A few questions about the future of paizo


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

To be honest this is probably the last time I will be posting on this forum and that is because (no offense intended) I realized I just cant enjoy this game as a it is but reading the thread about the idea of a 3rd edition made me wonder a few things so here are the questions:

1- will second edition ever be more like first edition?

2- will there be more pathfinder first edition

3- will a hypothetical 3rd edition if it comes out be more like first edition?

4- will there be anything at all similar to first edition?

5- is there any game that is still supported that is like first edition

So you can probably guess where I'm going with this I loved first edition but can't take this game is there any hope I will get what I enjoy or any viable alternative? I guess the answer to the first question is probably no but one can hope.


1- no more than it currently is
2- not from paizo
3- probably not
4- idk
5- don't think so

thanks for coming to my TED Talk


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Red Metal wrote:

1- no more than it currently is

2- not from paizo
3- probably not
4- idk
5- don't think so

thanks for coming to my TED Talk

Well I guess that is it folks thanks for the answer, I will have to wait and hope someone makes a pathfinder 1.5 much like pathfinder itself was the answer to 4th edition abandoning 3,5.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious - what more do you need for the system that isn't covered by eight years of 3.X and a decade of PF1 releases?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My guess is that 3e will break things up a bit more and will allow a tad bit more unbalanced abilities back in, simply because building an effective character who is better than other characters is fun if it's limited.

The 2e chassis is fantastic though and just fine tuning them in a 3e would be enough to make me switch to that. 2e feels like it could on for another 10 years as opposed to 1e which broke down mechanically due to build shenanigans and feat bloat.


R3st8 wrote:
Well I guess that is it folks thanks for the answer, I will have to wait and hope someone makes a pathfinder 1.5 much like pathfinder itself was the answer to 4th edition abandoning 3,5.

There are several new d&d-like games that are coming out, or came out recently. I don't think they actually move in the direction you like (as they have to be stramlined enough to be 'streamable' and approachable by new players), but maybe it's worth checking them.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
R3st8 wrote:

To be honest this is probably the last time I will be posting on this forum and that is because (no offense intended) I realized I just cant enjoy this game as a it is but reading the thread about the idea of a 3rd edition made me wonder a few things so here are the questions:

1- will second edition ever be more like first edition?

2- will there be more pathfinder first edition

3- will a hypothetical 3rd edition if it comes out be more like first edition?

4- will there be anything at all similar to first edition?

5- is there any game that is still supported that is like first edition

So you can probably guess where I'm going with this I loved first edition but can't take this game is there any hope I will get what I enjoy or any viable alternative? I guess the answer to the first question is probably no but one can hope.

1. Depends on what you want it to be closer to pf1e with and what differences cause the most strife. But if we are talking about official changes to the system, no. I can on the spot identify a few variant rules and house rules that would push it a lot closer to what I recognise as 3.5e system design though.

2. Highly unlikely, PF2e was partly moved to because PF1e sales had been drying up for a long while.

3. Again depends on what parts of 3e you are referring to. I wager a 3e would swing more towards that design in some areas, if only because pf2e has swung more in that direction in some areas itself. If you mean using 3e as a framework again, not a chance, even before the ogl stuff.

4. You tried playing more pf1e? The redundancy in this question is starting to push the bounds of plausibility.

5. Giving the benefit of the doubt that this isn't a troll post, no for the same reasons Paizo isn't doing it. PF1e/3e isn't fun to run for a large number of GMs on a fundamental level, it takes way too long to prepare for, breaks in a bunch of ways and requires learning/recalling swaths of bespoke rules without coherent mechanics to run it as intended. And anyone wanting to pick up the torch would be competing against PF1e and its 10 years of content, that is mostly free... really really niche market.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

4. You tried playing more pf1e? The redundancy in this question is starting to push the bounds of plausibility.

5. Giving the benefit of the doubt that this isn't a troll post, no for the same reasons Paizo isn't doing it. PF1e/3e isn't fun to run for a large number of GMs on a fundamental level, it takes way too long to prepare for, breaks in a bunch of ways and requires learning/recalling swaths of bespoke rules without coherent mechanics to run...

Well I never stopped playing it it more of a worry that it will fade away with time and there will be nothing like to replaced it but to answer you question about fun have you heard about Bartle taxonomy of player types, there are 4 types of player: Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers, in essence pathfinder and even dnd used to be a introvert game that focused on system mastery so it was more like achievers and explorers but as it hit mainstream and more people got into the hobby it moved into Socializers and Killers.

different players have different definitions of what fun means but the thing is that something that matter a lot to Socializers and Killers isn't as important to Achievers and Explorers,for instance Killers love to compete but explorers not so much hence why balance isn't that important to me, and to people who are introverts having other player is like having NPCs being run by chat gpt, so much like you don't care about having a overpowered ally you wouldn't care if another player is nearly unkillable god, the short of it is that culture of the game itself has changed and a niche that used to be filled by 1e has or rather is disappearing.

