In an Alternate Earth, Paizo doesn't do anything with 4 and since 3 core books are no longer being printed they realize they can't do that either.
So they come out with their own system instead.
What's that system like, I wonder aloud?
Just like 3.5, except with all the bugs, mistakes, and other inconsistencies completely addressed?
Actually If they had the time they could probably devise something truly awesome that isn't based off core 3 / 3.5 rules
But I think 3.5 just needs a tad more (ok...a lot more) balancing and core content.
Whatever the case...I'd probably make it my core gaming system, if the quality of the system comes anywhere near close to the quality of their current products.
Whatever the case...I'd probably make it my core gaming system, if the quality of the system comes anywhere near close to the quality of their current products.
Seconded!
tfad
Alscolutely! No 3.5, no 4.
No, but there are free donuts!
I'd go for cutting quite a few things--collapsing some skills together, removing some spells and feats--and adding a very few new ones. I'd aim for a system in which the core 11 classes all worked well enough that there wasn't strong pressure to take prestige classes (we find that this is not true for paladins, and to some extent rangers and barbarians, in 3.5).
I'd simplify spell ranges, areas, and durations to reduce the memory burden.
I'd cut the number of different bonus types so that fewer things would stack; this would help make item use a bit less important.
Probably this would raise an unholy fuss, but I'd try to fix some of the grandfathered-in abilities (especially spells) that are no longer consistent with the rest of the game system.
I'd drop some of the rules that are most frequently houseruled away, particularly penalties for multiclassing.
I'd try as hard as I could (it's a very hard task) to get accurate CRs next to every entry in the Monster Manual, and to write monster advancement rules that produced monsters of approximately the right CR (the current ones don't, by any means).
Or rather, I'd pay Paizo almost any sum they asked if they'd do this for me. I've been this route once (went from 1e to a complex homebrew) and while it made for great games, it was just too much work.
Mary
Why does everyone have goatees? It looks gross on the women.
They could, of course, just redo 3.5. Keep it in print and on the shelves.
The shouldn't even have to do it themselves or alone.
If they want to, they can of course fix some things. I vote for changes that don't make it incompatible with standard 3.5. I guess a big percentage of the things that are "wrong" with 3.5 could be changed that way. For example, grapple could easily be fixed without too much effort, and the grapple mod could still be the same.
For the rest, they could have a lot of rules variants in the new core books: "D&D without magic items - a comprehensive guide to create new campaigns, change existing ones, and use this with adventure modules without much hassle"
It manages to include tons of prestige classes and character options without clogging up the works with extended rulesets.
Why does everyone have goatees? It looks gross on the women.
depends on where they are ;)
what? I mean like their knee caps, lil goatees and maybe smiley faces
could be cute
Copyright issues would loom large in such an alternate world. The OGL is in a sense very open, but it is also exhaustive in what it will allow. And one of the things it won't allow is reprinting the core books of 3rd or 3.5 with minor balance and flavor tweaks.
That being said, WotC does not own fantasy adventure gaming, nor does it own most monsters or heroic archetypes. You can use Mind Flayers (it's just a wingless Star Spawn, written by Lovecraft and that's public domain), but you can't call them Ilithid (which is a trademarked word owned by Hasbro). You can use Set (the snake god from Conan, written by Howard and that's public domain too), but you can't use Loviatar (she's owned by Hasbro too).
WotC owns the world of Greyhawk, and the city of Sigil. But it doesn't own any of the spokes on the Great Wheel because those are taken from legends that predate the invention of Copyright Law. Mordenkainen is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hasbro, but Asmodeus is public domain.
---
So you'd have to tread carefully. You couldn't, for example, have the same classes as the 3rd edition rule book. So you'd be having to throw some guys out and put some guys in. Likely you'd drop the "Wizard" and the "Sorcerer" and put in some of the more popular specialist magicians instead. I could easily see Illusionist, Necromancer (note: cannot be named "Dread Necromancer" for Copyright reasons), Enchanter, Conjurer, and Battle Mage (warmage would be pushing it) all making the cut.
