|
An interesting post on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Trailblazer, Fantasycraft, Fantasy Concepts, and E6
After spending a couple of years playing 3.5 I was quite happy to hear when 4E was announced. While I've really enjoyed 3.5 there seemed to be a lot of things that could have been fixed, but with the system almost completely matured, it didn't look like it was going to be happening anytime soon by WotC.
During the buildup to 4E our group was playing a lot of Star Wars Saga Edition, and everyone was having a great time with it. Saga edition was quietly being used as a kind of test bed for mechanics and ideas for 4E. Later on designers of 4E mentioned in blogs and forum posts that Saga was in a lot of ways a snapshot of where 4E was in its early design phase.
So as 4E approach all of us were quite excited about the release, and we slurped up all the little previews and I even incorporated some of the preview rules into my Saga game. We shared a common idea of, "Finally, 3.5 is going to be fixed, it's going to be a fantasy Saga system and it's going to be awesome!"
As it turned out, 4E design went well past the Saga system in overhauling the game and unfortunately for a lot of us in the gaming group it went too far. For many of us 4E ended up not being the game for us, including myself.
So over the last year I've been paying a lot of attention to what I'm now calling the "Inheritors of 3.5", several different systems that are staying within the gravity well of 3.5, but which are making significant revisions. I figured that after all of the reading and review I've done I might as well give an overview for the local gaming community.
An interesting post on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Trailblazer, Fantasycraft, Fantasy Concepts, and E6
Interesting, although it was written 10 months ago. Has Trailblazer come out with anything new since then?
I've never even heard of Fantasy Concepts.
|
|
An interesting post on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Trailblazer, Fantasycraft, Fantasy Concepts, and E6Interesting, although it was written 10 months ago. Has Trailblazer come out with anything new since then?
Print copy's available. Last I heard, Trailblazer publisher Badaxe was working on a bestiary.
I've never even heard of Fantasy Concepts.
Over at lulu in either pdf or print formats.
|
An interesting post on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Trailblazer, Fantasycraft, Fantasy Concepts, and E6Interesting, although it was written 10 months ago. Has Trailblazer come out with anything new since then?Print copy's available. Last I heard, Trailblazer publisher Badaxe was working on a bestiary.
I got the Free Preview PDF way back. It seemed like they wanted to take 3.5/PRPG more in the direction of 4E and that really turned me off. How is the final product?
|
|
I got the Free Preview PDF way back. It seemed like they wanted to take 3.5/PRPG more in the direction of 4E and that really turned me off. How is the final product?
Print copy's available. Last I heard, Trailblazer publisher Badaxe was working on a bestiary.
Can't remember what was in the preview pdf. :-(
Can't remember what was in the preview pdf. :-(
I assume he's referring to the idea that some spells can be recovered after a short rest (i.e. "encounter" spells vs. "daily" spells).
Some of the ideas in Trailblazer I thought were all right, but there were some real duds in there (IMO).
|
|
Can't remember what was in the preview pdf. :-(I assume he's referring to the idea that some spells can be recovered after a short rest (i.e. "encounter" spells vs. "daily" spells).
Some of the ideas in Trailblazer I thought were all right, but there were some real duds in there (IMO).
That was the big one that was addressed in the free PDF.
Other 'areas of concern' that were mentioned that caused me to suspect '4E' type fixes were:
Healing is a chore for clerics; they’d rather be doing something else with their actions and their spells.
Spell prep and spell list management takes too much time.
Players’ turns take too long to resolve; combat is no fun when you spend most of your time waiting for your turn.
The 1-2-1 movement rules for moving diagonally on the grid are hard
to remember.Iterative attacks slow down combat.
Now, obviously there are multiple ways that these could be addressed, but the wording here and the reasons given for some 4E changes I didn't like were too similar for me and I backed away from the final product.
|
I would love to see a true 4th edition that stays closer to 3.5 that D&D 4e but makes more radical changes than Pathfinder did, but it also must have the market profile to make it likely that I will be able to find players for it (so while FantasyCraft may be what I want for all I know, the fact that I do not see it being played at conventions or in local groups means it wouldn't do for me).
4e is a good game and quite different to 3.5 but it is lacking some stuff from 3.5 that I liked - I almost want a mash up of the two.
Maybe when Pathfinder gets a second edition (and hopefully also becomes less tied in with the Pathfinder setting) it will have enough major changes to make it worth my while pursuing it.
Of course, D&D 5th edition may be coming around the same time and that may do the job too!
I assume he's referring to the idea that some spells can be recovered after a short rest (i.e. "encounter" spells vs. "daily" spells).
Care to elaborate on that? How does their spell recovery mechanic work?
Care to elaborate on that? How does their spell recovery mechanic work?I assume he's referring to the idea that some spells can be recovered after a short rest (i.e. "encounter" spells vs. "daily" spells).
