I agree for the most part, the less change the less someone needs to relearn or adjust things in their campaign etc..
but i don't mind a little tweaking (currently it is quite a bit) to make it the PF RPG.
so yes, I would welcome some minor fixing to broken rules, game features and such, with a touch of paizo thrown in to make it their RPG
I didn't see a thread for this idea already, so I'll say it here: Paizo, please don't make ANY changes to the 3.5E rules set for the Pathfinder RPG. Seriously, none at all.
Well, tell that to WotC because 3.5 are no longer valid anyway. There is a new set of canon rules by the D&D brand owner. Paizo has to find its niche. For time being they stayed quite tuned on the 3.5 spirit. The main change is the skill point system which is simplified to avoid time consuming math, a long time irritant for many DMs.
The xp rules are changing because they have to. the srd did not contain any rules for character advancement. Paizo is looking ahead to a time when the 3.5 books are no longer available and people don't 'just know' how characters advance.
- Ashavan
I think the point of this is that even after Pathfinder RPG is released everyone should still be able to use their 3.5 SRD and 3.5 house mods with it with DMs mostly converting on the fly.
Those who want to use the Pathfinder RPG can. Those who use 3.5 and all it entails for them also can.
I have to disagree - sorry!
I think most people have some number of "house rules" that they use. Some more, some less. There are numerous areas of the game that could be improved upon. If everyone on these boards took the time to write up all of their suggestions - based on what works for them in their games - and the editors at Paizo distill it all down into one big, well-organized compilation - it would, in my opinion, be a HUGE success. Hopefully the final rules will be organized into modular sub-systems, so people can choose which parts they wish to use. So in your case, if you like 3.5 "as is", you can ignore the whole thing. I'm thinking of something along the lines of Unearthed Arcana (the book of optional rules) crossed with Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved (alternate PHB).
I think the point of this is that even after Pathfinder RPG is released everyone should still be able to use their 3.5 SRD and 3.5 house mods with it with DMs mostly converting on the fly.
Those who want to use the Pathfinder RPG can. Those who use 3.5 and all it entails for them also can.
I'm not sure that's true, though. While obviously all the 3.5 books in the world won't vanish when 4e comes out, it does seem likely that 3.5 books will be pulled from store shelves.
I'm just repeating what Paizo announced, that they intend for their system to be backwards compatible, meaning, as I understand it, that people who use their 3.5 books will still be able to play the APs and modules with little or no extra prep work. They do not need to buy the Pathfinder RPG. I believe Josh posted to this effect.
My post in no way touches on the continued purchase of 3.5 books and their availability.
Maybe a big compendium of house rules would be a success. I'm a huge fan of Monte's AE and Unearthed Arcana both and have plenty of my own house rules derived from both.
There are some great compilations of DM house rules linked on these threads. If you stick around and read you will eventually find them.
I am not even going to go into much of this thread. 3.75 is fine with me as I stopped playing 3.5, the important thing about Pathfinder RPG vs 4e is whether we will have to buy entirely new core books in 3-5 years ala 3.0 to 3.5 to 4.0
There needs to be a few changes, but even if nothing was changed that needed to be changes. Paizo would HAVE to change information that isn't in the SRD ala the XP Progression chart because legally they can NOT put the one from the 3.5 PHB in there as it is not part of the SRD.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hello, Jason. Hello, folks.
Here's my advice: if you're going to change a rule, make it a big change, and make it clear. Otherwise, keep the rules the same.
I'm intending to switch back and forth between D&D 3.5 (for my home game) and Pathfinder rules (for running Pathfinder Society adventures). I'm probably going to be playing the new Arcanis ruleset here and there, too.
And my Pathfinder drop-in players are going to be making in-game decisions based on their familiarity with 3.5.
What I don't want with Pathfinder is a whole lot of niggling little changes. When I say, "Oh yes, you're casting lightning bolt at the gnome rogue," I want it to either resolve the exact same way, or else I want it to resolve clearly differently.
'Cause I'm not going to remember which subtle variation of the rules I'm using. Heck, I may not have even noticed the subtle variation of the rules.
Imagine trying to jump back-and-forth between 3.0 and 3.5 rules. Everything's a little different, but there's too much that's only slightly tweaked.
