Is it time for PF3E?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
So far I assume that the Remaster was a reset button on the next edition, i.e. expect it in ten years.

That would be awesome but I'd expect edition burnout at some point before ten more years (hobbyist just have too many splat books to justify more purchases, ideas run out creatively for the system and new books don't inspire as much joy, the system becomes too bloated and daunting for onboarding new players, slow bleed out to the new hotness). There's a bunch of reasons for the money to hurt a little too much before an entire additional decade. 2030 doesn't sound like a stretch to me though; the only shame about that would be starfinder and pathfinder once again being staggered systems


WWHsmackdown wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
So far I assume that the Remaster was a reset button on the next edition, i.e. expect it in ten years.
That would be awesome but I'd expect edition burnout at some point before ten more years (hobbyist just have too many splat books to justify more purchases, ideas run out creatively for the system and new books don't inspire as much joy, the system becomes too bloated and daunting for onboarding new players, slow bleed out to the new hotness). There's a bunch of reasons for the money to hurt a little too much before an entire additional decade. 2030 doesn't sound like a stretch to me though; the only shame about that would be starfinder and pathfinder once again being staggered systems

Unless they take a big leap and try to build an even more unified system at that time, which I wouldn't be opposed to. I'd also not be surprised if we saw PF2E last at least until 2030. The production lines are much more condensed, for one thing, and I believe the overall output, and thus overall workload leading to burnout, is smaller.

I am legitimately amazed that Paizo's staff were able to keep up with the demands of all the monthly book lines they had going on during PF1E's days for as long as they did.


Teridax wrote:
Errenor wrote:

other games build on completely different design priciples. What I don't understand is why should you demand these completely different principles from a continuation of pf.

For example, pbta exists right now (and still has stats, lol).
The real question is why you would take surprise, let alone offense, at the thought of Pathfinder reinventing itself. Pathfinder 2e made radical departures for 1e that benefited the new system significantly; there is no reason a 3rd edition wouldn't be able to similarly innovate. To be clear, I'm not holding my breath for 3e to feature everything listed in the OP or my post; I just think it's rather silly to get up in arms over being open to the prospect of big changes in a new system.

Offense, up in arms? :) No. It's rather silly to compare 1e-2e transition with what you propose. It's even more silly to think that instead of natural development and evolution of the system Paizo would suddenly abandon the core of this game's design and switch to completely different ... everything. So calling your musings 'prospects' is way off-base. 'Fancies' would fit better. People mention money stuff here, and it's true and important and is one of the reasons it won't be like you imagine. But another reason - I think most designers are more or less happy with what this game is in general. And if someone wanted something more they probably could make some side-project, not dismantle the main one.

So I'm not worried.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

PF3E ? Set your alarm clock to 5-7 years in the future.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
So far I assume that the Remaster was a reset button on the next edition, i.e. expect it in ten years.

Yeah, the circumstances out of their control requiring them to do a big errata pass probably reset the timeline for "the new edition". I certainly wouldn't expect PF3 any time before Starfinder 2e is well-established.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
PF3E ? Set your alarm clock to 5-7 years in the future.

PF2 Remaster has a longer road ahead then that.

Besides, why does it matter?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
So far I assume that the Remaster was a reset button on the next edition, i.e. expect it in ten years.

Unfortunately, it likely reset a lot of other things too, like the announcement that this site was finally going to get updated, or the announcement that regular monthly errata was going to begin soon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, the people that are in charge of the site aren't the people that do the mechanics. The monthly errata is likely delayed, but the site update doesn't.


Errenor wrote:
Offense, up in arms? :) No. It's rather silly to compare 1e-2e transition with what you propose.

You mean, a 2e-3e transition? For a game whose 2nd edition made a radical departure from the 1st?

Errenor wrote:
It's even more silly to think that instead of natural development and evolution of the system Paizo would suddenly abandon the core of this game's design and switch to completely different ... everything.

You mean, like how they moved from 1e to 2e? Because that wasn't a "natural development and evolution" of 1e, it was a complete mechanical reinvention.

