Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2nd Edition

[Igwilly]

Well, that was a significant change in tone to not only was you saying, but also to what everyone “let’s have less splatbooks” have said since I’m around here.
However, I agree with most of what you said here (although I’m not familiar with Star Trek Adventures). I’ll just comment on a few things:

This feels like a false dilemma. I don't think I've ever seen anyone seriously ask for splatbooks to be eliminated altogether. And some new content is required to justify having staff and maintaining the product line.
But I don't think we need new class content every four months. Or even once a year. Since people don't make and use the content that fast.

To be fair, there needs to be a base amount of products. Having class content less than once a year is too much slow for me (Edit: for D&D, that is).
This is a false dilemma, but I’m not the creator. It’s an attitude I’ve seen a lot (no one flat out says that, it just gets implicit).

This is really a message board perspective.
People were really down on 3rd Party content following the 3e glut. And that attitude remains with Pathfinder to some extent. And yet 3PP continues to be released and sell decently well, even for PF.
Because there's nothing magically about WotC or Paizo that makes their content somehow intrinsically better. A well down 3PP can be just as good as an official release.

5e has show that 3PP are great for supplementing a slow release schedule, as it's perfect for that niche content. (As has Starfinder for that matter.) We don't need endless released on super specific archetypes and subclasses, when a focused 3PP can do that just as well (if not better since they don't have to compromise the focus and can instead double down on the theme).
There's a lot of love for 3rd Party stuff for 5e, showing that the new generation isn't as jaded over 3PP, and that when you release high quality content it will sell.

Plus, homebrewing seems to be super common among new players. There's just something about falling in love with a game that drives people to make their own content. And too much official content really hinders that creativity, because there's less gaps to be filled and enough choices already...

Message board perspective? I think not.
Logically, you’re right. There’s nothing magical about WotC or Paizo that makes their products intrinsically better, but in practice…
People don’t have that much confidence. They may buy it, but then it’s about gambling the DM to use it. Honestly, the only place I’ve seen where 3PP are so accepted is on message boards. Being “official” has some amount of status, even if undeserved.
The reason home-brewing is (and always was) so common is because you (the DM) did it. You tend to have confidence on your own work. However, what about using content a player have created, or some other DM has…?

 

[Jester David]

To be fair, there needs to be a base amount of products. Having class content less than once a year is too much slow for me (Edit: for D&D, that is).

The catch being, how many characters do you realistically use in a year? Do you make and play more than two characters in a single year? More than three?
Because, to use all the content found even in a small 32-page book you'd need to be making four or five PCs.

Even if you're playing Pathfinder Society twice every week with the same character on the normal xp path, you're only going to retire three PCs.

Message board perspective? I think not.
Logically, you’re right. There’s nothing magical about WotC or Paizo that makes their products intrinsically better, but in practice…
People don’t have that much confidence. They may buy it, but then it’s about gambling the DM to use it. Honestly, the only place I’ve seen where 3PP are so accepted is on message boards. Being “official” has some amount of status, even if undeserved.

But, again, the GM buys the vast majority of the content. So if the GM is buying that 3PP, then they're incentive to allow it to justify the purchase.
The instances when a player is buying the 3PP and approaching the GM is going to be more rare.

The reason home-brewing is (and always was) so common is because you (the DM) did it. You tend to have confidence on your own work. However, what about using content a player have created, or some other DM has…?

In that instance, the GM likely works with the player, trying to strike a balance.

 

[darjr]

@(jester David) I dig your posts.

So when do you think 5e will hit that? I was happy when Paizo went with a slow release schedule but found even that too much. I have seen the barest of beginnings of that even with 5e.

I think Paizo is probably fine and if I were them I’d slow way away down and focus on kickass adventures paths.

 

[Zardnaar]

I could possibly go for a PF 2 there are a few things I like in concept.

1. No overnight healing.
2. Ye old D&Disms such as LG Paladins
3. Microfeats
4. 3 saves, fort, ref will

I can even live with class based BAB. But the rules need to be less complexes, the feats need rebalanced, the spells overhauled (nerfed, buffed, removed etc), also have a look at the way saves scale along with spell DC's. Dump +16/+11/+6/+1 and just grant an extra attack at BAB +6,+11,+16.

That is the big ones anyway. A hard look at stacking and magic item creation would not go astray.

