here, I am going to be allowed to play them at PaizoCon UK this year, then retire them. That sucks, and sucks big! Surely we should be able to at least convert, or keep playing PFS 1.0? The fact that we won't be able to is, frankly, reminiscent to the financially based reasons for WOTC changing to 4th Ed. I want to keep going to PaizoCon UK and maybe other PFS stuff, but to be forced to change systems? Not sure...
One more thing, which links to points made by other posters on here. Starfinder. Great fun. Well designed. Some good ideas. Played a bit under, my hero, Erik Mona, at last year's PaizoCon UK. Enjoyed it, recognised PF in it. BUT, it is not PF in Space. It is different.
I do not want to play a new version of PF. Unfortunately, I think, that is what we are getting, and I, for one, am sad.

Liberty's Edge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

To the Pathfinder staff

Thank you.

You've given me a game that has enabled me to have so many hours of joy, I can't begin to count. I'll be with you when the new edition launches, you've more than earned my faith in your ability to deliver a great product.


It is necessary. The stars are right. It was foretold of old. Something is coming from the stars to Golarion, bringing doom (doom I say!) to the old ways.

Or more specifically, the Countdown Clocks and the Aucturn Prophecy point at early 4718, er 2018. Ancient sages thought it was the Dominion of the Black. It's actually bits of Starfinder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So from my point of view I keep hearing that Pathfinder needs to be streamlined to allow for ease of teaching new people to play but lets explore that idea. Is Pathfinder to hard for people to learn how to play? I can prove that its not. In september I started a new group after not having a Real life group for several years. I took the role of the GM and I admit I have years worth of experience under my belt with 2nd edition D&D, 3.0, 3.5, Exalted 2E, World of darkness 2E (mostly werewolf, mage and changeling splats), Shadowrun 3rd edition, and even some Rifts games. 2 of my new players had no experience at all. 2 others came from other games (1 4E d&d and the other 2E D&D). I taught Carlos, Josh, Andrew, and Darrel how to play the game using the kingmaker adventure path.

We talked about concepts, I walked them through character creation and options using only the core rulebook because I didnt want to overload their brains with Pathfinders vast amount of information and character options, each one made a character they were happy with and that I felt was somewhat interesting. Carlos made a human necromancer, Josh made a gnome cleric of Sarenae, Andrew made a human ranger, and Darrel made a human fighter.

Over about 3 months real time I took this small band of adventurers through the greenbelt and they founded a kingdom. It happened to be a chance encounter with an Aboleth side quest I had been building up that they were killed/enslaved and the game ended. Due to real life two of my players left and I got a few replacements (one of whom is going to move away soon) and Ive taught them starfinder (a game that Im frankly not liking as much and when I finally kill them were going back to pathfinder but my god mystic healers are OP!). That said, if I can take 2 players with no experience and turn them into competant players then why cant anyone else?

IMO Pathfinder teaches perfectly well as its written and I have proven that we dont need a new edition for that reason.

So what other reasons are there. Well theres the idea about changing the few things in pathfinder that dont work very well. Yes, actions is something that can use a major overhaul. So are feats. So are skills. Even a few classes could use a once over to put them more in line with other classes of similar ability. However Im not convinced a new edition is needed for that when a well rounded and detailed errata could fix the issues.

I cant think of another reason why you would need a new edition.

So let me close by saying this. I came to Pathfinder because when 4th edition came out I hated it with a passion. I didnt want anything to do with the thing but Paizo rode in like a true knight in shining armor and offered me a hand up out of the mud when they said Pathfinder is going to continue the 3.5 line, the game I already had. The game I liked. Thats why you got my money and my support. Yet you took it a step further, you fixed many of the issues that plagued 3.5 like skill bloat and mass prestige classing (although Im not so sure mass archetypes was the way to go). This time you dont have me in the mud after being dumped by my old games company, you are the old games company. This time you have to show me the game has significantly evolved in such a way I want to play that instead of what I have and feel works perfectly fine.

Dark Archive

Joana wrote:
The data you bought for Pf1.0 "ought to be"* yours to keep, while they will certainly stop offering new datasets and bug fixes at some point. The problem comes if you upgrade systems and vanilla/non-subscription-based Hero Lab is no longer an option to download on your new system to parse all your datasets.

