| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll stick with Pathfinder. I'll give my best in the playtests to make sure the PFII APs will still be playable with as little work as possible, though
I suspect I’ll keep using different rules subsystems. That’s what I do now - no matter the system, I’ll often import some PF rules that suit the campaign.
My reckoning is I'll play both. Will depend on the uptake here on the boards and if my existing pbp games transition to P2E.
Those that play out the P1E games/APs will continue as is, those that convert I'll be stepping with them.
Um, 2e I guess. I never played 1e. My hubby assures me it was terrible. The book is awful too.. This little tiny 120-page hardcover that pritty much just says, "you didn't buy the DMG so no rules for you!". The orange spine version did little or nothing to make it better.
Oh wait, you mean Pathfinder? This "#e" business is getting confusing!
We'll be playing PF 2E as soon as it's available, and will leave PF 1E behind immediately...unless PF 2E turns out to be like like D&D 4e.
Edit: Background info - we mostly play Homebrew campaigns, so we have little invested in the APs or such. Our DM largely prohibits stuff from the splatbooks unless we can justify it (as in like um, "what does this give you that can't be done with a core class/race?").
Maybe we should call it like .. "P1" and "P2" for Pathfinder First and Second Editions respectively..?
Probably playing both, at first, 1e modified with the rules coming out of the 2e, and then slowly transition into full 2e when all the options come out.
Tables I GM in PFS will remain PF1.
Whether the PFS I organize switches to some PF1 and some PF2 depends on if another GM wants to learn and run tables, but I'm not going to go through learning to GM a new system.
This is the same reason that I will sit down and play at an Adventurer's League table at a Con, but will not volunteer to run or organize for it-- I don't know the rules and I don't have time to become a master of another rule set.
My home games will probably morph more and more into homebrew- with PF1 done I will be able to evaluate all the classes, feats, spells, and archetypes and decide which fit, to include allowing back in more 3.5 alongside PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I regard that as something of a silver lining. I will finally have a complicated, fleshed out system I can point to and know it is complete.
Inevitably with past games I’ve played my collection has had gaps where I missed a release. Or I’ve homebrewed something later made totally redundant by a subsequent, official release. At least here I’ll know I’ve got the full set. :)
I'm personally a fan of calling 1st edition pie, and 2nd as either 2.0 or P2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm someone who still regularly plays GURPS 3rd Edition and old WoD.
For me the bigger question will be "Will you move to 2e?" And the short answer is that I don't see a lot of compelling reasons to. We own a bunch of 3e books and Hero Lab files. My home game is only partway through RotRL, and has expressed an interest once that wraps to play WotR.
I'll certainly try out 2e at conventions (I'm going to both Origins and GenCon this year), and if the local PFS switches over to 2e, then I'll look at that as a chance to get in "on the ground floor."
But even if 2e is the most amazing thing ever, I don't see a compelling reason to stop playing 1e as long as I own all the books and source material I do.
Yeah, the idea of not having to keep up with an endless torrent of releases is gradually growing on me. I'll just pick up the occasional Complete Wizard or Monster Codex or Shattered Star here and there as finances allow, but no more stress about keeping up with anything.
As a home brewer I will also be able to finish the "missing" classes and archetypes so that everything that Paizo should have done before they got to a new edition gets done, i.e. the 4th level casting full BaB alchemist, and the 6th level casters (akin to Magus or Summoner) for the other schools (Necromancy, Illusion, Enchantment), ect.
Pf2 would need to be good enough to convince me to leave Starfinder for a while. That's a difficult task, but not impossible.
|
I will still be playing Pf1 for a very long time at least in a homebrew setting, I've invested way too much into it just to let those poor books collect dust on a shelf. I spoke it over with the co-runner of our local PFS group and we are going to be doing Pf1 scenarios for some time. We figure once there is a good bulk of scenarios we will probably slowly switch over to Pf2 but still have "legacy" nights to play Pf1 scenarios.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't understand what they are trying to fix with a second edition. For me, they fixed a lot of the problems with 3.5 and introduced a lot of great classes that fill both story and party roles. I don't particularly like archetypes and hope they get rid of it in 2E. The system is much more streamlined already. I've played a d20 system since 2000, all the rough edges are gone in my point of view. The d20 mechanic is great and Pathfinder's implementation has been very good. Again, what needs fixing?