What I said above is everything I remember about it. :-)
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Maybe when Pathfinder gets a second edition (and hopefully also becomes less tied in with the Pathfinder setting) it will have enough major changes to make it worth my while pursuing it.
Wait, whut?
How are the rules tied into the Pathfinder setting? Other than the list of gods in the cleric section we tried to make the game as widely applicable as possible.
|
|
Maybe when Pathfinder gets a second edition (and hopefully also becomes less tied in with the Pathfinder setting) it will have enough major changes to make it worth my while pursuing it.
Wait, whut?
How are the rules tied into the Pathfinder setting? Other than the list of gods in the cleric section we tried to make the game as widely applicable as possible.
Adding also that now the spells are not named means, ignoring the Deities, it's the most generic "D&D-like" game based on 3e D&D you can get I would have thought. We play without using any Pathfinder setting material and find we have to modify exactly zero for our home brew.
Pathfinder RPG isn't perfect but it addresses many issues that made 3.5e almost (and I say almost) unplayable at high level.
S.
Pathfinder RPG isn't perfect but it addresses many issues that made 3.5e almost (and I say almost) unplayable at high level.
People keep saying that but I just don't see it. How was the linear fighter/quadratic wizard problem solved in PF?
|
|
Maybe when Pathfinder gets a second edition (and hopefully also becomes less tied in with the Pathfinder setting) it will have enough major changes to make it worth my while pursuing it.
Wait, whut?
How are the rules tied into the Pathfinder setting? Other than the list of gods in the cleric section we tried to make the game as widely applicable as possible.
Well obviously the Pathfinder RPG rules are very closely tied to the Pathfinder Chronicles setting. I mean after all, they both have the same name, and these ‘iconic’ folk keep turning up in the artwork for both ranges. That must be what Digital Mage is getting at.
|
|
Well obviously the Pathfinder RPG rules are very closely tied to the Pathfinder Chronicles setting. I mean after all, they both have the same name, and these ‘iconic’ folk keep turning up in the artwork for both ranges. That must be what Digital Mage is getting at.
Maybe when Pathfinder gets a second edition (and hopefully also becomes less tied in with the Pathfinder setting) it will have enough major changes to make it worth my while pursuing it.
Wait, whut?
How are the rules tied into the Pathfinder setting? Other than the list of gods in the cleric section we tried to make the game as widely applicable as possible.
Yes, it is not that the rules are tied to the setting (other than the deities in the corebook) but rather the idea that the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and the Pathfinder Chronicles Setting are perhaps perceived to be more tied in with one another than D&D is to its settings (especially with D&D4e where a setting gets only a couple of books and other supplements are setting generic).
The Pathfinder Player Companions also include new rules, equipment and feats in with setting information as well. So again the seperation of RPG and setting is not as great as it perhaps could be.
Maybe if and when Paizo release one or two other settings for the Pathfinder RPG (perhaps renaming the Pathfinder Chronicles setting to World of Golarion or something) and releasing Adventure Paths for those settings that perception will change.
As it is, for someone not that bothered about the Golarion setting, Pathfinder RPG loses a lot of its appeal. TBH I sometimes wish I loved Golarion as I would likely have embraced Pathfinder and still be playing with my old roleplaying group who now seem to be playing exclusively PF, PF Adventure Paths. Instead I favour Eberron, and as the Pathfinder RPG seems to have taken the thunder out of 3.5, I have pursued 4e as it supports my preferred setting.
In summary, if Pathfinder had been produced by WotC and thus would have got an Eberron setting for it, I may have gone PF. Setting has chosen which game I pursue, and while PF is still so close to 3.5 I can still use 3.5 to play Eberron.
|
But any crunch in Golarion products is geared towards Golarion, not other settings. Not to mention APG, which is full of settingless crunch.
Your point kinda fails at logic, because apparently the fact that there were tons of FR crunch back in the 3.5 era wasn't a problem for you as an Eberron player, and now the fact that there is Golarion crunch does.
Perhaps actually reading the Core Rulebook and finding no Golarion elements would help. Heck, there are people out there who attack PFRPG on the basis that it is a copypasta of 3.5 core rules.
The RPG and the Campaign Setting share a brand name, because Paizo are fully aware that what killed TSR was having bazillion settings competing with each other.
|
|
But any crunch in Golarion products is geared towards Golarion, not other settings. Not to mention APG, which is full of settingless crunch.
Your point kinda fails at logic, because apparently the fact that there were tons of FR crunch back in the 3.5 era wasn't a problem for you as an Eberron player, and now the fact that there is Golarion crunch does.
Well, as for logic failing - I was talking about perceptions, perceptions which may or may not be true. For example, having never read any of the Player Companions I didn't know that it is all Golarion specific crunch (and even then is it really all stuff that would be out of place in other settings?)