The pathfinder data sets aren't really all that large. I'd imagine that they'll probably keep allowing the downloads for as long as Hero Labs itself is supported. It already supports old editions for several systems.

In addition, it doesn't take much digging to figure out where they relevant files download to, if you are paranoid and want to back them up.

Dark Archive

Arakhor wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:

And how many people play it with you?

*Crickets*

Answering your own apparent "gotcha" question within the same post indicates that you have no wish to actually discuss the issue.

Not to mention that with the OSR boom, there's almost undoubtedly a lot more people playing some flavor of pre-3rd edition D&D now than there was a decade ago.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:
They obviously decided that 5e's popularity is not a flash in the pan (which it is)

It's been well over three years. No how matter how many times you parrot out "It's only a flash in the pan!"...it's not.

Dark Archive

RE: Caster/Martial Disparity

Jiggy wrote:
Pretty much every time the subject came up, there would be people insisting that it didn't exist, and/or was a self-created problem as a result of players being terrible people who don't understand the point of the game and everything would be fine if they just learned the meaning of "team" and so on and so forth.

And unfortunately, several of those people had little pi-shaped golem icons next to their names.


All available data seems to support the idea of 5E being a smash hit. Amazon sales, attendance at AL, online game numbers etc point to the fact the 5E has surpassed 3.0 in terms of sales (and WotC has basically claimed that and 2E but not 1E or BECMI). There is a 5E kickstarter surpassing a million dollars.

Some people are worried about PFS games, here you can't play 1E PFS games anyway 5E killed it dead. The society organiser switched to 5E.

Its an old system counting 3.0 it is now the longest running D&D of all time beating Basic D&D's run from 1977 to 1994. Counting PF by itself on AD&D and B/X beat it in terms of game length. '

Its had a good run, 5E is not a flash in the pan and even if it is it doesn't help out Paizo right here right now.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I just hope like heck that PFS does not become the *unprintable*s that the AL has been on the local level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:


Ah yes. I'm pretty sure I fell on the side of, "Yes, there is a disparity, but its a feature, not a bug." And, "The disparity isn't as big as some folks try to make it out to be, and a high level melee character can hold their own in high level play." Anecdotally, I got to see this play out twice, with my largely martial rage prophet/battle oracle that I got up to level 19 (yup Jiggy, Bbauzh is level 19 now) and with my grippli ninja that I got to level 20.

That being said, anything that creates more balance across classes but still allows for maximum differentiation (I hated that 4E made everything feel the same, just with a different
...

Martial characters have a lower floor for optimization meaning it is easier to be bad. It's counter-intuitive for the Fighter to be the most complex class in the game.

Regardless the caster-martial disparity debate didn't start over combat effectiveness but "Narrative Control" and I feel it has been derailed for years into a question of combat which has never really been an issue for martials outside of the more general issue of needing a good deal of system mastery to build one. The problem allegedly goes all the way back to OD&D, B/X, AD&D et cetera where Fighters were godlike beings who hewed down everything in their path with no system mastery required.

The problem, as it actually exists is much harder to fix because Wizards et al are going to have more "Narrative Control" ie agency without fundamentally altering the assumptions of what a game session entails. The Vigilante is an example of a very high agency martial, however he's a poor fit for most adventuring parties. He's high agency in a game focused around vigilantism. Likewise if you played the game like Gary Gygax kingdom building becomes a major part of the game and the Fighter's retinue as a class feature becomes a high agency trump card.

The Wizard Problem in a heroic fantasy adventure game is akin to the problem with deckers in the Shadowrun going off into their own Matrix mini-game while the rest of the players who can't hack sit around waiting for the this lower risk method of conflict resolution to play out before resorting to gunplay. The Wizard eventually attains a huge suite of options to resolve conflicts (which isn't strictly combat) before the rest of the party need get involved, which in some situations will feel like the other party members are another card in the Wizard's deck which he pulls out after spellcasting options have been exhausted. Even on the level of face-time with the DM a good player of a Wizard character will be spending a lot more time seeking adjudication for all of his abilities and spending a lot more time controlling the overall narrative of events than other player's characters will.

