|
Pathfinder is to 3.5e as 3.5e is to 3e. It's very clearly the same system, evolved. Hence, the continued publication of Pathfinder is the continued publication of 3e, in fact if not in name.I strongly disagree. Long drawn out "O" sound and everything.
You could say the same for Trailblazer being the "continued publication of 3e." just as much.
PF is little more than a 3PP set of house rules, as far as I'm concerned. They were written so that Paizo could keep selling AP's.
Blink.
Blink.
So somehow that makes it not the same system??
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trying a fresh start, a clean break; no archetypes, no alternate class features, no crazy races, just going back to basics with a concept I'm innately familair with. So I rolled up a human Ranger(my favorite class since AD&D), even used my special set of dice that went to my first 3.0 character(also a Ranger). I stuck only with things from the CRB, and once I finished rolling up my character, I put the book down and just played. Not focusing on what's different, what rules are what, just playing to whatever the in-game situation calls for.
Yeah, me and my wife joined a PF game. We both use the PRD. We stuck with the core stuff, her with a fighter, me with a druid/monk which died and then a straight healbot cleric. One of the headaches I get with PF, is there is no real "simple" class anymore. Part of the reason is core PF was designed to compete directly with 3.5 + splat books (hence why it feels like 3.5 on performance enhancers). Sure some classes are less complicated than others, but every class as a bunch of little fiddly options and such. Leveling up is now a chore and not something I look forward to (part of the problem is we are getting into the mid-teens now).
As I said, I tolerate it, it was nice to be able to game with my wife, especially as a player and not the GM (there was that 7-headed hydra I was running on a surprise round, she wasn't too happy, "Shouldn't all the heads hit each other? I mean come on!").
|
|
So... read two pages and no one has mentioned my reason for the success.
The one thing Pathfinder does do is concentrate it's efforts into one setting. Though the "kitchen sink" setting (like Eberron) sometimes gets it's detractors, this setting has stirred the imaginations of many through excellent products that treat the setting as a place instead of a generic placemat.
I think the setting was the main draw at the beginning as well as the continued use of 3.5 as Runelords was released in place of the paper Dungeon and Dragon. The first re-imagining of a monster is the pet of the setting, the lowly Goblin!! Running through the attack at Sandpoint got people excited again, and looking forward to the next Adventure Path book. I believe if my friend had not moved, we would be still playing the AP's at his house today.
One of the problems that plagued AD&D was that there was less concentration on Greyhawk, the "default setting" of the core books. The next iteration, 3.5, (3.0 was a stepping stone, 3.5 was the patch) didn't even mention the default but in a few places, but had the character names and influences all over the place, more so in the spells than anything else. Then came the slew of settings. It started in 2nd ed, with Planescape, DragonLance, Spelljammer, Ravenloft and of course, Forgotten Realms. Then you have Eberron in 3.5, as well as the "update" of the others. The Greyhawk reissue update bombed.
I believe Paizo saw something with Eberron, as the sales of that setting exceeded expatiations. Whomever began the breakdown of Galorian most likely started around the time Eberron came out.
Why is 3.5 successful?
because it is the rule set that is most intuitive to the player as well as being familiar for the old guarde. The improvements (and changes) that Pathfinder has made have been, for the most part, well done. (We will not mention the Summoner Misstep) I do believe that a little has been influences by 4th ed. (Max hp at first, No D4 hit die classes, At Will 0 level spells, Archtypes are akin to Paragon Paths...)
Yes, the OGL is paramount, but I believe Pathfinder could be successful with a hybrid of a 4th edition version, though the GSL would have to drastically change to allow it. (Jettison the Parcel System outright for beginners) I think if Paizo wanted to make their own system (even let Joshua S Frost in to help?) for the setting, they would make it work and be just as good, if not better, than the chain to OGL version they have now.
One of the problems that plagued AD&D was that there was less concentration on Greyhawk, the "default setting" of the core books. The next iteration, 3.5, (3.0 was a stepping stone, 3.5 was the patch) didn't even mention the default but in a few places, but had the character names and influences all over the place, more so in the spells than anything else. Then came the slew of settings. It started in 2nd ed, with Planescape, DragonLance, Spelljammer, Ravenloft and of course, Forgotten Realms. Then you have Eberron in 3.5, as well as the "update" of the others. The Greyhawk reissue update bombed.I believe Paizo saw something with Eberron, as the sales of that setting exceeded expatiations. Whomever began the breakdown of Galorian most likely started around the time Eberron came out.