As for 3.5 era - Eberron had plenty of crunch books as well as FR getting its own crunch, plus there were loads of non-setting crunch books (e.g. the Complete books), so the FR crunch books didn't seem to be all there was for 3.5 in terms of crunch supplements.
Maybe when Paizo have pumped out more "core" Pathfinder RPG products (as opposed to Pathfinder Adventure Paths, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Campaign Setting books and Pathfinder Player Companions) then the perception may change.
But for the moment the vast majority of Pathfinder RPG books are tied to the Golarion setting, and from a player persepctive there is no Pathfinder RPG book other than the core rulebook that is not setting specific (the Advanced Players Guide will be the second book next month).
Perhaps actually reading the Core Rulebook and finding no Golarion elements would help.
I haven't read the Pathfinder Core Rulebook I admit (I have referenced bits but could never be bothered to read it cover to cover) but I didn't imply that the RPG core rulebook was intimately tied to the Golarion setting; indeed in my previous post I actually stated "...it is not that the rules are tied to the setting (other than the deities in the corebook)..."
Heck, there are people out there who attack PFRPG on the basis that it is a copypasta of 3.5 core rules.
Originally I was hoping that PF would be just that, then we would all be one big happy family with 3.5 PHBs and PF core rulebooks being used interchangeably :)
The RPG and the Campaign Setting share a brand name, because Paizo are fully aware that what killed TSR was having bazillion settings competing with each other.
If that is indeed the reason, and Paizo only want to support one setting themselves under a single brand name, then that can only lend to the idea that the Pathfinder RPG is tied to the Pathfinder setting (whether that is right or wrong).
|
|
The reason for majority of Paizo books being Golarion related is rather simple - when WotC announced 4ed Paizo was unsure which system they will use. Hence, most of products were crunch-light - it would not make much point to make a Complete Book of Fighter Feats in 2007/2008, when the fate of 3.5 was still unknown.
Then it became clear that WotC has signed off the 3.5 and 4ed is not an option for a whole host of reason, and then the development of PFRPG began. And since the game is out for not even a year, the development cycle of settingless stuff has only begun.
We have APG now and Ultimate Magic coming next year, with Ultimate Martial book hinted at. So settingless crunch is slowly coming around.
One of the design goals of PFRPG is exactly to replace the 3.5 PHB/DMG. You can swap out the core rulebook and use your whole 3.5 Eberron library without much trouble.
|
|
The reason for majority of Paizo books being Golarion related is rather simple [...]And since the game is out for not even a year, the development cycle of settingless stuff has only begun.
We have APG now and Ultimate Magic coming next year, with Ultimate Martial book hinted at. So settingless crunch is slowly coming around.
Yep, I can quite agree with you. This area of discussion started when I made the comment "Maybe when Pathfinder gets a second edition (and hopefully also becomes less tied in with the Pathfinder setting)" - and by the time a 2nd ed Pathfinder comes along I imagine there will be plenty of non-setting specific crunch books available and so it will be perceived as less tied to the Golarion setting (I hope so).
One of the design goals of PFRPG is exactly to replace the 3.5 PHB/DMG.
Replace it in the sense of supercede it, yes. Replace it in the sense of being able to use it instead of a 3.5 PHB in a seamless manner - not so; I wouldn't bring a PF corerulebook to a 3.5 game or vice versa.
You can swap out the core rulebook and use your whole 3.5 Eberron library without much trouble.
For me personally? I would disagree, the conversion needed*, not to mention having to read and learn all the Pathfinder "tweaks", isn't worth the gains for me.
Instead, converting to FATE would probably be more likely worth the effort. I will be reading Legends of Anglerre (a fantasy implementation of FATE) anyway as it is something I am enthused about, and provide something I don't already have (a FATE magic system) and conversions to FATE are so simple with Aspects, it is probably easier than converting 3.5 to PF, e.g. writing "Razorclaw Shifter" as an Aspect on a character sheet is probably all I need to do to convert the Shifter race!
Hopefully, when PF 2nd Ed comes out and more radical changes are made the gains of moving from 3.5 will be greater, great enough to make the conversion of 3.5 and / or 4e Eberron material worth it. Also by that time PF will have proved itself (or not) in the RPG market and got a large player base, possibly enough to come close to D&D.
*I have seen enough threads asking for help converting 3.5 material to Pathfinder including the Artificer class, and just this week the Eberron clerical domains, that I don't imagine it will be as simple as all that.
|
|
People keep saying that but I just don't see it. How was the linear fighter/quadratic wizard problem solved in PF?
Pathfinder RPG isn't perfect but it addresses many issues that made 3.5e almost (and I say almost) unplayable at high level.
It wasn't the wizards that knackered our HL 3.5e games it was the clerics and druids...
Backwards compatibility. :PPeople keep saying that but I just don't see it. How was the linear fighter/quadratic wizard problem solved in PF?
Pathfinder RPG isn't perfect but it addresses many issues that made 3.5e almost (and I say almost) unplayable at high level.