In part this is a social problem at the table but unlike many other social problems it is one which is positively reinforced with mechanics. It's never been about combat and "Cast glitterdust and win" has always been a dumb meme.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Kosh wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
they're not producing new content either, which kills the system dead.

That's the popular theory / justification for bloat around here, but if that's ACTUALLY the case, then why is 5th edition, a system that has had very little rules expansion in the three years since the core books came out, beating Pathfinder so handily?

In my opinion 5e's popularity is almost entirely a product of Critical Roll and The Adventure Zone which broke tabletop gaming into a market of younger video gamers who were already on Twitch and tuned into Griffin McElroy's other work.

Not that 5e isn't without its' own merits but its' success obviously isn't simply a product of its' own mechanical innovations and great content. The lack of content is probably the one complaint I see over and over again from people who are new to the hobby and came in via 5e once they realize other game companies publish a lot more material to support their games and feel like 5e deserves more because it is their first kiss RPG.

5e doesn't even really have proper campaign setting material. In point of fact I'm pretty sure WotC could be crushing it a lot harder than they actually are if it weren't for Hasbro bean counters licking their wounds over 4e.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:

I really think the main rulebook can do a much better job of keeping that new gamer in the group and engaged with her character, that's for sure.

That's good. Hopefully you get enough new gamers to offset the exodus of old ones. That's the idea here, right?

No. The idea is to retain as many current players as possible while making the game more attractive and easier to learn and play for folks who have not ever given Pathfinder a try, or who are currently playing other systems.

We're not out to trade one type of gamer for the other. WE WANT THEM ALL!!!!

(Of course, we're not going to GET them all, so we want to make the best game we can and hope that--especially after months of customer feedback--we create something that a very large number of people--if not everybody--will enjoy playing.)

Thanks Erik. I have been gaming for 28 years. Ever since I opened that little red box, I have been hooked. I followed all the editions from 2e through 4e, but 4e didn't sit well with me and I made the jump to Pathfinder. I loved it and the level of detail that I never felt I had with 3.5. I hear that 5e has made up for some of 4e's shortcomings but my heart was stolen by Paizo.

I jumped headfirst into Starfinder and can't get enough of it! Starfinder convinced me to finally start subscribing. Now that PF2e has been announce, I can't help but feel that same tickle of excitement that I got when I heard about Starfinder. As time goes by, things change, heck, my current car came with satellite radio, when the previous one didn't. I don't use the satellite radio, but I still love the car. Why should my favorite game in the world be any different?

Erik, Jason, and team. Bring on the goodies, I'm ready!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Kosh wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
they're not producing new content either, which kills the system dead.

That's the popular theory / justification for bloat around here, but if that's ACTUALLY the case, then why is 5th edition, a system that has had very little rules expansion in the three years since the core books came out, beating Pathfinder so handily?

You don't have to be constantly spurting out splatbooks of bloat like a man with diarrhea overdosing on laxatives in order to avoid your system dying. 5th edition finally puts this old chestnut to rest.

5th edition has a multinational corporate giant behind it for one. For two it never happens immediately. Editions die a slow death. Or a quick one if the system is bad (cough fourth)


Wei Ji The Learner wrote:

I'm playing a goblin paladin in the playtest, *BECAUSE* I can't separate Moral from Ancestral values.

Let's do this thing.

wishes avatars were available so they could bask in their goblinly goodlienez


Ryan Freire wrote:
Shadow Kosh wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
they're not producing new content either, which kills the system dead.

That's the popular theory / justification for bloat around here, but if that's ACTUALLY the case, then why is 5th edition, a system that has had very little rules expansion in the three years since the core books came out, beating Pathfinder so handily?

You don't have to be constantly spurting out splatbooks of bloat like a man with diarrhea overdosing on laxatives in order to avoid your system dying. 5th edition finally puts this old chestnut to rest.

5th edition has a multinational corporate giant behind it for one. For two it never happens immediately. Editions die a slow death. Or a quick one if the system is bad (cough fourth)

5E is kind of following the model of TSR in the 80's and perhaps Paizo without so many splats.

Basically use adventures to get people to play the game and drive sales of the core book.

