If PF1 was revived and revised by Paizo, what would you change?


Product Discussion

201 to 250 of 301 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm reposting this here from the Kingmaker thread so more people, who are concerned with PF1, can see it.

Paizo's split market situation -- and being fair and considerate to the PF1 community:

1. Seems like a lot of people I've seen posting are vested in PF1 and didn't like PF2 (at least as it was at the start of the PlayTest).

I've got a lot of time and money wrapped up in PF1, so I will stick with PF1 depending a lot on whether issues I had with PF2 were addressed and on how hard it is to convert PF1 to PF2 and, maybe, visa versa.

I don't have the time or money to play more than one rule system, so it will probably be PF1 -- but I will get the core rules and Bestiary for PF2 and check it out with curiosity.

Also, another major factor is that it seems like PF1 will have a lot more material than PF2 for quite some time. I don't think I want to wait for PF2 -- nor put in the work to convert PF1 to PF2, though I am still not clear how hard that is.

2. Some people are vested in PF2. I'm not sure how many that is versus those in PF1. I am very excited to find out. The newest (maybe youngest) members very likely see PF1 as being obsolete -- so they likely won't pick it up.

3. Some will GM and play both. Not sure how many.

4. Some might give up and just go to 5e.

I think this is where we are at this point -- Paizo is probably looking at servicing a fractionated market but we won't know exactly what it looks like till August 1st and some time passes after that.

But what should not be underestimated is how much some people love and care about PF1. Those feelings may just now be surfacing as Aug. 1st approaches. I blogged from the initial PF2 announcement and have only recently come to peace with the issue that PF1 development is coming to a stop -- and only because there's a lot of PF1 material available.

Paizo, I hope, will remain sensitive to the PF1 community when they make compilations of PF1 material and re-release it to the PF2 community. If they make such a compilation available and at a cheaper price -- please at least bundle the PF1 material and give the PF1 community the same price.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Knowing the enemy is the biggest determinant of difficulty in the game. Being unaware of enemy capabilities leads to wasted turns doing ineffectual things. Against a dangerous enemy, this leads to character deaths. So it's up to you how you want to handle that. I've seen plenty of times when bad rolls prevented characters from learning vital weaknesses.

Back in the day of D&D 1e, the GM would weave revelations into the storyline and combat situations -- and did not rely on die rolls.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

And players could easily misconstrue those revelations, gaining nothing. I do exactly what you suggest in PF all the time, but never confirm party speculation without a Knowledge roll. I have seen those rolls make or break parties many times.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
But what should not be underestimated is how much some people love and care about PF1.

Love and care do not translate to sales. A lot of people love and care for 0e, BECMI, 1e, 2e, 3/3.5e, heck, Tequilla Sunrise still loves 4e above all else. Many of those people think that whatever edition came after their favourite is rubbish and TSR/WotC betrayed their feelings by moving on. Heck, if you ask many old school edition fans, they'll tell you that Pathfinder is a gamist, player-entitling pox upon their beloved hobby.

But despite that, WotC doesn't "remain sensitive" to them beyond keeping PDFs of old book available, which is *exactly* the same what Paizo will do.


The bag is right. Paizo chose their business plan, and it doesn't include a jot for players who choose not to migrate to New 'n' Pathy!.


Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:


Back in the day of D&D 1e, the GM would weave revelations into the storyline and combat situations -- and did not rely on die rolls.

Doesn't that kind of step on the concept of a character who knows stuff? If there's no mechanical way to reflect it and all information is given to the party only at GM discretion through these revelations, then it seems like you've pretty much invalidated any and all character concepts that involved studied backgrounds. The goblin hunting ranger doesn't know any more about goblins than anyone else. The wizard who studied the magic of lost empires only has information about the ruins being explored when the GM wants to give the players a bit of insight or hook.

This seems comparable to, say, removing stealth checks from the game and only allowing sneaking where the GM thinks it's appropriate (at which point everyone can do it). It might improve gameflow but it makes the sneaky thief kind of a dead archetype unless the GM is willing to throw them a lot of bones.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Obviously you focus more on the sage characters recalling the information from texts and study. Whereas the unlearned character figures it out by experience. When I had to describe a stitched together patchwork monster that had never been seen before, I explained the character realizing the monsters abilities by deducing them from appearance. “You think this one resists fire judging by the devil flesh it was created with.” “The awkward, unfocused movements give you the sense that this one is unfinished, possibly similar to a golems intelligence rather than fully cunning. The eyes emplanted on all sides of its head will likely prevent you from flanking.” You can still emphasize character choices with your storytelling, whether you use Knowledge checks or not.