Ok, so it's not. :) That was also my impression.
It wasn't the wizards that knackered our HL 3.5e games it was the clerics and druids...
That's not what I experienced. CoDZilla are a problem in low- to mid-level games, where they just show all the melee classes how they cannot possible play on equal footing, but after level 10 or so, there's just no way anybody could keep up with a wizard that doesn't limit himself massively.
Obviously, in practice (actual play) most people tone themselves down to a group-compatible level, but even then... =/
|
|
I was talking about perceptions, perceptions which may or may not be true. For example, having never read any of the Player Companions I didn't know that it is all Golarion specific crunch (and even then is it really all stuff that would be out of place in other settings?)
Interestingly, the latest Paizo store blog talks about the latest Pathfinder Player Companion, Orcs of Golarion. This blog boasts that this product gives "the tools you need to make full orc PCs".
Now it occurs to me that this is exactly the type of product that makes the Pathfinder RPG tied to the Golarion Setting - rules for playing orcs as a PC race would be extremely useful in settings other than Golarion I am sure - indeed for Eberron it would be great as the Orcs are not just barbarians (indeed the Gatekeepers have protected Khorvaire from menaces from other planes for millenia). Yet Paizo have decided to place these rules in a Golarion specific product, rather than under the general RPG line of products.
I am not saying this was a mistake, indeed it could be considered a very clever business move as customers not familiar with Golarion may buy this product and get interested in the setting.
However, hopefully Paizo have also recognised that they are going to make it appear that the RPG line is tied in with the setting, and as such other customers may actually be turned away from the RPG line because they have no interest in the setting (just like some people wouldn't buy Shadowrun for the rules because they don't like magic in their cyberpunk, even though you could easily use the Shadowrun ruleset to run a completely non-magic cyberpunk game in another setting).
So good luck to Paizo - hopefully the strategy will work for them.
However, hopefully Paizo have also recognised that they are going to make it appear that the RPG line is tied in with the setting, and as such other customers may actually be turned away from the RPG line because they have no interest in the setting.
So good luck to Paizo - hopefully the strategy will work for them.
Wow you are being a bit glass half empty... When I had time and I was much younger I home-brewed my worlds. I still bought Greyhawk and FR setting specific material. I took the rules I liked and stuck them where I saw fit.
For me the Orcs of G would be an example of how to fit Orcs into my world - I would take what I wanted and discard any of the background and history (I hate the word fluff) that didn't fit with mine.
The way the guide books are written it is easy to separate the world from the rules.
I understand your arguments and where you are coming from, but I find your stance rather inflexible and non adaptive.
Paizo is doing something that people like and they are doing very well out of it.
As a business model, Paizo's bread-and-butter is the AP line and supporting products. Iirc, the whole reason they made Pathfinder rules in the first place was so they could keep on making adventures in Golarion. This may or may not change depending on the success of the RPG line going forward, but the continuation of the business depends on selling adventures every month, not on selling a hardcover twice a year. Paizo is first & foremost an adventure company, not a rulebook company, just as they were before the announcement of 4e. Hence, the emphasis on Golarion to sell the Adventure Paths and keep their monthly income.
|
|
Wow you are being a bit glass half empty...
I like to think of myself as giving an outsider's perspective or playing devil's advocate :)
The way the guide books are written it is easy to separate the world from the rules.
I have no doubt that you are correct, but that doesn't diminish the fact that the Pathfinder RPG and the Golarion Setting are more intertwined than D&D3.5 (andD&D4e for that matter) was to Eberron or Forgotten Realms.
Indeed, if I was only interested in the PF RPG line I may not even consider looking at Players Companions because they are described as setting material:
Pathfinder Player Companion supplements give players the edge to survive the dangers of the Pathfinder world. Each bi-monthly sourcebook provides an in-depth look at one aspect of Golarion [...]
Hopefully Paizo will get more custom doing it their way than they put off by mixing setting fluff and generic crunch.
I understand your arguments and where you are coming from, but I find your stance rather inflexible and non adaptive.
My stance is inflexible I guess, but that has come after much trying out of Pathfinder the RPG and the setting of Golarion (buying the Pathfinder Gazateer, buying PF core book in PDF and hardcopy, playing in a Rise of the Runelords PF RPG campaign using Beta and the final version, playing in a FR campaign that converted from 3.5 to PF, and running PFS sceanrios in season zero).
After all that I made the decision that Pathfinder is not for me - for now at least. But as I stated in my original post on this thread I may be able to be enticed back for a second edition of Pathfinder if it includes more radical changes and breaks its ties to Golarion.
So while I may not be interested in the Pathfinder RPG (1st ed) and Golarion setting I am still interested in finding out what Paizo are up to, I still buy products like flip mats and campaign map packs, and I still enjoy following threads on these forums - both for 3.5, 4e and also some PF threads that also have some relation to 3.5.