If they keep the bloat minimal (1/year sorta) when they do release a book o splat a huge number of players will buy it.

So instead of having a monthyly book that might get 10-20k in sales they get 100k in sales (they stated they are not interested in books selling less than 100k).

They are doing roughly the same amount of APs as Paizo (2/year), with roughly the same level of consistency (Paizo might be slightly better).

The more units you can sell the higher the profits are, basically 100k sales on 1 book is better than 5 20k books (or 4, 3 IDK).

Mearls also admitted they were surprised at 5E success. They have only done 1 dedicated splat book with a couple of sorta splat books and it sold very well on Amazon, Starfinder also did well for a month or 2.

Create a pent up demand release book, big sales. Nintendo does this with almost every console. A good chunk if the PF fanbase I suppose would have been on loan from D&D (because of dislike of 4E), IDK how many would have been 3.X is the best system ever vs 3.x is better than 4E.

They did a lot of things to generate goodwill. A long development cycle, a 2 year playtest, reeleasing 1E,2E,3E and OD&D core books, rereleasing updated PDFs of TSR era modules (which crashed the online RPG websites).

They learned from 4E and Paizo. Paizo made a better D&D when Wizards threw away their own fans, that was a decade ago though 4E was supposed to last 10 years it died in 6 (functionally 3 or 4).

No edition lasted 18 years (B/X come close at 17), no WotC edition lasted 10 years like Pathfinder (TSR ones made it to 11, 13/14 and 17).


Hasbro can float d+d between large well advertised releases. Their bills will be paid their wages covered as they take a longer development time and release fewer books. Smaller companies don't always have that leeway. They don't have the best selling CCG shovelling cash into the same company either.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I still think that my main problem,is that, at home, I can keep with PF1, or mix and match, or convert everything I own to PF2 (which I haven't really had to do with my 3.5 stuff), BUT, at PFS events, I have to start again! No choice. New characters, existing ones all dead...this might be fine with all the people who play PFS every week, go to 4-6 Cons a year. They already have tons of developed characters and 'dead' ones who got too high level. It might be alright for all those people that have tried all the character concepts they can think of in the last 10 years. It might be all right for those people that have played in all the modules and most of the APs, so are looking for something new...but just look at the threads where Paizo ask what AP they should do next - loads of requests, but none for a new system, just the chance to go somewhere different or favourite in Golarion.
One last point...what if the playtest actually ends up concluding that the new edition is not needed? Is that an option? Or is it more like a government 'consultation', which isn't really paid any attention to except the parts that say the ideas is wonderful?


Because CHANGE IS FUN! Because variety is fun!
Because eventually you get bored of the same old and you want a new, more fresh experience. Sure, people and companies can't take the risks of introducing the new all the time, it is expensive and dangerous endeavor. But it is good when it finally happens.


Daniel_Clark wrote:
Odraude wrote:

Most of the arguments here for a new system are reminiscent for 4e, yet gamers still felt that they were losing a great deal of support with it coming out. I myself felt that way when all the splat books I got really were worthless. Especially if I wanted to continue doing organized play. And then Paizo came along with Pathfinder and gave us something to use our old stuff while also getting more support, both rules-wise and adventure-wise.

The thing people are forgetting is that Pathfinder was built on giving 3.5 fans most support, both ruleswise and adventurewise. And now a decade later, we're faced with the same issues that WotC dealt us. I'm not really happy about this, no. I like 3.5 and I'd rather not see a full blown new edition that invalidates any support for the books I bought from Paizo. I don't like 5e and truthfully, I'm not a fan of Starfinder. If Pathfinder 2e is going to be like those, I just don't see myself shelling out more money for it. Especially if they are pulling the plug on supporting PF1.

I'm not happy with this. If my GM were still alive, he'd be very sad about hearing this.

I agree, old ads for pathfinder stated that not only is 3.5 alive its Thriving over at Pathfinder. I don't want a new system. I liked 3E, which is why I jumped ship when 4E came out. Now they are saying buy our new system. No, i like Pathfinder the way it is. if I wanted a new system I wouldn't have bought Pathfinder in the first place.

Any opinion on this Erik Mona? How are we not supposed to feel left out in the cold when you are CHANGING the game we love?