My problem is that the more I am hearing about Pathfinder II, the less I am liking it. :(Same here. The new action economy sounds like an anxiety nightmare and makes combat half-again as slow, and the rumours about the way skills will work, if true, would alone guarantee that I never play PF2.
I dunno...while a limited sample, the action economy seemed to work find in the Glass Cannon session.
As to skills, the best I can tell is that the rumors of how they work are based on people getting freaked out about the word "proficiency" and jumping to conclusions.
It's still way too early to tell on any of this. I find myself feeling as though anybody who is all-in or all-out on the new edition based on what we've got so far has probably already made up their mind based on other factors aside from what is going to be in the rulebooks.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will be playing Pathfinder Classic and intend to continue making and possibly even publishing content for it well past PF2's release, unless Paizo does something to change the legalities of doing so.
Paizo will be moving on to PF2, so it falls to fans and 3PPs still interested in PF Classic to fill the gap that will result.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've already stated that while I'll be purchasing that Playtest books, I'll be sticking with P1 for the forseeable future. I simply have too much invested in P1 and at this point it's a completed system that has pretty much everything that I need. I own the 1st 17AP's as well as RAPPAN ATHUK and THE SLUMBERING TSAR so I'm not at a loss for material.
I'm not looking to rebuy all of the same books all over again just to have to ditch them again in another 10 years. I've already done that several times in my life, willingly I might add. This time is different so I'm dancing with the one that brought me...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, your GM doesn't allow even archetypes? ._.;
Generally, no, unless you can demonstrate that it's not munchkin and adds something solid to the character thematically that isn't possible with CRB-only stuffs.
That being said, I effectively have a Merciful Healer who.. isn't totally and completely worthless. I had to give up certain types of spells, and take Healing and Protection domains, but they were both enhanced and I'm now the party protector that I want to be.
He knows each player personally (I'm his wife, for example, and he's known the party ranger since before AD&D 1e was released) and helps tweak the base classes into something that suits the player's vision, while also preventing anybody from constantly stealing the spotlight with munchkinly overpowered silliness.
I will be playing Pathfinder Classic and intend to continue making and possibly even publishing content for it well past PF2's release, unless Paizo does something to change the legalities of doing so.
As long as you abide by the OGL (which is irrevocable), you can do that for as long as you like. Paizo cannot do anything to stop you, just like the Wizards couldn't do anything to stop Paizo from effectively republishing 3.5e D&D.
Welcome to the freedom of Open Source.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, that sounds weird to me since its restricting a lot of customization options ._. Since from my point of view, most popular thing about Pathfinder is customization options.
I still don't understand what they are trying to fix with a second edition. For me, they fixed a lot of the problems with 3.5 and introduced a lot of great classes that fill both story and party roles. I don't particularly like archetypes and hope they get rid of it in 2E. The system is much more streamlined already. I've played a d20 system since 2000, all the rough edges are gone in my point of view. The d20 mechanic is great and Pathfinder's implementation has been very good. Again, what needs fixing?
Feat taxes, martial/caster balance, spells in general, fake choice feats(aka feats you HAVE to pick if you want to keep up with damage), newbie friendliness, high level rocket tag play, fighters having nothing to do outside of combat mechanic wise, etc.
I see my group playing PF1E for a few years. My group really enjoys the huge variety of character class and race options that PF1E provides. I'm guessing it will take years before all of these options are converted to 2E. A big factor for me is also backwards compatibility. The lack of backwards compatibility drove me away from D&D when they switched to 4E. I'm hoping that I won't be required to re-buy all the bestiaries to play 2E. I'm ok with buying books updating the classes and races if they are combined into a handful of larger class/race books and not sprinkled across a wide range of books over the years. My group and I just don't want to go back to being restricted to the core classes and races again.