Errenor wrote:

So calling your musings 'prospects' is way off-base. 'Fancies' would fit better. People mention money stuff here, and it's true and important and is one of the reasons it won't be like you imagine. But another reason - I think most designers are more or less happy with what this game is in general. And if someone wanted something more they probably could make some side-project, not dismantle the main one.

So I'm not worried.

This is a very fancy way of saying that you don't want anything to change. Projecting your personal dislike of change onto entirely conjectural assumptions that the changes wouldn't sell, or that the developers don't want change (They do, and explicitly talk about the next edition as a given), reflects the basic problem with your attitude: contrary to your claim, you are in fact extremely worried about change, so much so that you've gone out of your way to try to devalue and dismiss other people's opinions, something you've already done before on this very thread. If you were truly comfortable with the notion that nothing the OP proposed would ever see inclusion in Pathfinder's future editions, you wouldn't be going out of your way to argue here.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There was never going to be monthly errata. The plan was to do errata every 6 months, but that plan got delayed by somebody's OGL fiasco, prompting the whole remaster thing in a very tight window.

PF1 was a game built around somebody else's IP and game mechanics. PF2 was the system designed to tell the stories that Paizo wants to tell about their own IP and game world. It is flexible, and anyone can use it to tell very different stories too, but projecting needs for a potential 3rd edition off of the transition away from a system designed for a different game seems like a mistake. Especially because PF2 is much more alive and in hands of Paizo, so if there is something about the game they really don't like, they will just change it. That is why it is going to be the infrastructure for SF2, and why it seems more likely that they would introduce other variant systems using this structure if they thought the sales potential were there before they will try to reinvent a fantasy roleplaying game that is finally 100% their own. Short of massive changes in the RPG market, there may never be a true "3rd edition" that tries to be something totally new, but still intended to tell the stories of Golarion, because 2nd edition is now that, rather than 1st edition which was "there is this really popular system we could use to try to force and bend our own stories around."


Unicore wrote:
Especially because PF2 is much more alive and in hands of Paizo, so if there is something about the game they really don't like, they will just change it.

I don't think this is really the right mentality when considering the reasons for a new edition: putting aside how there are many things baked into PF2e that can't be easily changed, namely elements of the game's core math like ability scores (or attributes now), the point of a brand-new edition is to do have a different core design, not to just be the previous edition, but better. For sure, if the only way you can conceive of a 3rd Edition is as a set of incremental improvements to 2nd Edition, then that new edition would be obviously unnecessary and undesirable compared to just improving what already exists. This is why I suspect that when Paizo releases Pathfinder's 3rd Edition (and it's a matter of when, not if), it will differ significantly enough from 2e to justify its existence. Again, this doesn't mean that 3e will look like what OP's proposing, just that it is likely to be structurally different from 2e in a way that can't just be boiled down to errata.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
There was never going to be monthly errata. The plan was to do errata every 6 months, but that plan got delayed by somebody's OGL fiasco, prompting the whole remaster thing in a very tight window.

Sorry. I must have misremembered.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I agree that the time for 3e is many years in the future still, but my wishlist for it:

Divorce ability modifiers from ancestry and background completely, use something like Starfinder's ability quick-picks variant rule as the default.

Front-load ancestries a little more.

Bring back level 1 general feats for everyone.

Maybe make stamina and revolve from Starfinder 1e a core part of the rules.


Arutema wrote:

I agree that the time for 3e is many years in the future still, but my wishlist for it:

Divorce ability modifiers from ancestry and background completely, use something like Starfinder's ability quick-picks variant rule as the default.

Front-load ancestries a little more.

Bring back level 1 general feats for everyone.

Maybe make stamina and revolve from Starfinder 1e a core part of the rules.