its difficult to explain because while its the same games two people can understand it in completely different ways, something that seems like power gaming to a person could be seem as system mastery to a Achievers or boundary testing to a Explorers, that feeling of "oh this is possible" i just don't know how to explain it, its like people who perceive skyrim's alchemy loop as a glitch and others as a features, to some people pathfinder is like a narrative game like the last of us but to me its more like skyrim and minecraft, not saying others are enjoying it wrong but I cant love it as it is even if it makes financial sense to move in that direction.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

With starfinder jumping on the 2e engine it looks like the last nail in the 3.X coffin is finally being hammered down. The hobby isn't so niche anymore that ivory tower design rewarding system mastery can remain a viable strat. I don't think that's ever coming back.....like ever. Too many people game and it's leaving too much money on the table to alienate them with a product that actively punishes them for not knowing all the bits intimately. I'm happy to see such notions wither and die (much better to play a game that works and invites cooperative stories) but I can understand the frustration of those who have lost 20-30 years of all they've known.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

I look askance at 20 year old astrology for video gamers as a guiding rubric, but my condolences. The feel that you're losing a game you love sucks, even if I would never willing return to a game that rewards solo play (character building) mastery rather than shared tabletop experiences. I would much rather nobody at the table be able to win by designing a perfect character with unbeatable bonuses--i would not enjoy being the character and I would not enjoy having my character invalidated by such a character in my party. Even if we take at face value these gamer categories, i think it says a lot that they're based on styles of video game play--not cooperative tabletop games. It's a different story showing off your bonuses and achievements in an MMO where your fellow players don't have to compete with you to play the game.

Even so, the world of ttrpgs is vast these days, and there may well be a system out there for you to enjoy, even assuming you reach a point where you can't lay 1e anymore. I wish you luck even if I wouldn't wish a broken game's system mastery upon anyone. May you find what brings you joy in the hobby and it not have to come at someone else's expense.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

As many of us have moved between editions, you will find folks who "find their version," so to speak. I had a group that fell in love with 4e and never looked back (or, more accurately, forward). Editions don't often get revisited because it doesn't make financial sense.

But not all is lost - you just need to find your people. People who want PF1 more than other TTRPGs. And that sounds hard, but in reality, it means that you have to be an advocate for what you love to the people you want to play with. Run games, convert adventures, tell stories, and introduce people to what YOU love about the edition.

It's one thing to want to play an older edition of any game, but it's another to get a group. Be the change you want to see, and share your enthusiasm.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
R3st8 wrote:

To be honest this is probably the last time I will be posting on this forum and that is because (no offense intended) I realized I just cant enjoy this game as a it is but reading the thread about the idea of a 3rd edition made me wonder a few things so here are the questions:

1- will second edition ever be more like first edition?

2- will there be more pathfinder first edition

3- will a hypothetical 3rd edition if it comes out be more like first edition?

4- will there be anything at all similar to first edition?

5- is there any game that is still supported that is like first edition

So you can probably guess where I'm going with this I loved first edition but can't take this game is there any hope I will get what I enjoy or any viable alternative? I guess the answer to the first question is probably no but one can hope.

As someone who played PF1 a lot, I kind of dreaded having to bring new players up to speed. That kind of system can really only thrive in an environment without good alternatives.

PF1 was also published at an unsustainable rate. A player handbook every month, a setting book every other... It wasn't a surprise when they had to slow down.

All that to say, PF1 was something that only seems possible for the time and circumstances it happened in. If someone did a similar thing, it'd be hard to get people into, and it'd be hard to match anything like the volume of options in PF1. There's no better supported retired system to play, though. An entire decade of rules, freely available and searchable.

The fact is, even if someone came along to support the system and publish new things for PF1, that probably wouldn't do what you're hoping. New content is exciting, sure, but the problem is always going to be getting new people into it. Even just explaining the action rules, or buying gear for a tenth level character is just such a hassle. If you want to keep the hobby alive, developing accessible beginners' guides or videos will probably do a lot.

I get where you're coming from about the satisfaction of a good build! I had a Witch who didn't care about his standard action, a character with seven character sheets, and a toymaker who animated stuffed animals. Outside TTRPGs, I find Roguelites and Vampire Survivor clones are nice for satisfying the combo itch in a sustainable fashion. Having a limit makes allowing fun broken combos possible.

But, much more easy- get involved with the PF1 fans. Look for or run PF1 games. Even as a system no longer getting updates, there are still more games for it than a lot of smaller TTRPGs. And it's tons of homebrew settings, meaning lots of interesting variety. Even if the system fades a bit, there's still plenty to enjoy!


15 people marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
The hobby isn't so niche anymore that ivory tower design rewarding system mastery can remain a viable strat. I don't think that's ever coming back.....like ever. Too many people game and it's leaving too much money on the table to alienate them with a product that actively punishes them for not knowing all the bits intimately.

Yeah. That.

Because this:

demlin wrote:
My guess is that 3e will break things up a bit more and will allow a tad bit more unbalanced abilities back in, simply because building an effective character who is better than other characters is fun if it's limited.

just sounds insulting. Basically, "Ha ha. I can build a better character than you. :P" If that is your idea of fun, then I don't want to play.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Finoan wrote:
If that is your idea of fun, then I don't want to play.

