I was interested in this because it was setting out to continue 3.5. Since I'm not enamored with 4e, I was intriqued and thought that perhaps this was a product that I could continue using our groups investment layout in 3.5 materials.
For an alpha, I was really impressed by the content, formatting, etc. It reads like a lot of work was done on this and I was favorably impressed.
However, I kept coming back to the following which was one of the first things I read...
"This is the first of a number of Alpha releases to culminate
in a standalone rules set. Right now, this release
gives you the basics of the system that, when combined
with the 3.5 rules, allows you to begin play immediately."
Yet, thats not really true. There are way too many changes to the core 3.5 (whether you like them or not... and some of them I do like) that unbalance the two games and now means a lot of conversion work. This was sure a turn-off after all the mentioning of 3.5. If I had tons of time it wouldn't be such a big deal but its not really something I want to invest in.
A couple of things I'd like to further comment on, without putting small individual posts in multiple sections. And mostly just general high-level stuff.
First, if you are making such changes to the 3.5 system, why be as stingy on the skills? Maybe its too much M&M and other systems, but I was never really a fan of 'minimalistic #s of skills'. Allow characters to be more diverse.
Why isn't Perception a class skill for all classes? All the classes are "adventuring" classes, and what more useful skill is there than Perception? Fighter has to be able to determine formations in war, spot the enemy, etc. Same with cleric, noticing those undead creaping up, etc. To me this was always one of the biggest issues I had with the 3.X skill system in that it really hampered character classes that had limited skills to begin with.
Along with the above, there is a fundamental difference in the skill system now, so why not strip away the whole notion of 'cross-class' skills. Rather, why not have 'specialized skills' instead that only certain class(es) may have access to and let everyone be able to chose from the rest of the general skills. Allows again more diverse characters doing different things.
As far as classes overall. Again, we've changed their power structure, so a 3.5 fighter is not necessarily directly compatible with a Pathfinder fighter. Not necessarily a bad thing. In a way you gave more choice to the fighter, you also seem to have also given all classes more options from 1st through 20th.
But at the same time, with the Rogue, you kept the hamstring job with the 'sneak attack'. Why not have made that a "rogue talent" instead? Not all rogues are thieves or backstabbers, why force them into a specific role? Much like it'd be nice to see more choices with a cleric too.
Perhaps alternate class examples could be outlined; something akin to the alternate classes they did up in the Unearthed Arcana. Or at least more extensive guidelines on how to modify classes to better suit individual character ideas. Like not penalizing a player because he wants to play a wizard that isn't ever able to get a familiar.
Speaking of class changes, I have always wondered why the Ranger can't have trapsense too? Can't he be dealing with deadfalls, snares, etc. that can be considered traps? Perhaps his trap-sense only works in the outdoors.
Lastly, I do like the look and feel and general layout and format of the Pathfinder RPG alpha. Artwork is great, and I like the fact that it has a common artistic styles rather than a hodgepodge of different styles. It is also lighter and feels more appealing than a darker treatment.
About formatting, as much as the PDF is nice, it would be nice to have a stripped down version also that prints well or is just a rules compedium.
Recent Posts