I think his point is that it takes it out of a Player's hand. The player doesn't decide how much he knows, and at best just why he knows it; the GM decides instead.

Sure it can work, but it's more variability and more chances for bad GMs to mishandle things.


Gorbacz wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
But what should not be underestimated is how much some people love and care about PF1.

Love and care do not translate to sales. A lot of people love and care for 0e, BECMI, 1e, 2e, 3/3.5e, heck, Tequilla Sunrise still loves 4e above all else. Many of those people think that whatever edition came after their favourite is rubbish and TSR/WotC betrayed their feelings by moving on. Heck, if you ask many old school edition fans, they'll tell you that Pathfinder is a gamist, player-entitling pox upon their beloved hobby.

But despite that, WotC doesn't "remain sensitive" to them beyond keeping PDFs of old book available, which is *exactly* the same what Paizo will do.

I don't have any expectations beyond that -- but beyond sales there is also market reality. Piss off your previous customers -- and that is exactly what they will be. Buyer beware for the new ones. It's not a realistic situation you'd want to get started with a customer base. I'm sure they are keen to that even if you're not.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
But what should not be underestimated is how much some people love and care about PF1.

Love and care do not translate to sales. A lot of people love and care for 0e, BECMI, 1e, 2e, 3/3.5e, heck, Tequilla Sunrise still loves 4e above all else. Many of those people think that whatever edition came after their favourite is rubbish and TSR/WotC betrayed their feelings by moving on. Heck, if you ask many old school edition fans, they'll tell you that Pathfinder is a gamist, player-entitling pox upon their beloved hobby.

But despite that, WotC doesn't "remain sensitive" to them beyond keeping PDFs of old book available, which is *exactly* the same what Paizo will do.

I don't have any expectations beyond that -- but beyond sales there is also market reality. Piss off your previous customers -- and that is exactly what they will be. Buyer beware for the new ones. It's not a realistic situation you'd want to get started with a customer base. I'm sure they are keen to that even if you're not.

Sales *are* market reality. Paizo isn't a charity whose founders have set out with a mission to keep 40+ yo American men who grew up playing D&D happy. They're a company full of cool people who want to pay their bills and go for a nice vacation.

The number of PF1 customers who actively buy Paizo products has fallen beyond the point of profitability. This is because existing players quit playing PF1 and because new players entering the hobby don't replace them. Faced with that and with the fact that the main reason behind both those vectors is 5e, you need to react. Putting out a new edition that will hopefully draw more new players and win back some old ones is your only choice.

And you can't support PF1 an PF2 at the same time because a) you don't want to have two competing product lines b) you don't want to confuse customers c) you're a small company who simply can't do both with its current manpower.

I know, the 10 yr old kid in you is unhappy because your favorite line of comics about Captain Chicago is getting relaunched with new creative directions as Captain Northwest. You don't understand why that's happening, nobody consulted you about it, you've sent so many nice letters to the editor and you've said so many nice things about Captain Chicago and he's what's been keeping you happy when bullies were picking on you and now despite all your emotional investment, the publisher is going in a direction you don't like.

Now's your choice, you're either an adult who says "all right, that's what the reality of the market makes them do, let's see how it works out" or you're still the 10 yo kid who can't let go.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
*lots of stuff that doesn't matter*

This is all a bit offtopic - as this is a fantasy thread speculating about a product that will never be made, perhaps you could keep your reality based diatribe in another thread if you really wish to tilt at windmills.

We have enough of them here without yours as well - makes the place messy.


^It will probably never be made by Paizo, but it could be made by somebody else. Kirthfinder is an example from several years ago.


Ckorik wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
*lots of stuff that doesn't matter*

This is all a bit offtopic - as this is a fantasy thread speculating about a product that will never be made, perhaps you could keep your reality based diatribe in another thread if you really wish to tilt at windmills.

We have enough of them here without yours as well - makes the place messy.

"Hear! Hear!"


Gorbacz wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
But what should not be underestimated is how much some people love and care about PF1.

Love and care do not translate to sales. A lot of people love and care for 0e, BECMI, 1e, 2e, 3/3.5e, heck, Tequilla Sunrise still loves 4e above all else. Many of those people think that whatever edition came after their favourite is rubbish and TSR/WotC betrayed their feelings by moving on. Heck, if you ask many old school edition fans, they'll tell you that Pathfinder is a gamist, player-entitling pox upon their beloved hobby.

But despite that, WotC doesn't "remain sensitive" to them beyond keeping PDFs of old book available, which is *exactly* the same what Paizo will do.

I don't have any expectations beyond that -- but beyond sales there is also market reality. Piss off your previous customers -- and that is exactly what they will be. Buyer beware for the new ones. It's not a realistic situation you'd want to get started with a customer base. I'm sure they are keen to that even if you're not.