Greyhawk was mentioned in 0D&D, as was Blackmoor of course. Greyhawk as a setting originated as a commercial setting with 1E. Blackmoor was, aside from a largely empty spot on Greyhawk's map, forgotten about until later. The Forgotten Realms setting originated with 1E as a boxed set as did Dragonlance, while Ravenloft started with 1E but didn't come out as a full blown boxed set until 2E iirc. The Oriental Adventures setting was hooked loosely to Forgotten Realms iirc. Planescape was 2E, as was Spelljammer. Birthright was a 2E setting, while Mystara ("The Known World") was done for Basic D&D (as was the Blackmoor material produced in that time). 3E trimmed the settings down aside from introducing Eberron. Greyhawk was the largely undefined background for generic 3E. I think that covers it. Aside from a 1E boxed version of Greyhawk and The Forgotten Realms I skipped most of the settings; but if you were playing you generally had to be aware of them. I collected the Basid D&D Blackmoor material out of nostalgia along with the later 3pp 3E Blackmoor material (I had the rather fascinating First Fantasy Campaign release about Blackmoor from Judges Guild).
Trying a fresh start, a clean break; no archetypes, no alternate class features, no crazy races, just going back to basics with a concept I'm innately familair with. So I rolled up a human Ranger(my favorite class since AD&D), even used my special set of dice that went to my first 3.0 character(also a Ranger). I stuck only with things from the CRB, and once I finished rolling up my character, I put the book down and just played. Not focusing on what's different, what rules are what, just playing to whatever the in-game situation calls for.Yeah, me and my wife joined a PF game. We both use the PRD. We stuck with the core stuff, her with a fighter, me with a druid/monk which died and then a straight healbot cleric. One of the headaches I get with PF, is there is no real "simple" class anymore. Part of the reason is core PF was designed to compete directly with 3.5 + splat books (hence why it feels like 3.5 on performance enhancers). Sure some classes are less complicated than others, but every class as a bunch of little fiddly options and such. Leveling up is now a chore and not something I look forward to (part of the problem is we are getting into the mid-teens now).
As I said, I tolerate it, it was nice to be able to game with my wife, especially as a player and not the GM (there was that 7-headed hydra I was running on a surprise round, she wasn't too happy, "Shouldn't all the heads hit each other? I mean come on!").
The tables that are meant to summarise what you get level by level, are actually too full. They gave a lot to be attractive, flashed a lot of leg, so levelling can indeed by quite the chore.
Also, I inadvertently took your advice last night. Joined up a new PF game my gaming group started. Once again, "PF material only", leaving the Shadowcasters and Soulborn at home.Trying a fresh start, a clean break; no archetypes, no alternate class features, no crazy races, just going back to basics with a concept I'm innately familair with. So I rolled up a human Ranger(my favorite class since AD&D), even used my special set of dice that went to my first 3.0 character(also a Ranger). I stuck only with things from the CRB, and once I finished rolling up my character, I put the book down and just played. Not focusing on what's different, what rules are what, just playing to whatever the in-game situation calls for.
We had a lot of fun! The players and atmosphere are an important thing I downplayed in the past several groups I played in. I'm still lamenting not getting to use my 3.5 stuff, but that's up to the group, and not indicative of the system necessarily(although smoother backwards compatibility would likely have made it less of an issue).
Point is, I'm involved in a fun PF game and I'm trying to get over myself. The 3.x feel is still kinda there, but I'm still hoping to at least run a 3.5 game at some point(I'm jonesin' for my Half-dragon Incarnate concept). Maybe by building up some game karma I can try once this game winds down.
First off, if you are looking for a shadow mage concept, check out Inner Sea Magic. I just bought it, and am checking it out JUST because I was a fan of the old stuff. One problem is that they still don't have mods for environmental lighting when casting spells, and I really liked that aspect of the old version.
Second, after examining the Ranger in detail, I personally think the class should be downgraded to a Monk's BAB. Too many skill points and special abilities to really be considered a full out warrior. They now look like a mishmash of Rogue and Fighter. Even made it official in my home game.
Third, I am so proud of you! It's not easy abandoning one's ego for a while, and simply enjoying goofing off with friends. You might be able to sneak in some 3.5 stuff here and there over time, since Pathfinder encourages a relatively unique mindset: that of you can tinker with it and swap out abilities etc. I can even help kick it off by mentioning the Travel Cloak and 3.5's Magic of Faerun book. Very fun to muck with, and the items are actually versatile and interesting, and NOT overpowered for the most part.
You know, you might be able to simulate your Half Dragon Incarnate concept via cobbling something together via Pathfinder. That alone should be a challenge, hunting throughout the books and materials, asking the forum (and your friends) questions on the matter. Think of it as a stunt that you might be able to pull off...
