|
With the release of the second edition of Pathfinder, I thought now would be a good time to ask Paizo to fix one of the rarely spoken problems with the first edition; the less than ideal release schedule. Well simply put it took far, far too long to get books like Ultimate Intrigue, Ultimate Wilderness and Planar Adventures. I for one don't want to wait 5 or 10 years to have rules for mass combat, kingdom building rules, rules for organisations, fame/infamy, rules for harvesting monsters, comprehensive rules for wilderness travel or games set in the planes and so on. On a personal level I would be fine postponing books like Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat until after all the more game master related books are out.
So now to you, I'm sure Paizo will pay attention to this thread (if it gets big enough), so this is your opportunity to chime in on what subsystem(s) you believe should appear as soon as possible, what would be an optimal release of such kinds of books and finally because Paizo doesn't have infinite resources what could be pushed back on the release schedule. PF2e is a chance for a better game experience, so we should all look at every aspect of the game for areas of improvement and I think the release schedule is one. The question though is who else thinks so too?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, I hope for new things, rather than purely “updated” books.
If they go with books full of DM options, I hope there’s a good 50% of new stuff alongside the kingdom building rules and other such subsystems.
If they produce a player book, I want loads of stuff I’ve not seen before. Not solely vigilantes, oracles, gunslingers, etcetera.
I’m kind of over new monsters with multisyllabic names. One of the most tiring things about facing a new edition is the inevitable string of new bestiaries. I can’t see any way around that though.
PS- I’ve mentioned this elsewhere, but I REALLY hope they find a new naming convention. (No more “Ultimates”, a term for monster books other than “Bestiary” etcetera). It’s really frustrating as a collector when a game with multiple editions reuses book titles. It leads to confusion and potentially shonky behaviour from people offloading old edition products on new customers.
With regards to monster books. Please either put bestiary in the title of all of them or only one. "Bestiary- monster codex" is fine but it frustrates me to have "villain codex" beside my "bestiary 5"
But the Villain Codex isn't a bestiary, is it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the Villain Codex isn't a bestiary, is it?
It really is. There no player info. Its monsters sorted by society grouping than alphabetically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not monsters, it's NPCs. It's not a bestiary. Also, not every book that does not have player info is automatically a bestiary.
|
But the Villain Codex isn't a bestiary, is it?It really is. There no player info. Its monsters sorted by society grouping than alphabetically.
Uh, there's a f+!@ton of stuff in there for players (items, feats, archetypes). That's one of the big separaters from the Codices and Bestiaries, the other being that Codices are full of a set grouping of NPCs with Class levels where Bestiaries are unique monsters.
|
With the release of the second edition of Pathfinder, I thought now would be a good time to ask Paizo to fix one of the rarely spoken problems with the first edition; the less than ideal release schedule.
Yes. I agree. Hear, hear. We definitely saw too much too soon and-
Well simply put it took far, far too long to get books
*SPIT TAKE*
like Ultimate Intrigue, Ultimate Wilderness and Planar Adventures. I for one don't want to wait 5 or 10 years to have rules for mass combat, kingdom building rules, rules for organisations, fame/infamy, rules for harvesting monsters, comprehensive rules for wilderness travel or games set in the planes and so on.
The catch with all RPGs is that people need a whole bunch of content seemingly right away and the very little later.
For the consumer, the ideal RPG release schedule would be major expansions every other month for the first year, with three monster books, at least two PC option books with major optional rules, as well as a book expanding rules for the GM. And then just less interesting books for the rest of the game's lifespan, such as once every year.Or not at all, as the game is functionally complete as you have all the must-have content.
The trick of publishing RPGs has always been less making money on launch and more making money on year three or four.
And you need a lot of staff to make a game initially but less to sustain a game later. But then you end up having to do lots of content to justify the high levels of staff.
I do think getting many of the existing options out to players as early as possible without sacrificing quality should be a fairly high priority. Now that players have gotten used to having exotic races and classes, many will have issues with them being 'taken away' by the new edition. I'd think at least some of the races should hopefully be handled by the first bestiary (or whatever it'll be called this time) So I'd think a book bringing back some of the popular PF1 classes would be smart for the Gencon 2020 release. But Steve Gedes makes a good point above that just updating a PF1 book for PF2 leaves something to be desired, and the reusing of names is problematic too. I'm not really sure what the proper ratio of updated vs. new material should be though. Throwing in a bunch of all-new classes is probably not the best idea considering how many existing ones there are to bring over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think getting many of the existing options out to players as early as possible without sacrificing quality should be a fairly high priority. Now that players have gotten used to having exotic races and classes, many will have issues with them being 'taken away' by the new edition. I'd think at least some of the races should hopefully be handled by the first bestiary (or whatever it'll be called this time) So I'd think a book bringing back some of the popular PF1 classes would be smart for the Gencon 2020 release. But Steve Gedes makes a good point above that just updating a PF1 book for PF2 leaves something to be desired, and the reusing of names is problematic too. I'm not really sure what the proper ratio of updated vs. new material should be though. Throwing in a bunch of all-new classes is probably not the best idea considering how many existing ones there are to bring over.
My guess (or maybe my hope) is that archetypes will solve a number of the issues of things being "taken away" (for example, I could see most of the hybrid classes, as well as stuff like cavalier, gunslinger and maybe even magus as archetypes).
For me, I hope for new things, rather than purely “updated” books.
If they go with books full of DM options, I hope there’s a good 50% of new stuff alongside the kingdom building rules and other such subsystems.
If they produce a player book, I want loads of stuff I’ve not seen before. Not solely vigilantes, oracles, gunslingers, etcetera.
I’m kind of over new monsters with multisyllabic names. One of the most tiring things about facing a new edition is the inevitable string of new bestiaries. I can’t see any way around that though.
PS- I’ve mentioned this elsewhere, but I REALLY hope they find a new naming convention. (No more “Ultimates”, a term for monster books other than “Bestiary” etcetera). It’s really frustrating as a collector when a game with multiple editions reuses book titles. It leads to confusion and potentially shonky behaviour from people offloading old edition products on new customers.
This is my wish as well. I want the new books to acquire new naming schemes (although I am find with the "adventures" line if it's covering brand new topics). I also want a mix of updated and new material. If you are going to, for instance, do an APG type book as your first splat, include 5 former classes, but also include some new classes.
Honestly, I think PrCs could be cool, as sort of later-level (2e) archetype-like thing, but I agree that a book of archetypes would be a good idea, especially if it covers stuff that's been in 1e, but not in the CRB for 2e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I expect we'll get bestiaries and codexes quickly because the APs and modules can reference them and save word count. And the writers will want them.