Sales *are* market reality. Paizo isn't a charity whose founders have set out with a mission to keep 40+ yo American men who grew up playing D&D happy. They're a company full of cool people who want to pay their bills and go for a nice vacation.

The number of PF1 customers who actively buy Paizo products has fallen beyond the point of profitability. This is because existing players quit playing PF1 and because new players entering the hobby don't replace them. Faced with that and with the fact that the main reason behind both those vectors is 5e, you need to react. Putting out a new edition that will hopefully draw more new players and win back some old ones is your only choice.

And you can't support PF1 an PF2 at the same time because a) you don't want to have two competing product lines b) you don't want to confuse customers c) you're a small company who simply can't do both with its...

Customer Loyalty is market reality. A company that is disloyal to its customer base will not last long. I didn't ask for anything unreasonable in my original posting, so I have no idea why the bunch of you are going off so.

I haven't asked for any continued PF1 development. I'm just asking for bundiling and discounts on PF1 material that is, for example, churned into consolidated AP books for PF2 (you know, where they take the entire AP, modify it for PF2, and release it as a single, cheaper book -- like they are doing with Kingmaker).

Nothing unreasonable here.


Oh, yeah, and I forgot to add that part of our purpose in this thread is that if PF2 doesn't meet all the wild speculation for revenue -- these are our suggestions for how to revive PF1 and try to get revenue from it.

There's a lot of people, I think, that are not fans of PF2 and have resolvable issues with PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
I haven't asked for any continued PF1 development. I'm just asking for bundiling and discounts on PF1 material that is, for example, churned into consolidated AP books for PF2 (you know, where they take the entire AP, modify it for PF2, and release it as a single, cheaper book -- like they are doing with Kingmaker).

You may not be aware if you're not following the P2e Kingmaker news, but I believe that PDFs of the original AP are now included as a bonus (at certain pledge levels or whatever, I don't Kickstarter).


Joana wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
I haven't asked for any continued PF1 development. I'm just asking for bundiling and discounts on PF1 material that is, for example, churned into consolidated AP books for PF2 (you know, where they take the entire AP, modify it for PF2, and release it as a single, cheaper book -- like they are doing with Kingmaker).
You may not be aware if you're not following the P2e Kingmaker news, but I believe that PDFs of the original AP are now included as a bonus (at certain pledge levels or whatever, I don't Kickstarter).

Yes, I was aware the PDFs were included.

With PF2, I'm planning to buy the Core Rulebook and Bestiary PDFs as soon as they are released. Honestly, I am very excited about it. I hope it is successful. This thread is just in case it's not.

I will, then, look at PF2 to see if issues I didn't like at the start of the PlayTest were fixed -- or if not, how I feel about it with respect to the rest of the material.

Then, if it turns out that I like PF2, I'm going to look at all the PF1 material I own and evaluated how easy or hard it would be for me to use with PF2. If it's hard, then I'm just going to have to stay with PF1 -- because the reality is that it's all just a game. I've got a lot invested in PF1 -- so I can't just throw that all away just because there is now a new game system in PF2 (no matter how much I like it).

After that, then it would start to depend on PF2's popularity. If a huge community forms around it and if the PF1 community dwindled, I'd have no choice but to adopt PF2.

I think, though, that there always will be a sizable PF1 community. As I keep using it, I am in turn mastering each of the enormous number of books available to PF1 -- and that, in itself, also affects my decision with PF2. I am not sure I want to wait for PF2 to mature as a product to gain the same stature that PF1 has -- and I think others feel the same.

So, key for PF2 is rule system, ease of use with legacy material, maturity of product, size of community that forms around it, ...


BTW, I've made major enhancements to the macros I wrote for MapTool to support PF1 -- and they can probably be changed to support PF2.

They are on RPTools website and can be easily found in the Campaign Frameworks forum -- they are on the first page and I am adventuremagic123.

You will have to go to my latest reply to my original posting to get the latest macros. As of this writing, the version is 7.2.

MapTool is a great VTT, and to get started I also have some instructions to setup that can be found in the User Creations forum on the first page. Use Youtube videos to learn how to use MapTool.

Grand Lodge

Strife2002 wrote:

Knowing me, just following through with proposed corrections and implementing changes not proposed but which should be obvious, like clerics with the Rune domain getting arcane mark added to their list of orisons so that they can actually use their instant summons domain spell correctly, or allowing gunslingers to apply weapon-specific feats (Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, etc.) to firearm categories (one-handed, two-handed, siege) instead of individual firearms so they don't become "locked" into their starting battered firearm.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and get rid of the Appraise skill, maybe fold it into something else. Make languages harder to learn. PCs end up learning way too many, ESPECIALLY if you're using the background skill system.