Yeah, me and my wife joined a PF game. We both use the PRD. We stuck with the core stuff, her with a fighter, me with a druid/monk which died and then a straight healbot cleric. One of the headaches I get with PF, is there is no real "simple" class anymore. Leveling up is now a chore and not something I look forward to (part of the problem is we are getting into the mid-teens now).
Well, leveling I never found to be all that hard, in comparison to character creation! However, it helps to stop thinking in terms of a grand scheme of character all the way to 20th, and start simply being responsive to what's happening in game. Find out that you are facing off against dragons? Up your reflex save, either by Lightning Reflexes 1&2, or taking that trait in the APG via a feat (you get two per feat).
As for a healbot cleric, I can give you a few tips. First, the following somewhat modified domains from the APG are verrrrrry much better than the traditional ones, mostly for the domain powers: Agathion, Azata, Defense, Restoration (!), Honor.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... read two pages and no one has mentioned my reason for the success.
The one thing Pathfinder does do is concentrate it's efforts into one setting. Though the "kitchen sink" setting (like Eberron) sometimes gets it's detractors, this setting has stirred the imaginations of many through excellent products that treat the setting as a place instead of a generic placemat.
For me, the fact that Pathfinder RPG only has one official (i.e. Paizo created) setting is actually a turn off.
I got into D&D with 3.5 and I bought the 3.0 Forgotten Realms setting book thinking that would be my D&D setting (I liked the map with trade routes etc) - however I got really bored slogging through reading the book (Dale after Dale after Dale!). If FR had been the only D&D setting available I think my love of D&D would have been shortlived, but luckily there was Eberron! :)
I love how Eberron is a kitchen sink setting, but it is done in such a way that it has a cohesive theme and feel. Golarion on the other hand feels like a hodge-podge of mini-settings, and while I can like some individually (Darkmoon Vale for example) as whole it feels "bitty".
So because Golarion is the only setting for PF, and it isn't one I am fond of, my interest in PF isn't as great as it could have been.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is (mini-settings), which is its strength and greatest weakness.
Pathfinder is to 3.5e as 3.5e is to 3e. It's very clearly the same system, evolved. Hence, the continued publication of Pathfinder is the continued publication of 3e, in fact if not in name.I strongly disagree. Long drawn out "O" sound and everything.
You could say the same for Trailblazer being the "continued publication of 3e." just as much.
PF is little more than a 3PP set of house rules, as far as I'm concerned. They were written so that Paizo could keep selling AP's.
Blink.
Blink.
So somehow that makes it not the same system??
No, in my opinion, they are not the same game. You can hand me a Big Mac and call it a Whopper, but it's still a Big Mac.
Sure, they're close, but they are not the same. If you want me to sit here and make a detailed, bullet-point list of every nuance as to what makes the systems different, I'm going to need a lot more free time and coffee first.
Or, you can accept that someone out there on the internet has a different opinion than you, and move on.
NO! THIS CANNOT STAND! SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET IS...
WRONG!!!
It is (mini-settings), which is its strength and greatest weakness.
I agree. Now, granted, 3.x had a lot of already existing lore to work with(and multiple licenses), so having multiple settings was no big deal. WotC even licensed out some of the settings(Dragonlance, Ravenloft) and that made the influence of D&D feel that much bigger; the brand was expanding into other development houses(yes, Paizo does this too, I'm talking from the perspective of when 3.0 was new). It wasn't just one big funnel of game material running out of one company. It gave those settings a distinctive feel.
I realize that Paizo is limited in the size of it's creative staff, and that trying to juggle multiple settings would be nigh impossible for the company right now. I also realize that it's in the best interest to focus on one really fleshed out setting, rather than spread out too thin doing multiple ones. But, by shoving everything into one setting, it feels disjointed and cluttered, trying to do too many things at once.
But, it is what it is. Them's the breaks. I'm not a big fan of Golarion, and that at least somewhat adds to my dislike. And since it's the setting that is so well supported, every PF DM I play under plays there, which further doesn't make me jump for joy when we play.
I think I'd like PF a lot more if we played in a different setting, but again, that's a DM/group thing, not a system thing.
The Paizo folks have often said that one of the biggest things that led to TSR's downfall was supporting too many settings. Every new unconnected setting you publish divides your resources and your consumer base, reducing the profit you can make.
If Paizo WERE to support several novel settings, then we would get much much less campaign setting per year per setting, and the line would be overall not as profitable. With a kitchen sink approach, hopefully most groups find SOME part of Golarion they like, without having to divide the campaign setting line.