Perhaps it's not thriving any more. And Paizo's options are not to produce any more PF1 material because they carried on doing that even when it was losing money and eventually couldn't keep going at all (the T$R route), or not produce any more PF1 material because they're putting the effort into a new game which will hopefully "thrive" again.


LordTrevaine wrote:


One last point...what if the playtest actually ends up concluding that the new edition is not needed? Is that an option? Or is it more like a government 'consultation', which isn't really paid any attention to except the parts that say the ideas is wonderful?

I think everything is an option, even that.

I THINK...though, that it is 99.9999% certain that a new edition is going to be needed in some way or fashion...even if it was just an update to the rules with clean up and a new printing of the CRB.

I think they are using that opportunity, not just to polish the CRB, but to incorporate new ideas into the game, enough to make a 2e.

From what I've heard thus far, I don't think it's going to be as drastic as the change from the Core 2e rules to core 3e rules when it occurred, but perhaps a little more drastic than the update of the AD&D 1e rules to AD&D 2e rules.

It sounds like the two systems are compatible enough at this time (who knows what will come after the playtest) to convert adventures on the fly from one system to the other. This makes it sound that there may be more similarities between then two than many doomsday sayers are thinking.

At the same time, if it turns out like the first playtest (and I actually still have the playtest book they printed for that!), there will be changes that are made due to the feedback they receive. It may make PF2e more like the original, less like the original, or something else.

I don't think Paizo even knows what the end product will look like as the playtest hasn't come in yet and the feedback hasn't been consulted.

I think I can give feedback, and I have been anything BUT a yes-person in regards to Paizo in the past (and that has gotten me in trouble at times, keeping it real here). I know that they Can and will listen to feedback though, and that they do incorporate it into their products.

The bigger question is what feedback they will hear. If one wants a say, they need to remain involved and hope others feel the same way they do. If one merely sits on the sidelines, it is very possible that ideas they do not like will come to the forefront instead and if you do not speak about it, no one will be able to hear your feedback.

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Envall wrote:

Because CHANGE IS FUN! Because variety is fun!

Because eventually you get bored of the same old and you want a new, more fresh experience. Sure, people and companies can't take the risks of introducing the new all the time, it is expensive and dangerous endeavor. But it is good when it finally happens.

Problem is, I wasn't bored of the options PF1E had. Sure, I still have time to play them out in organized play, and we'll be running APs for years, but it's hard to say if there will be enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There were still plenty of things I wanted to play in 1e, but I didn't want to GM it and people in my group didn't.

Could they have fixed that with a GM's Guide Unchained with instant PRD release? Maybe.

That wouldn't sate the players in our group that would like to be able to pick options that sounds cool and end up with a viable character. Accidentally building something too strong or too weak happens a lot and it makes some people sad.
But an "Ultimate Basic Classes" book with a direct to PRD release could have satisfied them.

Instead of patching the old edition (for free, because that is for patch rules would have to work), we are getting a new edition instead.

Though I doubt Paizo plays tons of 5e or poured over those rules with a manic obsession. What I've seen is people play 5e for a bit and then move on to a different RPG. So good on WotC and Critical Role for getting people into RPGs but let's not assume things like the 5e skill system or the assumed 6 encounter per day structure are good things to copy.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Windcaler wrote:
So from my point of view I keep hearing that Pathfinder needs to be streamlined to allow for ease of teaching new people to play but lets explore that idea. Is Pathfinder to hard for people to learn how to play? I can prove that its not.

I doubt it, but I'll give you a fair shake. Let's proceed.

Quote:
In september I started a new group after not having a Real life group for several years. I took the role of the GM and I admit I have years worth of experience under my belt with 2nd edition D&D, 3.0, 3.5, Exalted 2E, World of darkness 2E (mostly werewolf, mage and changeling splats), Shadowrun 3rd edition, and even some Rifts games.

Here's our first problem: it's wrong to assume that all (or even most) new players are going to be introduced to the game via hand-holding from a GM with your incredible level of experience. You can't assume that's the norm. Especially nowadays, as nerdiness gets more and more publicly acceptable, people are livestreaming RPG sessions on popular YouTube channels and newbies are trying out the hobby based on seeing those games or being told by their newbie friends who saw those videos.