The Druid would have to be way different. But frankly you'd want it to be, so no loss there.
-Frank
First: simplify the XP system by returning to the 1e system: each monster worth a fixed amount of XP plus a certain amount per hit point. Go back to having separate HP totals for monsters in small groups, instead of the cookie-cutter system of assigning average HP to each and every monster. Eliminate CR's and EL's and go back to letting DM's decide what constitutes an appropriate challenge for the party.
Second: Rein in feats to eliminate ones that mimic spell-like or supernatural effects. Such things should be left to spells and class or racial abilities. The maximum effect allowed by feats (aside from metamagic and item creation ones) should be those abilities displayed by legendary but mortal heroes without supernatural abilities (think: Xena, Batman, Conan, martial arts movie heroes, etc.).
Third: Fix the Commoner and Expert classes to justify how someone could become high-level in those classes despite never having the opportunity to earn tens of thousands of XP...and how high-level Commoners can increase their HP and combat numbers despite seldom leaving the home, shop or pub. (I have an alternate system for Commoners and Experts...maybe I'll post it here.)
Fourth: Include lots and lots of pictures of Seoni and Merisiel.
That should be enough for starters...
Okay, my ideas... these are ones that I wanted to express when I thought 4th edition was supposed to be the next step "evolution" of 3.5..... heh.
1. Alright, some might hate this idea but I would have an additional minor armor type... Helmets. They would normally range in the same bonuses given as shields, but would be weaker as far as their max magical bonus (probably +3 at best, but could be the equivalent of a much higher rate (as with shields and armor) due to special abilities). Again, I don't know if others would agree with this, but its something I've wanted (btw, Helm of Comprehension And Read Magic would basically be a +1 or +2 Helm with Comprehend Languages and Read Magic abilities, ditto for the rest.)
2. The assassin would be a core class, not a prestige class... I've honestly felt that paladins (aka a knight) would be more of a "prestige" than an assassin.
3. All the weird monk abilities would be chosen from blocks, rather than a pre-set have to have... and I might tone this class down just a wee bit.
4. I would consider, though not definite, making the animal companion progression for the ranger the same as the druid.
5. The spells as we know it would be the same but I would prefer the "point use" system for casting over this many of 0 level spells per day, this many of 1st level spells per day, this many of 2nd level spells per day, etc. The power base would be derived from an ability x caster level with other bonuses added in as I see it so far... that could change of course as playtesting progresses.
6. Removal of have to prepare certain spells each day... yes, I know some would hate this to.... what would tone the wizards and clerics would be this... clerics would be a bit more limited in the scope of spells they could cast per day, probably around 75% the normal amount right now. Wizards might not be as limited but there would be more spells with monetary worthy material components... but possibly these would be more of a category type, such as 2nd level necromancy spells require a 10gp necromantic material component. Then, I would have a big list of possible material components for each class/each level with instructions to allow the DM to add more... this would cause spellcasters to be uhm, collectors, in a grisly sense... while a gem could always serve for one of the components... other varieties might include, say, the severed ear of a goblin for a 1st level divination spell, the lock of hair of something else for a 1st level enchantment spell..... you get the idea.
As for sorcerers, there would be no changes in this regard.
7. Certain modifications on a few commodity and goods prices that have always bothered me. I know most of you really wouldn't care but clothing would have to be a bit higher... even peasant clothing. If peasant clothing is listed amongst the new items then you have to consider a rate if the clothing was in fact "new", even though it might be constructed from former toss offs or the worst of fabrics... expect to see a shift of such clothing to between 5sp to 1gp, with the others increasing respectably. I mean really, I know that the fantasy realm is not entirely the "old days" due to certain advantages of magic and so forth but in the "old days" not everyone was lucky enough to have more than one outfit, and it would not be entirely impossible with earning a meager 1sp per day to buy a new set of peasant clothing at least once per every 30 days for a peasant.
8. A few more core races already ready to go for playing... goblin so far, more as I think of them. Note dark elves below...
