Hi folks. I don't write alot on these boards but I hang around and keep an eye out and I just noticed a trend around this new Pathfinder RPG alpha release.
Everyone wants to chime in on how to make the game better. Everyone has a house rule or an added rule that they think you highten the gaming experience. And I'm not saying anything against this.
However. To few seem to think about making this game combatible with the 3.5 rules set. Which I might point out was one of the reasons for even making a Pathfinder RPG. If you ad too much it will take alot of time adjusting material from older books to be able to play them with the new. We've already seen that the base classes are getting stronger for lack of a better word. This will in itself lower the CR of monsters from older books.
Now I hear people who want races to get better at higher levels. This is not a good idea since I have 3.5 books with perhaps 50 new races who wont have these rules added to them. Giving them a slight revamp would be ok. But adding powers depending on level would take alot of time and playtesting and would end up with me telling a player that I had to remove his favourite power cus i was unbalancing the game.
Alot of us wanted to stay 3.5. Let's not forgett this now just because the Paizo people was nice enough to ask our oppinion. Please think a bit on combatibility before you add your five cents. Thanks.
PS. I'm not trying to stifle your creativity, realy I'm not.
The reason I am totally jazzed up about the Pathfinder RPG is because I recognize the flaws in 3.5 and have little to no interest in 4.0.
I have all the official 3.5 books from WotC (yes, all). I even have multiple loaner PHBs just for people who join my game and don't have a copy. As far as I know, they won't spontaneously turn to dust when 4.0 launches. So if I want to play 3.5 "as is", that's not a problem for *a lot* of people.
What I don't want out of R-RPG is a reprint of the WotC book with a few sprinklings of Pathfinder Chronicle SettingBits(tm). I am extremely excited about the possibility of P-RPG being more of a 3.75.
While there have been huge differences between the existing versions of D&D (1st to 2nd to 3.0 to 3.5), there is a feeling of progression; that each successive edition has grown from the previous one. Much has been ballyhooed about 4.0 having a totally different feel; that it doesn't represent a progression, but a separate game altogether.
I'm hoping that P-RPG will be that missing link. That Paizo will take all the problems from 3.5 that were 'fixed' for 4.0 and find ways to address them within a 3.x framework. Yes, there may be some conversions neccessary - but at least the conversions will be possible.
Now I hear people who want races to get better at higher levels. This is not a good idea since I have 3.5 books with perhaps 50 new races who wont have these rules added to them.
Yeah that would suck.
I have to agree with the OP.
Yeah some things need to be fixed. But big changes are bad. I want backward campatability.
When Agugust of 2009 rolls around I would like to know I can run the Pathfinder adventures using the 3.5 books and not really have to do much converting at all.
I also want to be able to pull out my "Races Of.." books and my "Complete..." books and other assorted splat books and apply them to 3P without much converting.
If I was forced to make up a level progression for racial abilities for goliaths, warforged, xephs ect that would indeed suck.
|
However. To few seem to think about making this game combatible with the 3.5 rules set. Which I might point out was one of the reasons for even making a Pathfinder RPG. If you ad too much it will take alot of time adjusting material from older books to be able to play them with the new.
I am totally with you on this. I see lots of great ideas being tossed around, but then I think of going through an adventure path and converting all the stat blocks and shudder.
And then I think of all the WotC non-OGL 3.5 material that cannot be updated and yet I love to use and I really shudder. cringe even.
In fact, I think that is one of the main things people have to keep in mind when proposing changes in PRPG. "If we change this in core, how does it interact with non-OGL material?"
Now, there are ways to do this reasonably, like creating general, source independent, rules for upgrading races/classes/feats/spells/whatever. But at this point I think it starts getting rather nasty to convert. Possible, certainly, but no longer quick.
Another thing to think about when making changes is how they will balance with other 3.5 material. With the wealth of splat books out there that we are supposedly trying to keep from becoming obsolete, it does not do any good to try to balance PRPG from a "core only" standpoint. i.e. even if Paizo can only publish OGL material, if they are creating a game that is supposed to make ALL 3.5 material useable, it has to mesh with that as well.
|
I feel this is a very fine line to walk. On one hand, I want to be able to take any of the many WotC books in my library, and the other 3rd party sources, and use them in any Pathfinder game without took many changes. I want new players to be able to pick up 3.5 books still floating around the shelves and not be confused by incongruencies.
On the other hand, I want the shiny new streamlines. I want skills to be rolled together, scaling better. I want my paladins and fighters to be rebalanced. I want the 15-minute adventuring day lengthened.
I'm hoping that as a community we can hammer things into the moderate middle-of-the-road. Right now we're tossing the metal into the coals, to get things heated up. We'll move on to the shaping and finer work as we go along.