Yeah, me and my wife joined a PF game. We both use the PRD. We stuck with the core stuff, her with a fighter, me with a druid/monk which died and then a straight healbot cleric. One of the headaches I get with PF, is there is no real "simple" class anymore. Leveling up is now a chore and not something I look forward to (part of the problem is we are getting into the mid-teens now).
Well, leveling I never found to be all that hard, in comparison to character creation! However, it helps to stop thinking in terms of a grand scheme of character all the way to 20th, and start simply being responsive to what's happening in game. Find out that you are facing off against dragons? Up your reflex save, either by Lightning Reflexes 1&2, or taking that trait in the APG via a feat (you get two per feat).
As for a healbot cleric, I can give you a few tips. First, the following somewhat modified domains from the APG are verrrrrry much better than the traditional ones, mostly for the domain powers: Agathion, Azata, Defense, Restoration (!), Honor.
I realize you are just being helpful, but you kind of missed the point. I didn't want to optimize my character with the use of a bunch of splat book stuff, I specifically wanted to simplify the character by focusing only on the core. Yes, probably a weaker character, but one I don't have to spend a lot of time going to different sources for the mechanics. My point was just sticking with the core though is still over burdensome as compare to core 3.5 in many cases. It is a feature I dislike, but tolerate.
Funny thing is, if me and my wife had planned our characters out to 20th level it probably would be easier and faster to level, then trying to do it on the fly each time.
I think one of the strengths of PF continuing on is Paizo's allowed access to the PRD as an official source (versus some 3rd party's source). It helps keep people like myself, who aren't interested in purchasing PF materials, involved with people that want to play PF and purchase the materials. Me being at the table makes it more likely the session will get played, which will drive others to purchase material.
Except those same people will not buy setting pieces of Golarion they don't engage in. Only some completionist collectors will. Those existed back in the days of 2nd edition and its myriad settings too. It's the exact same problem. Not to mention the flip side of said problem: Eventually you run out of books you can publish about a certain subject, whether it's new feats, details about a country, etc. At that point, it's a good thing to have big subjects, perhaps even entire campaign settings. Powers above know the Planescape setting could have withstood a few more books without bursting. This is not a simple problem either: It happened quite clearly at the end of the 3.5 run. My point is, there is a reason most or all of the 2nd edition TSR settings have big fan followings even today. What changed was not the customer base, but if I take a look at the old books today, what strikes me is that the production values are far lower than what we have today. Perhaps it came with the added focus on selling to players... but I see little reason for it. Yes, it is attractive and pretty with full colour illos and so on, but the reason for buying the book is the text. Plus, the old black and white illos were quite special and filled with ambience.
Meh. Old rambling geezer has rambled enough. Get off my lawn, y'hear?
So... read two pages and no one has mentioned my reason for the success.
The one thing Pathfinder does do is concentrate it's efforts into one setting. Though the "kitchen sink" setting (like Eberron) sometimes gets it's detractors, this setting has stirred the imaginations of many through excellent products that treat the setting as a place instead of a generic placemat.
For me, the fact that Pathfinder RPG only has one official (i.e. Paizo created) setting is actually a turn off.
I got into D&D with 3.5 and I bought the 3.0 Forgotten Realms setting book thinking that would be my D&D setting (I liked the map with trade routes etc) - however I got really bored slogging through reading the book (Dale after Dale after Dale!). If FR had been the only D&D setting available I think my love of D&D would have been shortlived, but luckily there was Eberron! :)
I love how Eberron is a kitchen sink setting, but it is done in such a way that it has a cohesive theme and feel. Golarion on the other hand feels like a hodge-podge of mini-settings, and while I can like some individually (Darkmoon Vale for example) as whole it feels "bitty".
So because Golarion is the only setting for PF, and it isn't one I am fond of, my interest in PF isn't as great as it could have been.
You can run Pathfinder if 3.5 settings though.
I'm planning to run Dragon Mech in Golarion (in Rise of Runelords): Varaisia is only continent not affected by Lunar Rain. So PF and Dragon Mech classes (Gunslingers can choose a steam gun instead of gunpower gun if they wish, no touch AC but easier to reload and no misfire).
|
|
You can run Pathfinder if 3.5 settings though.I love how Eberron is a kitchen sink setting, but it is done in such a way that it has a cohesive theme and feel.
[...]
So because Golarion is the only setting for PF, and it isn't one I am fond of, my interest in PF isn't as great as it could have been.