9. Dark elves toned down just a wee bit enough to allow them to be up and ready core race... not a major slashing of this creature, but enough (perhaps maybe a flaw or to added to adjust things) to make them a 1st level, ready to roll out, playable race.
10. Cyclops would be a standard monster in the core monster book (that was one thing that I've heard about 4th edition that I do like).
11. A greater span on rank concentration for skills, or perhaps a removal cap altogether (probably not that, but indeed a greater span of ranks)... basically, instead of a limit of current level+3 for highest achievable rank, an allowance of current level+5, possibily+6, that way, if you wanted to have a really good 1st level expert blacksmith with 7 ranks in the skill, it would be possible to.
More later as I think of them....
Copyright issues would loom large in such an alternate world. The OGL is in a sense very open, but it is also exhaustive in what it will allow. And one of the things it won't allow is reprinting the core books of 3rd or 3.5 with minor balance and flavor tweaks.
You can reprint the SRD -- which includes almost all of the core rules -- even without any tweaks. But I doubt Paizo would be interested in simply doing that, except perhaps as a temporary stopgap measure.
That being said, WotC does not own fantasy adventure gaming, nor does it own most monsters or heroic archetypes. You can use Mind Flayers (it's just a wingless Star Spawn, written by Lovecraft and that's public domain), but you can't call them Ilithid (which is a trademarked word owned by Hasbro). You can use Set (the snake god from Conan, written by Howard and that's public domain too), but you can't use Loviatar (she's owned by Hasbro too).
You can use any of the monsters presented in the SRD, though you need to come up with your own flavor and descriptive text. The SRD just gives the nuts and bolts. WotC keeps several monsters to themselves that were created wholly in-house (beholders, etc.)
Set comes from public-domain Egyptian mythology. Loviatar's name and general concept come from Finnish mythology...she's sometimes presented as an aspect of the goddess Louhi and sometimes as an entity in her own right. You could have a nasty goddess named Loviatar, but you couldn't swipe her stats and description directly from the Forgotten Realms version.
WotC owns the world of Greyhawk, and the city of Sigil. But it doesn't own any of the spokes on the Great Wheel because those are taken from legends that predate the invention of Copyright Law. Mordenkainen is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hasbro, but Asmodeus is public domain.
As long as you don't directly copy WotC's Asmodeus. Note that public domain characters can become copyrightable when presented in a specific fixed form. "Snow White" may be in the PD, but "Disney's Snow White" is not, as the Academy Award ceremony committee learned to their sorrow a few years back.
You could have a demon lord named Orcus, because he comes from Roman mythology. You could have him be associated with the underworld and undead, since he is in the original mythology; but depicting him as a fat demon with goat-like attributes would be questionable, since he wasn't depicted like that in Roman mythology; and of course, the "Wand of Orcus" would be WotC property.
So you'd have to tread carefully. You couldn't, for example, have the same classes as the 3rd edition rule book. So you'd be having to throw some guys out and put some guys in. Likely you'd drop the "Wizard" and the "Sorcerer" and put in some of the more popular specialist magicians instead. I could easily see Illusionist, Necromancer (note: cannot be named "Dread Necromancer" for Copyright reasons), Enchanter, Conjurer, and Battle Mage (warmage would be pushing it) all making the cut.
The Druid would have to be way different. But frankly you'd want it to be, so no loss there.
-Frank
The core classes are all represented in the SRD and could be freely used.
The core classes are all represented in the SRD and could be freely used.
Only if you are holding to the rest of the Open Gaming License. And in this case, you are not.
-Frank
Creative Director
|
You can use Set (the snake god from Conan, written by Howard and that's public domain too), but you can't use Loviatar (she's owned by Hasbro too).
Not to nitpick, but Loviatar is as open content as Set. Both are based on real-world mythology. But the primary point you're making is indeed correct. There's an awful lot in the game that is "open content." We've already been treading this ground with Pathfinder, frankly, with the inclusion of deities like Asmodeus and Lamashtu and Pazuzu and monsters like the tentamort and redcap and revenant. You can actually use Orcus pretty much as is; he's open content in the Tome of Horrors.