One little problem with this last part. There are people who don't play SF for a reason, one of those reasons being they don't care for those rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Im just getting into 2e so I hope not.
I would guess Paizo as a business wouldn't want to shelf this edition after just investing in revising it. They would want to get a return on what theyve produced and exhast this design space before moving on to a new system.
As a person whos recently started buying the remaster content I wouldnt be too happy about a p3e dropping anytime soon either I mean I am just getting used to running it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

With how stable and modular PF2 is, I wouldn't be surprised if future editions are a lot smaller in changes, like Call of Cthulhu. I more incremental and backwards compatible future would do wonders for the game.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bluemagetim wrote:

Im just getting into 2e so I hope not.

I would guess Paizo as a business wouldn't want to shelf this edition after just investing in revising it. They would want to get a return on what theyve produced and exhast this design space before moving on to a new system.
As a person whos recently started buying the remaster content I wouldnt be too happy about a p3e dropping anytime soon either I mean I am just getting used to running it.

You have nothing to worry about. People who try to reduce the P1 to PF2 switch as a marketing gimmick are not paying attention to what the creatives at Paizo are saying. This is the system they want to be using. Bring Starfinder over is because the system works better for the adventure design, and makes the rulebook and lore product lines more fun and exciting to write. They consult players about choosing between certain options and dialing things in because they want us to enjoy playing the game, but the choices and options they present to us are the ones they want to write content for. Things can and have definitely changed, we have an errata process just for that, but there are very few requests being made here that can’t be resolved with house rules, variant rules, or even just talking to a GM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel it's worth understanding that, while PF1e was about 10 years old at the time of its retirement, the system it was built on was rounding on 20 years old. I don't feel you can fully talk about the radical transition to 2e without also acknowledging that Pathfinder flourished for 10 years on a patch of a system they inherited. 2e represents the first time that the system has been fully designed from the ground-up the way the designers wanted it, and maybe those designers are already seeing ways they could have made it even better, but I'm not sure there's any particular motivation for throwing out everything and starting again right as the Remaster forces them to reconsider virtually every choice here at 5 years' experience with the system.

The system works possibly the best of any system of its type that I've played, and offers a substantial amount of complexity and option without all that much in the way of systemic kludge, and to top it off, it's also transparent enough that you can adjust the inner workings while having a reasonable idea what would break if you pulled which dial.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Riddlyn wrote:
One little problem with this last part. There are people who don't play SF for a reason, one of those reasons being they don't care for those rules.

Or the setting. I got one player who didn't like neither the rules nor the setting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bluemagetim wrote:

Im just getting into 2e so I hope not.

I would guess Paizo as a business wouldn't want to shelf this edition after just investing in revising it. They would want to get a return on what theyve produced and exhast this design space before moving on to a new system.
As a person whos recently started buying the remaster content I wouldnt be too happy about a p3e dropping anytime soon either I mean I am just getting used to running it.

Yeah, same here. And I haven't even had the chance to run it yet, since the one group who has agreed to change to it (working on some recalcitrant guys in the other two groups...) has an on-going Strange Aeons campaign which is just now (finally......) finishing book one. Unless we TPK, which I don't hope since I can finally play a certain Alchemist in it, I'm looking at one or two years until my converted Return of the Runelords campaign even starts. I'd hate for that to finish in three to four years and not have played a single "true" 2E AP, just to see the 3E announcement. So I really hope that my guess of another decade is correct.


Even though I seen SF fans being kinda upset that SF2e is going to effectively be more like a new setting for PF2e rather than its own system with the rules they like, I think its the best idea Paizo could have if they wanted to make Starfinder relevant. Only by looking at the release schedule of SF products you'll notice that is more likely Paizo does it more as a passion project than something that gives them money, though by making it compatible with PF2e you immediately make everyone that plays PF2e at least interested in it, which means its going to initially sell better, and likely the people that already likes to buy all the content from PF2e would want to buy everything from SF2e too since thats effectively more content they can use in PF2e too.

I'm personally in the process of making a setting that could incorporate stuff from both systems more easily since I'm planning to use SF2e content in PF2e, and I seen a ton of people online that are planing to do that too, so its likely Paizo would pivot from the (hyphotetical) success of SF2e and make more standalone-but-not-so-much systems that change some of the core rules.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
PF3E ? Set your alarm clock to 5-7 years in the future.