Paizo is doing something that people like and they are doing very well out of it.
And I have wished them luck on that, just pointed out why some people may not like it as much.
Anyway, on with the thread! :)
Maybe when Pathfinder gets a second edition (and hopefully also becomes less tied in with the Pathfinder setting) it will have enough major changes to make it worth my while pursuing it.
How could PFRPG get LESS tied into the setting? When you mention the Player's Companions, for example that is a setting book, not an PFRPG rule book.
|
|
This may or may not change depending on the success of the RPG line going forward
I don't think the overall emphasis will change, but I do think Paizo are now seeing the RPG line as a revenue earner in and of itself, rather than just a facilitator for their adventure and setting material (otherwise why go through the effort to change 3.5, rather than just reprint it with just some clarifications?)
Hence, the emphasis on Golarion to sell the Adventure Paths and keep their monthly income.
That's cool and a good business model, just not one that appeals to me; and the only reason I care about that (I was never a consumer of the APs) is that the Pathfinder RPG is resulting in less interest in D&D3.5 in my gaming circles.
And while I am pursuing 4e to try to retain some of the D&D network externalities, it isn't a perfect system IMHO either, and so I am still hoping that eventually we will get something that is a step change from 3.5 but avoids some of the issues I have with 4e and still retains the popularity that D&D and Pathfinder seem to have garnered. Maybe Pathfinder 2nd ed will be that game, or maybe D&D 5e will be, maybe neither will be.
|
|
How could PFRPG get LESS tied into the setting? When you mention the Player's Companions, for example that is a setting book, not an PFRPG rule book.
See my previous post about the latest Pathfinder Players Companion, Orcs of Golarion. Basically, ensure any mechanical crunch in those "setting books" are setting specific, and not soomething that may be of use in multiple settings.
Or at least re-print the mechanics in a book in the RPG line, so that if I want to have rules for orcs as a PC race in my Eberron game I don't need to buy a setting book for Golarion.
Wouldn't a mostly setting neutral book*, continue to support the actual AP? I mean, isn't that the purpose of a setting neutral book, to be usable in any setting, including the official one? And in fact it could draw people in that otherwise might not have been interested.
For example, I was never interested in running official settings. But since I purchased many standard 3.5 D&D materials, I started to branch out and eventually purchased some FR specific materials, even though I still don't run the FR.
*Mostly neutral would mean that something like 90% of the material is setting neutral, but there are 10% that refers to how the material could work for a specific setting, much like what you found in the MM4 in 3.5.
Basically, ensure any mechanical crunch in those "setting books" are setting specific, and not soomething that may be of use in multiple settings.
I don't understand what this means. Even the Eberron books never did this in the 3.x era (and were never reprinted anywhere else). Weird.
|
|
Wouldn't a mostly setting neutral book*, continue to support the actual AP?
[...]
*Mostly neutral would mean that something like 90% of the material is setting neutral, but there are 10% that refers to how the material could work for a specific setting, much like what you found in the MM4 in 3.5.
Yeah, that would work, the D&D3.5 book Races of the Dragon for example introduced the Dragon Born race and had a sidebar about adapting them for use in Eberron (to fit in with the deities and cosmology therein) - it took up a quarter of page.
And following my last post, maybe there is a market for Paizo to do a crunch compendium - taking all the feats, equipments, races etc from the Golarion setting books that might be useful in other settings, and collating them into a single crunch heavy book.
It may not be a very frequent book (perhaps publish one every other year) but it might be useful, and could be used to update for errata and / or update for material first published for 3.5.
|
|
I don't understand what this means. Even the Eberron books never did this in the 3.x era (and were never reprinted anywhere else). Weird.
I am not suggesting that WotC are the perfect role model of what I am suggesting!!! :) At least not in the 3.5 era.
But even then whilst some of the crunch in some Eberron 3.5 books may have been useful in other settings, WotC still put out a lot of non-setting crunch books (the Complete Series etc).
And even then, they did put out Races of Eberron, a book that was branded as a regular D&D book in the "Races of" line rather than an Eberron book (it does look odd sitting next to all my other Eberron books). This book reprinted the rules and descriptions of the races from Eberron in a book devoid of the large majority of the setting material in the Campaign Guide. Cunningly it also added more racial feats for those races so it appealed to both Eberron players and people who didn't play Eberron but wanted to use those races in other settings.
In 4e WotC are following this even more so - settings get only a couple of books, all the other books are meant for use in any setting. For example WotC put rules for the Shifter race (originally introduced in the Eberron setting in 3.5) in PHB2.
The Warforged did remain in a 4e Eberron specific book (because they are so iconic of that setting) but even then the Warforged received a write up in the first 4e Monster Manual and in the appendix there were limited rules to play them as a PC race.