Anything in the SRD is, of course, open content that anyone can use. That includes all 11 base classes.
|
You can actually use Orcus pretty much as is; he's open content in the Tome of Horrors.
Am I right in thinking that once its open game content its "fair game" forever?
I'm pretty sure WotC later did versions of some creatures from Tome of Horrors in their closed content products, but as I understand it you can still use the Tome of Horrors version.
Well, if on the outside chance that this has been considered, I'd definitely sign up- Paizo produces the finest quality RPG products out there and Paizo Gamemastery OGL Core Book would get my vote, and my cash.
|
Probably has more in common with 3.5 than 4, but with a few fixes for troublesome areas. Plus, it would incorporate a few things they've wanted to do with the rules like implementing rules for chase scenes.
Yes CHASE scenes !!!! something I have seen all too rarely, and pretty unlikely to pop up in 4e !
|
Creative Director
|
You can actually use Orcus pretty much as is; he's open content in the Tome of Horrors.Am I right in thinking that once its open game content its "fair game" forever?
I'm pretty sure WotC later did versions of some creatures from Tome of Horrors in their closed content products, but as I understand it you can still use the Tome of Horrors version.
It's "fair game" for d20 and OGL products based on the 3.5 rules. There were a few things taken out of the Tome of Horrors when it was updated to 3.5... namely references to slaadi and stuff that WotC identified at the time as product identity, but Orcus himself is still in there. That said... for Pathfinder, we'll probably NOT be doing much with Orcus, since he IS so closely identified to D&D and plays a big role in 4th edition (he's on the cover to the 4.0 Monster Manual, after all); there's plenty of other ways to go for Pathfinder with the demons of undeath and all that.
(Orcus is also, in my opinion, the most "played out" of the D&D demons; he's EVERYWHERE!)
Paizo's next D&D Edition:
1) Repackage the 3.5 PHB, MM, and DMG as Pathfinder products (Pathfinder Player's Handbook, Pathfinder Gamemaster's Guide, and Pathfinder Monster Manual) but include rules for character creation and XP gain. Also, use Golarion gods instead of the PHB ones.
2) Produce a book with suggested alternate rules ala Unearthed Arcana (called Pathfinder Unleashed?) with possible fixes to areas people consider 'problems' with 3.5. Things like consolidating skills, new grapple and turn undead rules, rewriting some 'difficult' spells, suggestions for the '15-minute adventuring day' situation.
This way you've provided new customers with an entry window into the game without alienating existing 3.5 customers and also provided some improvements through alternate rules for those existing customers who may want that.
we'll probably NOT be doing much with Orcus, since he IS so closely identified to D&D and plays a big role in 4th edition (he's on the cover to the 4.0 Monster Manual, after all); there's plenty of other ways to go for Pathfinder with the demons of undeath and all that.
I'll just go ahead and interpret that as you saying that you lean more towards 3.5 than 4.0, since you want to distance yourself from 4e-isms here. It will get me through another hard day here.
would not be simpler to make New Rules for the 4th edition?
No one really knows yet. And I don't mean that from a system standpoint. No one knows what Paizo is allowed to do with the 4th Edition.
Now... From a rules point of view, since we already know that 3.5 fits in Golarion, I would imagine it would be simpler to not switch.
But since this is just a thought exercise, it doesn't really matter what is simpler or best.
|
Quick "Fixes" to streamline 3.5:
1. Insert Condition Track (much like Star Wars Saga Edition, but relying on Massive Damage Threshold, like d20 Modern).
2. Criticals. No more critical threats. Roll a natural 20 or a roll in your critical threat range that hits? Critical. Roll again a natural 20 or a roll in your critical threat range that hits? Instant Kill.