Yep. What ya'll said.
I have a few ideas on how to make races very dynamic; however, they wouldn't be good for PRPG....at least, not right away. As stated by Paizo, compatability is important at this point. If PRPG succeeds (and I will do all I can to ensure that it does), there will be lots of room for expansion down the road.
|
I haven't noticed a compatibility problem with the Alpha release yet. The things shown so far have been impressive, but that doesn't mean they are the final cut.
I think what Paizo is listening for aren't house rules to garner, but are waiting for the praise and complaints about the changes they've made. Yes, we all want a better balanced fighter or paladin but we also have to tell them what we think will improve gameplay.
I don't think that compatibility in this sense means that we can use the 3.5 stuff completely as is, just the same that 3.5 couldn't use the 3.0 stuff as it was. Before the complete series started coming out I did countless fixes to the paperback splat books in anticipation of players wanting the classes and feats described in those books.
I think we're all expecting a lot of work, but that is half the fun of writing and running adventures. Besides, we have a year and a half before its "finalized".
I think stuff like how combat maneuvers work or what a specific feat exactly does are where you can do the most with causing the least complications. Another rule for Turn Undead, more weapon types, applications for skills, and new items should also be no problems.
Changing classes on the other hand may become quite a difficult thing. To update a fighter just raise AC by +1 or +2 and attack and damage by +2 or +3, and everythings fits (the +1 or +2 to certain skills should be neglectable).
But things like the new domains or the new system of school specialization are problematic to some degree. They look cool, but those classes are allready among the strongest. To archive more balance other classes would need major overhauls and that's were compatibility beginns to stop. But now, I'm quite confident the devs will be aware of it and reconsider it for the final release.
|
Having perused and scanned Alpha with a group of friends last night we all agreed will take some form of notes and I will try to pass them on here. As far 'compatibility' we noticed that it will be quite easy to 'upgrade' many classes and race into Pathfinder. I think people here compatibilty and think "Aha! I can take my 3.5 stuff and use win Pathfinder tommorow night!"
Instead they should be thinking similar to the 3e to 3.5 compatibility where everything was portable but it took some conversion time and effort. My group and I think that this is alpha good thing and plan to convert our current RotRL campaign and pick it back up in 3 weeks time(first we have finish dirupting Lolths plans on the multiverse and kill her aspect in the Demonweb).
|
|
I have to agree with the OP.
Yeah some things need to be fixed. But big changes are bad. I want backward campatability.
When Agugust of 2009 rolls around I would like to know I can run the Pathfinder adventures using the 3.5 books and not really have to do much converting at all.
I also want to be able to pull out my "Races Of.." books and my "Complete..." books and other assorted splat books and apply them to 3P without much converting.
If I was forced to make up a level progression for racial abilities for goliaths, warforged, xephs ect that would indeed suck.
I think your missing the point on this a little.
The idea of 3.75 being pathfinders goal would indeed still provide a viable backward process for all the previous splat books and big changes globally would indeed cause problems (you just need to look at 4e to see how that can happen). However big changes are what is needed in some areas of 3.5 to make them work better at the table.
We all know that the game is still 1 to 20 levels with 6 stats and with an emphasis on feats to provide diversity. While WOTC changed this for 4e Paizo will hopefully maintain this balance because it causes too much work to convert older material.
Changes to hit dice, spells, saves, AC, attacks etc. would still be viable for the previous splat books. Sure you may have to change the odd ability, feat, or spell here and there but the basics of the games structure will remain intact.
I agree that we don't want to see things change for changes sake but if the current mechanics would see an improvement from a major change then perhaps its worth the extra work on backward material, After all, the backwards material is designed around an awkward mechanic.
If you restrict a new system so that it works without any changes to older material you just end up with yet another 3.5 ruleset, not a new 3.75 ruleset that could potentially revolutionize the OGL.
|
Hi folks. I don't write alot on these boards but I hang around and keep an eye out and I just noticed a trend around this new Pathfinder RPG alpha release.
Everyone wants to chime in on how to make the game better. Everyone has a house rule or an added rule that they think you highten the gaming experience. And I'm not saying anything against this.
However. To few seem to think about making this game combatible with the 3.5 rules set. Which I might point out was one of the reasons for even making a Pathfinder RPG. If you ad too much it will take alot of time adjusting material from older books to be able to play them with the new. We've already seen that the base classes are getting stronger for lack of a better word. This will in itself lower the CR of monsters from older books.
Now I hear people who want races to get better at higher levels. This is not a good idea since I have 3.5 books with perhaps 50 new races who wont have these rules added to them. Giving them a slight revamp would be ok. But adding powers depending on level would take alot of time and playtesting and would end up with me telling a player that I had to remove his favourite power cus i was unbalancing the game.
Alot of us wanted to stay 3.5. Let's not forgett this now just because the Paizo people was nice enough to ask our oppinion. Please think a bit on combatibility before you add your five cents. Thanks.
PS. I'm not trying to stifle your creativity, realy I'm not.
I'm in complete agreement. Change only those things which are a serious problem in 3.5, and do it in a way that things are still backward compatible. Changing how to resolve Grapple, for example, doesn't invalidate any previous material, but completely redoing the clerical domains is much more of a problem.
|
|
I feel this is a very fine line to walk. On one hand, I want to be able to take any of the many WotC books in my library, and the other 3rd party sources, and use them in any Pathfinder game without took many changes. I want new players to be able to pick up 3.5 books still floating around the shelves and not be confused by incongruencies.
On the other hand, I want the shiny new streamlines. I want skills to be rolled together, scaling better. I want my paladins and fighters to be rebalanced. I want the 15-minute adventuring day lengthened.
I'm hoping that as a community we can hammer things into the moderate middle-of-the-road. Right now we're tossing the metal into the coals, to get things heated up. We'll move on to the shaping and finer work as we go along.
All valid points. I think if an NPC is in a splat book there will not be too much you have to do except adjust some skills and feats if you even want to do that (at least the way things stand). I think if one of my players wanted to play an odd class from a splat book that most of them are really just variants on the core classes. I suppose the exceptions are Dragon Shamans and Warlocks. Now as DMs if a player wants to play one of these we can then sit down and rework it a bit to fit into the new framework if we think it even needs any. For races, that depends on the race. Just because a race exists in the WotC universe does not mean I have to allow it into my Pathfinder Campaign. Certainly warforged have no place for me in the setting. They have a reason for being in Eberron and no logical reason to be in my world. Others I would take on a case by case basis. When I get 4e I may play with Dragonborn and Tieflings in my campaign or maybe not. It is probably not important to do so but I kind of like them.
So far I like almost all of the changes I have seen. I have to reread some parts and I am not as clear on experience points but I will know more after we have play tested a bit.
So far, none of the changes I've seen scream 'incompatable' to me. If it's 'power' you're concerned about, one could certainly argue that material produced by WOTC near the end of 3.5 is 'not backwards compatible' with what's in the core PHB; there are certainly 'better' and 'more powerful' classes, prestige classes, monsters, items, whatever.
|
|
If it's 'power' you're concerned about, one could certainly argue that material produced by WOTC near the end of 3.5 is 'not backwards compatible' with what's in the core PHB; there are certainly 'better' and 'more powerful' classes, prestige classes, monsters, items, whatever.
That's actually a really good point.
|
|
Too be honest, I banned the Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic because the classes and such presented in these books made it so that there was little reason to play any of the original classes.
Wasn't just my group either. A friend of mine who runs his own group came to that decision before I even saw the book after one of his guys built one of those "tome classes".
Frankly, the classes presented in the Alpha don't even come close in terms of power to the "tome classes".
I'm in pretty much complete agreement with the original poster.
I agree with the OP and I am a staunch supporter of easy backward compatibility. Easy meaning - interchangeable rule additions/subtractions.
The new classes are hit and miss with some people..but you dont have to use them to play Pathfinder. That is a plus.
Modifications to races are a bit more built in, and may pose a problem. I think a racial feat tree would solve a lot of those issues...sorry I'm meandering off topic.
The new rules for cleric turning and wizard specializations are good for some and not for others. But they can be completely ignored and Pathfiinder is playable with the SRD rule set. Awesome
I think our main task as players/gm's/brainiacs/grognards should be to try to avoid preaching our own house rules (I'm guilty I admit) and instead look at Jason's take on the Alpha 1 release and critique items that build in change (ie Race, Spells, Combat), and promote items that are seamlessly integrated/dropped with ease (new feats, classes, etc).
Hi folks. I don't write alot on these boards but I hang around and keep an eye out and I just noticed a trend around this new Pathfinder RPG alpha release.
Everyone wants to chime in on how to make the game better. Everyone has a house rule or an added rule that they think you highten the gaming experience. And I'm not saying anything against this.
However. To few seem to think about making this game combatible with the 3.5 rules set. Which I might point out was one of the reasons for even making a Pathfinder RPG. If you ad too much it will take alot of time adjusting material from older books to be able to play them with the new. We've already seen that the base classes are getting stronger for lack of a better word. This will in itself lower the CR of monsters from older books.