HearthStone players who follow Geek & Sundry are seeing Critical Role and deciding to try D&D, video gamers who love the Game Grumps are seeing Dragons in Places and deciding to give it a go, and so on. The playerbase is not just expanding through friends of existing GMs, but through groups of friends who have only heard about TTRPGs secondhand.

How easy is it for THOSE people to learn Pathfinder? Because if your legendary experience is what's necessary to make it go smoothly, then that only proves that Pathfinder IS hard to learn. If Pathfinder were easy to learn, you could have told the same story even if you'd never touched an RPG before.

Quote:

2 of my new players had no experience at all. 2 others came from other games (1 4E d&d and the other 2E D&D). I taught Carlos, Josh, Andrew, and Darrel how to play the game using the kingmaker adventure path.

We talked about concepts, I walked them through character creation and options using only the core rulebook because I didnt want to overload their brains with Pathfinders vast amount of information and character options, each one made a character they were happy with and that I felt was somewhat interesting. Carlos made a human necromancer, Josh made a gnome cleric of Sarenae, Andrew made a human ranger, and Darrel made a human fighter.

Okay, how long did this take? Did you devote an entire session to it?

How much decision-making did the players themselves actually engage in? Did they give you a vague idea of a concept that sounded cool and you just rattled off what they should write down on their sheet? Did you point to the list of Combat Feats and tell the fighter "Here, pick one of these for your bonus feat" and let him decide? Something in between?

Since this is your attempt to "prove" that Pathfinder is not hard to learn, what did they actually learn in this process?

Quote:
That said, if I can take 2 players with no experience and turn them into competant players then why cant anyone else?

By what metric did you determine that they were "competent players"? Did they actually learn how to go through their whole turn themselves without help or correction? Or did you have to keep telling them which dice to roll and what actions were being used up? What is a "competent player"?

Even if your assessment of competence is legitimate, how much of that 3 months had passed by the time they reached that point? Can you demonstrate that the length of time it took for them to reach competence was short enough to support, rather than refute, your assertions about Pathfinder's ease of learning?

Quote:
IMO Pathfinder teaches perfectly well as its written and I have proven that we dont need a new edition for that reason.

You have done no such thing.

So far, all you've established is that two newbies who join the game of an immensely experienced GM can receive an unspecified amount of hand-holding and thereby achieve an undefined level of competence over the course of a three-month period.

There's not enough information there to prove ANYTHING, and what little data you did provide leans more toward disproving your assertion than proving it.

Fill in the gaps and we can talk.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's not deny the facts.

There is no need for a 2nd edition of Pathfinder. The rules work, and the material they have added is very well balanced.

Creating a new set of rules only creates a new set of problems.
Want proof? Check out every version of every other game system that created multiple editions.
examples:
D&D, AD&D, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E
Shadowrun, SR2, SR3, SR4, SR5
GURPS, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E
and the list goes on...

Paizo DID say they would never update the rules (they actually couldn't under the d20 OGL). I'm not sure what their intention is on dealing with that from a legal point of view.

They never said they would not create a 2nd Edition, but they did Imply it! If you were there for the early discussions, you will remember they founded Pathfinder on the idea that they were tired of the constant rules updates and changes (2E to 2.5 to 3E to 3.5) and wanted a system that wouldn't change the CORE rules. They bought the OGL with the stated intent to, Reprint and Retain the basic core system.

However, they never did say they wouldn't re-invent their own additions to the game. I am just surprised that they gave in to temptation and are doing it.

The arguments for a new edition are always the same;, "After years of playing we know what we need to fix.", "We have more experience and can do it better now.", "Players want something different now than they did when we first started.", "It isn't about the money, it's about supporting the players.", "We want to make it easier for new players to get into it."

I have a response for every one of those:

"After years of playing we know what we need to fix."
NO, after years of play you've realized there is no such thing as a perfect system and have fallen for the same argument you once fought against that a complete revision can fix the problems.

"We have more experience and can do it better now."
NO, what you did then was perfectly fine and what you're doing now is perfectly fine. To imply that nothing you did before was worth keeping makes me question your motives.