3. Weapon Damage: Weapon (+ Str Mod) + 1/2 Character Level + Misc
4. Include additional uses for skill checks: "Revivify" for Heal stabilizes ally who died that round. "Refresh" for Concentration allows spellcasters (and psions) to replenish their spell repertoire without resting.
5. Darkvision and Low-light Vision: (much like Star Wars Saga Edition, convert to game mechanics regarding concealment by way of darkness.)
6. Multiclassing: No penalty to multiclassing. If you want to get particular, require monks and paladins to take an extra feat to multiclass.
7. Level Adjustments: Dump 'em or simply recommend 'em. Leave it to the DM and player to decide for their game.
8. First Level Hit Dice: 2x(1dx (max)) + Con Mod
9. Encumbrance: Light Load = (1/2 Str Score squared); Heavy Load = 2 x Light Load.
10. Grab/Grapple: Add Str or Dex Mod to BAB.
I have these and some others that I've already inserted into my game and have seen little detriment. We have some others that we haven't included yet, simply because they are a bit more demanding to include:
1. Changing Ref/Fort/Will Saves to static defenses. (I'd also like to dump AC and use Ref instead, but that's another story.)
2. Condensing Skills and dumping synergies.
If anyone's interested, I've put together a .pdf that summarizes all the above. Go to Lost in Translation.
|
|
Whatever it is, it has to let me keep using my shelf full of 3.5 stuff, or it's as useless as 4th Ed is to me. Minor tweaks (Perception instead of Spot/Listen, for instance) I can handle. Major revisions mean I might as well convert.
I hear you. See my previous post. I've been building a catalogue of house rules that I've been implementing to streamline game play. I've yet to see imbalance.
That said, I also have yet to implement the two prospective house rules that I'm most interested in trying out: Static Saves and Condensed Skills.
(You will also notice that the .pdf represents a system of house rules to use for both D&D and d20 Modern. That's because I'm trying to integrate the two campaign settings more than they currently are.)
Orcus is also, in my opinion, the most "played out" of the D&D demons; he's EVERYWHERE!
That sir is sacrilege!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hmm...
I think such a system would address all the issues I have with 3e, but leaves alone the stuff that I do like.
Now, all we need to do is rally around this standard. It'd be awesome.
(Seriously, I have been thinking a lot about a 3e retro-fit for 4e, a new set of base classes that emulate the 3e counterparts and make the game "feel" more like 3e. But then I realized that a lot of what I would keep from 4e (e.g., squares instead of 5' steps, the new hit points, etc) is not what anyone else on the planet would necessarily keep. It's really hard to imagine a new system designed by committee, particularly when said committee can have totally different ideas of what works and what doesn't in 3e and/or 4e.)
|
|
In an Alternate Earth, Paizo doesn't do anything with 4 and since 3 core books are no longer being printed they realize they can't do that either.
So they come out with their own system instead.
What's that system like, I wonder aloud?
Fuzion, with the kind of detail that has been developed for Artesia - the RPG. I find it excellent.
Maybe slightly more focused on combat options, and with a re-focus on a more heroic fantasy/magic rich feeling, but without excessive complications.
Another problem I've found with 3.5 is a lack of clearly defined rules among certain things. For example mounted movement. Most of the time it's pretty straightforward, but what about direction facing, turning around, whether or not the mount threatens, etc. and other issues on how large creatures that aren't 2x2 squares big work on a grid system.
Perhaps these aren't the best examples because our latest problems aren't fresh in my mind. Anyway I've already worked around these so I'm not looking for suggestions.
It would just be nice to see more attention paid to some of the potentially more complex systems presented in publishing.
I pored over the 3.5 core books extensively for clearly defined solutions to our mount issues and ended up having to houserule most of it based on common sense.
Similarly, I'm sure perhaps these are in a non-core book...but using a grid with creatures bigger than Large....(I've not had to do this yet but I figured I would abandon the grid in the case of such an encounter and would just do my best with descriptive text, but what about if there was more than one enemy...well, I just figured out a system in my head as I typed that question so nevermind).
Anyway I've rambled long enough, I think you can see my point...