Fix the broken stuff. But only the broken stuff. And things like racial modifers are probably not broken.
I think that it will come down to power level in the end for rule changes. Every d20 world has had its own tweaks, and as long as each change is consistent and does not alter the overall power level they should be fine. If one needs to change the name of the classes to the Pathfinder fighter or the pathfinder rogue that is fine, as long as the old rogue and fighter could still be relevent to the game (nothing is worse that finding that your old charaters are too overclassed to play the adventures anymore). Remember that the Pathfinder RPG is going to pretty much replace the old players handbook in 2-5 years so yeah eventually those rules will supersede the old ones but as long as each player in the game can mix and match the old and new and not feel totally left out the game is better for it. Options are good unless they effectively eliminate all that have come before them.
I didn't see a thread for this idea already, so I'll say it here: Paizo, please don't make ANY changes to the 3.5E rules set for the Pathfinder RPG. Seriously, none at all.
Why bother doing a product, especially a product that you know out of the gate has problems that can be fixed? I think people need to get over the idea of rules being set in stone 'cause it simply isn't going to happen. 3.5 already changed 3.0 rules and the world didn't end. 3.5 even in it's lifespan changed how actions work, they changed shapeshifting who knows how many times, they added new things, etc.
How do people deal with houseruled campaigns, then? If you sat down at my table, you'd have to learn new racial rules, combined skills, a new spell list for a couple classes, etc. Pathfinder is less radical than a lot of other setting/rules books I've seen, such as Midnight or Arcana Unearthed.
Well, part of the thing is, not everyone agrees on what the problems are. A lot of people like the skill system the way it is. Others think it's "broken" and like Paizo's "fix".
Some of Paizo's fixes seem to make things worse. Like giving more hit points to wizards (and spell powers), who are already a bit overpowered.
And indeed, those that think 3.5 has a lot of problems are the ones more likely to go to 4e... Pathfinder should be for those that like 3.5
Heck some of the changes almost seem ... I feel dirty saying this ... 4th editionish.
I am not too worried about changes to the class or races, I mean another elf subtype, who would notice. Yet changes to feats, skills, and combat are worrisome. I would suggest instead sticking with 3.5 rules for those, but offering variant rules if people wanted to use them.
Rather than say "Don't change a thing", I'd say "Change as little as possible". The skill system and feat modifications are almost brand new rules. Don't do that.
After all, if we're buying into whole new rules, you should've just upgraded to 4E.
I feel very passionately about this point.
I DO, however, like some of the simplifications you've done (acrobatics, perception, stealth) and the new flavor of the core races. Very well done.
I really dont see the change is skills as a huge change.sure you may have a few less but its the same as maxing most out it will be really easy to use in any 3.5 game its not as big a change as most folks seem to make out .its not a make or brake change like taking multiple attacks out would be.
There is something to what the OP says.
It's not that we don't appreciate the hard work Jason's done. Making these suggestions, after all, has spurred discussions on these boards in such a vibrant way.
(And gotten us away from the pro-4E / anti-4E discussions that went nowhere, I might add).
But truly, a Paizo-produced 3.5 book would be a welcome additon to my gaming library and gaming table.
If you must tackle something, skewer those problems that Jason identified in his introduction: grapple and polymorph, and leave it at that.
-- I would say that providing options: from alternative classes and races to interesting uses for skills and new feats -- were all what made Dragon magazine really cool. Taking that approach, and including options as sidebars and what, would really be neat, and make the PF Core Book a greater value than snatching up someone's old 3.5 book on ebay.
If you allready own the 3.5e core books, I don't see any problem with Pathfinder 3.75. I think the compatibility works both ways. You will be able to play 3.5e adventures with the PFRPG rules, and also you will be able to play Pathfinder adventures with the 3.5e rules.
Maybe you find some new feats in NPC stat blocks and the their skills are slightly off of what you could do with the skill point system, but that's all I see there. How you handle combat or classes is completely up to you.
though I would hate to see lerned skills for PCs, I think I would greatly prefer it against skill points for NPC creation.
Rather than say "Don't change a thing", I'd say "Change as little as possible". The skill system and feat modifications are almost brand new rules. Don't do that.
After all, if we're buying into whole new rules, you should've just upgraded to 4E.