EDIT #2: Make is so that friendly harmless spells targeting characters with inherent spell resistance, like high-enough-level monks, automatically get through, assuming the character allows it.

EDIT #3: Clerics with the Weather domain should get Survival as a class skill (it is used to predict the weather, after all).

While making my own reference documents for each class, realized that despite the years and years of people making threads about it and FAQing the hell out of it, nobody at Paizo has yet to weigh in and finally clarify how in the hell the swashbuckler's 15th-level ability dizzying defense is supposed to work.

In other words I would love a regular day of the week where the editing team gets their own blog post to clarify stuff that maybe hasn't shown up in official errata yet or never will because there won't be reprints. We'll call it Fix-it Fridays. It could include notifying everyone that the design team is stewing over something that has been reported as not working right, just so everyone who doesn't fine-tooth-comb through the forums can also be made aware of it if they haven't encountered it yet in their games (obviously a FAQ update would happen eventually, but this would be the "we're working on this and wanted you all to be aware" early warning first).

It could also be for fun stuff though! Like "boy there certainly have been a lot of player companions and campaign settings books that released before we printed Advanced Class Guide! here's all the spells from those books you can add to the bloodrager and shaman spell lists."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Oh, yeah, and I forgot to add that part of our purpose in this thread is that if PF2 doesn't meet all the wild speculation for revenue -- these are our suggestions for how to revive PF1 and try to get revenue from it.

There's a lot of people, I think, that are not fans of PF2 and have resolvable issues with PF1.

I wouldn't bother with that aspect. If New 'n' Pathy! doesn't make, Paizo will likely close up shop. They've given up on their flagship product for good. Succeed or fail, this is the end of an era.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Strife2002 wrote:

While making my own reference documents for each class, realized that despite the years and years of people making threads about it and FAQing the hell out of it, nobody at Paizo has yet to weigh in and finally clarify how in the hell the swashbuckler's 15th-level ability dizzying defense is supposed to work.

In other words I would love a regular day of the week where the editing team gets their own blog post to clarify stuff that maybe hasn't shown up in official errata yet or never will because there won't be reprints.

I don't know if you're aware, but Mark Seifter has been doing something like this, answering some of the P1e FAQs that are never going to be answered otherwise, in an unofficial manner.

Grand Lodge

Joana wrote:
Strife2002 wrote:

While making my own reference documents for each class, realized that despite the years and years of people making threads about it and FAQing the hell out of it, nobody at Paizo has yet to weigh in and finally clarify how in the hell the swashbuckler's 15th-level ability dizzying defense is supposed to work.

In other words I would love a regular day of the week where the editing team gets their own blog post to clarify stuff that maybe hasn't shown up in official errata yet or never will because there won't be reprints.

I don't know if you're aware, but Mark Seifter has been doing something like this, answering some of the P1e FAQs that are never going to be answered otherwise, in an unofficial manner.

Fun Fact, I DIDN'T know about that. checking now.


blahpers wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Oh, yeah, and I forgot to add that part of our purpose in this thread is that if PF2 doesn't meet all the wild speculation for revenue -- these are our suggestions for how to revive PF1 and try to get revenue from it.

There's a lot of people, I think, that are not fans of PF2 and have resolvable issues with PF1.

I wouldn't bother with that aspect. If New 'n' Pathy! doesn't make, Paizo will likely close up shop. They've given up on their flagship product for good. Succeed or fail, this is the end of an era.

Never give up ... Never surrender ...

:)

We don't know that they have for good. When you look at the huge product line they have, I'm sure if PF2 doesn't make it, Paizo will still have plenty of chances to change course or course correct -- whatever they decide to do.

Shadow Lodge

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Oh, yeah, and I forgot to add that part of our purpose in this thread is that if PF2 doesn't meet all the wild speculation for revenue -- these are our suggestions for how to revive PF1 and try to get revenue from it.

There's a lot of people, I think, that are not fans of PF2 and have resolvable issues with PF1.

I wouldn't bother with that aspect. If New 'n' Pathy! doesn't make, Paizo will likely close up shop. They've given up on their flagship product for good. Succeed or fail, this is the end of an era.

Never give up ... Never surrender ...

:)

Don't ruin yourself on a pipedream.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Oh, yeah, and I forgot to add that part of our purpose in this thread is that if PF2 doesn't meet all the wild speculation for revenue -- these are our suggestions for how to revive PF1 and try to get revenue from it.