Filthy casual.


R3st8 wrote:
Well I guess that is it folks thanks for the answer, I will have to wait and hope someone makes a pathfinder 1.5 much like pathfinder itself was the answer to 4th edition abandoning 3,5.

Faster than waiting for a new edition, you might contact Pathfinder Infinite (i.e, third party) product developers - see if any of them are interested in producing 1E versions of the 2E scenarios and APs that Paizo is putting out. If there is a user base and thus a market, probably some of them might consider at least a trial run, see how it sells.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
I'm curious - what more do you need for the system that isn't covered by eight years of 3.X and a decade of PF1 releases?

There's more to a game than just its release schedule. There's also the hype and buzz of new books that drives community discussion, brings folks together, and makes a game feel more alive, which is pretty much what OP said upthread; they're worried that the community around the game they love will disappear. Making new content would almost certainly slow down, if not stop or reverse, that erosion of the community.

Which, you know, is perfectly understandable. It's something I can really empathize with. Sometimes, when scheduling or my limited ability to travel or socialize kept me more or less house-bound, reading about upcoming releases or engaging with the community about those releases was my primary outlet for getting to enjoy the games and hobbies that I love with people I like.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I'm curious - what more do you need for the system that isn't covered by eight years of 3.X and a decade of PF1 releases?

There's more to a game than just its release schedule. There's also the hype and buzz of new books that drives community discussion, brings folks together, and makes a game feel more alive, which is pretty much what OP said upthread; they're worried that the community around the game they love will disappear. Making new content would almost certainly slow down, if not stop or reverse, that erosion of the community.

Which, you know, is perfectly understandable. It's something I can really empathize with. Sometimes, when scheduling or my limited ability to travel or socialize kept me more or less house-bound, reading about upcoming releases or engaging with the community about those releases was my primary outlet for getting to enjoy the games and hobbies that I love with people I like.

And this is definitely one of the biggest reasons why I decided to follow the PF2 playtest and left PF1 behind.

To the OP, there are still threads and posters in the PF1 Paizo boards.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Perpdepog wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I'm curious - what more do you need for the system that isn't covered by eight years of 3.X and a decade of PF1 releases?

There's more to a game than just its release schedule. There's also the hype and buzz of new books that drives community discussion, brings folks together, and makes a game feel more alive, which is pretty much what OP said upthread; they're worried that the community around the game they love will disappear. Making new content would almost certainly slow down, if not stop or reverse, that erosion of the community.

Which, you know, is perfectly understandable. It's something I can really empathize with. Sometimes, when scheduling or my limited ability to travel or socialize kept me more or less house-bound, reading about upcoming releases or engaging with the community about those releases was my primary outlet for getting to enjoy the games and hobbies that I love with people I like.

This is all true, but... The OP talked at length about how he's in it for the character building, not for the social elements. He literally said "having other player is like having NPCs being run by chat gpt." Which makes me wonder if they actually just need a chat gpt GM or something.

To the OP: Have you tried GURPS yet? It's about as crunchy a system as I can imagine.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a Pathfinder 1E fan and to this point I have not enjoyed 2E. That said, I'm not sure why any 1E fan would look forward to the next edition thinking it's going to be more like 1E. If anything, it's going to be an evolution of 2E.

One thing I can see happening in the next edition is the elimination of character classes. That trend has already begun, since in 2E, almost every class conforms to a generic martial or caster template, with only minor differences between classes from the same template. It would be easier and far more transparent to just get rid of classes altogether, and have players choose between a martial template or a caster template, and then just build their own "class" by picking from a list of available martial/caster class abilities and feats as they level up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
To the OP: Have you tried GURPS yet? It's about as crunchy a system as I can imagine.

Have you seen The Dark Eye 5e? I familiarized myself with it and am thoroughly intimidated. Really, GURPS is ok in comparison (even if probably bigger given it's universal).

TDE is pure fantasy so closer. But it's more old-school and simulating than character-building game it seems to me.

Liberty's Edge

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

I can understand your frustration. I've been playing long enough to have experienced every edition change from both D&D and PF and I would be lying if I didn't say I wasn't wistful for some of the older editions on occasion.

I still play PF1E while also playing 2E and I prefer 2E, but that's a personal choice and I won't try and convince you my view is better.

That said I do want to address a few things:

1- will second edition ever be more like first edition?

2- will there be more pathfinder first edition

3- will a hypothetical 3rd edition if it comes out be more like first edition?

It's very unlikely that 3rd edition will retrograde back to a 1e style. In gaming that's rare to see. Even when D&D went from 4E to 5E there was some retro designs involved, but 5E is more a new system entirely. Paizo has said they're distancing themselves from the original model because of WOTC's actions and as such that makes anything new from Paizo highly unlikely.

4- will there be anything at all similar to first edition?

This is unanswerable. It's very possible that a 3rd party designer may create something close enough to 1E to scratch your itch, but we don't know for certain.

5- is there any game that is still supported that is like first edition

Maybe. I'm not familiar, but I don't have my fingers on every game out there.