PF2 Remaster has a longer road ahead then that.

Besides, why does it matter?

I took into account the Remaster reset.

I think it was Michael Sayre that explained a while ago that the average lifespan for a TTRPG edition was 7 years.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
PF3E ? Set your alarm clock to 5-7 years in the future.

PF2 Remaster has a longer road ahead then that.

Besides, why does it matter?

I took into account the Remaster reset.

I think it was Michael Sayre that explained a while ago that the average lifespan for a TTRPG edition was 7 years.

My personal experience has been more or less a decade between editions, hence my expectations as of right now.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
So far I assume that the Remaster was a reset button on the next edition, i.e. expect it in ten years.
Yeah, the circumstances out of their control requiring them to do a big errata pass probably reset the timeline for "the new edition". I certainly wouldn't expect PF3 any time before Starfinder 2e is well-established.

I was going to mention Starfinder 2E too. IMO how long Paizo supports 2E will depend in part on how well that sells. My completely uninformed SWAG is that most RPG editions don't last much more than 8 or so years before competition from other games produces sales drop offs which make it not worth producing new products. Having said that, Paizo has done such an excellent job with organized play and PFS that they may be the exception.

It'll happen when it happens, I guess [shrug]. Best thing to do is offer constructive feedback about what you like and don't like, so that today's devs can take notes for later :)


Recent D&D editions tend to have a revised edition roughly halfway through their lifecycle, give or take a year or two (2e Revised, 3.5e, and 4e Essentials. It remains to be seen how long the 5e revision currently in development lasts). Of course Paizo is under no obligation to follow this cycle, but if they do that means PF 2e has 3-7 years left.


Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
2e represents the first time that the system has been fully designed from the ground-up the way the designers wanted it

While I certainly agree with you that PF2e is the best-designed d20 system out there (in our opinion at least), I don't think this particular bit is true. 2e didn't just come out of the blue, it's a system with foundations in the OGL, and because it followed from 1e, it also had to make a huge number of compromises. Just to list a few:

  • The six ability scores are an obvious marker of the system's origins. The remaster certainly changed them to attribute modifiers, which simplify them, but couldn't remove them.
  • Casters and their implementation in 2e were expressly the result of compromise. Paizo wanted a new caster paradigm where spellcasting could be balanced, had distinct strengths and weaknesses from martial classes, and wasn't so feast-or-famine based on attrition (hence focus spells and stronger cantrips at early levels), but also wanted casters to feel close enough to their 1e counterparts that their playerbase wouldn't get up in arms over the changes (well, not so much as to give up on 2e and scupper its early adoption).
  • Fundamental runes were added purely to appease 1e's fans of vertical progression. The vertical progression they offer is illusory, as monsters factor those increases into their own stats, and the end result complicates certain bits of gameplay and balance around them (it's one of several reasons why higher-level monsters are so brutal at early levels), but once again, it was very much a necessary reaction to player expectations that were still largely grounded in 1e's design at the time.

    Generally, I think the idea that 2e is this system where the designers could do absolutely everything they wanted, however they wanted it, is a myth: when Paizo started working on 2e, PF1e's sales were dipping and the company was in this extremely precarious financial situation. Had 2e not succeeded, the company would've gone bust, so they needed early adoption as well as a design that was sustainable in the long-term. 2e isn't this pet project free from constraints, it is very much the product of compromise, with enough lip service still paid to 1e and the D&D sphere of game systems to avoid alienating their core playerbase, which at the time were very much hardcore fans of D&D 3.5e-style design.

    None of this is a criticism of 2e or Paizo either, as I think the way the designers managed to innovate so much while appealing to old-school fans at the same time is a masterstroke. That compromise is the reason we get to collective enjoy 2e at all now, as otherwise the company would've failed. What this does mean, however, is that there is room for further, even more significant innovations, now that the state of affairs has shifted and the majority of the playerbase's expectations are now grounded in 2e, rather than 1e. There's no sure way of predicting what exactly those innovations will be, so it could be everything listed in the OP, none of it, or anything in-between and more, but given the many times in history that people have claimed there's nothing new to invent or discover, I think we can do better than express that same kind of conceited opinion here.


  • Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    A lot of what you are describing though are fairly inherent narrative constraints that came into the Golarion world building process early on, and are necessary to keep telling mostly the same stories that have been getting built up over decades now without having to have a cataclysmic reset to the setting. Telling the same stories as before, but without having to do so much handholding and arbitrary limit enforcement to tell high level adventure stories was a narrative design goal of PF2.

    So like casting design and magical runes that just make the weapon hit more and harder felt like a necessary narrative element too.

    I agree that the system might look different if PF2 was designed fully knowing it was heavily walking away from the OGL, and that might eventually lead to a new system, but even that new system is going to be looking backwards at all the plotlines and stories that have already been told, and making sure they don't feel like stories that could never fit in the new system.

    That is why things like ABP, dual classing, and proficiency without level will always be variant rules, not core assumptions, and why class identity needs niche protection and we wont see any version of a classless point buy system be core to any future edition of PF either.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

    Yeah, I don't think it can be overstated how much market forces matter. Paizo could NOT fully Blank Slate 2e, because if they didn't pay enough attention to the wants and preferences of their fanbase from PF1 they would have been committing financial suicide. Also, it's entirely possible (even likely) that a completely free-reign, money-is-no-object, blank-slate, ground-up system would never have gotten popular.

    Sales, cultural momentum, developer desires, and player desires are in a very complicated 4+-way tug of war, but sales means food on the table, and when it comes down to it: sales wins.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Unicore wrote:

    A lot of what you are describing though are fairly inherent narrative constraints that came into the Golarion world building process early on, and are necessary to keep telling mostly the same stories that have been getting built up over decades now without having to have a cataclysmic reset to the setting. Telling the same stories as before, but without having to do so much handholding and arbitrary limit enforcement to tell high level adventure stories was a narrative design goal of PF2.

    So like casting design and magical runes that just make the weapon hit more and harder felt like a necessary narrative element too.

    I agree that the system might look different if PF2 was designed fully knowing it was heavily walking away from the OGL, and that might eventually lead to a new system, but even that new system is going to be looking backwards at all the plotlines and stories that have already been told, and making sure they don't feel like stories that could never fit in the new system.

    That is why things like ABP, dual classing, and proficiency without level will always be variant rules, not core assumptions, and why class identity needs niche protection and we wont see any version of a classless point buy system be core to any future edition of PF either.

    I can't find myself agreeing with any of this. The game doesn't need ability scores to tell its stories, for example, because ability scores are a mechanical consideration, not a storytelling one. A game without ability scores would be able to tell the same stories as it does now.

    Similarly, casting design and magical runes have changed radically from one edition to the next, and key storytelling elements like alignment have changed within the same game, which has already had a significant impact on how Clerics work and will radically affect Champions. This is also ignoring purely narrative elements that are getting retconned from the setting entirely despite their major role in past adventures, such as drow. The game and even its setting can and did change radically to tell new stories and feature new gameplay, so that too is not a thing that's set in stone.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I agree that ability scores, potency runes, and spell slots are not some non-negotiables that will never be axed; in fact, when PF3 does happen (however few or many years that takes) I would be extremely surprised to see them survive the transition.


    WWHsmackdown wrote:
    I agree that ability scores, potency runes, and spell slots are not some non-negotiables that will never be axed; in fact, when PF3 does happen (however few or many years that takes) I would be extremely surprised to see them survive the transition.

    Runes? Probably. Abilities? Very unlikely. And there's nothing I know at all to replace spell slots. Mana magic systems are even more deeply flawed. And when you try to fix them they become spell slots, only complex. I don't know all systems though. Do you know something better?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Errenor wrote:
    WWHsmackdown wrote:
    I agree that ability scores, potency runes, and spell slots are not some non-negotiables that will never be axed; in fact, when PF3 does happen (however few or many years that takes) I would be extremely surprised to see them survive the transition.
    Runes? Probably. Abilities? Very unlikely. And there's nothing I know at all to replace spell slots. Mana magic systems are even more deeply flawed. And when you try to fix them they become spell slots, only complex. I don't know all systems though. Do you know something better?