There's a lot of people, I think, that are not fans of PF2 and have resolvable issues with PF1.

I wouldn't bother with that aspect. If New 'n' Pathy! doesn't make, Paizo will likely close up shop. They've given up on their flagship product for good. Succeed or fail, this is the end of an era.

Never give up ... Never surrender ...

:)

Don't ruin yourself on a pipedream.

Why not, paizo's gonna.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

They are the ones best equipped to know which pipe to smoke.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
They are the ones best equipped to know which pipe to smoke.

Maybe. The rhetoric about how old and undoable 3.5 was as 4th came out was more or less exactly what people are saying about pathfinder 1.0 now, right before a radically different game under the same name gets released.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
They are the ones best equipped to know which pipe to smoke.
Maybe. The rhetoric about how old and undoable 3.5 was as 4th came out was more or less exactly what people are saying about pathfinder 1.0 now, right before a radically different game under the same name gets released.

Funny thing is, back then I got flak from 4e fans for saying the PF1 is the better choice and now I'm getting flak from PF1 fans for saying that PF2 is the better choice. But I'm fine, I like a good fight.

And the market did change massively over the 12 years. Pen and paper RPG industry looks now totally different in this post-5e, post-Critical Role world we live in. It's now full of people for whom PF1 is a clunky mess, and the number of people who loved PF1 for its complexity and didn't switch over to 5e because everybody around them did it is dwindling.

Also, I hope that you realise that there's no scenario in which you win this fight - if Paizo tanks, there will be no forum for you to state "Gorbacz you were wrong and I was right! Paizo should have listened to me!" and if Paizo succeeds, well, you'll look silly every time I'll link any of those "well let's just wait until they fail because they will fail and they will be sorry!" posts you're now making.


^Not only that, but Kirthfinder is living (although apparently currently dormant) proof that such a derivative of Pathfinder 1st Edition could be made, even though this originated during the prime of Pathfinder 1st Edition, rather than waiting for an announcement of a very different replacement.

Dark Archive

While I hold no particular illusions that Paizo will switch directions a large part of Gorbacz's rhetoric and statements are flat out economically at odds with the numbers of new people hired by Paizo over the last couple of years. It is not the behavior of a company that is losing money.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
They are the ones best equipped to know which pipe to smoke.
Maybe.

No. You do not have Paizo’s sales figures and revenue to look at and plot trends. Your opinion about which game is better or more popular is not more sound than what Paizo is making in profit. If you watched your paycheck go down each month, would you listen to someone else who says you’re doing great as is?

They can be wrong about what they need to do, but we are still not in a better position to evaluate their business than they are.


TOZ wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

Oh, yeah, and I forgot to add that part of our purpose in this thread is that if PF2 doesn't meet all the wild speculation for revenue -- these are our suggestions for how to revive PF1 and try to get revenue from it.

There's a lot of people, I think, that are not fans of PF2 and have resolvable issues with PF1.

I wouldn't bother with that aspect. If New 'n' Pathy! doesn't make, Paizo will likely close up shop. They've given up on their flagship product for good. Succeed or fail, this is the end of an era.

Never give up ... Never surrender ...

:)

Don't ruin yourself on a pipedream.

It's just a game. Lighten up!


TriOmegaZero wrote:
They are the ones best equipped to know which pipe to smoke.

Absolutely! All we can do is provide customer feedback. The rest is in their hands.


Gorbacz wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
They are the ones best equipped to know which pipe to smoke.
Maybe. The rhetoric about how old and undoable 3.5 was as 4th came out was more or less exactly what people are saying about pathfinder 1.0 now, right before a radically different game under the same name gets released.

Funny thing is, back then I got flak from 4e fans for saying the PF1 is the better choice and now I'm getting flak from PF1 fans for saying that PF2 is the better choice. But I'm fine, I like a good fight.

And the market did change massively over the 12 years. Pen and paper RPG industry looks now totally different in this post-5e, post-Critical Role world we live in. It's now full of people for whom PF1 is a clunky mess, and the number of people who loved PF1 for its complexity and didn't switch over to 5e because everybody around them did it is dwindling.

Also, I hope that you realise that there's no scenario in which you win this fight - if Paizo tanks, there will be no forum for you to state "Gorbacz you were wrong and I was right! Paizo should have listened to me!" and if Paizo succeeds, well, you'll look silly every time I'll link any of those "well let's just wait until they fail because they will fail and they will be sorry!" posts you're now making.

Yeah, it seems like most people don't like lots of complexity like we have in PF1.

I do, though.

I got feedback from a GM, who says he left PF1 because of all the constant book releases -- but now that it's stopped, he's coming back.