Not without some conversion though which is in itself enough to make me unlikely to do so, but when I also prefer 3.5 over PF, there really is no incentive to do so other than perhaps if I get to the point when I can only find players willing to play PF but not 3.5.
If however, Golarion had been even more appealing to me than Eberron I might have pursued the PF RPG in spite of itself - hence why settings can help the success of a system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In terms of non PFS games I now decline to play (and it was one reason why I left my weekly game group of several years). Basically I want to make use of the 3.5 material I have on my shelves.I have a pretty wide collection of 3.X material in my personal library myself. And with each passing month, my desire to ever use any of it again continues to dwindle, as Paizo offers better alternatives to any of that work that I would use, and the rest is of no further interest.
Total opposite here. Paizo keeps releasing new stuff, and none of it tickles my fancy. I am a big fan of non-core classes from 3.5, but the non-core classes from PF just don't interest me at all, with the exception of the Inquisitor, and maybe Magus, only because it's a tweaked and updated Duskblade. I'm not even trying to be a prick about it, they just don't do anything for me. I used to run a lot of Ravenloft, so the Witch class sounded very intriguing. But, all it looks like is "Wizard variant #3".
Sorry, but optimization be damned, I was a fan of template and level-adjustment monster races. Paizo's decidedly hands-off approach to those doesn't exactly excite me either. The Advanced Race Guide has lots of potential, but I'm still trying to figure out how to just remake races from 3.5 I already liked(Illumians were one of my faves).
When something new, along the likes of Psionics, Incarnum, etc comes along, that might grab my attention.
Just so we're clear, the entire above post is subjective opinion. The Inquisitor, does in fact rock my socks. That's a fun class to play.
|
|
In terms of non PFS games I now decline to play (and it was one reason why I left my weekly game group of several years). Basically I want to make use of the 3.5 material I have on my shelves.I have a pretty wide collection of 3.X material in my personal library myself. And with each passing month, my desire to ever use any of it again continues to dwindle, as Paizo offers better alternatives to any of that work that I would use, and the rest is of no further interest.
Which just shows that people's tastes differ. Another reason for me leaving that group was because I had a load of other RPGs on my shelf as well that weren't seeing play whilst I was playing RPGs with the group that I just wasn't bothered about.
So while I enjoyed it for the social aspect the gaming was interesting me enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can run Pathfinder if 3.5 settings though.I love how Eberron is a kitchen sink setting, but it is done in such a way that it has a cohesive theme and feel.
[...]
So because Golarion is the only setting for PF, and it isn't one I am fond of, my interest in PF isn't as great as it could have been.
Not without some conversion though which is in itself enough to make me unlikely to do so, but when I also prefer 3.5 over PF, there really is no incentive to do so other than perhaps if I get to the point when I can only find players willing to play PF but not 3.5.
If however, Golarion had been even more appealing to me than Eberron I might have pursued the PF RPG in spite of itself - hence why settings can help the success of a system.
Wait, how does running Pathfinder in a 3.5 (like Ebberon) setting require conversion? Unless you are using a module, you don't need to convert anything.
Maybe warforged could be boosted, but otherwise it works.
I can't say for Eberron(I've only played in it, never DM'ed it), but for a setting like Ravenloft, there would need to be hefty updating and conversion. Trying to run PF classes in that setting would be a joke; the power level is just too off.
|
I can't say for Eberron(I've only played in it, never DM'ed it), but for a setting like Ravenloft, there would need to be hefty updating and conversion. Trying to run PF classes in that setting would be a joke; the power level is just too off.
Having ran 3E Ravenloft material under Pathfinder rules I can tell you that's just untrue.
It's not true...or untrue. It's a preference.
I think Pathfinder does suffer a bit from a (not entirely successful) attempt at backwards compatibility, but it is certainly compatible enough to make it work. The question is whether you personally whatever amount of work you feel comfortable with is worth the effort.
I was referring to power level of Ravenloft. It has always been a mid-power setting, but that was constant throughout editions, high level 2E characters were as out of place there as high level 3.5/PF characters.
Word. Not trying to pick a fight here. I'm just saying I can see going either way as far as the "3.5 material yes/no" thing. Personally, if I wanted to use them together I'd probably add a hit point per hit die to all classed NPCs, calculate CMB/CMD, and call it (mostly) good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Paizo folks have often said that one of the biggest things that led to TSR's downfall was supporting too many settings. Every new unconnected setting you publish divides your resources and your consumer base, reducing the profit you can make.
If Paizo WERE to support several novel settings, then we would get much much less campaign setting per year per setting, and the line would be overall not as profitable. With a kitchen sink approach, hopefully most groups find SOME part of Golarion they like, without having to divide the campaign setting line.
