Quote from: JeremyR;1094724Was 2e the longest lasting edition? 1e went from 77 to 89. 2e went from 89 to 2000. Though there was some overlap between 1e and 2e, with 1e staying in print until 1990

I would probably put my vote towards 1e.  The end of 2e was kinda just waiting for 3e to be released.

Interesting thoughts on D&D 6E and I have to say that for me a lot of this is a matter of perception. Just for fun, I did some internet searches and found this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons

It suggests the following start dates: 1974 OD&D, 1977 AD&D, 1989 2E, 2000 3E, 2008 4E, 2014 5E. The article doesn't suggest an "end date" which ties into JeremyR's thoughts about the end of 1E.

Using those start dates as a guide, we get: OE = 3 years, 1E = 12 years, 2E = 11 years, 3E = 8 years, 4E = 6 years, 5E = 5+ years. I always felt like AD&D was mostly a re-organization of OD&D, and 0E+1E gives us 15 years. 2E also felt a lot like a re-package rather than a full revision, and 0E+1E+2E gives us 26 years. I suspect that's why to me the "old school" seems to have such longevity and the "new school" starting with 3E does not. (Comparing 26 with 8, 6, and 5+ seems very different than the 3,12,11,8,6,5+ sequence.)

Of other interest (to me, at least) is the longevity of the "classic" D&D line which goes from Basic (1977) through B/X (1981) and BECMI (1983), RC (1991), and Classic (1994) before essentially dying in 2000. Taken in parts the numbers become 4, 2, 8, 3, and 6 years but I think many would argue that many of these "editions" were essentially repackaging of the same game. To me, at least, Basic -> B/X -> BECMI -> RC felt more like growth than edition change and those iterations of the game add up to 17 years of the 23 year run for the rules system.

So, if you make the case that "D&D" (all of the versions) ran for 23 years and "AD&D" (0E+1E+2E) ran 26 years, then it's easy to conclude that the newer editions keep changing constantly. There is certainly an illusion of old school stability. "D&D" and "AD&D" are pretty similar to one another and share common roots. 3E is clearly different from either "D&D" or "AD&D." 4E is nothing like 3E. 5E is nothing like 4E.

I suspect that the 5E -> 6E move will be more of reorganization than of total overhaul, much like either of the two old school product lines. I know that 2E had multiple covers (regular and the black border ones) which felt very different to me, but no one classifies them as new "editions" and the transition from 5E to 6E may be a similar one.

I have no idea where I'm going with this. I just started typing as I was thinking....

Quote from: kythri;1094723Every yeard, Baizuo has managed to sell out of whatever book they bring and introduce at Gencon.  I'm predicting that they're going to be packing a bunch of PF2E back to Washington this year.

Baizuo.

What a perfect name. I noticed the PF2E example on their blog included choosing personal pronouns as a (minor) step in character creation. So woke.

More on topic, PF2E does look interesting but, frankly, I don't trust the Baizuo team to deliver well-designed rules. To that end, I can't imagine WotC finding much from the PF2E rules once they're released that might inspire design choices during 6E. However, I am sure they will follow the business model Baizuo uses for PF2E and see what lessons they can draw from that, much like PF1E seems to have inspired the choice by WotC to focus on major adventure paths as a primary product offering (albeit in single book format).

Quote from: Scrivener of Doom;1094729I don't trust the Baizuo team to deliver well-designed rules.

The real problem is that we don't know what they can or cannot do, as their main rules set was just a copy of 3.5E D&D. They have never had to build a rules set from scratch, and we have no idea what they will end up with.

In my honest opinion not really.

PF 2E came about because of how well received6E was in by the fans. If Wotc had never released 5E then Paizo would still be publishing 1E.

I think the core book will sell well at Gencon yet not as well as Paizo wants it too. As unlike the first time the Paizo 1E core was released fans are not angry and unhappy with the official version of D&D being produced at the time.

