Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

A Better Pathfinder First Edition vs. Better THAN Pathfinder First Edition (Patreon)

Published:
2026-06-28 12:07:17
Imported:
2026-11
Tags:

Content

I strongly believe that the market for a improved, revised version of Pathfinder First Edition is BIGGER than the market for a game built from Pathfinder First Edition, designed to be better than PF1.

A LOT of DESIGNERS want to build the second. I get it.

But I think success lays with the first.

Comments

Chris Mortika

This post makes sense to me, but as an end-user, I’m not sure the difference between the two doesn’t boil down to degree. A revised, improved game is going to, well, improve things. It might fix the mounted combat subsystem. At the table, the game is going to play differently, hopefully better. A game “built from PF1” should feel a lot like PF1. Same dice mechanics. Same spells, probably the same classes. The list of Feats might be different, but they’ll work the same way. There might be a clear demarcation from a developer perspective, but at the table, trying to track down the Red Mantis Assassin at the dinner party, I’m not sure I’d be able to tell the difference. Oh. Unless the designers of the “game built from PF1” decide to call it something else. I’d probably notice that.

Owen K.C. Stephens

There's also a practical element to it. A revised PF1 core rulebook should still work fine with the Advanced Player's Guide. A game built from PF1 might well not.

Brent A Strom

I think the difference is expectations of scope. "Built from PF1" sounds to me like it's going to have compatibility issues with legacy content. There's over a decade of PF1 content and having the market perception be that there might be problems with legacy content is a real hurdle because the success lies in the existing ecosystem. "Improved and revised PF1" sounds more marketable because its less ambitious sounding scope doesn't make me think that old adventure paths are going to become a mess to run. I feel hopeful that it's easier, in fact.

David Chart

Ars Magica Definitive Edition made $800k+ on its crowdfunding, and it was exactly that for Ars Magica Fifth Edition. I think you are almost certainly right. Glancing at your other post, however, ArMD is not shorter than ArM5…

Steelheartx

I was going to say what you said above. It's the classic story of people not wanting too much change. That and compatibility with what they own a lot of. The flip side is that new people looking for a game to start with may ignore anything "old" as you alluded to in your other article about your aging customer / PF1 base.

Steven Schend / Vistag Media

Honestly, I'd rather see a tightened and pruned 1E that clears away anything that didn't work upon reflection and streamline the game closer to its original intents, like you're doing here. Every edition shift has the tendency to have either power creep or it gets farther away from its original inception and core concept.

Ben Trieschmann

I agree, personally the ability to use older PF1/3.X is a major boon for me. Considering I have 20+ years of stuff for that edition/system.

Daniel Powell

Part of the market for a revision is that it would be backwards compatible with content that already exists. Another part of the market is for changes that would make existing content difficult to adapt. Those two market segments cannot be joined with each other.

Daryl

Agreed. Pelgrane's approach for 13th Age 2e was like the former and it really eased my going, "yeah, sure!" A "Whole System Unchained" type product is far more appealing to me than something with insufficient compatibility.

Twelveseal

I agree. I tend to use either PF1/3x or 5e (2014) for my projects. I've little interest in PF2. I love that there are still creators out there working with the PF1.

DM Sledge

I would love a revision that starts with the refinements of elephant in the room and goes from there. I enjoy the various alternative magic rules and I would love if it would support them, but it cannot be based on them. That would effectively eliminate any chance of success. There is one thing that would help with success. A GM and player friendly character generator. Start from there.

SheepishEidolon

IMO, Pathfinder Unchained showed that people are willing to accept revised content IF they clearly see the benefit. They will gladly take power upgrades (unchained rogue), guaranteed progress (automatic bonus progression) and new build options (variant multiclassing). Everything else seems to collect dust.

Lucus Palosaari

My 2 cp again (not the same comment as on Facebook!) I would want The Advanced Player Guide "content" (framework at least) "folded into" the PF1 Core Book. PF1 "wasn't really its own thing" till the Advanced Player Guide came out -- once it did, "the game opened up" in a way that made it not just "different from D&D 3.5" it made it "MORE" than just D&D 3.75 and showed the potential to both game players and game designers. I know you can't just stack a 576 page Core Book on top of a 336 page APG for 912+ pages of content and release it (even DriveThruRPG caps out at like ~800ish pages for good quality PoD) -- but "that's what a Revised Not-Done-With-Pathfinder Full Core Book" would need to do in my mind. And I assume you're NOT willing to "split it up" into Player's Guide + GMG+ type books What final-word-count are you hoping for?