Even if 2E doesn't grab me or my group, I've been collecting all of the adventure paths and I have most of the 1E hard cover books (plus reams of 3pp material). My group just started RotRl so given 2-3 years per adventure path, one adventure path at a time, I have enough material to keep my group going until I'm about 118 years old. Given that I'm in my late forties now, I'm not to worried ;)
I'm personally a fan of calling 1st edition pie, and 2nd as either 2.0 or P2.
Pie, and 2Pie (r^2)
Personally, I'm following staff lead and using PF1 and PF2
Misery loves company, right. I'd like to know how many people on these boards I'd have to game with if I wanted to play 1E in a year or two.
Its hard to say. It really depends on the changes they make. Its too early to know.
As to skills, the best I can tell is that the rumors of how they work are based on people getting freaked out about the word "proficiency" and jumping to conclusions.
Since I made that comment about the rumours, Mark Seifter, ever the gentleman, has assured us that it will not be the same as 5E and there will be quite a few levels of proficiency for skills, so there's still a (tiny) spark of hope for those.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, what needs fixing?
Market share.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will be sticking to PF1.
'market share' is of course a concept that does not determine the fun we have around the gaming table.
My group is approaching the end of our current campaign (Emerald Spire, 2 levels to go), and I was already thinking of what system to run next. In that context, I was *very* happy to hear the announcement of PF2E, and am liking what (little) we know of it so far!
From what I hear so far, PF2E has a good chance of keeping us in Pathfinder, especially if existing APs are relatively convertible. Otherwise, my group will likely shift systems entirely (to either 5E or maybe 13th Age as a mid-ground), or at very least split into a "likes all of PF's fiddly bits" faction and a "let's play Dungeon World!" faction.
We were definitely going to change systems after this campaign, and the going thought was to do some shorter runs of The Strange/Numenera, Starfinder, maybe others, before circling back to a longer Paizo AP under some system. Sounds like timing may be good to have the New Pathfinder Playtest be a candidate for that system, rather than the aforementioned 5E or 13th Age.
(Actually, to be honest, *none* of my group likes *all* the fiddly bits of Original PF. Among other complaints, we've already gone to Automatic Bonus Progression, because the magic item treadmill shopping trips are a great way to kill our fun, even for the high-complexity folks at the table who have been playing various editions since the late 80s. At least 2/5 of my current players let other people manage most of their leveling up, outside of feat/spell choices as "the decisions that are actually interesting".)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course nobody likes ALL the fiddly bits at the same time. But the nice thing about PF1 is that not everything is a unified mechanic, so you can more easily change one little thing without needing to rewrite 4 other things.
I'll be playing for a while longer, probably. I'm very interested to see 2E, but before I'll abandon P1E, I still have at least three PbPs to finish, and I'm not gonna leave P1E before I finally get a chance to play Hell's Rebels.
This also creates a bit of a buffer so that when I get into P2E for real, there'll hopefully be at least an Advanced Player's Guide equivalent or something out for those sweet sweet classes, as well as a selection of modules/APs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Random, but: Is your profile image Harsk? Because if it is, Harsk has clocked serious CITY MILES since the last time I saw him! :PI believe that is Harsk, but deep (heh) in the grip of the deep one corruption from Horror Adventures. ^_^
I thought the glasses made me look smarter. :-)
'market share' is of course a concept that does not determine the fun we have around the gaming table.
No. It determines Paizo's ability to pay his employees, tho.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know it's reckless of me, but I might just play BOTH, particularly depending on whatever a GM is willing to run and if the concept of the game appeals to me.
What I will RUN may depend on both what my players want to play and how much I like 2e, which I won't know till next year or so. If in a year or so I decide I do like 2e, I might even still run BOTH.
I'm also running an AP right now in PBP that may take years to finish, and that will certainly remain 1E.
Oh yeah, and also Starfinder. Haven't played that yet. Dying to get into a Starfinder game.