For myself I have gotten over the truly insulting two page "were fully woke" SJW manifesto at the beginning of the book and wanted to give PF 2e an honest chance and found what I read my own enthusiasm...lacking.

It is also not helped tha much of what is going into PF 2E can be found in the 1E sourcebook called Pathfinder unchained. It is not 100% copy of the material just enough for myself to not want to purchase. To give one an idea how long ago they began working on PF 2E Pathfinder Unchained was released 2015.

As well I finally reached a point in my hobby that I no longer see or feel the need to constantly change the edition I am playing. 3E was the edition that brought me back to playing D&D and it was different enough to warrant buying the books. At the time I also single and less responsibilities. Being Canadian the books even on Amazon cost more and I can't justify the expense.

Now if I see reviews either online or talking to fellow players or actually playing of the 2E either by joining or on Youtube and Pf 2E and it is positive and I can no longer find plays for PF 1E in my neck of the woods I might switch over and sell off my 1E PF collection. Otherwise I will remain with Pf 1E.

From what I can see custom-ability of characters still remains and for example rather than an Alchemist be given a bunch of starting class abilities. Every X amount of levels one can choose a new class ability. So the Alchemist could start out being really could at making alchemical items and not necessarily be able to throw their trademark bomb. One can still pick up that ability as they progress in levels. I just found too many of the racial abilites very lacking too many +1 style racial feats. Maybe +1 is a big thing in Pf 2E. In first it was really poor class design by the devs.

Another thing which will hurt their chances of more fans switching over is that HeroLab rather than being a pay once for what you need and you are good model is going to a fully online model with a monthly subscription. Which to myself and my players is also a big reason to not switch over to PF 2E. I like tabletop rpgs just not enough to want to pay a monthly subscription to use a character generator. Oh well back to paper, pen and pencil then. I have to say ashamed of some of the people I play with. I get the complaint about paying the monthly subscription you think one asked them to cut off their nutsack with a rusty blunt butter knife at the news of having to write out their characters on paper. Don't quote me on this yet from what I heard on another gaming forum Paizo will also no longer have a free SRD to reference online. Being replaced possibly by the Archives of Nethys. I tried to look it up online and could find nothing. Then again on that end I truly do not blame them. As they lost many book sales because players used exclusively their free SRd. From a moral standpoint a great thing to do for gamers. Financially as a company offering free access to rules is a sure way to lose sales. Spare me "if people use the free stuff online they will buy the books later on". No...no they won't they will keep using the free SRD.

To make a long post even longer I'm not giving PF 2e a definite no and I don't think it will have any to very little impact on 6E. As I have mentioned above one of the main reasons PF 2E  was because 5E was taking away their market share and fans away from Pathfinder 1E and Paizo. Will fans return yes and no. Yes because some may buy it anyway and many of the changes do speed up play though probably not enough that Paizo would like. Mostly no because even with the changes the Paizo devs are still too afraid and stubborn (mostly stubborn) to get rid of many sacred cows to their rpg. Many players switched over to playing 5E because many classes shackled by alignment restrictions had them removed. Of course a DM in 5E can play with Paladins being Lawful Good yet it is not official part of 5E. And you guessed it Paladins still have to be LG in PF 2E. They say they will release books with more alignment options later which is meaningless if the core still has the same restrictions. So I think many who are happy with PF 1E flaws and all and switched over to 5E will probably remain with those versions of rpg. It is also not helped that with Pf 2E to myself at least it feels too little too late.

Quote from: finarvyn;1094711I've played a little bit of Pathfinder, but not too much. I've followed discussions about Pathfinder 2E but haven't read the playtest rules personally. That being said, however, my impression is that they are changing things enough that many of the 1E players may not be so happy. Remember that Pathfinder was designed originally to keep 3.5E alive and and I assume that the main Pathfinder players chose that edition because they liked 3.5E, so it seems highly likely to me that any edition change will be traumatic for those players and they will not want to switch. They didn't switch for D&D 4E and so I believe they won't want to switch for Pathfinder 2E.

