Don't change any rules!

[Guennarr]

I agree with the fore-posters:
Changes to skills, feat and spell rectifications and especially improving grappling rules are fine for me.

But the funamental rule changes to class balance (see other posts of mine) have too many impacts on the system.

If already the first alpha release contains '3.5 breaking' changes... I fear - same as the op - that you opened Pandorra's box: How to stop now PRPG from getting just another non-3.5 product like Iron Heroes?

I kindly ask you: In doubt please stay with the original rule!

Changing a system at too many places at once can only cause more need for further rule fixes., the final product being neither 3.5 compatiible anymore, nor a real improvement - but rather a testing ground of house rules.

Cheers,
Guenther

[Kamelion]

Erik Mona wrote:

Guys,

Your concerns are very much understood. A lot of what we plan to change is in the "undercarriage" of the system, and shouldn't affect stat blocks and adventures all that much. The intent is that you can run our stuff with _either_ system.

Thanks for this, Erik - it's good to hear a reminder from you folks about your general ideas for the Pathfinder RPG. Keeping the stat blocks useable is a big factor in the game's success imho, and it's reassuring to hear that you're keeping this in mind.

Erik Mona wrote:

Every once in a while you will hit something that doesn't quite work the same way. A 5th-level fighter might have slightly different powers in the PRPG than in 3.5, but his stat block will look familiar and you should have everything you need to run him in your 3.5 campaign.

Very cool. Slightly different powers are fine, and again, it's good to hear that the stat block will remain useful.

Erik Mona wrote:

I urge you to stay involved in the open playtest process. Speak out when a rule goes "too far," and we will strongly consider that input. Right now this is a living document that will change SEVERAL times before we get to the final version in August 2009.

I've only been a sporadic poster here over the years, but the announcement of the Pathfinder RPG has been really inspiring. It's very enjoyable to be participating in the playtest process and it's a very cool move on the part of Paizo to keep its fans included. Nice one :-)

[Erik Mona]

Jason has already shown me side-by-side stat block comparisons, and it's really quite striking how easy it looks to jump from one system to the other.

[seekerofshadowlight]

I made a few 5th level character last night and it looks very easy to jump from 3.5 to alpha even the skill change isnt that big a deal from core.

[Guennarr]

DMR wrote:

I have to disagree - sorry!

I think most people have some number of "house rules" that they use. Some more, some less. There are numerous areas of the game that could be improved upon. If everyone on these boards took the time to write up all of their suggestions - based on what works for them in their games - and the editors at Paizo distill it all down into one big, well-organized compilation - it would, in my opinion, be a HUGE success. Hopefully the final rules will be organized into modular sub-systems, so people can choose which parts they wish to use. So in your case, if you like 3.5 "as is", you can ignore the whole thing. I'm thinking of something along the lines of Unearthed Arcana (the book of optional rules) crossed with Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved (alternate PHB).

Even if sounding repetetive: severely poweing up the base classes isn't an option you can choose or dismiss, because all future PF products will be based on this rule change.

D&D base classes from other 3.5 sources? Afterwards underpowered

3,5 monsters? Afterwards underpowered.

Try to play D&D base classes in Iron Heroes: D&D PCs in PF products could turn out to be a similarly frustrating experience - depending on the severety of rule changes over 3.5.

[Guennarr]

Erik Mona wrote:

Jason has already shown me side-by-side stat block comparisons, and it's really quite striking how easy it looks to jump from one system to the other.

Thanks for your input, Erik!

But what about the 5th level PRPG fighter whose relative power (thanks to all the extra feats) is considerably higher than of his 3.5 equivalent?

I would like to take you literally and combine 3.5 material with PRPG - which seems to be difficult at best despite the same stat block format.

Guenther

[John Robey]

Erik Mona wrote:

Jason has already shown me side-by-side stat block comparisons, and it's really quite striking how easy it looks to jump from one system to the other.

I'd like to see some of these, actually. Particularly for a high-level skill-heavy character with lots of wonky abilities, just so we can get "the worst out of the way," so to speak. Something weird like a 15th level dwarf rogue/cleric.

Not because I'm a troublemaker ;) but because I want to see how the limits of the on-the-fly conversions go when pushed.