    My eyes may have been bigger than my stomach on that last one...but I really think the kineticist / 4e caster approach will be the way of the future for a generation of hobbyists that have been primed for it. Magic will pack a punch AND be controlled balance wise (versatility reined in). Now that's a much more prescribed game, but splatbooks could still print new "spells" as appropriately lvled feats with multiple class tags. It's not definite but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the future


    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    I'm a much bigger fan of Pathfinder 1E than 2E myself. I personally find 2E quite dull, especially when it comes to character classes, which all look pretty much the same to me.

    All that said, I think it's way too early for Paizo to be thinking about 3E. While I may not be a fan of 2E, I know that alot of people are, and announcing 3E would really annoy the 2E fanbase. Personally, I think Paizo needs to give 2E another 3-5 years at least before beginning the 3E Playtest.

    Just my perspective as someone who's not a 2E fan.


    WWHsmackdown wrote:
    Errenor wrote:
    WWHsmackdown wrote:
    I agree that ability scores, potency runes, and spell slots are not some non-negotiables that will never be axed; in fact, when PF3 does happen (however few or many years that takes) I would be extremely surprised to see them survive the transition.
    Runes? Probably. Abilities? Very unlikely. And there's nothing I know at all to replace spell slots. Mana magic systems are even more deeply flawed. And when you try to fix them they become spell slots, only complex. I don't know all systems though. Do you know something better?
    My eyes may have been bigger than my stomach on that last one...but I really think the kineticist / 4e caster approach will be the way of the future for a generation of hobbyists that have been primed for it. Magic will pack a punch AND be controlled balance wise (versatility reined in). Now that's a much more prescribed game, but splatbooks could still print new "spells" as appropriately lvled feats with multiple class tags. It's not definite but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the future

    So more or less how casters worked in 4E then? That's how I understood they worked, at any rate.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Perpdepog wrote:
    WWHsmackdown wrote:
    Errenor wrote:
    WWHsmackdown wrote:
    I agree that ability scores, potency runes, and spell slots are not some non-negotiables that will never be axed; in fact, when PF3 does happen (however few or many years that takes) I would be extremely surprised to see them survive the transition.
    Runes? Probably. Abilities? Very unlikely. And there's nothing I know at all to replace spell slots. Mana magic systems are even more deeply flawed. And when you try to fix them they become spell slots, only complex. I don't know all systems though. Do you know something better?
    My eyes may have been bigger than my stomach on that last one...but I really think the kineticist / 4e caster approach will be the way of the future for a generation of hobbyists that have been primed for it. Magic will pack a punch AND be controlled balance wise (versatility reined in). Now that's a much more prescribed game, but splatbooks could still print new "spells" as appropriately lvled feats with multiple class tags. It's not definite but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the future
    So more or less how casters worked in 4E then? That's how I understood they worked, at any rate.

    Yup

    Liberty's Edge

    Editions change because creators release new games based on new gaming paradigms that better meet the customers' wishes of the moment.

    We cannot right now guess what will be the popular and fruitful trends in game design in 3 or 5 or 10 years.

    So we cannot really guess what PF3 will be like.

    What we can guess at most is what it will likely not be (for example, not based on OGL).


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Be careful what you wish for. Some may want a pf3e, thinking it will fix everything they want fixed. It could easily (in my mind, likely) not go the way those people want it to go. Ttrpgs are getting less crunchy and more gm fiat, narrative type games. I don't think the next Pathfinder edition would go full narrative style but I do think it would mean more that way.


    Hopefully we do not see a new edition for at least another 8-10 years. Just started slowly getting into PF 2E and the Remaster so rather not see a new edition too early.

    If and when PF3 is or if released they should go the fully generic route similar to Savage Worlds.

    With sacred cows in terms of rules and design not only being butchered yet also being nuked from orbit it makes sense to make on generic system imo. With sourcebooks like for example Horror or Fantasy companions. With Golarion being a setting one can buy if one does not want to make or design homebrew worlds.


