|
While perusing the hundreds, if not thousands, of suggestions and pleas and concerns and ideas, so many with hyperbole and personal stories and emotion -- I'm wondering how Paizo can possibly sift through it all.
They depend on us for feedback and we depend on them to put out a great product. Let's try to help them listen to us.
Keeping this Thread uncluttered with anything but numbers is the point, a train of posts easy for Paizo to look at. Copy/paste the bolded topic scale, skip a line, put your number. (And if we can just find a way to keep ourselves from adding footnotes or comments or text of any kind, it'll be easy for Paizo to run through the Thread and get an idea. Think of how scrambled it must be for Paizo to go through ALL these Threads and posts trying to get a handle on how many gamers want this or that!
.
How much different do you want PF2 to be from original PF?
0-2
4
I want what Pathfinder is (builds, mechanics, tactical grid based combat) but without the slow crunch and cheese.
So far almost everything I have heard leads me towards this hitting close to what I desire.
How much different do you want PF2 to be from original PF?
4-ish
How much different do you want PF2 to be from original PF?
5
3-4
4
3
|
|
3 or 8
If this is intended to be D&D 3.8, several changes in mechanics announced so far don't sound necessary or promising.
If it's an opportunity to change how combat, classes, magic items and many other things in the d20 system work, while maintaining the setting and stories of characters, a lot (more) could be done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1.
Personally? 7 or 8. But I'm definitely not expecting that big of a departure.
3? Somewhere around there.
3.
I'd mostly like to see the same degree of difference as between 3.5 and PF; a refinement of what is present. Previous mechanics are easy to translate on the fly to current by changing a few numbers, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1, inasmuch as refinements would have been welcome.
Of course, that ship sailed before Paizo even brought the journey up as a conversation topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
0
I came to Pathfinder for 2 reasons : the well-writen APs and the fact that it was a continuation from the 3.5 rule set.
I would have prefered the new edition to be a "Pathfinder 1.5" : a version who correct the broken options, take into considerations things like the advanced players guide and so forth.
Cause let's face it : even with a conversion guide between 1st and 2nd edition, it's gonna be a tedious chore to convert 2nd editions APs to the 1st edition rules. And GMing an AP is quite a difficult task by itself already.
And that second edition seems way too different from the Pathfinder me and my players loves.
Finally, I think that second edtion is comming out for bad reasons. Namely : to counter the growing success of DD5. Pathfinder V2 seems to me a little too keen on using lots of DD5 ideas, and since I have no love wathsoever for DD5, well ... it's a 0 for me.
(all I'm saying here is MY advice, I don't speak for everyone other than me)
9
If this will ever let me actually post...
Edit: Wow! After trying about 30 times, it finally worked.
Either 2 for keeping my PF1 and 3,5 books relevant, or 8 where you go all medieval on the system while still keeping it d20. Paizo chose 8 seemingly.
3.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1 or maybe 2, while i can agree that somethings need cleaned up and rebalanced so far this is to much of a dramatic change for me.
8.99