That all said you can still play 1E and you will be able to find players that want to. As time passes it may be harder, but there are still people that play Rules Cyclopedia era D&D and love it. For new content you will likely be forced to rely on 3rd party content only, but there is some really good quality content out there and the sheer volume of published materials already available should keep you full for the rest of your gaming life.

In any rate good games and fair rolls to you and your table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:

One thing I can see happening in the next edition is the elimination of character classes. That trend has already begun, since in 2E, almost every class conforms to a generic martial or caster template, with only minor differences between classes from the same template.

This does not bead very much in common with the game as I have been playing it. Class vs classless design is a very different kind of choice than you might be implying, perhaps you're conflating the chassis (very similar because it mostly describes attack and save progression) with the actual class abilities? Because that would be like saying 1e Barbarian and Fighter are basically the same class because they both get full BAB, martial weapons, and good Fort. That the Rogue gets 3/4 BAB doesn't make it a distinct class, it makes it barely functional in the game's major gameplay loop, combat. All other class abilities appear in the form of class feats because one of the most popular things from 1e was the ability to take the same class and give it two different sets of abilities to match your character concept while having the same core chassis.

Not gonna tell you not to love 1e (I did for many years!) but this idea that class protection would go away the moment the designers thought they could get away doesn't feel terribly supported by the evidence we have currently at our disposal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Easl wrote:
R3st8 wrote:
Well I guess that is it folks thanks for the answer, I will have to wait and hope someone makes a pathfinder 1.5 much like pathfinder itself was the answer to 4th edition abandoning 3,5.

Faster than waiting for a new edition, you might contact Pathfinder Infinite (i.e, third party) product developers - see if any of them are interested in producing 1E versions of the 2E scenarios and APs that Paizo is putting out. If there is a user base and thus a market, probably some of them might consider at least a trial run, see how it sells.

Or use the ORC license to reverse engineer a retro version of Pathfinder using the 2E ruleset. Then you have a much larger - and growing - population of fellow gamers. I moved on from first edition primarily because it is sooo much easier to GM in 2E. I can understand the joys of game mastery but I’m not looking back. I would recommend you look forward and, more importantly, do something about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

One thing I can see happening in the next edition is the elimination of character classes. That trend has already begun, since in 2E, almost every class conforms to a generic martial or caster template, with only minor differences between classes from the same template.

This does not bead very much in common with the game as I have been playing it. Class vs classless design is a very different kind of choice than you might be implying, perhaps you're conflating the chassis (very similar because it mostly describes attack and save progression) with the actual class abilities? Because that would be like saying 1e Barbarian and Fighter are basically the same class because they both get full BAB, martial weapons, and good Fort. That the Rogue gets 3/4 BAB doesn't make it a distinct class, it makes it barely functional in the game's major gameplay loop, combat. All other class abilities appear in the form of class feats because one of the most popular things from 1e was the ability to take the same class and give it two different sets of abilities to match your character concept while having the same core chassis.

Not gonna tell you not to love 1e (I did for many years!) but this idea that class protection would go away the moment the designers thought they could get away doesn't feel terribly supported by the evidence we have currently at our disposal.

I mean, alot of this boils down to perception and feel. To me, 1E classes had alot more variations and differences between them than 2E classes. In 2E, I feel like martial classes are all really similar, and caster classes are all really similar. I struggle to even notice the differences between classes in 2E sometimes. That's why I feel classless design is the next step in this evolution. That said, I doubt we'd see a new edition any earlier than 8-10 years from now.


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

I loved PF1. I felt strongly that PF2 was unnecessary. I played PF1 for a long time and got really good at it. I have tons of characters over the years that I won't forget.

While I did switch to PF2 in the end, and I now prefer it to great degree, I FULLY understand people's love of PF1 and their desire to keep the flame burning.

If you feel that strongly about it, there are options out there. Get involved in community groups that keep events and discussions related to PF1 going. Volunteer to run more games in the system. Start developing a PF1 based system that carries forward the system like Paizo did for 3.5. Create new videos and content to help people get into it.

In the end I don't think any of that is very likely to succeed, given the historical precedent, but if it's that important to you then give it a shot! The most you can likely hope for is consolidating the niche that PF1 serves, but there's the tiniest chance you could stumble into a PF1 revival scenario.

What you're not going to be able to do is turn the tide of development at Paizo to go back to the old design, or convince PF2 players en masse to switch back.


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

I think there were several projects after 2E launched which wanted to make the successor to 1E Pathfinder, but none of them came to anything.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Man everyone's entitled to their own opinion and PF1 definitely has a lot of things that I miss and does better than PF2, but I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that PF1 martials had more variety. Like yeah okay let's just pretend full attacking wasn't a mechanic I guess.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

49 people marked this as a favorite.

PF1 was a system that we put everything we thought we possibly could into, and then a little bit more.

Since we released Pathfinder Second Edition, we've seen massive growth in subscribers, consumers, community members, etc. It is unequivocally the most popular and successful thing we've ever made, and as we've continued to grow, we've seen a lot of feedback from new consumers and community members that a lot of what was keeping them from trying out our games was the PF1 rules system itself.