-The Gneech

[GregH]

Guennarr wrote:

Erik Mona wrote:

Jason has already shown me side-by-side stat block comparisons, and it's really quite striking how easy it looks to jump from one system to the other.

Thanks for your input, Erik!

But what about the 5th level PRPG fighter whose relative power (thanks to all the extra feats) is considerably higher than of his r.5 equivalent?

I would like to take you literally and combine 3.5 material with PRPG - which seems to be difficult at best despite the same stat block format.

Guenther

I have to admit, this is a concern with me as well. If there is "power creep" (as suggested in another thread) would encounters not become unbalanced when using a 3.5e equivalent? Maybe not against other classed NPCs necessarily, since they would all slide back the same amount. But a n EL 10 un-classed monster in PRPG, might be a 12+ EL in 3.5, would it not, since the PCs would be more powerful?

Just trying to clarify.

Greg

[Gurubabaramalamaswami]

Also, to clarify: changes to Core feats like Power Attack, Spring Attack, etc go too far!

[GregH]

Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:

Also, to clarify: changes to Core feats like Power Attack, Spring Attack, etc go too far!

I'm not so upset about this. Changes in mechanics are doable, just because you still read "power attack" in the feat part of the stat block and how you adjudicate that is up to you. (You can run it as a 3.5 feat or as a PRPG feat.)

However, when you change power level, then the unbalancing hits and a PRGP adventure becomes unusable without significant modifications. (i.e. That stone giant lair has to be turned into a hill giant lair because the 3.5e PCs at the same level would get creamed by the stone giants.)

I guess the moral of the story is: "you can't please everyone, all the time". I know in the end they'll do what they want. I hope it doesn't exclude me, but I'm just one voice among what appear to be a whole host of people ready to make significant changes. Oh well...

Greg

[James Risner]

The number of people that want no changes to the rules is probably so small that any effort to provide for them isn't productive.

In short, the number of people wanting changes is so great that WotC came up with 4E.

I want changes; I want fixes; I want balanced fixes; I want updates; I want new content.

Paizo's 3.75 is what I want. I imagine the majority of the people that didn't like the games they played at DDXP are going to want some of the improvements that 4E had.

Paizo is doing a good thing here and the fixes will be worth it.

[grrtigger]

James Risner wrote:

The number of people that want no changes to the rules is probably so small that any effort to provide for them isn't productive.

In short, the number of people wanting changes is so great that WotC came up with 4E.

I want changes; I want fixes; I want balanced fixes; I want updates; I want new content.

Paizo's 3.75 is what I want. I imagine the majority of the people that didn't like the games they played at DDXP are going to want some of the improvements that 4E had.

Paizo is doing a good thing here and the fixes will be worth it.

Pretty much same here.

While 3.5 has its bumps and bruises, I do like the foundation and don't feel like investing in a wholesale revision of the game. While I liked a lot of the flavor differences mentioned in various announcements of how 4e will be changing D&D, I think many of them can be worked in to 3.x without fundamentally altering the underlying mechanics.

There are issues that should definitely be addressed in any kind of 3.x update such as Pathfinder RPG, and a some amount of change is inevitable. I like changes that make the game more playable (such as those to help characters last beyond 15 minutes at a go) but am mainly concerned that updated options in the final product are balanced and that some kind of support or guidance for incorporating existing non-Pathfinder OGL/3.5 content is offered.

I believe that Paizo can pull this off, and they've demonstrated on many occasions that they do care about preserving the experience of the game for those of us who play it. My perspective is we've just seen the first of several alpha releases, beta is about five months away, and the final product gets released about a year after that. Plenty of time in there for testing, feedback, updates, more testing, more feedback, more updates, etc.

[Alzrius]

Erik, thanks for chiming in on this. Like so many others, I think it's great that Paizo is making this an open process, and is so involved in what the fans are saying.

That said, there's an undercurrent to the entire process - open though it is - that makes me nervous. From the very first, the message Paizo has put forth is "changes to the rules WILL happen; we're just not entirely sure what we're going to change yet." That makes me edgy, because deciding that changes need to be made, without clearly stating what exactly is in need of it, sounds too close to change for its own sake (at least, it sounds too close to it for my taste).