    Gaulin wrote:
    Be careful what you wish for. Some may want a pf3e, thinking it will fix everything they want fixed. It could easily (in my mind, likely) not go the way those people want it to go. Ttrpgs are getting less crunchy and more gm fiat, narrative type games. I don't think the next Pathfinder edition would go full narrative style but I do think it would mean more that way.

    I can see that being a possibility, but I think it's unlikely, personally. PF2E seems to be carving a space out for itself where it's more rules-heavy and tactical while trying not to be too daunting for new players.

    Admittedly I'm basing this assumption just off what I've been hearing from people on message boards and a couple folks I know personally who play the game, and also from the popularity of the Beginner Box and how newbies to TTRPGs seem to have an easier time with some of PF2E's systems than enfranchised players. A lot of that is anecdotal.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    The Raven Black wrote:

    We cannot right now guess what will be the popular and fruitful trends in game design in 3 or 5 or 10 years.

    So we cannot really guess what PF3 will be like.

    What we can guess at most is what it will likely not be (for example, not based on OGL).

    I'd be very surprised if it was a radical departure. Companies are typically conservative; they go with what they know, and they do what they do best. To Fantasy Flight Games, everything is about their special dice system(s). To White Wolf, most everything is d10. So I would expect Paizo's 3E system to be d20, for character development to be level-based (rather than point build), and for magic to be slot-and-spell-list (rather than build-a-bear or mana cost). Not only does that allow them to pull in the old fan base, but it makes it much easier to revamp or reissue all their own old copyrighted material.

    But I am just guessing along with everyone else. Suffice to say at this time that I like Pf2E, and that I am not at all angsty about it's possible demise nor counting the days to a 3rd edition.


    WWHsmackdown wrote:
    Errenor wrote:
    WWHsmackdown wrote:
    I agree that ability scores, potency runes, and spell slots are not some non-negotiables that will never be axed; in fact, when PF3 does happen (however few or many years that takes) I would be extremely surprised to see them survive the transition.
    Runes? Probably. Abilities? Very unlikely. And there's nothing I know at all to replace spell slots. Mana magic systems are even more deeply flawed. And when you try to fix them they become spell slots, only complex. I don't know all systems though. Do you know something better?
    My eyes may have been bigger than my stomach on that last one...but I really think the kineticist / 4e caster approach will be the way of the future for a generation of hobbyists that have been primed for it. Magic will pack a punch AND be controlled balance wise (versatility reined in). Now that's a much more prescribed game, but splatbooks could still print new "spells" as appropriately lvled feats with multiple class tags. It's not definite but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the future

    Ah. Per day/per combat/unlimited abilities model. Forgot about that. I'm not sure it's really better though. Side-version, like it is now? And if you add some ability to exchange usage of equally-frequent spells for each other (so per day for per day and so on) this basically becomes a version of spell slots.

    But it is possible and should work.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    Errenor wrote:
    WWHsmackdown wrote:
    I agree that ability scores, potency runes, and spell slots are not some non-negotiables that will never be axed; in fact, when PF3 does happen (however few or many years that takes) I would be extremely surprised to see them survive the transition.
    Runes? Probably. Abilities? Very unlikely. And there's nothing I know at all to replace spell slots. Mana magic systems are even more deeply flawed. And when you try to fix them they become spell slots, only complex. I don't know all systems though. Do you know something better?

    My personal favorite is the Ars Magica spell system. Unfortunately, converting it from a skill-based game paradigm to a level-based game paradigm in a way that retains its flexibility without becoming unbalanced would be a bear.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
    Errenor wrote:
    WWHsmackdown wrote:
    My eyes may have been bigger than my stomach on that last one...but I really think the kineticist / 4e caster approach will be the way of the future for a generation of hobbyists that have been primed for it. Magic will pack a punch AND be controlled balance wise (versatility reined in). Now that's a much more prescribed game, but splatbooks could still print new "spells" as appropriately lvled feats with multiple class tags. It's not definite but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the future

    Ah. Per day/per combat/unlimited abilities model. Forgot about that. I'm not sure it's really better though. Side-version, like it is now? And if you add some ability to exchange usage of equally-frequent spells for each other (so per day for per day and so on) this basically becomes a version of spell slots.