So in summary, rules for playing orcs (which are not Golarion specific) as a PC race would IMHO ideally be in a book for the Pathfinder RPG line, whereas Pathfinder Player Companion books (tied to the Golarion setting) would list feats like Cheliax Contacts, weapons like the Varisina Starknife and Prestige Classes like Pathfinder Venture Captain.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Interesting. I think that's probably true about the outside perception of Pathfinder, and something of a necessary evil when you have a single setting tied to a rules set. If Paizo were to publish an entirely new campaign world using the Pathfinder rules, that might help to dispel the notion that the rules are completely intertwined with the setting. Of course,a new campaign world would also come with a host of disadvantages (splitting the market, taking away Paizo's staff attention from their core product line, etc), so I don't think we're likely to see it happen.
I still hold out hope that Paizo will someday publish a few single volume stand-alone campaign settings. I'd love the Paizo-esque version of Spelljammer, or Dark Sun set on one of the other worlds, or even a Ravenloft type demi-plane. I wouldn't want them to launch an entire new campaign setting, but a single volume (or maybe two, with one being a bestiary) could be cool.
I suppose part of this is that I don't understand the mindset that a campaign setting, once published, must be published now and forever. Long running campaign settings have a host of problems, not the least of which is the fact that you need an entry point for new players, and that frequently results in a reboot. I think it's great to have a single ongoing campaign setting, but I also think that there's room for a short sequence of campaign setting books - something that could be published in a finite number of volumes over a finite period of time.
And following my last post, maybe there is a market for Paizo to do a crunch compendium - taking all the feats, equipments, races etc from the Golarion setting books that might be useful in other settings, and collating them into a single crunch heavy book.
It may not be a very frequent book (perhaps publish one every other year) but it might be useful, and could be used to update for errata and / or update for material first published for 3.5.
Given the fact that Paizo releases pretty much all of their mechanics as Open Gaming Content, in theory pretty much anybody can do this. (And have - check out Archives of Nethys, for example.)
|
|
Given the fact that Paizo releases pretty much all of their mechanics as Open Gaming Content, in theory pretty much anybody can do this. (And have - check out Archives of Nethys, for example.)
I didn't realise Paizo were so open with their content, wow! It would be nice to get that sort of stuff available in PDF or Print on Demand if not a proper printing.
I've never even looked at the details on the official setting, but I've been able to use everything in the Core books for my campaign without any adaptation (beyond a different list of gods). Pathfinder NEEDS to put out setting specific books so that they are supporting the setting. They also need to put out non-setting specific books such as Advanced Players Guide.
Honestly I think they have a very good mix of both.
@Digital Mage
3.0 and 3.5 had a default setting, it was Greyhawk. (Deities example)
Only Paizo's CORE Line is mostly setting neutral. (sans Deities, and the Pathfinder PrC)
Wizards is very aggressive in their marketing, just look at the number of Settings they have, and they release 3-4 harbacks monthly...
|
|
Honestly I think they have a very good mix of both.
I think its getting there, from a player perspective there are only two books in the core line at the moment (Core Rulebook and Advanced Players Guide), for the GM there are 3 more (Bestiary, Bonus Bestiary & GameMastery Guide). With time I am sure that will grow, but for now the setting-free stuff is only a small number of the books with the Pathfinder label on them.
As stated when it comes to 2nd ed, PF will probably be perceivced more as a generic fantasy system than it is perhaps now by some people.
3.0 and 3.5 had a default setting, it was Greyhawk. (Deities example)
Yep, though that was it, and thats why I don't see an issue with the Golarion deities being in the corerulebook for PF, I just see them as example deities.
|
|
DigitalMage, what I don't get is you say Pathfinder hasn't gone far enough from 3.5, and it's too much work to convert or adapt 3rd edition material...yet you say you've not even read the Core Rulebook. The first two seem somewhat contradictory but how can either of them stand in relation to the 3rd point?
|
|
Stuff
You realize you are comparing a product line that has been around for 35 years and one that is less than 5 years old, right? When TSR started they had Greyhawk and that was it untill FR stuff started coming out in the late eighties.
Paizo will come up with different settings and variant PF games, I'm sure. But don't expect them to jump into it before they are ready too.
DigitalMage, what I don't get is you say Pathfinder hasn't gone far enough from 3.5, and it's too much work to convert or adapt 3rd edition material...yet you say you've not even read the Core Rulebook. The first two seem somewhat contradictory but how can either of them stand in relation to the 3rd point?
I don't believe he said he hasn't read any of it, just that he hasn't read all of it. I believe few people have read the entire book cover to cover.
|
|
DigitalMage, what I don't get is you say Pathfinder hasn't gone far enough from 3.5, and it's too much work to convert or adapt 3rd edition material...yet you say you've not even read the Core Rulebook. The first two seem somewhat contradictory but how can either of them stand in relation to the 3rd point?I don't believe he said he has read any of it, just that he has read all of it. I believe few people have read the entire book cover to cover.