Ostensibly, you guys are letting the voices of the fans shape your opinion about what needs changing before you release the final product - at which point you're using your own best judgment, which is fine since it is, after all, your book - but there seems to be an ingrained opinion that no matter what's said, some changes are going to happen, even if everyone says otherwise.

I'm not suggesting that everyone necessarily is saying otherwise, of course. And I'm not saying there's no room for improvement. I liked the changes you guys made to special combat maneuvers (mostly grapple), and I'm hoping the polymorph changes look good as well. But beyond that, a lot of things that were altered seem to be done for the sake of being different, such as racial abilities, or having penalties to damaged items.

I recognize that some amount of change helps justify the book at all. Several other people have noted that if it was different, they wouldn't need to bother picking it up when it hits the shelves. Having this be the "new and improved 3.5" helps to create demand, and makes the game available to new players who might not be able to pick up the existing 3.5 Core Rulebooks in a year or two. But making changes to the rules for that purpose doesn't necessarily solve existing problems within the rules themselves.

Personally, I'd like to see the Pathfinder RPG, when it comes out, stick very closely to 3.5, with only a few minor tweaks (such as the aforementioned revised grapple and polymorph rules), and a fair amount of new content also. Adding in a new race, a new class or two, new spells, magic items, etc. that from then on become "standard" will, I think, help make the book sell without necessarily compromising the 3.5 rules as written; I know some others will disagree, but that's my ideal solution.

One other thing I want to point out, which doesn't seem to have been mentioned thus far, is that the issue of compatibility isn't a one-way street. I'm not worried about using "base 3.5" material in a Pathfinder game, so much as I'm worried about using Pathfinder material in a base 3.5 game. Like (I imagine) most people who are going to stay with 3.5, I have a ton of 3.5 material, which is going to be the majority of what I use when running/playing a 3.5 game. Pathfinder, while I have no doubt that it's going to be superb, is likely going to be just another sourcebook that I pull material from for my game. Except that, if the material can't be back-converted, I can't use it.

If you write a prestige class whose entry requirements have ranks in Acrobatics, Stealth, and Theft, then I can't use it. If you have a weapon/armor magic quality that negates penalties when the item is "broken," then I can't use it. If there's a feat that lets a wizard be able to cast spells without a Spellcraft check when he doesn't have his bonded item, then I can't use it. If you release a new clerical domain, which has no base domain power and list of domain spells, then I can't use it.

I'm slightly exaggerating in some of the above cases (e.g. I could try and work out what the new skills would be to the old skills), but the point is a valid one. Compatibility is (I think) more about how well Pathfinder works with everything else, not about how well everything else works with Pathfinder. And in that regard, less changes are most definitely the better option.

It may have some rough spots, a lot of people have decided that 3.5 is what works for them. The more you deviate from that, the more you deviate from what those potential customers want.

[pres man]

Alzrius, that is an amazing insightful discussion. Yes, it seems as if Paizo wants everyone who would have stuck with 3.5 to go PRG. They do not seem interested in having PRG material fit in a 3.5 game, but instead seem to be wanting to have 3.5 material fit in a PRG campaign. "If you are playing Pathfinder, you can still use your 3.5 material." not "If you are still playing 3.5, you can work your Pathfinder material into it."

[Guennarr]

Alzrius wrote:

Erik, thanks for chiming in on this....

Alzrius, very well put!

I totally agree and hope that Paizo takes our worries seriously and doesn't join the 'We have to reinvent the whole game' crowd.

Some people like to facilitate things too much: Of course I can expect PF products which are 'compatible with world's most popular rpg' to be 100% D&D/ OGL 3.5 compatible. You wouldn't expect anything less.

So why should the PRPG which is supposed to be 'compatible with 3.5' be any less compatible?!

I'd really like to see people here show more respect for other people's differing opinions and worries. They can disagree, but belittling others doesn't show a high degree of tolerance and openness to what they proclaim as their primary aim: change.

Hoping for a more respectful discussion and a clearer positioning of Paizo's*,
Guenther

* (in order to prevent discussions from growing even more controversial)

[Vegepygmy]

I agree with the OP (Alzrius) 100%. And I really hope Paizo is listening, because if I am forced to choose between 4E and something like the Alpha Release 1, I won't be picking the AR1.