 

[Jester David]

Thoughts on what I'd like to see in Pathfinder 2:

1) Simpler and faster. Minis optional. Streaming friendly.
2) Smaller numbers. Not quite bounded accuracy, but also not the Red Queen's Race of Pathfinder, where everything goes up constant but your chances of success remain the same.
3) Drop D&Disms. Pathfinder isn't D&D and isn't bound to the same sacred cows, like ability scores that go from 1 to 18. Just go with the modifiers. Maybe dump Constitution, folding that into Strength or skills.
4) More narrative mechanics. Plot points/ Fate Points/ Force Points/ etc. 5e D&D only lightly touches upon the idea with Inspiration, so it would be nice if Pathfinder 2 looked to the myriad story driven games that have popped up, and merge some of their ideas into the fold.
5) Keep some complexity. Retain the build aspects. Perhaps make archetypes a core part of the classes (like 5e's subclasses). With archetype's powers coming at specific levels, to prevent mix-and-matching. And that way every class has iconic key abilities that aren't traded out.
6) No assumed magic items. This would also be nice, as would reducing the expected number. Playing Pathfinder by the rules made treasure unexciting, as it was all just reduced to gold.

It'd be nice to pull monster/PC symmetry back a little. Monster feats are often annoying and the least interesting part of monsters. And the math is wonky since 1 HD doesn't equal 1 CR, so their saving throws increase too fast.
Simpler NPCs would be nice as well. Having run Skull & Shackles high level NPCs just did not work, as they were well under CRed and very complex for little gain.


Ironically, several of the above points sound a lot like 4e's design goals. I imagine, in a vacuum, Pathfinder Revised might end up looking a lot like 4e. The simple monster design from Unchained and Starfinder is very similar.
Ideally, Paizo would look long and hard at the changes they'd want to make to PF but also what failed and succeeded in 4e and try to move forward from that point. And also look at other newer games (13th Age, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Fate, Genysis, Star Trek Adventures, Weave, Savage Worlds, Tales from the Loop) and see what cool ideas can be used for inspiration. Really, what they should do when they start thinking about Pathfinder 2, is spending 6 months just playing other RPGs and testing other systems. Plus some Basic D&D. Get out of the Pathfinder box and look at what else is out there before moving forward.

Pathfinder 2 should probably also be less generic. It should be the Golarion RPG. Lore of the setting should just be in the rules. There are lots of generic fantasy RPGs out there, but what Paizo brings to the table is their setting. That should be front and center.
Just like Starfinder.
Well... maybe like Starfinder only without all the world lore being hidden in the back of the book. Some of that should be in the introduction...

@(jester David) I dig your posts.

So when do you think 5e will hit that? I was happy when Paizo went with a slow release schedule but found even that too much. I have seen the barest of beginnings of that even with 5e.

It might almost depend on what releases happen when. But I think there's room for maybe one more book with subclasses, but if that doesn't come until 2020 then the existing content we have might have been consumed enough for a third class sourcebook.

I doubt we're going to see more class content in 2018, especially since we haven't seen much playtesting going on. After two splatbooks with PC content in six months, I hope the November book is something other.

I think Paizo is probably fine and if I were them I’d slow way away down and focus on kickass adventures paths.

Adventures can suffer from bloat as well. Paizo has a lot of adventures, and every new adventure can't just be adequate, but has to be better than all the previous APs. Even if something is cool and classical, like Giantslayer or Mummy's Mask, it can fail to capture the attention with so many other adventures already out there.

Focusing on world specific adventures, like the Azlanti one they just finished and the forthcoming Taldor one, are probably good ideas. They're less generic and stuff that really works with their lore and setting. For a while it seemed like they were hesitant to really play in their own sandbox, preferring to leave that to GMs.

It's funny really. They set up these great big stories in their world as hooks for the GMs and I think many GMs are afraid to run with the hooks because Paizo might do an AP. Meanwhile, Paizo wants to leave those for GMs and doesn't want to change their world too much via the APs. So the biggest looming events in the world, the powder-kegs waiting go off, just don't.
I think that after almost nine years, they might want to have the world evolve slightly and start declaring the events of a few APs as canon.

 

[Shasarak]

I know that it is just peoples opinions and that everyone has one.

But saying that; I hope I never see a Pathfinder that is not DnD and/or looks a lot like 4e.