We do want to continue to be able to have the kinds of adventures we've always had and tell our best stories no matter where the evolution of our rules takes us, but we're not looking backwards to the days of having a rules system where by this same point in the product cycle we were already on the decline and could barely afford to pay our bills some quarters.

We're making the most successful product we've ever made and selling it to the largest and most enthusiastic audience we've ever had, and that's allowed us to get to a world where the production teams are larger, everyone is making a more livable wage than we could afford under the previous system, the company is growing and healthy, and more people are enjoying our stories and playing with our rules than ever before.

In all likelihood, a potential PF3 years down the road is likely to move farther from the PF1 rules structures, not closer. Our stories and lore will continue to be a living world that builds upon itself.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Errenor wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
To the OP: Have you tried GURPS yet? It's about as crunchy a system as I can imagine.

Have you seen The Dark Eye 5e? I familiarized myself with it and am thoroughly intimidated. Really, GURPS is ok in comparison (even if probably bigger given it's universal).

TDE is pure fantasy so closer. But it's more old-school and simulating than character-building game it seems to me.

Nope, never played the Dark Eye. Never played GURPS either, but I have listened to a good actual play of it and seen the difference system mastery makes in action.

Personally, I've found PF2 to still reward system mastery, but compared to PF1 it matters a lot less at character creation and a lot more in the moment to moment turns. PF2 is my current favorite tactical RPG. If I'm in the mood for something else, it's probably going the opposite direction as the OP. I am a fan of fiction first games. I'm really enamored with Blades in the Dark right now. It is less like playing a tactical war game and more like writing an action movie.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do think 3e will be coming out for a bit. Isn't Statfinder 2e going to be more like PF2E?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Most of these have already been answered, but my take:

Quote:
1- will second edition ever be more like first edition?

It depends on what "more like" means to you, but if you mean "more crunchy character options to 'optimize' before play starts," then no. The entire paradigm of PF2 is to make meaningful choices during play, most often using one of the three actions each round to add bonuses to/initiate combos with other PCs; instead of the PF1 paradigm (inherited from 3.x) of stacking benefits on one PC to make them a juggernaut. PF2 emphasizes teamwork much more than solo play.

Quote:

2- will there be more pathfinder first edition

3- will a hypothetical 3rd edition if it comes out be more like first edition?

4- will there be anything at all similar to first edition?

Very unlikely, with Paizo moving from the OGL to the ORC. PF1 was based on the OGL and the 3.x foundation was a strong influence on the system mechanics. With Hasbro/WotC making noises about trying to invalidate the OGL, moving back to it would not make sense if Paizo wants to be independent of another company's legal antics.

Quote:
5- is there any game that is still supported that is like first edition

There are communities online for pretty much any "older/no longer officially supported" RPG. Even AD&D 1st Ed and BECMI D&D.

Quote:
So you can probably guess where I'm going with this I loved first edition but can't take this game is there any hope I will get what I enjoy or any viable alternative?

Find or recruit some people to play the system you enjoy. It might be easier to offer some sort of rotating campaigns arrangement between two or more(!) systems so that people can enjoy their "favorite" at least some of the time.

TBH, I recently pulled out my AD&D 1st Ed books again. There are some things that are still enjoyable with the system, despite it's quirks and (occasionally glaring) shortfalls. Last year, I had the urge to go through my Ars Magica books. Even if the ideas don't get used in the system they were originally created for, they can usually be used as inspiration for a concept or adapted at least to some degree for another system.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I feel you, bro! I have seen so many changes. I enjoy PF1e because that is what I spent ten years playing (Even more if you add in 3.0/3.5 years). Will I ever enjoy PF2e as much? Probably not. I'm at a very different point in my life. But that doesn't mean I'll not play or have fun running it. In the end, it's whatever my friends want to play.

Anyway, the PF1e/3.X era is gone now. I doubt it'll ever come back except as RetroClones, and likely not from Paizo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
I do think 3e will be coming out for a bit. Isn't Statfinder 2e going to be more like PF2E?

Starfinder 2E is going to run on the same engine as Pathfinder 2E does, yep. Assumptions between the games will be different, a greater emphasis on ranged combat having knock-on effects like flight being available much earlier in Starfinder 2E, for example, but all the math will be the same.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:


To the OP: Have you tried GURPS yet? It's about as crunchy a system as I can imagine.

Why settle for the lesser crunch?

Nothng is More Crunchy (tm) than the Hero System!


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Errenor wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
To the OP: Have you tried GURPS yet? It's about as crunchy a system as I can imagine.

Have you seen The Dark Eye 5e? I familiarized myself with it and am thoroughly intimidated. Really, GURPS is ok in comparison (even if probably bigger given it's universal).

TDE is pure fantasy so closer. But it's more old-school and simulating than character-building game it seems to me.

Ooooh, TDE5! We played thah for over a year... I got my name in th special thanks for Gods of Aventuria... Loooved the setting, but Covid an GM burn-out made our game crash.