He said he hasn't read the book but has referenced bits of it. Eh, only reason I mentioned it was that those points together puzzled me. Was more of a logic problem to me than a gripe or challenge to DM from me.
DigitalMage, what I don't get is you say Pathfinder hasn't gone far enough from 3.5, and it's too much work to convert or adapt 3rd edition material...yet you say you've not even read the Core Rulebook. The first two seem somewhat contradictory but how can either of them stand in relation to the 3rd point?I don't believe he said he hasn't read any of it, just that he hasn't read all of it. I believe few people have read the entire book cover to cover.
I know I haven't...I need to but I just don't have that much time to dedicate...I peruse things, then when I'm gaming I might have to look up a rule...but I'm a learn through doing kind of person...
He said he hasn't read the book but has referenced bits of it. Eh, only reason I mentioned it was that those points together puzzled me. Was more of a logic problem to me than a gripe or challenge to DM from me.DigitalMage, what I don't get is you say Pathfinder hasn't gone far enough from 3.5, and it's too much work to convert or adapt 3rd edition material...yet you say you've not even read the Core Rulebook. The first two seem somewhat contradictory but how can either of them stand in relation to the 3rd point?I don't believe he said he hasn't read any of it, just that he hasn't read all of it. I believe few people have read the entire book cover to cover.
There really is not a logic problem though. PF is different enough from 3.5 to require adjustments, a bunch of minor adjustments can add up to a large annoyance. On the other hand, PF didn't change enough to "fix" the "fundamental problems" with 3.5, and thus for many it is not worth switching to. Forcing minute changes but not fixing the problems does not give much benefit for some people, I believe that D.M. is one of those people.
@Digital Mage
3.0 and 3.5 had a default setting, it was Greyhawk. (Deities example)
Only Paizo's CORE Line is mostly setting neutral. (sans Deities, and the Pathfinder PrC)
Exactly. Going to the Companion books as an example is like me saying I have to do some adapting to be able to use the Faerun Player's book in my home world. Of course, because that is setting material, unlike the rule books.
I think Tessius is also having trouble understanding in the same way I am.
|
|
There really is not a logic problem though. PF is different enough from 3.5 to require adjustments, a bunch of minor adjustments can add up to a large annoyance. On the other hand, PF didn't change enough to "fix" the "fundamental problems" with 3.5, and thus for many it is not worth switching to. Forcing minute changes but not fixing the problems does not give much benefit for some people, I believe that D.M. is one of those people.
Yeah, it's better to stick to 3.5 with Use Rope and Paladins that can miss with their 1 daily smite. :)
On a slightly more serious tangent: I don't get the "Pathfinder = Failfinder" people. It takes one look at the design goals (a.k.a introduction) to PFRPG to see that the game was never about "fixing" the "fundamental problems". If you want a revolution - well, there's Fantasycraft or the 4.5venture. If you want an evolution - there's Pathfinder.
There really is not a logic problem though. PF is different enough from 3.5 to require adjustments, a bunch of minor adjustments can add up to a large annoyance. On the other hand, PF didn't change enough to "fix" the "fundamental problems" with 3.5, and thus for many it is not worth switching to. Forcing minute changes but not fixing the problems does not give much benefit for some people, I believe that D.M. is one of those people.Yeah, it's better to stick to 3.5 with Use Rope and Paladins that can miss with their 1 daily smite. :)
If the trade off is having to repurchase all new core books, and have to relearn a bunch of minute differences, it very may well be better to stick with 3.5. It is what me and my groups have done. Pathfinder's benefits just didn't cover the negatives for the people I game with. For other people, the different issues may be such that they would like to move to PF.
Hell, I've said before and I will say it again, if I was starting as a brand new player, I would go with PF. The issues I have with it are more because of the burdens I carry (invested incredible amounts of time and money* into 3.5) and just not seeing a huge need for a change (I am fine with gimpy paladins and use rope skills). I didn't see the need to drop the system when 4e came out, and I still don't see the need with PF out.
On a slightly more serious tangent: I don't get the "Pathfinder = Failfinder" people. It takes one look at the design goals (a.k.a introduction) to PFRPG to see that the game was never about "fixing" the "fundamental problems". If you want a revolution - well, there's Fantasycraft or the 4.5venture. If you want an evolution - there's Pathfinder.
I don't really see the issue either. Though, I don't know if I would call it an "evolution", merely a change. It is just another derived system, like Conan, True20, Iron Kingdoms, and any number of other ones. Each of those is just as much an "evolution" as PF is.