    But it is possible and should work.

    We already have adjacent elements in PF2 with focus spells (per combat, replenish focus points with Refocus outside of combat) and cantrips (unlimited).


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    HeHateMe wrote:
    I'm a much bigger fan of Pathfinder 1E than 2E myself. I personally find 2E quite dull, especially when it comes to character classes, which all look pretty much the same to me.

    Then you need to deliberately look at

    a) roleplaying options
    b) tactical options
    c) different settings and campaigns
    To me the people who get tired of the game normally get stuck on a couple of ideas and can't see a way to innovate. That is so much more likely to happen in a game that is not balanced.

    HeHateMe wrote:
    All that said, I think it's way too early for Paizo to be thinking about 3E. While I may not be a fan of 2E, I know that alot of people are, and announcing 3E would really annoy the 2E fanbase. Personally, I think Paizo needs to give 2E another 3-5 years at least before beginning the 3E Playtest.

    That would be conventional wisdom. But the remaster is still not complete.

    People also seem to be forgetting the elephant in the room - D&D 2024 . Which one way or another will shift the commercial landscape when it comes out. Even if most of us here don't play it as our primary RPG, D&D is still a gateway to the rest of the industry.

    Then there is the fact that online play is so much more prevalent. Online anything tends to turn around faster. Innovation is faster than it has ever been. Business models change. So the past might be our best predictor of the future but it is not a reliable predictor.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Errenor wrote:
    Ah. Per day/per combat/unlimited abilities model. Forgot about that. I'm not sure it's really better though. Side-version, like it is now?

    If I had to look in my crystal ball, I'd predict more of this in future games. Not because it's better, but because making ttrpg mechanics that are similar to MMORPG mechanics helps them appeal to a larger potential player base and the folks who already dip into both. We're already seeing some of that, with some in the player base wanting more big boss fight - i.e., raid - type encounters and a de-emphasis on noncombat encounter mechanics.

    So my cloudy crystal ball sees fewer and less emphasis on "per day" and "slow mana" magic systems with their whole-session resource management concepts, and more systems where the range of spells is once per combat, a couple times per combat, and at-will fast-as-a-sword. The scene, rather than the session or the "day", will be the unit of time in which resources are managed, with full between-scene resource regeneration.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

    Aren't MMOs dying out, and especially ones with classic raiding?


    10 people marked this as a favorite.
    WatersLethe wrote:
    Aren't MMOs dying out, and especially ones with classic raiding?

    Yes. Turns out a style of game which turns play into work burns people out

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Gortle wrote:
    People also seem to be forgetting the elephant in the room - D&D 2024 . Which one way or another will shift the commercial landscape when it comes out. Even if most of us here don't play it as our primary RPG, D&D is still a gateway to the rest of the industry.

    From what I'm seeing, the shift in the market from the release of D&D 2024 may not be to WoTC's benefit.


    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Easl wrote:


    If I had to look in my crystal ball, I'd predict more of this in future games. Not because it's better, but because making ttrpg mechanics that are similar to MMORPG mechanics helps them appeal to a larger potential player base and the folks who already dip into both. We're already seeing some of that, with some in the player base wanting more big boss fight - i.e., raid - type encounters and a de-emphasis on noncombat encounter mechanics.

    So my cloudy crystal ball sees fewer and less emphasis on "per day" and "slow mana" magic systems with their whole-session resource management concepts, and more systems where the range of spells is once per combat, a couple times per combat, and at-will fast-as-a-sword. The scene, rather than the session or the "day", will be the unit of time in which resources are managed, with full between-scene resource regeneration.

    Looks at your crystal ball. Looks at D&D 4th. Looks at your crystal ball.

    Looks at D&D 4th.

    *Shrugs*

    101 to 150 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Is it time for PF3E? All Messageboards