It' not intimidating to play as it seems, and not as universal as GURPS (you won't be playing Sci-Fi with it). It's 100% Skill & Feat based, no classes. XPs are used to build/augment your character

The game world has also been added onto since the begining, I haven't seen one as detailed anywhere else. BIG caveats, most of the resources if you want fore fluff that the curren 5ed books are in German :\

GURPS has high and lows... sooooo many books, some with good rules, others not so much. I personally prefer Hero over Gurps as that one gives you total control over **everything** but there is a huuge amount of work before starting playing it, as you need to build *EVERYTHING* (unless you buy the expansions with the pre-built stuff) Helly, you have to build your own Spellcasting System rules (there are examples for 5+, all detailed)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For a crunchy system that rewards system mastery and where optimized builds make an enormous difference, I'd recommend Exalted 3e.

The advantage of that system is that the whole game is themed around the PCs being truly one-of-a-kind extraordinary heroes and it leans into that idea a lot.

So when you create a broken build you actually still fit in the story, instead of standing out like a level 5 wizard who can kill god.


Regarding wanting more PF1e content, has OP considered looking up 3.5e homebrew? I play in a heavily modded 3.5e group (among other things we backported the PF1e skill system) and there's an absurd amount of free and professionally written 3.5e homebrew to get excited about. Most of which are ToB variants or deravatives but hey, ToB is good. You can spend weeks discussing whatever bizarre homebrew got dredged up from the depths of gitp and making test characters. It's fun!

Liberty's Edge

TSandman wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


To the OP: Have you tried GURPS yet? It's about as crunchy a system as I can imagine.

Why settle for the lesser crunch?

Nothng is More Crunchy (tm) than the Hero System!

Sy Kerraduess wrote:

For a crunchy system that rewards system mastery and where optimized builds make an enormous difference, I'd recommend Exalted 3e.

The advantage of that system is that the whole game is themed around the PCs being truly one-of-a-kind extraordinary heroes and it leans into that idea a lot.

So when you create a broken build you actually still fit in the story, instead of standing out like a level 5 wizard who can kill god.

All these posts about other systems remind me of those TTRPG Kaijus of yore such as Stormbringer and Immortal, the Invisible War.

Not to mention Gygax's very own Mythus.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:

I'm a Pathfinder 1E fan and to this point I have not enjoyed 2E. That said, I'm not sure why any 1E fan would look forward to the next edition thinking it's going to be more like 1E. If anything, it's going to be an evolution of 2E.

One thing I can see happening in the next edition is the elimination of character classes. That trend has already begun, since in 2E, almost every class conforms to a generic martial or caster template, with only minor differences between classes from the same template. It would be easier and far more transparent to just get rid of classes altogether, and have players choose between a martial template or a caster template, and then just build their own "class" by picking from a list of available martial/caster class abilities and feats as they level up.

I think most players want to just plug and play so a class-less system, which would not provide this but rather the opposite, is extremely unlikely IMO.

I believe what you perceive as a lessening of class diversity to actually be a result of the gap reduction between builds' power levels.

The vast majority of builds in PF2 get similar values but through different means. And the means (ie the variables used to get the results) are what define a given class identity.

For example, Martials deal similar damage to single targets but the Fighter gets this through better accuracy where the Barbarian gets it through higher attack damage.

Liberty's Edge

As long as we're into pure and idle theorizing about what could be, I think PF3 will use a very code-like basis for its mechanics so that the rules themselves are easy to translate within the whole gaming ecosystem, including VTTs, Character (and NPCs) creation apps, and video games.

The vitality you get from a complete ecosystem being able to communicate seamlessly is astounding.

In some ways, I see this as building on the ORC philosophy too.

And one thing I am pretty sure we will keep seeing in PF3 is it being Golarion-based. A consistent but living setting is a great boon to give your product a strong lasting identity. And it is definitely, and has been from the start, Paizo's preferred approach to the game. So they know how to create in this paradigm really well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
We do want to continue to be able to have the kinds of adventures we've always had and tell our best stories no matter where the evolution of our rules takes us, but we're not looking backwards to the days of having a rules system where by this same point in the product cycle we were already on the decline and could barely afford to pay our bills some quarters.

could you go a little more in detail on why pf2 is profitable but pf1 wasn't making money? I'm starting to considering doing my own attempt at a pf1-like in the far future and it would be helpful to understand why it didn't work, which is truly puzzling to me since it was nearly perfect from my perspective, i guess I'm just weird for liking to spend hours looking at a wikia, online forums and archives searching the perfect feat to complete a maximum possible jump height character build or trying to create the best poppet crafter in the world.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

If I could hazard a guess, it isn't that people didn't like PF1, but it had begun to run its course and was getting very difficult to bring new players in. Over the years, general attrition as a product ages happens to all editions (which is why you'll see many people here making guesses as to how long it would be before another edition). PF1 also had a lot to learn before you began. The barrier for entry was very high while the market moved towards games with easier access.

As someone who brought plenty of people into the hobby during the start of PF1 and even just a few years before PF2's launch, the onboarding process became more and more difficult - worse if players showed up having skipped looking at the rules and instead relying on hastily googled class guides (with often suspect rules interpretations).