I feel very passionately about this point.
I DO, however, like some of the simplifications you've done (acrobatics, perception, stealth) and the new flavor of the core races. Very well done.
I think this post pretty much mirrors my own feelings. Too much change from v.3.5 could both jeopardize backward compatibility and make Pathfinder feel much less like the game we've all been playing for the last seven years, neither of which strikes me as a good thing, particularly given the entire raison d'être of this project in the first place.
There are areas of v.3.5 that are outright broken or annoying (e.g. grappling) and there are areas that could certainly do with being simplified, but, overall, v.3.5 is a solid ruleset that needs tweaks more than it needs wholesale changes or the importation of entirely new rules to replace existing ones. If I wanted that, I'd just buy 4e.
None of this is to say I can't be convinced that certain things should be changed, but I'd need to hear some cogent arguments for them, more than "In my games ..." or "I've always hated the way Rule X works." Maybe it'd be useful if Jason came out and identified the areas he feels need fixing in v.3.5 and why. That might give these sorts of discussions some additional context beyond what we see in the Alpha.
|
I agree unnecessary changes are bad - the problem is what is a necessary change for one group might not be for another. On the other hand, assuming folks are playing 3.5 with no problems and so may not want changes is also valid, so I can see that point.
Minor things, like the Combat Maneuver Bonus and some skill consolidation doesn't bother me too much. Spells and Classes, I will have to dig into further.
I think Paizo will do the right thing in deciding what needs to be changed to make the Pathfinder RPG it's own product while not invalidating all our previous books.
-DM Jeff
I'd have to say I agree with the spirit of "change very little." I do think that wizards need some sort of consistent magical ability to draw upon, and I think the idea of it being school based is interesting, but I think the version as it stands needs work. I like simplifying clerics and eliminating the need for domain spells. I like the fighter, period.
But I do think that the combat feat system, as it is, goes to far.
I think rewriting the core races goes to far.
I like the consolidation of some skills, but I think the rewritten skill system goes to far.
I do like Erik Randall's XP system...
Fix broken spells, tweak feats like power attack without rewriting the feat rules in general, only fix the classes that need some fixing (Rangers are fine!), and focus on fixing complex combat situations -- your version of Grapple is already a vast improvement! That's what Pathfinder should be.
I'm not saying they are bad, but they really don't seem necessary.
There's the crux of it. One of the things (among many) that rubbed me the wrong way about 4e was that it changed many things that, frankly, didn't need changing. Some of the proposed changes in the Alpha are like this too. Was there a general consensus that v.3.5 races were problematic? Maybe there was and I missed it, but, with the exception of the half-orc, I can't recall anyone complaining much about the races' abilities. Given that, I'd make fewer changes than have been made thus far -- not because the Alpha's proposals are bad but because they seem unnecessary.
Was there a general consensus that v.3.5 races were problematic? Maybe there was and I missed it, but, with the exception of the half-orc, I can't recall anyone complaining much about the races' abilities.
Many were dissatisfied with both the half-elf and half-orc mechanically. The others, not so much, excepting individual tastes. I think the changes are an improvement but not strictly necessary.
|
I think the changes are an improvement but not strictly necessary.
Same here. It seems like most of the race changes were either to improve character power and hardiness (to counter the "15 minute adventuring day") or standardize (and balance tweak) the assigning of racial abilities. I don't really have a problem with this, so long as it doesn't get too crazy and they end up balanced against each other. I do like the bump in stat adjustments and the explicit naming of racial abilities, to pick a couple off the top of my head.
So, Alzrius, forgive me if I'm simplifying your statement, but your suggest to Paizo for Pathfinder is essentially not to do it at all?
|
|
I also disagree with the OP. 3.5 has some systemic problems that need to be fixed. On my first read through of Pathfinder Alpha I saw some of those problems addressed. My hope is that the fixes continue until Pathfinder becomes its own game - unique and distinguishable from 3.5 but not so far removed that older material cannot be used.
I would not but the Pathfinder RPG if it was just character generation and advancement rules tacked on to the existing 3.5 SRD.
|
|
I've only had a brief skim last night, but enough to see some changes.
The general impression is that the PCs have had a power boost, but I've yet to see if that translates to their enemies, too.
