Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2nd Edition

[Ralif Redhammer]

Pathfinder’s business model has always been “more of that thing you like.” While that model served them extremely well in its immediate launch, as the years have gone by, it has gotten awfully bloated and creaky.

A new edition would have to be extremely backwards compatible to the point that any changes would almost be incremental (less even than between 1e & 2e AD&D). And at that point, if it’s just minor tweaks, is it worth it?

For my part, if there was a Pathfinder 2e, I’d want something like Starfinder, which streamlined or got rid of a lot of the things I didn’t think were fun in Pathfinder. Personally, I’d also like something a lot more rules light, but that’s really not Pathfinder’s modus operandi.

I agree it needs an update, but is it a good idea from a business stand point? I strongly suspect Paizo has given the question some serious thought, and has good reasons to stay with the current edition for now.

First of all, creating a streamlined, more simplified version risks alienating their fan base, who are, for the most part, really happy with the game. PF fans may not be happy having their large collection of stuff become obsolete. A streamlined version puts Paizo in more direct competition with WOTC, who has the brand name. Even if Paizo created a superior product, it would be extremely difficult to compete with a thriving 5e.

 

[Igwilly]

It worked just fine in AD&D. Healing magic has always been optional, but encouraged.

As optional as the 2e proficiency system.

It is a title that they were burdened with after a certain point, and I think they could unburden themselves of it if they really tried.

Yes, but where is the fun on that? One of the reasons people buy splatbooks and such is for the fantasy kitchen-sinkery. They may complain about “bloat” as if it was from the Devil, but they buy it regardless. In addition, honestly, I think we have others games to provide “basic fantasy stuff” better than D&D.

 

[CapnZapp]

To me Pathfinder is excellent adventure support but a bloated mess of a rules system.

Please tell me they aren't planning to do what 3.5 did to 3.0

If they're smart, they vastly simplify the system. It's completely obvious that's where the customer interest lies.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

How many of you like plunking another $150 for another 3 main core rulebooks? I've got mine! I like playing 3.5 D&D too, I'd much rather they publish more adventures than more editions of their game, force you to learn new rules, but hey, if you like learning new rules, there is always 4th and 5th edition D&D. One of the things about Pathfinder that has attracted a lot of games is they don't like learning lots of new rules, if Pathfinder publishes 2nd Edition Pathfinder, there is no reason why people wouldn't decide they like 5th edition D&D better. The one reason to go to Pathfinder would be eliminated if they published new and very different rules. The first question to ask is why would it be better than 5th edition D&D?

I'll give you another example, how about the board game Monopoly? The rules for that have remained static, they haven't published new Rules for Monopoly, and first Edition AD&D was around for a very longtime, before they got into the habit of publishing new editions every few years. Lots of people like to play chess, and they don't want to learn new rules for chess, they have grown accustomed to the old rules. Mostly new rules don't do anything for me. I've gotten used to 3rd edition D&D, and I like Pathfinder the way it is because it is similar to 3rd edition. 4th and 5th Editions of D&D don't do anything for me. I have the 5th edition, and if anything, I might be tempted to translate 5th edition adventures into 3rd edition or Pathfinder. 4th edition is way too hard to do this, they changed too many things! I get my kicks out of playing the game, not learning new rules.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

As optional as the 2e proficiency system.

Which is to say, it is entirely optional in both theory and practice.

Yes, but where is the fun on that? One of the reasons people buy splatbooks and such is for the fantasy kitchen-sinkery.

Then they could release a sane core book, and slowly add in the insanity with the supplements. It worked for AD&D.

 

[TwoSix]

If they're smart, they vastly simplify the system. It's completely obvious that's where the customer interest lies.

I'm not necessarily sure. We're currently playing 5e, but I have several players in my group(s) who have expressed nostalgia for the complexity and depth of Pathfinder character generation. I can't imagine they're alone in that.

We've seen in the past that there has always been X% of the marketplace that prefers high complexity, high crunch games (and another portion that prefer it occasionally), and that's a market that's more difficult to serve by means of indie publishers. High complexity and high crunch favor more design time and greater design chops, which don't come as cheap.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not necessarily sure. We're currently playing 5e, but I have several players in my group(s) who have expressed nostalgia for the complexity and depth of Pathfinder character generation. I can't imagine they're alone in that.

Of course not. I could imagine myself playing Pathfinder.

What I can't imagine, however, is dungeonmastering it.

And that makes a world of difference. The era when DMs could be expected to spend hours creating a NPC that is dead within seconds once game start is over.

As long as every group needs a DM, going for simple is the sensible decision.

We've seen in the past that there has always been X% of the marketplace that prefers high complexity, high crunch games (and another portion that prefer it occasionally), and that's a market that's more difficult to serve by means of indie publishers. High complexity and high crunch favor more design time and greater design chops, which don't come as cheap.

If Paizo is content with, what, a fifth of the market share, but with five times as many designers on the payroll, sure.

 

[Arilyn]

Of course not. I could imagine myself playing Pathfinder.

What I can't imagine, however, is dungeonmastering it.

And that makes a world of difference. The era when DMs could be expected to spend hours creating a NPC that is dead within seconds once game start is over.

As long as every group needs a DM, going for simple is the sensible decision.


If Paizo is content with, what, a fifth of the market share, but with five times as many designers on the payroll, sure.

PF still has a strong base or Paizo would be going through drastic changes right now. Going head-to-head with WOTC is not going to work. I agree the rules need streamlining, but Paizo is not going to take the risk of alienating their players until the demand for a 2e warrants it. I don't think it's that time yet. When the time comes, the best bet for PF 2e, in my mind, is to vastly streamline the rules, while keeping in lots of options, especially for character creation. It's the options which appeal to PF fans, and what some 5e players are starting to miss. But yes, definitely keep the monster stat blocks small. It's those two page descriptions of abilities and strategies that drove me away from PF. Short stat blocks with interesting, versatile abilities are the way to go with monsters, like what 13th Age has done (my ubiquitous plug).

 

[TwoSix]

And that makes a world of difference. The era when DMs could be expected to spend hours creating a NPC that is dead within seconds once game start is over.

As long as every group needs a DM, going for simple is the sensible decision.

Sure. I think you can have a high crunch game on the player's side, and you can even feature a system where monsters and PCs can share and interchange features. But you need to give the DM some tools (featured tools, not buried in a back chapter of the DMG) to streamline NPC customization.

When I ran high-level Pathfinder, virtually all my enemies were powered up by customized templates, and never depended on feat or magic item integration. That way lies madness.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The era when DMs could be expected to spend hours creating a NPC that is dead within seconds once game start is over.

You don't need to spend more than few minutes to make an NPC in Pathfinder. You can build a human fighter and give them the obvious weapon specialization feats, or an elven wizard and only bother recording the prepared spells that you expect to be relevant to the encounter.

The problem with complexity in Pathfinder is entirely in the power creep. The GM feels obligated to spend hours making an NPC, because that's how long it takes to optimize a character to a sufficient degree that it's more than a speed bump for a group of PCs which themselves took several hours to optimize.

There's nothing wrong with making a million options available, as long as those options don't vastly alter the basic power level of the character. That's the sort of thing that would require an entirely new edition to fix, though.