At the end of the day, if you were a PF1 fan, you were dedicated and knew the material well. This, unfortunately, doesn't make for a healthy game that will gain new players regularly, but a more insular community that requires a lot of foreknowledge to access.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
R3st8 wrote:
could you go a little more in detail on why pf2 is profitable but pf1 wasn't making money? I'm starting to considering doing my own attempt at a pf1-like in the far future and it would be helpful to understand why it didn't work, which is truly puzzling to me since it was nearly perfect from my perspective, i guess I'm just weird for liking to spend hours looking at a wikia, online forums and archives searching the perfect feat to complete a maximum possible jump height character build or trying to create the best poppet crafter in the world.

As another poster said, games have lifetimes. People like novelty and as other products enter the market any game can tend to attract fewer product buyers. That goes for board and video just as much as ttrp's, though they each can have different lifetimes. "Why" is hard, but MS was pretty clear that Paizo was seeing a reduction in profitability for PF1. that might have zero to do with the system, it may just be a case of people wanting something new or "more like that other thing I saw."

Beyond that, I think you answered your own question. "Ha ha! After hours of poring over multiple books, you found the chargen easter egg which will allow your character to kick all other character's butts" is not the sort of system that attracts either a lot of new players or return play by casual players.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
R3st8 wrote:
i guess I'm just weird for liking to spend hours looking at a wikia, online forums and archives searching the perfect feat to complete a maximum possible jump height character build or trying to create the best poppet crafter in the world.

None of the things you mentioned looking through were "books I purchased." And why would you? If all you're interested in is character optimization, then given the wild imbalance of PF1 only a handful of feats in any given book would actually be worth considering. Not to mention the sheer number of books you'd need to buy to get those feats. You can't keep the lights on through people browsing free websites. This is probably part of why PF2 rules are more tied to the setting.

It also sounds like you enjoyed character creation more than playing the game itself, but many people lack the time, energy, or attention span to do that. Many people just want to get together and throw dice around with their friends. I'd hazard a guess that an activity which requires a social component is going to do better by focusing on social people rather than loners. In contract, video games cater to loners better because you don't need a group of people to play them at all. (But AFAIK the best selling video games are mostly multiplayer anyway.)


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

Cultural momentum means some things fall out of favor. In PF1's case, it was likely primarily the high effort character generation and GMing challenge and complexity.

On-boarding new players in PF1 was a bear, and unless you were the most convincing salesperson in the world AND had a masters degree in teaching, it got almost impossible to find and keep new PF1 players.

GM-ing well in PF1 required experience equivalent to a college degree, and so the GM pool shrinks even faster than the player pool.

With a shrinking pool of players who already have a massive amount of content they're basically required to have a decent understanding of in order to build effective characters, sales of new materials tanked.


Captain Morgan wrote:
None of the things you mentioned looking through were "books I purchased." And why would you?

Not exactly, I do have books from local stores but searching for information with a searching engine and checking years of discussions and tables already made by people in many online forums is way easier than flipping a pages in a book (they don't have ctrl F or filters). but you do make a fair point, maybe having things on a video format could make it easier to teach.

Ruzza wrote:

PF1 also had a lot to learn before you began. The barrier for entry was very high while the market moved towards games with easier access.

As someone who brought plenty of people into the hobby during the start of PF1 and even just a few years before PF2's launch, the onboarding process became more and more difficult

so the greatest obstacles is getting people into it and making them learning the rules right? what about a different way of teaching the rules like you know how many anime have power scaling community, maybe a dedicated anime/manga that followed rules could lead people to learn the rules naturally like how some people pick on Japanese by watching subbed anime even if its very broken Japanese.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Take a moment to consider what actually goes into making a first level character you plan on playing to tenth, and what that looks like to a new person.

When making a character, a player potentially had their race, alternate racial traits (distinct from race traits), class, class archetype, two traits, possible drawback and trait, skills (class skills get +3), feat, point buy, favored class bonus or alternate favored class bonus, and starting equipment. Traits had to be from separate categories, and were hard to browse. They were also important for shoring up saves, skills, or build-spefic things. Alternate racial traits and archetypes could both be stacked so long as they didn't replace the same thing, which is a genuine non-metaphorical puzzle. When you went to pick a feat, you were tossed into a huge sea of every feat in the game, with no way to limit it to what you could actually take. All the good stuff was buried somewhere in there, and it almost certainly had two prerequisites that you had to plan around levels earlier. Point buy was complicated and put a lot of pressure on what race you could actually pick for a class.

You couldn't really hand a player the core rule book and have them make a character that could even keep up with someone using any options. This means that new players were hard to bring in, and it probably also meant that there wasn't much reason to buy a book of character options instead of waiting.

In PF2, you actually can make a core-only character that plays fine alongside a full options character. Fighter and Bard are some of the best to give a new player as-is. This means you can give a new player a small set of options and they'll still have a good time, and buying a book or two is something people will recommend. The experience is improved in other ways too - if a player wants to jump into the deep end, you can tell them to filter for common options only, and everything is already sorted by level so there's no barrage of options that can't be taken until later.

