Coming in spring of 2015.

New product to allow Pathfinder to be run without regard fr backward compatibility.

Contains new monk, rogue, barbarian, and summoner classes.

This is not Pathfinder II, not it's not, honest...

Quote from: jadrax;765130Coming in spring of 2015.

New product to allow Pathfinder to be run without regard fr backward compatibility.

Contains new monk, rogue, barbarian, and summoner classes.

This is not Pathfinder II, not it's not, honest...

Yeah right. Let the battle commence.

Interesting move.

As a PF player, I'm looking forward to the changes. But I wonder if our group won't be playing 5e by the time the book ships.

Also, they might piss off some of the 3.x traditionalists.

I still think they should have gone head to head with 5e, with a PF 2.

Sounds interesting, definitely.  But then I'd be in favour of a Pathfinder 2.0.

Didn't they just wrap up a book offering new classes that function as described?  Rogues without backwards compatibility, etc?

I was honestly hoping to see a 5e-compatible 'unchaining'.

And here I was hoping for a Django sequel featuring Frémont battling slavers in Missouri.

In response to people's questions they're saying that you can kind of see it as Unearthed Arcana for Pathfinder, which would be the logical and sensible intermediary step before coming out with a second edition; may as well test-drive some ideas and get a handle on what proportion of your player base is eager to drop backward compatibility for the sake of rules innovations and what proportion will walk away if you deviate from the 3.5.5 model...

I'm a bit puzzled. I wouldn't call normal Pathfinder 'backward compatible' anyway. I do use 3.5 stuff with PF, but there's usually some rework involved in transposing characters. Monks being full BAB instead of 3/4 doesn't cross any obvious lines in the sand that I can see, particularly given that PF monks already get an attack bonus equal to level when flurrying. And summoner doesn't even have an equivalent in core 3.5.

There is a very vocal, very annoying section of the fanbase that whine endlessly that the monk and rogue are useless classes, so I'm guessing that it's throwing them a bone. I can't imagine at this point, with Pathfinder being it's own thing, that backwards compatibility is much of an issue.

Good. It needs fixing. Let's hope they look at systems like Fantasy Craft as a way to better re-balance things.

It is not a neutral step.  I suspect that it might be a move towards letting Pathfinder develop it's own niche.  In a lot of ways, it is the modern equivalent to Rolemaster, as compared to Basic D&D/AD&D in the early 1980's.  

I think it might have a very promising future as the complex and character optimization alternative to D&D 5E (which, as a modular game, might well end up as less complex but also played in a thousand different flavors).  

I love the idea of 2 400 lb gorillas, each providing a good home for people who like that style of game.  Even though I subscribe to Pathfinder, I think 5E might be a lot of what I am looking for.  But I live having well designed and supported options (with a robust OSR to leave a place for the experimental and interesting designs).

[And in an unrelated note, I wonder if Dark Albion will have 5E compatibility??]

Quote from: Votan;765854[And in an unrelated note, I wonder if Dark Albion will have 5E compatibility??]

No comment, yet.

Well, except that 5e is so easily compatible into an OSR-type game that there's no question at all that as it stands, someone would be able to take the Dark Albion book once it's published, and run it with 5e, no problem.