Our group was hardcore 3.5 and then PF with a little bit of 5e mixed in.

We are now playing 4e.

I personally see no reason to play Paizo's attempt at 4e when that edition is complete and better designed.

To be fair though Pf 2E does not come across in a way shape or form imo as 4E. I can respect not liking Pf 2E it is not in away shape or form D&D 4E.

Whether we like it or not Pathfinder like D&D 2E needed a kick in the pants as Paizo was losing out profit, fans and market share to 5E.

Paizo needed something new rather than another second recycled, rehash of 3.5.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1094734Our group was hardcore 3.5 and then PF with a little bit of 5e mixed in.

We are now playing 4e.

I personally see no reason to play Paizo's attempt at 4e when that edition is complete and better designed.

Not to mention, a brilliant set of free (cough, cough) offline tools for character creation, monster building, and looking up every rules-related piece of information ever published.

Quote from: finarvyn;1094730The real problem is that we don't know what they can or cannot do, as their main rules set was just a copy of 3.5E D&D. They have never had to build a rules set from scratch, and we have no idea what they will end up with.

But even there we see their piss-poor design skills at work as they not only failed to solve any of 3.5E's well-known problems, but every time they put together new rules (beginning, IIRC, with the kingdom building rules in Kingmaker) they completely Gygaxed it: When something should have been simple, it was made complicated, and when something needed a bit more complication, it was dumbed down.

None of that matters, of course, because you can choose your own pronouns in PF2E....

"Choose your own pronouns" ///////////

They are "leaning forward".

Quote from: Chris24601;1094715Not really.

... my prediction is that we'll see a 6e released in 2024 ...

Well you were like an OK devil's advocate. Except at the part where you agreed that we're 5 years out from a new version of D&D. I agree with your prediction. :-P

Quote from: trechriron;1094779Well you were like an OK devil's advocate. Except at the part where you agreed that we're 5 years out from a new version of D&D. I agree with your prediction. :-P

I will be perfectly fine with that timeline.  No criticism whatsoever.  I will be a little surprised, but not disappointed.

It would definitely give the impression that PF2E didn't matter to WOTC.  By then, PF2E would probably take a downturn, and make WOTC look even better.

Quote from: trechriron;1094779Well you were like an OK devil's advocate. Except at the part where you agreed that we're 5 years out from a new version of D&D. I agree with your prediction. :-P

My point though is that editions don't just magically appear overnight. All evidence from WotC is that design work starts around three years before the edition actually releases.

That means the events of 2021 are what 6e's design team are going to bring to the table (ex. the immediate aftermath of the 2020 elections and whether the SJWs are taking a victory lap or whether President Trump's reelection has sent them spiraling even further into the gibbering jaws of madness).

Two years from now (not five) is just enough time for the full ramifications of PF2E to have shaken out, but still immediate enough that it's failure (or, for some reason probably proving the existence of Hell, success) will be on the minds of people inside the industry.

That's why I suggested that based on the development timeline for 2024, PF2E would have an influence... even if it's only what NOT to do.

By 2024, maybe they'll be on PF3E.

Does there need to be a 6e?

Given the slow trickle of actual 5e content, it seems to me that they may be trying for the evergreen thing. There's basically no supplement treadmill, people seem to still be picking up the core books... 5e has minimal mechanics, so it's not like there are glaring rules issues that need to be addressed with a new edition (that I'm aware of, at any rate).

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1094798Does there need to be a 6e?

Given the slow trickle of actual 5e content, it seems to me that they may be trying for the evergreen thing. There's basically no supplement treadmill, people seem to still be picking up the core books... 5e has minimal mechanics, so it's not like there are glaring rules issues that need to be addressed with a new edition (that I'm aware of, at any rate).

D&D6E will eventually happen, just to sell more core rulebooks; once the sales of the 5E core rulebooks finally drops off.