I'd be fine if the changes simply threw out or rewrote the badly-written classes, feats or spells, and reset some skill DCs.
I think some people are getting quite dizzy with the freedom of the 'open-playtest' idea, and are raiding their DM toybox for every house-rule they can find, regardless of whether it suits the tone of the setting or the spirit of the 3.5 rules. This will probably die down in a while, as we all start separating the ideas with merit from the ones which are just 'change for the sake of change', which, pardon me, but which I thought we had all spent the last 6 months railing against?
It's already got a varied XP progression,
This HAS to be changed. Not because it was broken, but because the old ones are not OGL (notice the absence of XP tables in the SRD). WotC owns 'em, so to publish your own, you need to make different ones.
I think the point of this is that even after Pathfinder RPG is released everyone should still be able to use their 3.5 SRD and 3.5 house mods with it with DMs mostly converting on the fly.
Those who want to use the Pathfinder RPG can. Those who use 3.5 and all it entails for them also can.
I really hope this is how it ends up, but I'm a little skeptical. I haven't read the alpha front-to-back, but the number of changes I've seen is rather disconcerting. If I have to "convert" a PRPG product to 3.5, then I may very well not purchase it.
Rather than say "Don't change a thing", I'd say "Change as little as possible".
My feelings, as well. Too much change defeats the purpose.
I also disagree with the OP. 3.5 has some systemic problems that need to be fixed.
Well, I would argue with the word "need". As someone posted, no set of rules is perfect. Paizo doesn't "need" to change the rules. They may want to, either to improve the game or to put their stamp on it, but they don't "need" to.
All IMHO, of course.
Greg
|
3.5 Books are going out of print. It would be nigh on impossible for Paizo to support their adventure modules when expecting new players to get the books required to play the game on Ebay. So, they need (obviously) to print out a new rulebook.
Now, they could just print out the SRD, slap on some Character Creation/Advancement rules and a few other needed things and call it a day. However, if they are printing a new rulebook, why not take the time to fix some of the issues that are commonly acknowledged as flaws in 3.5 Edition. I think fixing those flaws, tweaking certain aspects and doing other minor changes is a smart move, honestly. No sense just printing out the SRD!
Of course, these changes need to be well considered and not too major. Or else the vaunted compatibility is at risk. But really, while they are printing out a new rulebook, they may as well fix some of the issues.
While I definitely think some areas need radical changes like the grappling and turning, a definitely agree that less is more.
On the one hand, I don't simply want a reprint of the SRD, on the other change for changes sake is rarely good. It is definitely a fine line to walk, but I trust Paizo's staff to find the right balance.
The beauty of their approach is everyone can put in their two cents and at least be heard. Some of the house rules people suggest might be real gems. Likewise, if the new fixes create other problems or go too far the creators might not catch it because they are too intimately involved in the process...a forest for the trees dilemma. By allowing all of us participate, Paizo is more likely to avoid that pit fall as well.
The biggest challenge is going to be sorting through all of the input. Good luck with that
|
|
I was thrown by some of the alpha material as well. I can bear a lot of change in the system. I found the Book of Experimental Might very interesting, for instance. But the difference lies in intent. If you are looking for total backward compatibility then making some of the changes proposed in this document does not support that decision.
I know this is just an alpha playtest but I am frankly quite surprised how wide reaching some these changes can be. Turn Undead, Skills, Combat Feats and School/Domain powers really affect the way NPC combatants act. I don't think you can just take an adventure off the shelf and run it as easily the rules would like you to believe. Those adventures were designed with certain assumptions in mind. By changing those assumptions you make it difficult to run an effective adventure from the seat of your pants.
I support change so long as that change serves a purpose and fixes some common issues (CMB for instance). I can even support changes for other reasons that do not invalidate the assumptions made by previous designers or prevent DMs from easily utilizing 3.5 adventures off the shelf (most of the racial changes for instance). I have enough d20 derivatives. Changing every aspect of the system places the PFRPG firmly in the "derivative" category and out of the "legacy" category.
Now let's say you are another 3rd party gaming company. You are currently making products for 3.5. These products can be played by anyone that knows the 3.5 system. Now you hear that Paizo is going to have a 3.5 system so that groups who stick with 3.5 can continue to get material. You think, "Great! We can keep producing the type of products we are known for."