 

[PMárk]

Thoughts on what I'd like to see in Pathfinder 2:

1) Simpler and faster. Minis optional. Streaming friendly.
2) Smaller numbers. Not quite bounded accuracy, but also not the Red Queen's Race of Pathfinder, where everything goes up constant but your chances of success remain the same.
3) Drop D&Disms. Pathfinder isn't D&D and isn't bound to the same sacred cows, like ability scores that go from 1 to 18. Just go with the modifiers. Maybe dump Constitution, folding that into Strength or skills.
4) More narrative mechanics. Plot points/ Fate Points/ Force Points/ etc. 5e D&D only lightly touches upon the idea with Inspiration, so it would be nice if Pathfinder 2 looked to the myriad story driven games that have popped up, and merge some of their ideas into the fold.
5) Keep some complexity. Retain the build aspects. Perhaps make archetypes a core part of the classes (like 5e's subclasses). With archetype's powers coming at specific levels, to prevent mix-and-matching. And that way every class has iconic key abilities that aren't traded out.
6) No assumed magic items. This would also be nice, as would reducing the expected number. Playing Pathfinder by the rules made treasure unexciting, as it was all just reduced to gold.

It'd be nice to pull monster/PC symmetry back a little. Monster feats are often annoying and the least interesting part of monsters. And the math is wonky since 1 HD doesn't equal 1 CR, so their saving throws increase too fast.
Simpler NPCs would be nice as well. Having run Skull & Shackles high level NPCs just did not work, as they were well under CRed and very complex for little gain.


Ironically, several of the above points sound a lot like 4e's design goals. I imagine, in a vacuum, Pathfinder Revised might end up looking a lot like 4e. The simple monster design from Unchained and Starfinder is very similar.
Ideally, Paizo would look long and hard at the changes they'd want to make to PF but also what failed and succeeded in 4e and try to move forward from that point. And also look at other newer games (13th Age, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Fate, Genysis, Star Trek Adventures, Weave, Savage Worlds, Tales from the Loop) and see what cool ideas can be used for inspiration. Really, what they should do when they start thinking about Pathfinder 2, is spending 6 months just playing other RPGs and testing other systems. Plus some Basic D&D. Get out of the Pathfinder box and look at what else is out there before moving forward.

So, in a nutshell, like 5e, but taking even more steps toward narrative games and also incorporating elements of 4e...

Well, you want a hipothetical PF 2 to go against literally every element of why people wanted PF and like to play PF in the first place.

At this point I'd just say I don't like the game and this style of game and call it a day.

I wouldn't want to see literally any of that, thanks.

 

[PMárk]

Also, to be honest, it reminds me a bit of what happened when talking started about Vampire the Masquerade's (and WoD's in general) new edition and how should that go, what people would want to see change and what they'd want to keep? There some people said things that gave a picture of them wanting, practically another version of NWoD/CofD and would change most of what made WoD itself distinct. The exact things many WoD fans liked and literally stayed with WoD because they didn't get those things from NWoD in the first place and thus, rejected that game because of it...

At that point I couldn't do anything, but ask: why?

 

[Jester David]

So, in a nutshell, like 5e, but taking even more steps toward narrative games and also incorporating elements of 4e...

Well, you want a hipothetical PF 2 to go against literally every element of why people wanted PF and like to play PF in the first place.

At this point I'd just say I don't like the game and this style of game and call it a day.

I wouldn't want to see literally any of that, thanks.

This reductively assumes there is a single audience that wants a single thing, which by the sheer diversity of campaign types and optional rules is demonstratively not true.
3e is an almost twenty-year-old game. Pathfinder Revised has to be designed as a modern game or why bother? If we want a slightly retooled 3e retroclone there’s a bazillion 3PP on the market already...

D&D is tied to the past because it has a forty year legacy. Pathfinder has no such obligation to retain the sacred cows of 1974 and can do its own thing. If they can’t move forward and break away from legacy mevhamivcs they should just move to making 5e 3PP... They’ll sell waaaaay more copies if they shift to 5e Golarion books.

Pathfinder Revised should move forward with more flexibility, enabling GMs to more easily make the game their own. One game; many different paths.
But one of those paths should be adding minis and tactical combat. Replicating the feel of default PF1 gameplay but faster and more balanced should be a major design goal.
There’s a lot of people who want a much more balanced game than Pathfinder, like 5e, but more robust in builds and options than is doable in 5e. Pathfinder could fill that middle ground nicely, taking a step back from the complexity and number porn but not going as far as 5e.
(For example, they could halve the attack bonus & AC increases between level 1 and 20 reducing the gains but still having waaaay more bonuses than 5e.)

