Sizzaxe's page

Tark XT echoed my approach. It's true I'm slow to allow new rules and additions to the game right away; after all I need to think about them first and absorb them as possibilities. But within a month or two my players know I'll let them start to play with the new rules.

The key is that you can bet by then I understand the rules too, and there will be a Newtonian "RPG" action-reaction in the campaign world when such new ideas/rules come online. In other words I use the same rules you do. If I feel the power level is beginning to bloat, it's time for my campaign to deflate them a bit. And this usually happens between level 10 and 20 anyway, and this has been the case since the early days.

New abilities, feats, skills, prestige classes, odd races, high HPs, etc etc are not bad--they just require that I as a GM up my level of play to meet the new challenges presented by _very_ powerful or unusual PCs.

I agree with the last poster. If you are going to theorize "magic" as being born in our own world at least conceptually then it's hard to get away from the idea that psionics _is_ magic--the two are hard to parse out.

But if you instead see psionics as a school or division of magic then it can blend seamlessly into the milieu. It may take some rule fiddling but can be done well. If you use Psionics in your game--and I like the Dreamscarred books, and use the psionics rules from them--then separating schools of magic to include Mentalism is probably the best theoretical approach.

But nobody said it had to be done. There are so many who truly dislike the concept it would be a hard sell as a wholesale addition to the PF game. It should be an optional-only rulebook at best.

Go to PF 2e now and they'll likely lose me. I'm GMing PF by request and just barely getting comfortable with it. Making it my own so to speak. Change to 2e, and I'll refuse to touch PF again.

Okay, maybe that's a bit extreme. But I'm really not looking forward to edition changes until 2017 at the earliest. They are still coming out with too much cool PF stuff to stop now and try a restart.

PF is already outselling all other RPGs, WoTC & 5e is not a threat. Don't change a winning game plan.

--just my my 2 pence

I'm good with that. I love Golarion. I was referring more to introduction of a new world instead of a major rule reboot. I would prefer the former. But it sounds like what everyone is saying here is that PF is good to continue their current interation for the next 7 or 8 years and even when they do realease 2.0 they'll do so keeping it backwards compatible. _That_ I like.

Thanks everyone. I really appreciate the replies. It is what I needed and wanted to hear. I always had heard that Paizo was very invested in its supporters: they know what side their bread is buttered on. But more than that, the fact that they are gamers and run their business with gamers in mind makes me feel much more secure. I too would love to see instead a new release of alternate campaign worlds instead of a new system.

And one of the reasons I really like PF is that I can still use almost all of my 3.5 books as written. If PF 2.0 ever comes out I trust I will be able to say the same about all of my PF 1.0 books. Good point that PF is very close to 3.5.

Very much appreciated. You've made my decision much easier. Great crowd here. This is my first time posting and you've really helped out.

-Chris

I could handle a reboot as long as the reboot was very similar to PF. But the DnD 4e reboot was very different from 3.5 and who knows how similar a 5e reboot will be? Which in itself is okay I suppose. But the problem with a reboot to a very different ruleset is that none of the creative stuff we imagined under the old ruleset is applicable under the new ruleset. That's a real killer if not at least a major dampener on long term campaigns.

Seems to me PF has a good thing going and an ever increasing fanbase. Would be a shame to change philosophies, rulesets aside. I know a certain amount of rerelease is necesary to keep their capital up, but philosophy changing is a major game killer. And before you know it your trying to play an oop game again. I've been there, done that--it aint no fun.

thanks for the input guys,

chris

Here's a newbie question for you:

Is Pathfinder here for the long haul?

May sound like a silly question, but allow me to explain. I've been gaming since the 80's and have been through a few editions. I also advise the school rpg club where I teach. Now my FLGS owner wants me to run some sessions at the hobby shop to draw customers. He would kind of like to see a 4e Wednesday night encounters. Now, I've played 4e and more recently Pathfinder. PF is the game most of the kids at school prefer right now. So much so that it seems to be moving towards the club's de facto game. I could be okay with that, but one of the reasons I've shyed a bit away from 4e lately is that the platform is likely to change every 5 to 7 years or so. And what with them bringing Monte Cook on I smell an edition change on the horizon. I'd rather stick with one game for the long haul.

I know most people here are likely going to be PF devotees, but I'd like an honest opinion about what the word is from Paizo. PF seems to be the game on the ascendant now, and it's fanbase just keeps growing. But are they going to change things any time soon? No massive new rerelease of the core book or antything, eh? Knowing where that stands would make switching over to PF completely easier overall.

thanks for the input,

chris