[GregH]

Vegepygmy wrote:

I agree with the OP (Alzrius) 100%. And I really hope Paizo is listening, because if I am forced to choose between 4E and something like the Alpha Release 1, I won't be picking the AR1.

Well, I for one am a tad worried. There are 2 pages to this thread, and more than 10x that many threads going up asking for this change or that? Heck, I just saw a thread on changing armour to DR.

I think the writing may very well be on the wall (or the messageboards?). We are in the vast majority.

I'm a sad panda. :-(

Greg

[Christopher Hauschild]

I have seen some suggesting an extra race should be added to the core rules, and I have to disagree with that assessment. I like the number of races for the core book exactly as they are and added races really seem to turn off a lot of people so hopefully you guys will not do it. (posted here since this place seemed to be the best place to post this comment)

[etrigan]

I think what most don't seem to understand it's the following sentence:

Eric Mona wrote:

A lot of what we plan to change is in the "undercarriage" of the system, and shouldn't affect stat blocks and adventures all that much. The intent is that you can run our stuff with _either_ system.

Either... doesn't mean both system at the same time... The Pathfinder RPG doesn't need do be fully compatible with DnD 3.5 and in fact it can't since the OGL don't cover most of the Wotc splat books....

I think what compatible mean is that you can run Pathinfer Adventures with either the 3.5 core rules with all the splat book you wish OR use the Pathfinder RPG without too much effort. The new system shouldn't affect stat blocks and adventures all that much. For exemple, the way the new Power Attack or the Grapple rules work does't affect in any way how you will run an aventure using 3.5 instead of the Pathfinder RPG... The point is: If you want to keep running Pathfinder adventures with the 3.5 core rules you don't need to buy the new Pathfinder RPG. But if you like the new options, it's a great alternative to the 4E!

[GregH]

etrigan wrote:

I think what most don't seem to understand it's the following sentence:

Eric Mona wrote:

A lot of what we plan to change is in the "undercarriage" of the system, and shouldn't affect stat blocks and adventures all that much. The intent is that you can run our stuff with _either_ system.

Either... doesn't mean both system at the same time...

Oh, I understand the sentence quite clearly. And I believe Erik when he says that's his intention. I just don't think any of them anticipated the flood of ideas that the open playtest is creating.

I think the avalanche has started, and in the end, the PFRP is going to be a lot less like 3.5e than they had originally anticipated. After throwing this out to the community like they did? They are going to have to reject 99% of the ideas that are posted here in order to keep it 3.5e compatible. And that will cheeze off a lot of the more exuberant fan base.

As I said, I think those few of us who want little or no change are on the losing side of this...

But I guess only time will tell.

etrigan wrote:

For exemple, the way the new Power Attack or the Grapple rules work does't affect in any way how you will run an aventure using 3.5 instead of the Pathfinder RPG...

True, but the power level of the new fighter may just do that - make the adventures too difficult for characters of the same level in 3.5e. (Effectively invalidating the adventure path concept - you can start at 1st level, but by 5th you'll be behind the curve.)

I don't really feel like arguing the point, actually. I honestly believe that in the end, the Paizo folk will make an excellent product. I just don't know if it will be one I want.

Greg

[Jeremy Reaban]

What I'd like to see is the "core" Pathfinder basically be 3.5 with grapple and polymorph fixed, and then all the "3.75" changes in additional sourcebooks. Sort of like Unearthed Arcana or even the PHBII and such.

[Geron Raveneye]

Greg, I can see where you're coming from, and the impression is easy to get, looking at the way the boards are overflowing with suggestions for completely new and 3.5-incompatible systems.

I'd say don't resign, or despair. I'm very sure the design team for Pathfinder has drawn a few firm lines in their own sandbox for how much change they want in the Pathfinder version of D&D, and they simply don't show them on the boards because they don't want to prematurely stifle and limit the creative processes of everybody posting here. After all, even a heap of simply incompatible suggestions might give pointers where the 3.5 rules could be tweaked in a compatible way, or where stuff could be added later, after the Core book is out.

