|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
It actually attempts to FIX some of 3.5's inherent problems, instead of just duct-taping them over and saying that backwards compatibility is more important than a functional system.
YMMV on how successful those fixes were (I think they are largely better than Pathfinder's tweaks), but at least they made the attempt. It also gets some hate for having taken a few cues from 4e, which some here seem to view as the equivalent of child molestation.
AD&D lasted about 12 years, and only had 8 non-core setting-neutral releases...two of which were monster books. And AD&D was almost certainly the most popular RPG to ever be released. 1e didn't have many splats, but what it did offer was a metric f**!-ton of adventures.
It's worth noting that in less than half the time, Pathfinder has already far exceeded this. And that's not even counting the fact that Paizo's books tend to be quite a bit thicker than TSR's were.
Well, I have found that there is a 2e clone out there. I haven't read through it fully, but what I have skimmed is fairly close to faithful.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Or just keep releasing adventures without turning the system into a bloody mess.
Yeah. There are quite a few systems that release a (set of) core rulebook(s), and then only release adventures, setting books, or monster books. Some even quite successful, as well. Call of Cthulhu has mostly followed this strategy, and while of may not be as popular as Pathfinder, its hard to argue that it isn't a successful game in its own right. The Basic D&D editions followed this strategy as well. AD&D lasted about 12 years, and only had 8 non-core setting-neutral releases...two of which were monster books. And AD&D was almost certainly the most popular RPG to ever be released. 1e didn't have many splats, but what it did offer was a metric f%&%-ton of adventures.
Exactly. At-table options > away-from-table options.
I've kind of realized lately that Pathfinder (as well as it's predecessors 3.5 and 3.0) are really more of a character-building game with an ancillary fantasy RPG attached. Which some people are into...I can respect that (even if I don't quite understand it).
I personally prefer systems that get out of the way of the adventuring and the roleplaying.
Gods forbid! You mean characters might be able to both pick their nose AND scratch their ass as early as first level?
Obviously a broken system.
I don't actually hate Pathfinder. I'll even play it. But I do think it's overrated in general. And that's taken to an extreme on these forums...I'm pretty sure at least a few posters here hide the Core Rulebook under their covers at night while touching themselves. :P
I'm not actually a big 4e fan, either. Less of a fan of it than Pathfinder, to be honest. But man...some of the bile that gets spewed here about it is pretty disturbing.
And I have seen people whose entire tirades against 4e is based on them "ruining the Realms". I thought a Greenwood did that back in '87. :P
Doomed Hero wrote:
They've done that already, a couple of times. 3.0 to 3.5, and 3.5 to Pathfinder. There comes a time when it's more efficient to actually replace the pipes rather than slapping layer after layer after layer of duct tape on them to try and see if the leak can be held back for a few more days.
Got my PHB a couple of days ago. Haven't yet got a chance to do more than skim, but I will say one thing that I haven't really seen mentioned on these boards:
This book is absolutely gorgeous. Its rare in this hobby to find a book where the interior art even equals that of the cover. This book does the nigh-unimaginable...the interior art, on average, (in my less than humble opinion) is actually BETTER than the cover art. And the layout of that art and the accompanying text is brilliant. I don't know of a single other RPG book that I've seen that can compare. Hell, strike the "RPG" qualifier from that last sentence. This book is a work of art.
Let me offer an alternate solution. Just because you and he arent a good fit for RPGs together, that doesn't mean that either of you has to quit playing them. Just that of would probably be better if you didn't play them together. If someone else is willing to be a GM, then you could play with the group, minus your boyfriend; while he continues his game with the group minus you.
Stealth is still kind of clunky in the 3.5/PF era, which is why Paizo has the Stealth Playtest rules around for a revision/overhaul to the system.
Do you honestly believe that anything is ever going to come of a thread that lasted a month three years ago? That wasn't a play test, that was Paizo throwing something out there to quiet the criticism of how poorly written the Pathfinder stealth rules are for a little while.
This I don't agree with entirely. They aren't weak, but capitalizing on the brand going forward is going to be harder than many think, especially in non-tabletop game markets.