Then you learn that Paizo is not staying with 3.5, but using a derivative system, like True20 or Conan or Everquest or whatever. Now Paizo claims that it will be easy to convert, but you know that one of the big complaints of 3.5 was it was TOO much work to give an orc 5 levels of warrior.
Now how likely is it that you think that people playing your products will want to play Paizo's system? Or the people playing Paizo's system will want to play your products? Not very I would think. Seems in that case you should convert to another system, either Paizo's or probably more likely to 4th edition D&D.
One of the ways I started applying the Alpha rules was to go through my homebrew "rogue's gallery" and start modifying it. The racial changed weren't too extensive and I actually enjoyed doing them. In fact, the player of a half-orc in my campaign is greatly rejoicing.
The skill changes weren't too terrible to do and in some ways a little simpler. But even as a DM designing NPCs I didn't like the loss of the freeform skill point system.
Then we get to feats. The changes to core feats like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Cleave, etc. are just plain awful. I'm sorry Jason, but this was one area that simply didn't need to be meddled with. I'm flat out not going to be using it. It changes combat dynamics to drastically and throws out things my players and I love.
Example: when down to very low hit points and starting to get desperate, our Friendly Local Barbarian did a full power attack (7 points with a greataxe). When he rolled a natural 20, the whole group erupted in awe and glee. He killed the bad guy with one mighty blow and saved the day.
I'm not sure I see that happening with the new Power Attack.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the need to have a currently printed rule book on the shelf. How are you going to even maintain a customer base if they can't go buy a replacement for their PHB when the binding of the current one falls apart? And you aren't going to get any new customers if they can't buy their first book.
But if too many changes are made, and they require you to purchase the new book, well, then you're splitting your fan base, yet again.
Let's face it, right now the potential exists to attract everyone who is in the "I will not play 4e" crowd. However, if they make significant changes, they are marginalizing out those of us in the "because I don't want to buy new core rule books" crowd. Now we may be in the minority of the minority, but I'm pretty sure there are a few of us.
If they make significant changes to the rule, then they have a small chance of me continuing to buy PF material after Aug '09. If they don't change 3.5e and go with a completed SRD (because I know some stuff is missing - like XP progression) then they'd pretty much guarantee that I will buy material after Aug '09.
If I have to buy new core rule books, then you can bet I'm going to give 4e a closer look than if I don't have to.
Greg
I'm going to throw my support behind "change as little as you possibly can." If I'm going to stick with Pathfinder, it's going to be because I can use my library with NO prep.
When I was younger, I'd spend hours prepping for a game. Now, I just grab my pre-bought material and go. From what I've seen thus far, Pathfinder Alpha doesn't allow me to do that. Some things work:
Skills: It needs some tweaking, but this can be backward compatible. If the published supplement has the skill in the stat blot, it's trained. I can go with that.
Racial and Class Upgrades: Compatibility flies out the window here. There are so many 3.5 classes that Paizo can't fix that it's impossible to balance all of this. My current group consists of a Scout, a Monte Cook bard, a Warmage, a Warlock, and a Paladin. If I go to Pathfinder, the paladin is going to be buffed up while the others will be stuck in 3.5 (or I'll have to upgrade all of them, which I'm not going to do). These changes play havoc with the 3.5 stat blocks.
Feat Changes: I'm not sure about compatibility, but the combat feats are way too complex.
Grapple, Sunder, etc: These changes are good. They simplify things while at the same time don't affect the 3.5 stat blocks.
It's already got a varied XP progression,This HAS to be changed. Not because it was broken, but because the old ones are not OGL (notice the absence of XP tables in the SRD). WotC owns 'em, so to publish your own, you need to make different ones.
Now that's weird...the Lone Wolf OGL game has the standard XP tables in its core book...just checked. Hmmmm... 8o
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Guys,
Your concerns are very much understood. A lot of what we plan to change is in the "undercarriage" of the system, and shouldn't affect stat blocks and adventures all that much. The intent is that you can run our stuff with _either_ system.
Every once in a while you will hit something that doesn't quite work the same way. A 5th-level fighter might have slightly different powers in the PRPG than in 3.5, but his stat block will look familiar and you should have everything you need to run him in your 3.5 campaign.