I've noticed the same thing. As big as it is, as you keep working on learning PF1 book after book -- everything gets much easier. Like climbing a mountain on step at a time.

So, I like it more and more.


Davor Firetusk wrote:
While I hold no particular illusions that Paizo will switch directions a large part of Gorbacz's rhetoric and statements are flat out economically at odds with the numbers of new people hired by Paizo over the last couple of years. It is not the behavior of a company that is losing money.

Yeah, I think Paizo is just fine. Like I eluded to previously, they have had the resources to create a huge amount of material. They are putting all their energy behind a new product. If it doesn't work, I'm still sure there's enough sales between the other products and PF2 to give them time to change course.

I wouldn't buy into PF2 just to save Paizo, though. If it's not good, for the health of Paizo, we as consumers will have to push back and encourage them to do something better. This thread is about proposing a potential plan B if PF2 doesn't work.

For those of you convinced that PF1 is dead in the water, what is your plan B? PF2.5? What would that be?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
They are the ones best equipped to know which pipe to smoke.
Maybe.

No. You do not have Paizo’s sales figures and revenue to look at and plot trends. Your opinion about which game is better or more popular is not more sound than what Paizo is making in profit. If you watched your paycheck go down each month, would you listen to someone else who says you’re doing great as is?

They can be wrong about what they need to do, but we are still not in a better position to evaluate their business than they are.

Your issue is that you're making the assumption that they have some special insight that the product they're putting out will fix their revenue and sales figures.

I'm saying I doubt it, that moving wildly away from the formula that carried them as long as it did is more likely to blow up in their face than carry them on to new success.

WoTC had all the facts and figures paizo did when they did the big 3.5 to 4.0 push, including a forum full of people making the exact same arguments you and gorbacz are now. The end result was losing the top fantasy rpg spot to this company for years until they rolled the game back to something closer to what people had nostalgia for.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
They are the ones best equipped to know which pipe to smoke.
Maybe.

No. You do not have Paizo’s sales figures and revenue to look at and plot trends. Your opinion about which game is better or more popular is not more sound than what Paizo is making in profit. If you watched your paycheck go down each month, would you listen to someone else who says you’re doing great as is?

They can be wrong about what they need to do, but we are still not in a better position to evaluate their business than they are.

Your issue is that you're making the assumption that they have some special insight that the product they're putting out will fix their revenue and sales figures.

No, I'm not. I'm saying only they know how much PF1 is bringing them at the moment. They have to work off of that information, not magical wish thinking about how customers feel. Paizo doesn't have WotC's problem of Hasbro sitting on their chest demanding more profits. Paizo can certainly make the same mistakes that WotC did, but that doesn't change the fact that we are not in a better position to decide what WotC or Paizo need to do to succeed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
For those of you convinced that PF1 is dead in the water, what is your plan B? PF2.5? What would that be?

Are you asking what we think Paizo will do if PF2 doesn’t sell very well? Whar we think they should do? Or what we’d like them to do?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

On topic

I would probably start with condensing the feat chains, things like combat expertise would become

Combat Expertise: Gain + 2 to CMB and CMD, your combat maneuvers do not provoke attacks of opportunity (combat expertise becomes the prereq for all the greater combat maneuver feats, all improved combat maneuver feats are removed)

Dodge: Gain a + 1 dodge bonus to AC, You may take a -1 penalty to attack rolls to add +1 dodge bonus to your ac for every 4 points of BAB you have.

Vital strike chain would be triggerable whenever you make an attack as a standard action

Skill unlocks from unchained would become core.

I'd remove all the "render other classes completely obsolete" spells, no more find traps spells, no more knock, no creating food and water so that you don't need to know how to survive in the wild. Id also create a common/uncommon/rare division in spells, with the spells you auto-learn only being from the common or uncommon selection. Rare spells would require more work, how much is up for debate but the ones proving to be the most problematic for campaigns as you level would no longer be a guaranteed find.

Grapple rules need attention.


Assuming that we get neither Paisocalypse nor a PF2 victory so complete that D&D 5e becomes an entry-level game only, I expect only minor refinements to PF2. Whether that's the right thing to do depends on what PF2 is actually like.

I would like to see a cleaned up and more consistent version of PF1. Kirthfinder isn't especially that IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

For me the rules is less important than the setting. If PF2 was a failure, I would want them to focus on the setting and adventures (maybe making them system agnostic, or with downloadable statblocks for different systems or something).

I don't think it's going to be a failure. I think it's definitely not going to rival 5E but all of the Paizo executives have stated over the years that they're not even aiming for that - so the bar for "failure" (from my perspective) is just whether they're able to continue to support the current staffing levels.