Or maybe I'll just stick to my FF Games Star Wars game and Mutants and Masterminds for a bit.
Or maybe I'll play ALL OF THEM! ALL OF THE GAMES! Usually my GMs will let me borrow books to learn a system so I don't have to buy anything right away, plus a lot of games have SRD-like things these days so finances aren't a barrier for me.
Or maybe I'll try D&D 5e or something else entirely new and different!
And yet still also play Pathfinder in either edition as well.
LET'S PLAY ALL OF THE GAMES!
The possibilities are endless! WHEEEEEEE!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After reading/listening to the available info so far, unless they bring it back closer to PF1e I will not be switching. I have spent the past 12 years and thousands of dollars on Pathfinder and 3.x products, and cannot bring myself to just throw away that investment. My money will be simply going to buying up what I do not yet own of the current Pathfinder line. The reason I got into Pathfinder in the first place was that I only started gaming in the end days of 3.5, and it was a lot easier to switch to the new system which was compatible with the few books I had already picked up than track down the 70+ 3.x books (not that I don't still want them).
Also, I have to be realistic about what I have the time and money for. I work 6-7 days a week, overnight. I have played 4 sessions in the past 2 and a half years. I don't want to spend money on books I don't plan on using, and I don't have time to learn a new system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'market share' is of course a concept that does not determine the fun we have around the gaming table.No. It determines Paizo's ability to pay his employees, tho.
No, revenues do.
Market share on its own is meaningless.
Swift Transportation has about 10 percent of the commercial trucking market share- are they doing well or poorly?
Image Comics has about 8 percent market share.
Are they doing well or poorly?
I know it's reckless of me, but I might just play BOTH, particularly depending on whatever a GM is willing to run and if the concept of the game appeals to me.
What I will RUN may depend on both what my players want to play and how much I like 2e, which I won't know till next year or so. If in a year or so I decide I do like 2e, I might even still run BOTH.
I'm also running an AP right now in PBP that may take years to finish, and that will certainly remain 1E.
Oh yeah, and also Starfinder. Haven't played that yet. Dying to get into a Starfinder game.
Or maybe I'll just stick to my FF Games Star Wars game and Mutants and Masterminds for a bit.
Or maybe I'll play ALL OF THEM! ALL OF THE GAMES! Usually my GMs will let me borrow books to learn a system so I don't have to buy anything right away, plus a lot of games have SRD-like things these days so finances aren't a barrier for me.
Or maybe I'll try D&D 5e or something else entirely new and different!
And yet still also play Pathfinder in either edition as well.
LET'S PLAY ALL OF THE GAMES!
The possibilities are endless! WHEEEEEEE!
[Drops mike]
Well said DQ :)
My GM is a bit burn out on PF, we have two sessions of Reign of Winter and are pretty optimized and 5 of us so his workload is substantial. He looks optimistically to PF2. We wanted to go Kingmaker next, but his burnout (and increased workload IRL) makes it probable we will wiat anniversary edition for PF2.
While I'm still full of PF1 classes and subsystems that want to try, so I'll definitely run shorter adventures trying out Occult classes and 3pp products (wish list is psionics, akashic, path of war, spheres of power/might and some legendary classes).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't understand what they are trying to fix with a second edition. For me, they fixed a lot of the problems with 3.5 and introduced a lot of great classes that fill both story and party roles. I don't particularly like archetypes and hope they get rid of it in 2E. The system is much more streamlined already. I've played a d20 system since 2000, all the rough edges are gone in my point of view. The d20 mechanic is great and Pathfinder's implementation has been very good. Again, what needs fixing?
Frankly, to me the easier question to answer would be: What doesn't?
Which is of course the problem: The "answer" to this question is very subjective (and for that reason, I won't be responding to "rebuttals" to my opinion...because OPINION). That said, here are some of what I believe to be the most egregious problems:
* High level play (which is presently cumbersome, error-prone, and unbalanced)
* Casters making rogues obsolete
* Presentation of the core rule book
* Organization of the core rule book
* Trap feats
* Bloat (oh god, the bloat; to borrow a phrase from the forward to AD&D 2E, Pathfinder has long since become "physically and intellectually unwieldy")
* Feats which serve to limit skills and therefore reduce options (Ultimate Intrigue, I'm looking at you).