There will likely be some "on the fly" conversion issues similar to running a 3.0 adventure with 3.5, but we're aiming for as much backward-compatibility as we can.
I urge you to stay involved in the open playtest process. Speak out when a rule goes "too far," and we will strongly consider that input. Right now this is a living document that will change SEVERAL times before we get to the final version in August 2009.
And until that happens we absolutely will be publishing "straight" 3.5 with no changes to the system.
|
|
I urge you to stay involved in the open playtest process. Speak out when a rule goes "too far," and we will strongly consider that input. Right now this is a living document that will change SEVERAL times before we get to the final version in August 2009.
This is the key! Unlike other approaches, Paizo is encouraging us to play with their ideas, submit our own ideas, and communicate with each other.
This is an open playtest.
This is a revolution.
This is Paizo!
Guys,
Your concerns are very much understood.
...And this is why I like supporting you guys. Thanks Erik, I appreciate your listening. Unfortunately, I won't be able to help out in the playtest. I need every spare free moment to prep for my 3.5e game using published material, I don't have time to prep a playtest game. This is why I would like 3.5 compatibility as much as possible. The less I have to do to "convert" the adventures, the more time I have to just make the ones I have fun for my players.
Thanks for listening. I know you'll end up doing what you feel is best for your company. But I think I speak for others when I say being left behind twice in a 12-month period can be rather depressing. :-)
Greg
|
|
I am all for changes and adjustments to make the game better.
Everything looks good except the skills.
Combining skills is great but the system is broken.
It is the big bang skill system I tak a skill at 10th level and bang I have a 13!
I expect everyone to take a rogue level to get eight skills that will stay maxed (when compared to 3.5).
What is wrong with the old system and ecreasing Rouges starting points (in part because many skills are combined and to stop the 1st level in Rouge to get gobs of spell points) and giving Rouges extra skill points at level incriments. That way they are still skill monkeys but not front loaded as they are now in 3.5
|
|
I'm going to throw my support behind "change as little as you possibly can." If I'm going to stick with Pathfinder, it's going to be because I can use my library with NO prep.
When I was younger, I'd spend hours prepping for a game. Now, I just grab my pre-bought material and go. From what I've seen thus far, Pathfinder Alpha doesn't allow me to do that. Some things work:
Skills: It needs some tweaking, but this can be backward compatible. If the published supplement has the skill in the stat blot, it's trained. I can go with that.
Racial and Class Upgrades: Compatibility flies out the window here. There are so many 3.5 classes that Paizo can't fix that it's impossible to balance all of this. My current group consists of a Scout, a Monte Cook bard, a Warmage, a Warlock, and a Paladin. If I go to Pathfinder, the paladin is going to be buffed up while the others will be stuck in 3.5 (or I'll have to upgrade all of them, which I'm not going to do). These changes play havoc with the 3.5 stat blocks.
Feat Changes: I'm not sure about compatibility, but the combat feats are way too complex.
I agree about the feats Power attack seems too weak now. How about being able to shift up to 1/2 your BAB and 2 handed weapons do 1.5 that in damage?
Also the shield feat (forget name) to keep you AC when bashing seems like a lot of changing AC in 1 combat confusing both player and DM.
Grapple, Sunder, etc: These changes are good. They simplify things while at the same time don't affect the 3.5 stat blocks.
I'd like to add another voice to the "change as much as necessary but as little as possible" chorus. Basically because one of the big draws will be 3.5 compatibility, and it would be a damn sad sight to see Pathfinder OGL simply as another OGL D&D variant among many due to too many changes.
Now personally, I don't mind. I don't have many problems adjusting stuff "on the fly", or simply play as it is with a new system and not bother about the characters being a bit stronger. I love different OGL variants for D&D for the different solutions and inspirations they provide, and this is the reason why I'm going to buy Pathfinder once it comes out as well. I love some of the things I've seen in Alpha (the Domains/Schools stuff is interesting, and I love a shortened skill list), I don't care much for other stuff (skill choices instead of skill points). All in all, I think Pathfinder will be an interesting and invigorating project that will hopefully catch enough traction to make it into the long haul.
But for that, it should aim to fulfill one of its basic promises...keep all the 3.5E stuff people have and want to use viable and easy to use. :)