My question is, WHY THE HECK didn't they make a bigger game map, and separate these cultures as they are separated in the real world?! Seriously, they crammed in a globe into the space of Europe. That's more than a bit much. This is why I don't do Golarion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My question is, WHY THE HECK didn't they make a bigger game map, and separate these cultures as they are separated in the real world?! Seriously, they crammed in a globe into the space of Europe. That's more than a bit much. This is why I don't do Golarion.
Possibly because they didn't plan ahead?
I'd just ignore it (I'd never even noticed it). Like most things in D&D/Pathfinder, if you think about it too hard you'll realize there are all sorts of problems. :)
My question is, WHY THE HECK didn't they make a bigger game map, and separate these cultures as they are separated in the real world?! Seriously, they crammed in a globe into the space of Europe. That's more than a bit much. This is why I don't do Golarion.The Paizo folks have often said that one of the biggest things that led to TSR's downfall was supporting too many settings. Every new unconnected setting you publish divides your resources and your consumer base, reducing the profit you can make.
If Paizo WERE to support several novel settings, then we would get much much less campaign setting per year per setting, and the line would be overall not as profitable. With a kitchen sink approach, hopefully most groups find SOME part of Golarion they like, without having to divide the campaign setting line.
Really? I don't see it as an entire globe. Pretty much all of Avistan is quasi-medieval Europe. The only exceptions would be Numeria (which is kind of has a He-man/swords and lasers feel) and The land of the mammoth lords, which is a bit more stone-age.
Northern Garund (the africa analog) holds more diversity, with a nation that has recently developed gunpowder, a undead ruled land, and a high magic magocracy, and of course an african jungle analogue. But I think in the context of the setting I don't see too many problems. There should be more competition for Numerian artifacts, and maybe guns should be more widespread, but that might be it.
The reason they didn't fill the globe was simply because then they would have no room to expand if they chose to expand beyond. By not filling a globe they have a place for a Americas analog (Arcadia), the Dragon Empires, and a middle-east analog (Casmaron).
|
|
In my mind, the Golalion world and Pathfinder setting (and the Pathfinder Society play) has been more fleshed out in the first Adventure Paths than what had been written on the page.
I can't say the same for some of the settings that I had seen in the past. Truly, my run with the Rise of the Runelords was something like me playing my Kender in the Dragonlance setting back in the day.
Now, I get that there are some things that seem thrown in or out of place, but the overall presentation is stellar compared to the "generic" build of 4th edition. With the changes to each setting (except Eberron, which somehow stayed the same... somewhat) to comply with 4th edition doom, it made the Pathfinder setting look that much better.
(I even chuckled when Wizards commissioned the artist that did the original icons to do artwork for some of their own products)
I believe the setting has a lot to do with the success of Pathfinder. (And in turn, the continued support for 3.75)
You do realize that Wayne Reynolds was already working for WotC for several years before Paizo even existed, right?
Oh SNAP. ;-)
Wait, how does running Pathfinder in a 3.5 (like Ebberon) setting require conversion? Unless you are using a module, you don't need to convert anything.
Maybe warforged could be boosted, but otherwise it works.
I'm not certain how the 'settings' differ, but as far as modules and adventures go, there IS a difference... One of my friends spent quite a few weeks trying (with help from someone online here) to convert CoCT from the original 3.5 rule set to Pathfinder...
Same with Runelords... We just got an updated anniversary set of that...
SOMETHING with the CR ratings and challenge levels or soemthing doesn't quite match up with current rules vs. 3.5
They're close, and playable... but the DM will have to keep a close eye on the new balance...
|
|
(I even chuckled when Wizards commissioned the artist that did the original icons to do artwork for some of their own products)You do realize that Wayne Reynolds was already working for WotC for several years before Paizo even existed, right?
He didn't do anything with the first 4th edition books, though, that is for sure. I didn't mind the art in them, per say, but others had... commented on it when it first came out.
I had hoped that Mitch Byrd would do some art for some projects, I liked his art in the Fantasy books in 4th edition Hero. He seemed to disappear after his run on Guy Gardner, Warrior comic.
It is (mini-settings), which is its strength and greatest weakness.I agree. Now, granted, 3.x had a lot of already existing lore to work with(and multiple licenses), so having multiple settings was no big deal. WotC even licensed out some of the settings(Dragonlance, Ravenloft) and that made the influence of D&D feel that much bigger; the brand was expanding into other development houses(yes, Paizo does this too, I'm talking from the perspective of when 3.0 was new). It wasn't just one big funnel of game material running out of one company. It gave those settings a distinctive feel.