Non-tabletop environments know D&D as a bunch of computer games, a bunch of novels, and a board game that they play on Big Bang Theory. But before you sprain your arm patting yourself on the back for Paizo's victory, consider this: Non-tabletop environments know Pathfinder as an SUV.
DM says: What spells do you have memorised? Can I see them on your character sheet?
It seems to me that a lot of the problems people are expressing over 5e is based on them trying to play 5e exactly the same as if it were 3.x/PFRPG. It's not the same game, and you might have to adjust your expectations. The same as 3.x/PFRPG isn't the same game as 4e, and they play differently. And how neither 3.x/PFRPG or 4e are the same game as 0e/1e/2e/Basic D&D, and they all play differently.
If you can't handle a game not playing exactly the same as 3.x/PFRPG, my suggestion would be to stick to 3.x/PFRPG.
I like Golarion.
If you really want to give him haste, give him some Boots of Speed. Weapons usually don't have activated spell effects.
As for the time stop, the rules for calculating magic item cost don't seem to go below 1/day for frequency.
Its like I can physically SEE the over-emphasis on rules sapping away imagination and creativity.
I'm not sure I would ever use it as intended, but a lot of RPG books that I get I pull the stuff inside apart, throw the pieces on the table, do the same with a bunch of other books, and assemble all the "good bits" into some sort of Frankenstein-like abomination of awesomeness. The legendary levels books were a good source of "good bits".
Anyways: I don't agree with your opinion that 5e is "better". I do like a lot of things in the game, but the simplification went too far to keep me on board as being my "main" fantasy rpg.
You would really loathe my favorite game, Swords & Wizardry, as it's quite a lot less complicated than 5e. (I do, however, prefer the most structured of the three flavors of S&W).
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Pretty much. Except change "beers" to "the Cash necessary to continue to publish comic books".
Hope the cRPG is turn based. RTWP is the worst thing ever, especially when a turn based game's round mechanics are smashed into the square hole.
One of the reasons I would prefer the action game. I vastly prefer a game that is real-time to turn-based, but wading through a bunch of menus and sub-menus to activate the feat/ability/spell you want to cast sucks the fun out of a game for me. Especially if a monster is eating your face while you're doing so.
In high-level games prior to 3e, wizards were very powerful, but some of the ways they are most powerful in d20 games were an absolute joke. If your 20th level wizard cast a save-or-die spell against anything vaguely level-appropriate, then you got to watch the GM roll a 4, tell you it made the save, and then have your face eaten by said monster. If you went full-nova and exhausted all your spells, you didn't have them all back an hour after waking up the next day...you had to spend several days studying your spellbooks to fill up those slots again (10 minutes per spell level for every single spell...a single 9th level spell ate 1.5 hours of preparation time). You didn't max out Concentration so that it would be almost impossible to fizzle while casting a spell, you hoped none of the bad guys were packing 1 hp damage darts. You didn't auto-learn 2x whatever spell you wanted every time you leveled, you picked a single spell every time you got access to a new level of spells, you rolled to see if you could learn it, and if you failed, you moved down to your 2nd choice and repeated the process.
For all intents and purposes 4E was an entirly new game with the name D&D slapped on the cover. We had no interest in a NEW game. We wanted our current game upgraded and improved.
You realize that's exactly the same sentiment that many had when 3e came out, right? 4e wasn't the first time they had dumped virtually everything about the previous system.
To me, reading through the 5e Basic Rules, it seemed like D&D was actually back again after a 14 year absence. To me, 5e feels more like D&D than 3.0, 3.5, 4e, or Pathfinder ever managed.
I think it is the "combination of rules" design approach that is keeping pathfinder alive and the most popular table top rpg. Why are you playing it otherwise?
I think it's the fact that Paizo puts out adventures and a setting that are pretty good. Take Golarion and the APs away, and Pathfinder would have been just another one of the myriad d20 fantasy variants that nobody really gave a damn about.
As for why play it...some groups unfortunately seem resistant to change, or even trying out something new. Why play another game when we can just play Pathfinder?