Personally, I'll judge it a failure if the company gets smaller in late 2020 or beyond. Even then - the recent diversification into Starfinder and the Card Game may just mean a realignment of priorities going forward.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
For those of you convinced that PF1 is dead in the water, what is your plan B? PF2.5? What would that be?

Are you asking what we think Paizo will do if PF2 doesn’t sell very well? Whar we think they should do? Or what we’d like them to do?

All of the above. Brain storm.

Grand Lodge

On topic:

-Consolidate the feats like Weapon Focus and Specialization (at least to weapon groups or slashing/bludgeoning/piercing).
-Make CMD not so ridiculous and one-sided.
-Lower the maximum a stat can be so you don't have people with multiple 36's in their ability scores.
-Make multi-classing more difficult (ie. require a minimum stat).
-Make hardness, DR, SR, and energy resistance less debilitating. Immunity is fine, but few things suck more than not building a power character and seeing every point of damage you deal, do absolutely nothing, or being 1 short for bypassing a creature's SR despite sinking a bunch of feats into your build. Do half the damage. This also goes for swarms. Kind of sad when a 20th level party can be murdered by swarms immune to weapon damage because they didn't bring a dozen vials of acid with them. And with their luck, the swarm might even have resistance 5 just to really be terrible.
-Merge magic item crafting feats. Just do lesser, medium, major, and greater items, as well as artifacts and legendary items.
-No more dump stats. Go the route of Starfinder.
-Empower the classes and lower the Wealth table. 880k is just too much.
-Make it so that iterative attacks actually mean something instead of being -15 Hail Mary's.
-Allow Dex to damage without a feat sink. It's not that taboo or game breaking.
-Do like 5e and allow more than one attack a round just because you moved 10 ft., and use half your movement to stand up.
-Consolidate skills even further and allow more to be used untrained.
-Make it so adamantine isn't so overpriced regardless of what weapon you make. Have it be per pound like mithral. An adamantine greatsword and an adamantine dagger should NOT cost practically the same amount of gold.
-Add in a minimum amount of hp each class gets per level, just like they do for PFS.
-Get rid of the diagonal 5 ft/10 ft. rule. Just make it "spaces" instead.
-Do something about PCs and monsters that can stack AC and saves. After a while you're just invincible and taking the fun away from everyone at the table.

I know Pathfinder really well, and I definitely have my issues with it. I'd love to see a Pathfinder 1.5 though.


kevin_video wrote:

On topic:

{. . .}
-Get rid of the diagonal 5 ft/10 ft. rule. Just make it "spaces" instead.
{. . .}

Along the same lines, have full support for non-grid play.


kevin_video wrote:

On topic:

-Merge magic item crafting feats. Just do lesser, medium, major, and greater items, as well as artifacts and legendary items.
-Empower the classes and lower the Wealth table. 880k is just too much.

I like what you did to item creation. Not only does it reduce the amount of feats you need, but it would allow you to craft multiple different types of items with 1 feat. The current feats have a vertical effect (can craft any item of a category, even those you can't afford). Your feats would have a horizontal effect (cover all magic items over a certain level range).

Still, I think it would be better to just have 1 feat for magic items. I don't want them to distract from adventuring feats too much. I might even allow "non-magic" characters to craft magic items. I'd treat it more like magic rituals.

As for wealth per level, I'm not sure if reducing it would be the best move. A +10 weapon costs 200k, which is about 1/4 of the wealth a 20th level character would have. I don't think characters should own something worth more than 1/4 of their wealth. If you were going to adjust the prices of magic items as well, then I would be more open to the idea.

I'm always open to empowering classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
For me the rules is less important than the setting.

For me, it's the opposite. I came here for continued 3.5e support, not for Golarion. That said, it's a fine setting. Home for me though is Eberron. Not because it was my first - it wasn't - but because it's my favorite. We came here because converting things to that setting is really hard because of the density of themed content.

That said, the rest of my group are probably more like you.

Quote:
If PF2 was a failure, I would want them to focus on the setting and adventures (maybe making them system agnostic, or with downloadable statblocks for different systems or something).

Thing is, my understanding is that the adventures market is smaller than the rules market. So if they can't make enough money as-is, they'll make even less by dropping the rules portion. No win here.

Quote:
I don't think it's going to be a failure. I think it's definitely not going to rival 5E but all of the Paizo executives have stated over the years that they're not even aiming for that - so the bar for "failure" (from my perspective) is just whether they're able to continue to support the current staffing levels.

I suspect it'll be a success in terms of Starfinder is a success. Enough to keep the lights on, but not a giant in the industry. This is the long, dark tea-time of the soul.