I realize that Paizo is limited in the size of it's creative staff, and that trying to juggle multiple settings would be nigh impossible for the company right now. I also realize that it's in the best interest to focus on one really fleshed out setting, rather than spread out too thin doing multiple ones. But, by shoving everything into one setting, it feels disjointed and cluttered, trying to do too many things at once.
But, it is what it is. Them's the breaks. I'm not a big fan of Golarion, and that at least somewhat adds to my dislike. And since it's the setting that is so well supported, every PF DM I play under plays there, which further doesn't make me jump for joy when we play.
I think I'd like PF a lot more if we played in a different setting, but again, that's a DM/group thing, not a system thing.
Yeah. I am a big fan of parts of Golarion, please do not get me wrong. Some really solid material, but then to change things after the fact when they are so damn good (the mini faith of the Isgerian hellknights being made mono instead of originally a polytheist unity of orphaned fanatics). That is when it is most co**ed up. Some parts of golarion don't interest me or my players, and it doesn't fit together very well, but in its best isolated parts it is gold-pressed latinum.
Yeah. I am a big fan of parts of Golarion, please do not get me wrong. Some really solid material, but then to change things after the fact when they are so damn good (the mini faith of the Isgerian hellknights being made mono instead of originally a polytheist unity of orphaned fanatics). That is when it is most co**ed up. Some parts of golarion don't interest me or my players, and it doesn't fit together very well, but in its best isolated parts it is gold-pressed latinum.
Honestly, that's my favorite part... and when we were designing our own homebrew world, it was EXACTLY how we planned on doing it.
This little section here is like the realms... this one like Raveloft... Al-quadim over here... maztica there...
Basic philosophy was... we have a TON of adventures, and whatever system they were written for, could be used in our world desert/horror/planescape/whatever!!!
Honestly, there are a lot of places i care nothing for in golarion... but it is pretty cool how most fo the APs seem pretty... localized. The ones I've played pick a location and that's where hte character lives. Varisia, Mwangi, river kingdoms... Its rare that you travel through mutliple genres... which is cool. I have no interest in numeria or... place with guns. (Alkenstar??)
He didn't do anything with the first 4th edition books, though, that is for sure.(I even chuckled when Wizards commissioned the artist that did the original icons to do artwork for some of their own products)You do realize that Wayne Reynolds was already working for WotC for several years before Paizo even existed, right?
He did the covers of the player's handbook, dungeon master's guide and the monster manual.
My question is, WHY THE HECK didn't they make a bigger game map, and separate these cultures as they are separated in the real world?! Seriously, they crammed in a globe into the space of Europe. That's more than a bit much. This is why I don't do Golarion.Possibly because they didn't plan ahead?
I'd just ignore it (I'd never even noticed it). Like most things in D&D/Pathfinder, if you think about it too hard you'll realize there are all sorts of problems. :)
I'm a big fan of taking a big project and doing it right, by doing research BEFORE you start writing/crafting. Oh well. Forgotten Realms wasn't written in a day; I expect this one to take a very long time before it reaches that level of complexity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fun Fact: Inner Sea Region and Faerun are of roughly the same size.
Facts. Pffft. Who needs 'em. This is an Internet debate.
Fun Fact: Inner Sea Region and Faerun are of roughly the same size.
Fun Fact: Faerun didn't have the cultural complexity that Golarion does.
Fun Fact Part Two: Did you know that the Eastern Chinese/Japanese types in Faerun were VERY much separated from the rest of Faerun, UNLIKE Golarion?
I'm a little confused. :(
Forgotten Realms wasn't written in a day; I expect this one to take a very long time before it reaches that level of complexity.
Fun Fact: Inner Sea Region and Faerun are of roughly the same size.Fun Fact: Faerun didn't have the cultural complexity that Golarion does.
Are you saying the Forgotten Realms is more complicated than Golarion but in some "non-cultural" way?
Fun Fact Part Two: Did you know that the Eastern Chinese/Japanese types in Faerun were VERY much separated from the rest of Faerun, UNLIKE Golarion?
Aren't they pretty much identical in this regard? (Granted my only real knowledge of the Forgotten Realms comes from the grey box/kara tur/horde supplements and the 4E era).
|
|
Chult, Thay, Icewind Dale, Sword Coast, Anauroch, Hordelands, Unther are all extremely different from each other in culture, drawing from influences as diverse as Mesopotamia, Mongolia, Persia, Dark Africa, and many shades of good old Europe. All on one continent.
That's not any different from Golarion, at any rate.