They know what they promised, and they keep repeating the promise...and they have seen firsthand, with WotC's example, that simply breaking such a promise will result in a boatload of fans giving them the finger and setting off for other shores. And as Paizo and their announcement, right now, serves as a bit of a collecting pool for a lot of those who feel left adrift by 4E and who might be a damn loyal fan- and customer base for Pathfinder, I'm pretty sure they are going to toe a fine line between too much change and solid tradition. They've come out and said so repeatedly...give them some credit to know where to listen to their fans' suggestions, and where to politely dismiss them. :)

On the other hand, I'd LOVE an Unearthed Arcana style book 6 months after Pathfinder Core is out, with the best suggestions for alternate systems, polished and ready to integrate into the game. ;D

[QXL99]

It seems humorous to me that WOTC has been castigated for changing 3.5, yet so many posters have been quick to suggest changes of their own...

[grrtigger]

QXL99 wrote:

It seems humorous to me that WOTC has been castigated for changing 3.5, yet so many posters have been quick to suggest changes of their own...

I think WotC is castigated mainly for a) how they've managed the changes (including the Dungeon and Dragon debacle), and b) rearchitecting a game that many feel (some quite strongly!) was only in need of refinement.

Also, I'm in the group that likes many of the flavor changes announced for 4e but also believes some or most of these can be applied to 3.x without fundamentally reworking the underlying mechanics.

( woo )

[Ismellmonkey]

I think the major problem with 4th edition is WOTC decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

There could have been some relatively minor yet highly effective changes to 3.5 that would make it far more enjoyable as a game.

I see these changes as a way of making a good system even better.

[Bob King]

Perspective: I'm a long time (late 70's) player of D&D, but I play infrequently. (Example, my son and I were active in Living Greyhawk 2-3 years ago, but have only played 2 times in last few years.)

In my initial scan of the Pathfinder rules, I find myself asking the same question in several places: Why?

Example: Why replace Pick Pockets and Open Locks with one skill Theft?

What I would like to see is some more Designer's Notes on the changes. Perhaps in a blog like post, or maybe in a "Pathfinder Wiki", where the designer(s) provide background on why it was changed.

The old adage If it's not broke don't fix it is tried and true. I acknowledge several things may be broken, and require fixing. But for infrequent players like myself, I do not know what's broken.

Perhaps we could get a "Director's Cut" edition of the Pathfinder Alpha rules that includes more sidebars for annotated comments.

Sticking with my example above:

Theft

Problem (or Issue): Rogues rarely choose pick pockets skill as it is of little use in most campaigns.

Fix: Incorporate Pick Pockets into new skill with Open Locks. This restores an iconic skill of the rogue class.

Note - I made up the problem reason as I do not know what the problem is - but I would like to. For the changes from 3.5, I want to know why it is being changed.

I think we can all provide better feedback and be better playtesters if we understand the motivations behind the individual differences.

[Hybban]

Bob King wrote:

I think we can all provide better feedback and be better playtesters if we understand the motivations behind the individual differences.

That is most true. If I wanted to play another bred of 3.5, I would use arcane Evolved, Book of Experimental might or Iron Heroes, All books on my shelves (or a french system called the dK which is excellent and REALLY easy to use on the fly). Or I could use DD4, which I'll buy nonetheless.

Either Paizo make a PRPG which is different from 3.5 and becomes the new system for their AP, or they stick to 3.5 with some 'corrections'. If people don't want to go to 4th and stick with 3.5, give them what they want, not something in-between.

Clearly, if people wants to stick with 3.5 it means that:
- They like this system
- They have already twaek all the rules they didn't like
- They for sure already have their core books
- They are going to use it to play the AP #2 #3 and #4 with this system.
- They already translate your stat blocks into their house rules if need be.

So why change:
- core classes and races
- feats
- power level
???

The best thing you could do is present a new core book with some additional and welcomed rules (the various XP progression charts are great, your new way to calculate XP per encounter sucks, I don't understand it is an example). Provide, a 3.9 set of rules (if you count all the other PHB variants, you should be at that number...). and provide stat blocks for both versions in your modules. If the changes are so easy to do on the fly, I'm sure it will represent only a few lines to change in your books, isn't it? (if you can't do it, you'll be proven wrong... :P )

Hyb'

[seekerofshadowlight]

yaknow i love 3e thats what i play not 3.5 but I'm all for the changes i have saw.
upgrading classes ok cool I can live with it close to my house rules
add on to the races... sure they look nice i like em
changes to some rules ...fine by me they look nice
skill changes...wasnt sure but after making a few chars i think there be easy to use no fuse at all. so yeah there gonna change some things but Looks like all my 3.0 and 3.5 books will still work so im good.