* Fiddly combat rules which add complexity and little else
* Magic item "Christmas tree"
* Excessive GM workload/prep time
My plan is to finish current campaigns in P1e, then switch almost completely. (My brother still really wants to play Kingmaker in P1e) If I don't like P2e, I'll probably start spending my time playing 5e
I still don't understand what they are trying to fix with a second edition. For me, they fixed a lot of the problems with 3.5 and introduced a lot of great classes that fill both story and party roles. I don't particularly like archetypes and hope they get rid of it in 2E. The system is much more streamlined already. I've played a d20 system since 2000, all the rough edges are gone in my point of view. The d20 mechanic is great and Pathfinder's implementation has been very good. Again, what needs fixing?
I'm pretty sure they said Not only are archetypes staying, but they're becoming a core part of the PF2 system.
Thank you, Deathquaker for reminding me I need to get Mutants And Masterminds. :-)
Yes, I'll play Pathfinder 2, no I won't abandon Pathfinder Classic.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't understand what they are trying to fix with a second edition.
I absolutely understand.
1) They feel that the CRB is very badly organized and doesn't read well to people new to the game. Witness Strategy Guide as their stopgap measure to try to address that.
2) They feel that there are a lot of mechanics that have been introduced after the CRB that really *should* be in the CRB, like swift/immediate actions, traits, archetypes. They want to rewrite the CRB so that these very basic components of gameplay are introduced in the most core book. (Or made obsolete, as in action economy.)
3) They feel that they have accumulated a ton of FAQs on post-it notes over the years that aren't available in print anywhere, and re-doing the CRB gives the opportunity to incorporate all these FAQs and clarifications.
I think these three goals are very, very understandable, and I would absolutely support a Pathfinder 1.5e that basically did stuff on this level.
Having said that, since they decided to do *those*, there's also the "while we're opening up the patient, let's do a hundred other things too", and that's where things start getting iffy to me. Depending on what those things are, how many of them there are, and how drastic they are, they could have a seriously detrimental effect on compatibility between editions. *This* is where I start getting jittery and very cautious.
I would totally not object to a re-done CRB, but bigger changes to the system...that's treading on dangerous ground for me.
If I like the finished product I will pick up the books as it comes out, but probably won't play until I have a few books of character options.
I'm trying to keep an open mind but so far I'm sticking with 1e. I'm not excited about a system that has so much in common with 5e.
I mean the thing is I did not go for 5th edition but their was things I liked about it. Their is nothing wrong with grabbing the good parts and leaving the bad. maybe the parts they grab are bad from your perspective (I haven't seen enough yet to tell.) and thats fine but just because it has some similarities are no reason to drop it. After all their is guaranteed to be some similarities because their all based on D&D.
I'm in two PF games at the moment. One is due to end in the next coming months (assuming we actually play it) and the other will quite likely end by August next year (giving us 1.5 years worth of gaming). If the second one doesn't finish by August then we'll finish it off in 1st ed rather than convert half way through.
Assuming PF 2nd ed is as enjoyable (or more enjoyable) as PF 1st ed and isn't completely alien to the current edition, my current PF games will be the last games I play in PF 1st ed. If one of our other DMs offers to run an AP and really wants to run it with PF 1st ed and it's an AP that I'd really, really enjoy I'd happily enough play a CRB character for the campaign. Low effort CRB characters is all I'm willing to play at this point. I know those rules mostly by heart so only need to occasionally look stuff up. It'd be pretty difficult to get me to play anything that isn't a core character at this point in PF 1st ed.
In fact, come to think of it, every PF character I've played (with the exception of the Shaman who I really wanted to be a cleric but got convinced to roll up a shaman due to the campaign's flavour and have regretted it for the most part ever since) in the last 5 years have pretty much been CRB characters (even my "magus" was a Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight).