Feel free to change the rules! (keep the changes small though)

[Rhavin]

I've set up this thread in opposition to the "Don't change the rules" thread.

I personally believe that small changes to the rules are necessary for the survival and growth of pathfinder as a product. Many people are switching to 4th Edition out of the belief that 3.5 is too damaged to salvage, if pathfinder wishes to compete they need to be able to cater to this crowd in more than mere lipservice. I love 3.5 but have seen many, many flaws with it as I have played it; I am amoung those who belive these need fixed, just not in the radical, world altering way that 4E does it. Changes need to be small, so as to still be compatible, but they should still happen; otherwise Paizo will simply be publishing a campaign setting for a dying brand.

Yes, they have changed classes; this is a good thing, it allows for fixes to previously undesirable classes and downgrades to previously hyper-desirable classes. It also allows for the emphasis on taking a class all the way throuh to 20th level, something that I have never seen done in normal 3.5E play. The changing of feats is good, it allows for more interesting, yet not more time-consuming combats and as long as the basic idea behind the feats stay the same, compatability remains a nonissue. Finally come the grapple, trip, disarm, etc rules; these do not affect how feats worked in the past nor how abilities work in any sourcebook that I have seen. Yes, some abilities may rely on pinning an opponent, something that would be quite difficult under these rules but text can easily be adjusted. While not the cure for cancer, these things are good and not to be loathed, people fear change but this is not, in my opinion change, it is evolution. Rather than 4th editions destruction and reconstruction on the ruins of 3.5, Paizo inteads to add on to 3.5 while adding on to the substructure to enhance and support the construct as a whole.

[Frank Trollman]

WotC retains intellectual property on some surprising things: character advancement tables, the current Wildshape rules, mind flayer stats, etc. So Pathfinder must print up different versions of those key rules that are sufficiently unique to avoid potential lawsuit.

While we're at it, we might as well see versions of Wildshape that are sufficiently different to not be totally broken.

-Frank

[Kamelion]

I agree with the sentiment that a few changes are needed and that those changes should be small. So I'm posting in your thread as well as the other one :-)

I don't agree, however, that the Pathfinder RPG should cater to those folks who are leaving 3.5 for 4e. That's certainly not how it has been described, either in the initial blurb or back when the polls were going around about whether Paizo should shift to 4e or not. So my feeling is that the Pathfinder RPG should primarily cater to those who want to stay with 3.5 because of 3.5's own merits.

That said, I do agree that the enhancement of the classes looks good. I love what has been done with the skills and the combat maneuver rules. I'm not yet sold on the combat/chained feats - need to see what the designers are intending there. I'm also dubious about domains - interesting idea, though.

So I'm not sure how close I am to your actual position, but I do think that, where changes are made, they should be no more than is strictly necessary. I'm sure I'm not the only Paizo customer who is excited about the Pathfinder RPG because it's claiming to stay close to 3.5. If I wanted significant change or evolution or whatever you want to call it, I'd look elsewhere.

(Thanks for starting the thread, too! I think that this philosophical question on how far to go with changes will be one of the central issues facing the PRPG, and it's good to get all sides of the debate.)

[Rhavin]

Kamelion wrote:

I don't agree, however, that the Pathfinder RPG should cater to those folks who are leaving 3.5 for 4e. That's certainly not how it has been described, either in the initial blurb or back when the polls were going around about whether Paizo should shift to 4e or not. So my feeling is that the Pathfinder RPG should primarily cater to those who want to stay with 3.5 because of 3.5's own merits.

I didn't mean to imply this, sorry if it came across as such. Instead I meant to imply that there are flaws with the rules citing some such players as others who thought so as well, and that some of them that I have spoken are changing simply because they see no better option.

I gues the point I was trying to make was that improving 3.5 should be the goal of pathfinder RPG; but too many changes can ruin the feel of 3.5.

[Kamelion]

Rhavin wrote:

Kamelion wrote:

I don't agree, however, that the Pathfinder RPG should cater to those folks who are leaving 3.5 for 4e. That's certainly not how it has been described, either in the initial blurb or back when the polls were going around about whether Paizo should shift to 4e or not. So my feeling is that the Pathfinder RPG should primarily cater to those who want to stay with 3.5 because of 3.5's own merits.

I didn't mean to imply this, sorry if it came across as such. Instead I meant to imply that there are flaws with the rules citing some such players as others who thought so as well, and that some of them that I have spoken are changing simply because they see no better option.