The reason everyone is talking about new players is because that's how a business stays profitable. Even if your product is so perfect that every single grognard who has been with the game for a decade buys a copy, you will still have a declining customer base as people stop having time to play because of new life responsibilities, or lose a long-term group and don't join a new one. New people have to keep coming in to sustain it, let alone grow it. Now, products aren't magically perfect, and so you also have grognards reach a point where they don't feel like buying more. So even if the game is being played plenty, it might be by lots of people not buying new stuff.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
R3st8 wrote:
Ruzza wrote:

PF1 also had a lot to learn before you began. The barrier for entry was very high while the market moved towards games with easier access.

As someone who brought plenty of people into the hobby during the start of PF1 and even just a few years before PF2's launch, the onboarding process became more and more difficult

so the greatest obstacles is getting people into it and making them learning the rules right? what about a different way of teaching the rules like you know how many anime have power scaling community, maybe a dedicated anime/manga that followed rules could lead people to learn the rules naturally like how some people pick on Japanese by watching subbed anime even if its very broken Japanese.

There's a lot to unpack here. To start - as someone who lives in Japan and has been here for nearly a decade, this is a bad example. Don't learn Japanese through anime. That's like learning how to count by juggling.

As I said up top, if you are truly passionate about this game, you need to be an advocate for it, warts and all. I wouldn't go looking for a shortcut (or, in the case of... designing a manga, the longest cut imaginable - it would just be easier to read the books). Showcase what makes the game fun and interesting to you and go and find people you can share that passion with.


R3st8 wrote:
so the greatest obstacles is getting people into it and making them learning the rules right? what about a different way of teaching the rules like you know how many anime have power scaling community, maybe a dedicated anime/manga that followed rules could lead people to learn the rules naturally like how some people pick on Japanese by watching subbed anime even if its very broken Japanese.

That's going to be a money problem in and of itself. Animation is expensive, so using real people is probably easier. Following the rules of the game is like playing, and special effects are expensive. At that point, you have an actual play stream, like Critical Role or Dimension 20.

Famously, Critical Role started as PF1 in a home game, and switched to D&D 5e for something easier for the players and viewers. (Pathfinder probably even gets a small trickle of new players from that trivia tidbit alone.) If your system is both popular and accessible enough, you have game streams effectively advertising and teaching for free. Launching one funded off TTRPG publishing profits until it supports itself is... well, it's one more thing to juggle, and if they're ever independent of you, there's a good chance they'll do better if they're not trying to secretly teach the rules.

Besides, a power scaling fantasy works better when it isn't actually tied to real rules.


R3st8 wrote:

To be honest this is probably the last time I will be posting on this forum and that is because (no offense intended) I realized I just cant enjoy this game as a it is but reading the thread about the idea of a 3rd edition made me wonder a few things so here are the questions:

1- will second edition ever be more like first edition?

2- will there be more pathfinder first edition

3- will a hypothetical 3rd edition if it comes out be more like first edition?

4- will there be anything at all similar to first edition?

5- is there any game that is still supported that is like first edition

So you can probably guess where I'm going with this I loved first edition but can't take this game is there any hope I will get what I enjoy or any viable alternative? I guess the answer to the first question is probably no but one can hope.

I'd like to put this in perspective with a trio of analogies I'm not sure are going to land, but hopefully will be at least somewhat recognizable.

What you're asking is a bit like asking "will Disney ever make another classically animated film like Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty". The answer is an almost unqualified "no." We no longer live in the 1940s and 1950s, after Frozen the studio prefers CGI animation over classical hand-drawn, Walt Disney himself has been dead for almost sixty years, and audiences no longer prefer simple black-and-white fairy tales with relatively passive female protagonists.

Another way to think about it is to look at Magic: the Gathering, and ask whether or not there will ever be new cards like the Power 9. No, there almost certainly will not be. They were products of the early 1990s and since then people have moved on to more balanced and diversified play. They were fine and unique (and really broken) in 1994, but that's not the world we live in today.

My final analogy is Latin. In the 1940s, it was possible for a German sailor and a British one marooned in the Mediterranean to talk to each other in Latin and discuss Homer. It was something that just showed up in middle and upper class schooling. That no longer exists. The Western lingua franca (when it wasn't French) for over a thousand years is now really, truly, dead. But that doesn't mean everything ever written in it is - the books and their translations still exist and between resources like Project Gutenberg and AI translation it's trivial to read them.

That's not to say you can't go back and watch Cinderella or play legacy MTG. Or learn Latin. They all exist, just waiting for you to take an interest. You can still play PF 1e with your buddies, or get them into it. Myself, I shamelessly convert PF 1e adventures to 2e. No reason you can't do the reverse.

Heck, you can still buy AD&D products (especially the PDFs), and some of them are going on fifty years old. It might not make financial sense for Paizo to support PF 1e, but that's life. Everything eventually becomes defunct, but there's no reason you can't build jumplomancers to your heart's content.

101 to 129 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / A few questions about the future of paizo All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.