As far as being a narrative game that’s not what I said. It should still be strategic/ tactical, but it can add some narrative elements and roleplaying mechanics, going a step beyond 5e. 13th Age shows you can strike an a balance between fun narrative plots tweaking mechanics and strategic play.
After all... it’s not 1999 anymore and Pathfinder doesn’t have to be designed like the last two decades of game evolution hasn’t happened.

 

[PMárk]

This reductively assumes there is a single audience that wants a single thing, which by the sheer diversity of campaign types and optional rules is demonstratively not true.

However, I'm assuming that PF fans could more or less agree on the type of game they'd want to play, that is why they're playing PF. Even in the Strange Aeons AP (or was it Horror Adventures?), the writers flat-out said, that despite the horror/Lovecraftian angle, it is still PF, with all its assumed stuff and distinct playstyle.

3e is an almost twenty-year-old game. Pathfinder Revised has to be designed as a modern game or why bother? If we want a slightly retooled 3e retroclone there’s a bazillion 3PP on the market already...

PF is literally a retooled 3e retroclone... People are generally playing it, because they like to play a 3e style game.

Why bother? Because some cleaning up and minor tweaking could make the game better in what it does, without changing it profoundly, and that is enough of a goal.

D&D is tied to the past because it has a forty year legacy. Pathfinder has no such obligation to retain the sacred cows of 1974 and can do its own thing.

Again, it's literally a D&D 3.75 for those who didn1t want to play 4e... Why should we pretend that it is a totally independent thing from D&D?

If they can’t move forward and break away from legacy mevhamivcs they should just move to making 5e 3PP... They’ll sell waaaaay more copies if they shift to 5e Golarion books.

Maybe, but maybe that's not the point. The point might be making a specific game, or rather, a specific version of D&D, to a specific audience who like that game's style and its bells and whistles.

Pathfinder Revised should move forward with more flexibility, enabling GMs to more easily make the game their own. One game; many different paths.

But you're aware that some people, even in this thread, like things like PCs and monsters/NPCS working the same, or the more minutae simulation and such?

Besides, 5e promised that famous modularity and didn1t deliver to this day. PF isn't a generic system, like GURPS, or Savage Worlds.

But one of those paths should be adding minis and tactical combat. Replicating the feel of default PF1 gameplay but faster and more balanced should be a major design goal.

That should be a design goal in general, yes.

There’s a lot of people who want a much more balanced game than Pathfinder, like 5e, but more robust in builds and options than is doable in 5e. Pathfinder could fill that middle ground nicely, taking a step back from the complexity and number porn but not going as far as 5e.
(For example, they could halve the attack bonus & AC increases between level 1 and 20 reducing the gains but still having waaaay more bonuses than 5e.)

That's true, even for me, at least as balance and complexity goes. To be honest, PF is the high end of what I want to play in these reagrds, generally, my favirites are simpler games, ilke WoD. I suspect we just disagree on where this middle ground should exactly be.

As far as being a narrative game that’s not what I said. It should still be strategic/ tactical, but it can add some narrative elements and roleplaying mechanics, going a step beyond 5e. 13th Age shows you can strike an a balance between fun narrative plots tweaking mechanics and strategic play.

I just don't like directly scene and story-altering narrative elements in general, thus I wouldn't want to see them in PF.

After all... it’s not 1999 anymore and Pathfinder doesn’t have to be designed like the last two decades of game evolution hasn’t happened.

Ah, yes, the false presumption of roleplaying evolution... Honestly as I see it, that "evolution" didn't make games better, objectively. It made different kinds of games possible and that's a good thing, but that doesn't mean they are better and in no way I think those "modern design elements" (ie: narrative systems) have to or even should be incorporated into every game today. They are not an upgrade, in my eyes, but a sidegrade. Some people like them, some don't.

Shadowrun, for example, went more-or-less with the same system since its inception. It got improved, tweaked, at some parts simplified, but in essence, it remained the same and that is good, IMO. That it has a more rules-light, narrative version, Anarchy is a good thing too. Different people, different tastes.

The fact that PF is still the secondbiggest game, after 8 years and that 3.5 is pactically the third biggest, despite not being supported shows that a significant ammount of people like that kind of game, including me. So no, I don't want it to change profoundly, under the false pretense of "making it more modern", but I want it to be better in what it does.