Also, Golarion's Dragon Empires are pretty much as far from the Inner Sea as Kara-Tur is from Faerun, both geographically and culturally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fun Fact: Faerun didn't have the cultural complexity that Golarion does.
Fun Fact Part Two: Did you know that the Eastern Chinese/Japanese types in Faerun were VERY much separated from the rest of Faerun, UNLIKE Golarion?
Faerun the pseudo-medieval Europe? Or the whole planet? Or the setting where random settings got dumped because novels were big at the time? Because I'll hold Al-Qadim up above any non-Eberron setting produced since for a well presented culture integrated into the rules and setting.
On the other hand, after a bunch of years of D&D I'll go ahead and say that the setting debate does little for me. Because, I've had enough of the bog-standard settings, be they Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms* or all the other kinda-sorta-medieval-Europe-except-the-parts-we-don't-want-to-deal-with-and -with-some-stuff-from-other-places-and-times-but-because-ninjas-are-cool.
I'm not really sure what your second fact has to do with anything else with the whole Forgotten Realms being a huge mess from too many sources yet somehow not connected. With the people connecting to gods all the time and having high level wizards building their lairs on other planets yet somehow no one has heard of this island a few hundred miles away.
*I'd play the hell out of Al-Qadim, The Horde or Mazteka, I'm just done with the same bog being slapped around.
The one thing Pathfinder does do is concentrate it's efforts into one setting. Though the "kitchen sink" setting (like Eberron) sometimes gets it's detractors, this setting has stirred the imaginations of many through excellent products that treat the setting as a place instead of a generic placemat.
Not sure about that. Or actually, I highly dispute that. I think the Golarion setting is the weakest line Paizo is producing and the setting itself is bland and generic. And of all the people I know who are playing the Pathfinder RPG, I don't know about a single one who uses the setting or even knows anything about it.
I would say Golarion probably is a completely different product line, that merely overlaps with the Pathfinder RPG.I wonder how that affects sales numbers. Wouldn't be suprised if Pathfinder rulebooks get four or five times the number of sales than any Golarion books have.
Regarding Forgotten Realms, I noticed some years ago that, at least for Germany, Forgotten Realms seems to be almost synonymous with the Sword Coast, especially the North. With D&D not being a major hit here, I assume the BioWare video games played a huge part in that. I've only twice seen any groups playing in the Heartlands and never anyone showing real interest in the South, the Moonsea, the Old Empires, Thay, and Rashemen. Forgotten Realms may be a big and sometimes confusing setting, but many of the geographical regions have had enough support in 2nd Edition to stand as complete settings on their own two feet.
|
|
Wait, how does running Pathfinder in a 3.5 (like Ebberon) setting require conversion? Unless you are using a module, you don't need to convert anything.
Maybe warforged could be boosted, but otherwise it works.
The Artificer class, the iconic new class introduced in Eberron would require conversion, for example how does their Craft Reserve work in PF now that magic item crafting no longer requires XP (at least that is what I understand, I haven't actually read those PF rules as I only play in PFS).
In addition Prestige Classes would need to have their Class Skills amended and the Skill Rank Requirements adjusted (8 ranks would be 5 ranks) and other Requirements may need to be waived (e.g. Eldeen Ranger Track Feat requirement).
Finally, new monsters and NPCs are statted up in the books (not just adventures) that would need some conversion, e.g. CMB/CMD calculating, some feats would become useless and need replacing etc.
So yeah, it may not be as much as converting to a completely different system like GURPS, but to me at least it is a non-trivial investment. And an investment that would then have me using a system that I prefer less than 3.5!
|
|
He didn't do anything with the first 4th edition books, though, that is for sure.
You do realize that Wayne Reynolds was already working for WotC for several years before Paizo even existed, right?
Um, the very first 4e books (PHB, DMG and MM) all had Wayne Reynolds covers! So yeah, I wouldn't be so sure :)
EDIT: Doh! Steve Geddes already said that! That will teach me to respond to posts as I am reading through the thread rather than reading all to the end.
I can't say for Eberron(I've only played in it, never DM'ed it), but for a setting like Ravenloft, there would need to be hefty updating and conversion. Trying to run PF classes in that setting would be a joke; the power level is just too off.Having ran 3E Ravenloft material under Pathfinder rules I can tell you that's just untrue.
What domain(s) did you run your game in? I could see a higher magic-accessible domain having an easier time than some of the more stringent ones.
I haven't tried it yet, just going from what I experienced when I ran the setting for several years, versus what I ran in PF and trying to compare.
Not trying to argue, I'd just like to know more of what you ran. Ravenloft is a big hodge-podge of variance.