"Players want something different now than they did when we first started."
Not your current players. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. You have a solid fan base who are actively creating the next generation of a solid fan base. If you alienate them now, you will lose them.

"It isn't about the money, it's about supporting the players."
If that were true you would be only improving the game, not rewriting it.

"We want to make it easier for new players to get into it."
Pathfinder is perfectly able to be learned by new players, and they even published materials for new players:
http://paizo.com/products/btpy8osv?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Beginner-Box

I love Pathfinder. I love the creators. They have created a fabulous product. I don't like saying anything negative about them. But, they knew when they announced this what kind of a response they would get.

The only logical explanation for a 2nd Edition is this one:

They will make more money.

Is that bad? No. We don't want PAIZO to start having problems. We don't want them to sell their company to people who don't care like they care.

What do we want then?

We want Pathfinder's Core rules to stay the same. We don't want a closet full of $300+ worth of books to be nothing but kindling. We want all of our prior game experiences in Pathfinder to still fit the rules.

So, the real question is. Not, why shouldn't Paizo create 2E, but rather...

What can we do, PAIZO, to convince you to not change Pathfinder?

Ken

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Kenneth.T.Cole wrote:

Paizo DID say they would never update the rules (they actually couldn't under the d20 OGL). I'm not sure what their intention is on dealing with that from a legal point of view.

Can you point to this statement?

Edit: Because I found this.

Lisa Stevens wrote:
Beek Gwenders of Croodle wrote:
Probably my question was unclear, I apologize since I am a non-native speaker. I just wanted to know if never changing the ruleset completely like the OTHERS did with "the world's oldest rpg" was something that was part of the company mission, or if the future might hold such possibility. I just wanted to know if it's a "maybe who knows what the future will bring, we will think about it in due time" or a "we will never do that, we were born to continue an EGG tradition and we will stick to the roots of the game, we prefer to keep releasing quality stuff for a consolidated ruleset maybe with some - unearther aracana-like options - but we will never change the core rules, as they're part of our foundation".

It's a little bit of all that you wrote. There is a good chance that someday in the future, we will probably do a new edition of Pathfinder if there seems to be a reason to do so and a market of people who would want to buy it. But as Vic said, we are one year in! You don't start making wedding plans when your baby is one year old. You don't pick out a burial plot. :) There will most likely come a time in the future when we will start to think about that. Until then, we are enjoying creating new stuff for the rules that are just getting up and running! One thing you can be sure as long as I own the company is that we will always follow the EGG tradition and stick to the roots of the game. That is who we are and what we believe in.

-Lisa


Jiggy wrote:
I doubt it.

I think a lot of people forget just how much time they spend reading these rules over the years, and how much knowledge they truly have on the system.

Just last week I was learning a brand new system to me: Dungeon World. By all accounts, that system is one of the easiest systems to learn. The only dice you need are 2d6. It takes about a half hour to make a team of PCs. It's simple.

But it still requires you to read the book, and it still took me several days to get through the relevent rules to the point where I was comfortable with the system. And that's coming from someone with decades of gaming experience. How long would it take someone with no experience?

Now imagine that with something like Pathfinder. It is an immensely more complex system, with sixe kinds of dice (most of which most people don't know exists), hundreds upon hundreds of options, chapters and books full of irrelevant material you don't need for the specific character you're playing, and so much more. And then, you can't really learn how to play just Hy reading the rules - you actually have to play and get used to the style of gaming (imaginative roleplay) before you can really grasp how it works.

It is not an easy system to learn, by any definition.


Stack wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Are we really going to have an edition war with ourselves people?...
This is the internet, so yes. Obviously. The boards now are but the opening skirmishes.

Honestly, its felt like a cold war around here since at least 2012.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The truth of the matter is that PF has some sore spots on it. High level play for most grinds to a point where even simple combats take hours to fight. I have players who have been playing for years and still have issues with what actions take what. The Christmas tree effect of magic items turn them from cool rewards to must get or suck. If they can shape up some of these I am all for it.
I do agree goblin as a playable race is no dragonborn and unlikely to draw in new players.


Game designer morale. That is the biggest reason I can think of to have a new edition. It gives your game designers a new set of tools and a fresh slate to chisel away at.