[hazel monday]

QXL99 wrote:

It seems humorous to me that WOTC has been castigated for changing 3.5, yet so many posters have been quick to suggest changes of their own...

It's really not that humorous when you consider that those that want change and those who don't probably ain't the same people.

When you realize that, it actually makes a lot of sense.

[Guennarr]

James Risner wrote:

The number of people that want no changes to the rules is probably so small that any effort to provide for them isn't productive.

In short, the number of people wanting changes is so great that WotC came up with 4E.

I want changes; I want fixes; I want balanced fixes; I want updates; I want new content.

Paizo's 3.75 is what I want. I imagine the majority of the people that didn't like the games they played at DDXP are going to want some of the improvements that 4E had.

Paizo is doing a good thing here and the fixes will be worth it.

James et al., you are making assumptions, dangerously wrong assumptions.

Have a look at the votings on these very message boards: It was anything but a minority that voted pro 3.5/ 3.75.

If you are dissappointed from your first 4e experience, then you have a right to feel that way. Trying to instrumentalize PRPG to shape a 4e of your liking is surely *not* in scope of PRPG according to everything I read so far. So please stop trolling!

[CharlieRock]

Oh, I'm going to play-test. That's for sure. =D

[Guennarr]

grrtigger wrote:

While I liked a lot of the flavor differences mentioned in various announcements of how 4e will be changing D&D, I think many of them can be worked in to 3.x without fundamentally altering the underlying mechanics.

According to Paizo the explicit goal of PRPG is to preserve the flavour of classic D&D while smoothening 3.5's edges.

4e is seen as explicitly turning its back on the classic D&D feel... So don't expect much of 4e to creep into PRPG. Paizo was very explicit on the subject of flavour changes.

Anyway: Which sense in making PRPG a clone of 4e?

[Guennarr]

Alzrius wrote:

That said, there's an undercurrent to the entire process - open though it is - that makes me nervous. From the very first, the message Paizo has put forth is "changes to the rules WILL happen; we're just not entirely sure what we're going to change yet." That makes me edgy, because deciding that changes need to be made, without clearly stating what exactly is in need of it, sounds too close to change for its own sake (at least, it sounds too close to it for my taste).

Ostensibly, you guys are letting the voices of the fans shape your opinion about what needs changing before you release the final product - at which point you're using your own best judgment, which is fine since it is, after all, your book - but there seems to be an ingrained opinion that no matter what's said, some changes are going to happen, even if everyone says otherwise.

I'm not suggesting that everyone necessarily is saying otherwise, of course. And I'm not saying there's no room for improvement. I liked the changes you guys made to special combat maneuvers (mostly grapple), and I'm hoping the polymorph changes look good as well. But beyond that, a lot of things that were altered seem to be done for the sake of being different, such as racial abilities, or having penalties to damaged items.

I recognize that some amount of change helps justify the book at all. Several other people have noted that if it was different, they wouldn't need to bother picking it up when it hits the shelves. Having this be the "new and improved 3.5" helps to create demand, and makes the game available to new players who might not be able to pick up the existing 3.5 Core Rulebooks in a year or two. But making changes to the rules for that purpose doesn't necessarily solve existing problems within the rules themselves.

Personally, I'd like to see the Pathfinder RPG, when it comes out,...

I totally agree. And obviously more and more people wonder what the real design goal (which problems of 3.5 being addressed, which ones not? Compatibility?) Of PRPG is.

See e.g. The thread "DesignGoal" or this thread of mine .

[Boxhead]

I'd also assume that what Paizo will do (what I know I'd do in their place) is push the envelope on the Alpha release. If people hate this or that and love something else, it is very easy to scale it back.

On the other hand, if the initial release was just 3.5 with new and improved grapple rules, way too many people would react with a "so what?". It is much easier to get a reaction when you push the rules to the edge and then scale it back for the final release.

Personally, I wholeheartedly approve of the new classes. Wizards and Clerics actually lost some spells per day (sort of), while getting little in return. The fighter and rogue gained some new powers to make them a little better (and less boring).