Ah, OK - I see where you're coming from with that. No worries :-)

Rhavin wrote:

I gues the point I was trying to make was that improving 3.5 should be the goal of pathfinder RPG; but too many changes can ruin the feel of 3.5.

I agree with you wholeheartedly here :-)

[Rhavin]

yay

[Andrew Phillips]

I just wanted to chime in with the "Keep the changes small" crowd, although I do realize that PathfinderRPG has to work around the OGL.
I was quite surprised at the number and degree of changes to the system and I do feel that it will lack "backward compatability" in the current form.

I wouldn't want to be Jason Bulman right now, I know I get upset when my house rules are questioned by players, after all I spent hours considering all the impact each change would have at the table and they dare imply my work was wasted.

[Timespike]

I agree. It seems like a lot of the changes being made or being suggested by other posters make the game more like either 2nd edition or 4th edition. I don't WANT second edition or fourth edition. I want third edition! I want my skill points, iterative attacks, and unrestricted multiclassing. I want prestige classes, feats, and vancian spellcasting.

Now some of the changes I love. Feats at every other level? Great! The new way of handling cleric domains? Awesome. The new wizard abilies? Fantastic. d8 hit dice for rogues and d6 for arcane spellcasters? About frikkin' time. The new rules for turning undead and grappling? Vast improvement. Clerics automatically being proficient with their deity's favored weapon? I'd houseruled that in years ago. Leveling the paying field with races? All for it. All of those are fine by me. Losing skill points? NO! Losing iterative attacks? [CENSORED] NO! And then there's retrofitting old standby feats backwards into combat feats. It's kinda like communism. I can see that it was envisioned with the best of intentions, but I don't even like it on paper.

[Andrew Phillips]

Timespike wrote:

I agree. It seems like a lot of the changes being made or being suggested by other posters make the game more like either 2nd edition or 4th edition. I don't WANT second edition or fourth edition. I want third edition! I want my skill points, iterative attacks, and unrestricted multiclassing. I want prestige classes, feats, and vancian spellcasting.

Now some of the changes I love. Feats at every other level? Great! The new way of handling cleric domains? Awesome. The new wizard abilies? Fantastic. d8 hit dice for rogues and d6 for arcane spellcasters? About frikkin' time. The new rules for turning undead and grappling? Vast improvement. Clerics automatically being proficient with their deity's favored weapon? I'd houseruled that in years ago. Leveling the paying field with races? All for it. All of those are fine by me. Losing skill points? NO! Losing iterative attacks? [CENSORED] NO!

Yeah, thats what I meant to say!!

[Kamelion]

Timespike wrote:

I agree. It seems like a lot of the changes being made or being suggested by other posters make the game more like either 2nd edition or 4th edition. I don't WANT second edition or fourth edition. I want third edition! I want my skill points, iterative attacks, and unrestricted multiclassing. I want prestige classes, feats, and vancian spellcasting.

Now some of the changes I love. Feats at every other level? Great! The new way of handling cleric domains? Awesome. The new wizard abilies? Fantastic. d8 hit dice for rogues and d6 for arcane spellcasters? About frikkin' time. The new rules for turning undead and grappling? Vast improvement. Clerics automatically being proficient with their deity's favored weapon? I'd houseruled that in years ago. Leveling the paying field with races? All for it. All of those are fine by me. Losing skill points? NO! Losing iterative attacks? [CENSORED] NO! And then there's retrofitting old standby feats backwards into combat feats. It's kinda like communism. I can see that it was envisioned with the best of intentions, but I don't even like it on paper.

QFT. Agree with all of this...

(...Except for what you said about the changes to skills!)

[DM Jeff]

Timespike wrote:

I agree. It seems like a lot of the changes being made or being suggested by other posters make the game more like either 2nd edition or 4th edition. I don't WANT second edition or fourth edition. I want third edition! I want my skill points, iterative attacks, and unrestricted multiclassing. I want prestige classes, feats, and vancian spellcasting.

*Pats Timespike on the back and nods in agreement of a very well worded post*

-DM Jeff

[orcdoubleax]

I like this thread

Small twicks and simple changes are what is needed.

Not crazy ideas and things that will make it hard to convert existing materials.

Backwards compatable
easy to use
simple

That is the words I want to hear

Not
New stats system
New magic system
etc etc etc

I think that the people suggesting radical changes don't understand that this game will be marketed to those of us with thousands of dollars invested in 3.5 and no intention of changing to something that we can not easly convert to.

The fact is that if it is harder to convert to pathfinder then Iron Heroes then I go to Iron Heroes.