As much as I love playing PF I know that there are a bunch of subsystems that are just clunky and have been since 3.5ed. Some of those I'm sure were included in PF because they didn't want to stray too far from the base system. Now they've got some trust from everyone and can make some of the tweaks and changes they've always wanted to do.


Kenneth.T.Cole wrote:
Paizo DID say they would never update the rules (they actually couldn't under the d20 OGL). I'm not sure what their intention is on dealing with that from a legal point of view.

"d20" and "OGL" are two different things. The old d20 license (which I don't believe anyone at all uses anymore) had more restrictions, including certain rules that couldn't be changed. The OGL lets you do just about anything, as long as you don't use someone else's closed content and publish a copy of the license.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paizo are aware of the cultural fad RPGs currently are, and they know that their game has a reputation for being complex and mechanically heavy. They already have your money, now they want some of that Crit-Role fan money.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kenneth.T.Cole wrote:

Let's not deny the facts.

There is no need for a 2nd edition of Pathfinder. The rules work, and the material they have added is very well balanced.

Creating a new set of rules only creates a new set of problems.
Want proof? Check out every version of every other game system that created multiple editions.
examples:
D&D, AD&D, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E
Shadowrun, SR2, SR3, SR4, SR5
GURPS, 2E, 3E, 4E, 5E
and the list goes on...

Paizo DID say they would never update the rules (they actually couldn't under the d20 OGL). I'm not sure what their intention is on dealing with that from a legal point of view.

They never said they would not create a 2nd Edition, but they did Imply it! If you were there for the early discussions, you will remember they founded Pathfinder on the idea that they were tired of the constant rules updates and changes (2E to 2.5 to 3E to 3.5) and wanted a system that wouldn't change the CORE rules. They bought the OGL with the stated intent to, Reprint and Retain the basic core system.

However, they never did say they wouldn't re-invent their own additions to the game. I am just surprised that they gave in to temptation and are doing it.

The arguments for a new edition are always the same;, "After years of playing we know what we need to fix.", "We have more experience and can do it better now.", "Players want something different now than they did when we first started.", "It isn't about the money, it's about supporting the players.", "We want to make it easier for new players to get into it."

I have a response for every one of those:

"After years of playing we know what we need to fix."
NO, after years of play you've realized there is no such thing as a perfect system and have fallen for the same argument you once fought against that a complete revision can fix the problems.

"We have more experience and can do it better now."
NO, what you did then was perfectly fine and what you're doing now is perfectly fine. To imply that nothing you did before was worth...

Here here!


I'm going to wait and see. I'm cautiously negative on the situation and hope they have the foresight to 1. have a solid path for conversion from old edition to new, and 2. keep the fundamentals recognizeable as an evolution of the 3.x d20 system (which has a LOT more leeway than it will initially seem)

the reality is that too many core identities in the old system were outpaced by others. Fighter Rogue and Monk need work. I dispute that spell power levels need adjustment from core, but new options need to have a hairier eye and class theme needs a more strict reading (infernal healing, blasting magic on clerics etc need to not exist roles need firmly defined.) I'd like to see clerics have to look at sphere access again a-la 2nd edition where maybe a god of murder wasn't actually letting their clerics throw around raise dead.

There's a lot that can be done to keep the feel of the 3.0 chassis while fixing its problems, but at the first sign of it not having that feel its probably going to be a no go for my area. They've already discarded starfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huzzah, Avatar pics back up! Behold the future of Goblin Law and Goodness!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know, if (God forbid) Paizo were to go out of business (e.g. for lack of innovation) PF1 development ends anyways and everyone loses access to Paizo's online resources and tools.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
You know, if (God forbid) Paizo were to go out of business (e.g. for lack of innovation) PF1 development ends anyways and everyone loses access to Paizo's online resources and tools.

False dilemma.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
You know, if (God forbid) Paizo were to go out of business (e.g. for lack of innovation) PF1 development ends anyways and everyone loses access to Paizo's online resources and tools.
False dilemma.

This and tbh its kind of an extorty statement. "support this thing you dont like or this thing you do like disappears"

101 to 150 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Why a new system (2.0) is being created? All Messageboards