[pres man]

Guennarr wrote:

Anyway: Which sense in making PRPG a clone of 4e?

Let's begin with the boost to hp, move on to having some unlimited spells, peek at removing skill points, ...

[Guennarr]

pres man wrote:

Guennarr wrote:

Anyway: Which sense in making PRPG a clone of 4e?

Let's begin with the boost to hp, move on to having some unlimited spells, peek at removing skill points, ...

Very kind of you to rip that sentence out of its context.

But apart from that: None of that requires such deep changes. Actually I question if the attractiveness of certain classes can be increased just by pouring out more hit points... The implications go as far as monster challenge ratings. But that is a discussion already led in other threads.

And PRPG will certainly not contain as deep changes to magic as 4e does.

Most imanent to me is still the question of the scope of PRPG: Which changes does it encompass, which ones not? (easier handling of high level characters: I mean you!)

Cheers,
Günther

[Vegepygmy]

QXL99 wrote:

It seems humorous to me that WOTC has been castigated for changing 3.5, yet so many posters have been quick to suggest changes of their own...

I see a certain irony there as well.

But few people have claimed that 3.5 would not benefit from some changes. (We all have our own house rules, don't we?) The problem, as I see it, is that very few people agree on just what those changes should be. Looking through the Alpha Release 1, for example, I see change after change that I don't want made, and only a few that I do. So many changes I don't want made, in fact, that I despair of having to "undo" them should I embrace the Pathfinder system...which means I probably won't embrace the Pathfinder system. Which, of course, means that Paizo will lose my business.

Now, maybe there are enough others out there who will be pleased with most of the changes that the Pathfinder RPG will be a success, but based on my discussions of game rules with people on the Internet and face to face, I really, really doubt it.

[Kamelion]

Vegepygmy wrote:

The problem, as I see it, is that very few people agree on just what those changes should be. Looking through the Alpha Release 1, for example, I see change after change that I don't want made, and only a few that I do. So many changes I don't want made, in fact, that I despair of having to "undo" them should I embrace the Pathfinder system...which means I probably won't embrace the Pathfinder system. Which, of course, means that Paizo will lose my business.

Agreed. This is why, imho, any changes made by the PRPG should be as few as possible, or of the kind that can be plugged into the 3.5 system without impacting on stat blocks or backwards compatibility. This is the major selling-point of Pathfinder, and my humble opinion is that Paizo dilute it at their peril ;-)

As the threads in the alpha discussion forums show, everyone has their own set of ideas on what needs "fixing" with 3.5, or even if anything needs fixing at all. But, like vegepygmy says, very few people agree on what the changes should be. Yes, there are a few that everyone agrees on (grapple seems to be a good example of this) but other than that?

For that reason, I think that the PRPG needs to be a stable, base system closely derived from the 3.5 SRD. It needs to be that common ground that we already know. This then allows folks to add in their own houserules as they see fit (we've all got them - I have loads!) rather than having someone else's houserules forced upon them by the core rules.

I love the creativity that is in the alpha document (and on the forums) and some of the changes are bang on target. But, as they say, less is more :-)

[Davelozzi]

I just wanted to chime in to agree with the general point of this thread. Well I wouldn't go as far as Alzrius and say "don't make ANY changes" I think they should be kept to a minimum.

Like others, I like (at first glance at least) the Combat Manuever changes and am open to the simplified skill system, but bumping up the power level of core classes is too much change (the races aren't quite as much of a big deal since it's a one time bump, not an incremental one).

And while I applaud Paizo for opening the playlist, I agree with others that a peril of this is that those with lots of changes to suggest are automatically going to drown out those who prefer very few changes, unless the latter category is constantly reposting their opinion (something which is very annoying and which I do not advocate). In the end, it's just going to come down to the Paizo guys really keeping their eye on the prize, and going with their gut. Good luck!

[Neithan]

Yes. Change what is broken or too complicated in relation to 3.5e rules. But wizards and clerics really don't need more power in 3.5e! So hands off! ^^

If you make clerics and wizards more powerfull, you not only have to get the other classes at a same power level as the other classes in 3.5e, but also raise them further to the new power level of wizards and clerics. Then things really get out of hand and it won't be recognizeable as 3rd edition anymore.