EDIT:*The funny thing is, once I learned about Paizo, about 1-1/2 years before the abandonment of 3.5, I increased my 3.5(& 3e) materials by about 200%. This is through the purchase of multiple years of Dungeon and Dragon magazines, 4 APs, several PF modules, and not to mention the large numbers of 3PP products that were (and some still are) on sale here at Paizo.com. So if I hadn't learned about Paizo until now, I probably would be more likely to trade up to PF, then I am now. Paizo helped me to reinforce my desire to stick with 3.5, ironically.
|
|
DigitalMage, what I don't get is you say Pathfinder hasn't gone far enough from 3.5, and it's too much work to convert or adapt 3rd edition material...yet you say you've not even read the Core Rulebook. The first two seem somewhat contradictory but how can either of them stand in relation to the 3rd point?
Okay re the first two comments, the changes have been enough that some conversion is needed (and also I would need to re-read the entire book and make notes to learn all the little tweaks that have been made), but the changes aren't big enough to provide enough benefit to me that it would make that effort worth it.
Basically I would have been happy with either Pathfinder making no changes to the 3.5 rules (just re-wording them to provide greater clarity and ease of reference), or Pathfinder being a major overhaul of the 3.5 rules that streamlines a lot of stuff. As it is its a halfway house IMHO, that has the worst of both worlds for me.
As for my not reading the book, as Pres Man has already pointed out, I have not read it cover to cover (and I do read every RPG book I buy cover to cover when I get round to it, which I why so much is unread) but I have read the sections I needed to play in a game and have noted a lot of little rules that could trip me up if I had just assumed it played like 3.5 (e.g. grappling now no longer means you lose your Dex Bonus to defence, but instead means you take a -4 penalty to Dex, so Sneak Attacking a foe grappling your ally is no longer possible without flanking etc).
You realize you are comparing a product line that has been around for 35 years and one that is less than 5 years old, right? When TSR started they had Greyhawk and that was it untill FR stuff started coming out in the late eighties.
Paizo will come up with different settings and variant PF games, I'm sure. But don't expect them to jump into it before they are ready too.
Well, I was specifically talking about the D&D3.x range of books, but yes I agree, which is why I was suggesting when 2nd Ed Pathfinder comes round Paizo will have maybe had the time to do all that.
Yeah, it's better to stick to 3.5 with Use Rope and Paladins that can miss with their 1 daily smite. :)
:) But again, as Pres Man has already stated sometimes its a case of "Better the Devil You Know".
TBH, I never played a 3.5 game above level 6 I think so I haven't seen the issue regarding fighters vs wizards and CoDzilla (in fact the only Druid PC I have seen in a game was my 1st level Druid in a couple of PFS games).
Ironically though, playing a fighter in a PF game I was disappointed in how the Improved Disarm and Trip feats were "nerfed", and would have preferred to have been playing a fighter in 3.5. Also in the same game I did feel overpowered and a bit useless, but that was in comparison to the Paladin and her smite ability (I think this may have since been erratad)!
I have said it before but Pathfinder is probably the better game than 3.5, and so if I was coming into the hobby now and choosing between the two (ignoring the issue of availability of 3.5) I would likely choose 3.5.
However, given my 3.5 rules knowledge, library of books, favoured setting (Eberron) and game aids that I have for 3.5, the benefits in PF aren't enough to overcome the inertia. Perhaps PF 2nd Ed will offer me enough to warrant the effort to change.
On a slightly more serious tangent: I don't get the "Pathfinder = Failfinder" people. It takes one look at the design goals (a.k.a introduction) to PFRPG to see that the game was never about "fixing" the "fundamental problems". If you want a revolution - well, there's Fantasycraft or the 4.5venture. If you want an evolution - there's Pathfinder.
As stated I never noticed the "fundamental problems" so I dont think I am one of the "Pathfinder = Failfinder" people.
Re "evolution", I think it comes down to terminology, what you call an evolution I call a revision. I personally would have liked bigger changes in the evolution but my areas of change would have been a more streamlined Grapple, folding Spell Resistance into Saves, removing Miss Chances and folding them into the attack roll modifiers, giving all character types the ability to "heal" themselves quicker (ala 4e's Second Wind and short rests), adding an Action / Hero / Fate Point mechanic, collapsing the Skill list even more, dropping the Confirm roll on a Critical etc.
In the end, on seeing where Pathfinder was going, but also seeing how popular it was and how it seemed to be pushing out 3.5 interest in some quarters, I actually pursued D&D4e when I originally was not that bothered about it and was quite happy to stick with 3.5.
4e does offer me enough of a step change to make it worth my while reading the rules and learning the differences, plus it actively supports my favoured setting so no need to do conversions, but I stil use my 3.5 books for fluff. However for everything that 4e did right (and I wish PF had done) it is lacking in other areas where 3.5 and PF have strengths (longer duration on spells, no single Save roll that ignores abilities etc).
Truth be told, I still prefer 3.5 to 4e, but prefer 4e to PF (even though I feel PF is a superior system to 3.5!)
Maybe Pathfinder 2nd ed will give me the best of both 3.5 and 4e in a single package (and maybe by then Paizo could licence Eberron like White Wolf did for Ravenloft :D )