Quote:
Personally, I'll judge it a failure if the company gets smaller in late 2020 or beyond. Even then - the recent diversification into Starfinder and the Card Game may just mean a realignment of priorities going forward.

Again agreed. They'll definitely give it a year. Heck, I've given it six months go grow on me.


On topic.

Have some non-vancian spellcasters. I liked how the 3.5e Warlock worked. Eldritch blast and 12 invocations (over 20 levels). Didn't like the alignment restrictions (must be chaotic or evil). The Kinetist works OK, but it was a bit of a disappoint for me. The burn mechanic (it felt masochist) and you also had to specialize in some form of elemental magic (instead of being able to freely choose your magic).

Spell focus. I would have the spell focus feat affect all spells, not just the one school. Hell, I would go so far as to double the bonus for school specialization and remove the bonus for opposition schools.

Rituals. I think that vancian spellcasters aught to be able to cast some magic without them preparing them in advance. Make them take extra time to cast when done so without spell slots. Maybe a knock spell would take 10 minutes to cast while a restoration spell might take an hour or more. I'm thinking that spell slots are the way to cast spells quickly while rituals would have no limit per day. This might require some work to find a good balance. I don't want every ritual to have costly material components, but some should. For instance, spells like resurrection already have costly material components and require some time to cast.

I would like to experiment with a point buy mechanic to buy class features, skills, and feats. Characters would get points each level to buy class features and what not. The GM is allowed to offer more points in a high powered game, or less with a low powered game.

Do away with arcane spell failure. This seems to be a left over mechanic from earlier editions of DND. It seems like half the arcane classes in Pathfinder get some way to ignore it (or partially) anyway.

I would include a section on spell creation covering what kind of spells each class should have. We have got plenty of rules for making balanced spells, but nothing on what spells each class should have.

The spell casters should have spell casting abilities that mix well with each other. For example, both the Barbarian and Fighter classes mix well as they are both high in HP, BAB, and Fort saves. Any mixing of the 2 classes through multi-classing is going to make a strong fighty character. The same can't be said about spell casting. Each new spell casting class you take starts you at level 1. It also puts you behind in levels for the spell casting classes you had before. I want spell caster to stay good at spell casting when multi-classing, not worse.

Any thoughts?


Not going to wade into yet another debate on 2e.

My big concern would be how the skill system really doesn't scale, and any combat abilities that utilize it basically become auto successes. Intimidate comes to mind, but even in social situations the system breaks down. Diplomacy vs. an NPC 12 levels higher than you? Auto-success. This happened in an AP I ran.

Grand Lodge

OmniMage wrote:
kevin_video wrote:

On topic:

-Merge magic item crafting feats. Just do lesser, medium, major, and greater items, as well as artifacts and legendary items.
-Empower the classes and lower the Wealth table. 880k is just too much.

I like what you did to item creation. Not only does it reduce the amount of feats you need, but it would allow you to craft multiple different types of items with 1 feat. The current feats have a vertical effect (can craft any item of a category, even those you can't afford). Your feats would have a horizontal effect (cover all magic items over a certain level range).

Still, I think it would be better to just have 1 feat for magic items. I don't want them to distract from adventuring feats too much. I might even allow "non-magic" characters to craft magic items. I'd treat it more like magic rituals.

As for wealth per level, I'm not sure if reducing it would be the best move. A +10 weapon costs 200k, which is about 1/4 of the wealth a 20th level character would have. I don't think characters should own something worth more than 1/4 of their wealth. If you were going to adjust the prices of magic items as well, then I would be more open to the idea.

I'm always open to empowering classes.

You’d really only need three crafting feats. Lesser to greater. I was thinking more like having categories of items that’d require minimum caster levels. My home game has it reduced to four because my players felt more comfortable with that number.

As for wealth, 3.5 maxed at 760k and that was just fine. The real issue is the need for a +10 sword. Why? That’s unnecessary. Not to mention no one carries just one weapon. You need an entire golf bag of them because you never know what you’ll face and only certain weapons made of certain materials and enchantments work against them. Again, that’s pretty unnecessary.
Also, giving NPCs less wealth than in 3.5? Bump that back up to what it was. The PF NPC wealth table is fine for slow track, but not medium and fast.

Grand Lodge

A few more add-ons
-regarding prepared casters: make them all capable of spontaneously casting. Nothing sucks more than needing four castings of a particular spell but you only prepped 1-2.
-downtime healing and minor magic recovery so that you don’t deal with the 15 minute adventuring day
-have cantrips scale as you level so you’re doing more than 1d3 points of damage at 20th level.

201 to 250 of 301 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / If PF1 was revived and revised by Paizo, what would you change? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.