Now I hear people who want races to get better at higher levels. This is not a good idea since I have 3.5 books with perhaps 50 new races who wont have these rules added to them. Giving them a slight revamp would be ok. But adding powers depending on level would take alot of time and playtesting and would end up with me telling a player that I had to remove his favourite power cus i was unbalancing the game.
Alot of us wanted to stay 3.5. Let's not forgett this now just because the Paizo people was nice enough to ask our oppinion. Please think a bit on combatibility before you add your five cents. Thanks.
PS. I'm not trying to stifle your creativity, realy I'm not.
I agree completely. Compatibility should be your number one goal. We don't want a new system; we want fixes to the 3.5 system. So this is a case where less is more: the fewer the changes, ironically, the better. If we want massive change there's 4e. Each time you think about a change, as yourself, "does this really need to be changed?" Don't make changes for the sake of change (or as an excuse to sell a new product, as Wizards has done with 4e). There's nothing wrong with experience advancement or hit points as they are currently, so don't change them. If you want to offer slow advancement options, that's fine, but PLEASE KEEP THE CURRENT EXPERIENCE TABLE as your "slow advancement" option. Please make Pathfinder as compatible with 3.5 as possible.
I have to say I would be interested into a new revision of 3.5e, but I think I wouldn't do more than once or twice flip through the basic rules in search of hints for nice houserules if a new d20 gets on the market.
|
|
Compatability above all other things. I want to use all 40 books I have already purchased, not rewrite them. I don't want to put any more work in than I already do. Simple rule exchanges is what my group and I are looking for. We like the turning=healing, +2 ability scores, etc. Changing the skills list and distribution method is a no go as we would have to CONVERT all modules we own now to new system. Compatability, in our eyes, means no conversion just exchanging.
What scares me is that if the PRPG turns into a system that is not truly compatable, I will have to convert all upcoming Pathfinder APs back into 3.5 before running them. I was very excited, ecstatic even, when Paizo announced sticking with 3.5, but some of the changes in the PRPG seem to run contrary to that stated goal.
Well, we know really nothign about the system as it will turn out. All we have is 60 pages of ideas and suggestions and a huge bunch of exited geeks rebuilding those to their private fantasies of salvation or doom. I think when we see the beta, we can start to really think about how this whole thing will turn out.
Creative Director
|
I was very excited, ecstatic even, when Paizo announced sticking with 3.5, but some of the changes in the PRPG seem to run contrary to that stated goal.
Some of the changes in the Alpha, perhaps... but as Jason's stated elsewhere, that's part of the Alpha's job; to test limits. We've got well over a year to nail things down and to make sure that folk are happy with the game... and that includes me, who wants it to be as backwards compatible as we can make it!
I was very excited, ecstatic even, when Paizo announced sticking with 3.5, but some of the changes in the PRPG seem to run contrary to that stated goal.Some of the changes in the Alpha, perhaps... but as Jason's stated elsewhere, that's part of the Alpha's job; to test limits. We've got well over a year to nail things down and to make sure that folk are happy with the game... and that includes me, who wants it to be as backwards compatible as we can make it!
I'm very encouraged to hear it. The alpha rules change far too much for them to prove helpful to me. I'd like something that tweaks what doesn't work well in 3.5, not that scraps large portions of 3.5. I like, for example, the idea of granting characters an extra +1 hit point for each level of their favored class, but I do not like even the change requiring humans to choose a favored class at first level.
|
|
Too be honest, I banned the Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic because the classes and such presented in these books made it so that there was little reason to play any of the original classes.
Wasn't just my group either. A friend of mine who runs his own group came to that decision before I even saw the book after one of his guys built one of those "tome classes".
Frankly, the classes presented in the Alpha don't even come close in terms of power to the "tome classes".
The really (I'm sure unintentionally) hilarious thing about this particular blanket ban is that the shadowcaster is so weak as to be nigh unto useless.
|
|
The really (I'm sure unintentionally) hilarious thing about this particular blanket ban is that the shadowcaster is so weak as to be nigh unto useless.
But oh so flavorful. I'd really like to play one, that y'know, could survive past level one. ^_^
And thank you James for backing me up. Things have barely begun, and we have a lot of ideas to hammer out.
However. To few seem to think about making this game combatible with the 3.5 rules set. Which I might point out was one of the reasons for even making a Pathfinder RPG.
I gotta say that I agree with you, Lenarior. Keeping it as compatible as possible should remain paramount.
I have most of the hardcore WotC books. Being able to use all of them with the Pathfinder RPG is extremely imporatant to me.
I do like the upgrades to the Fighter class, though. Not sure about the others, yet.
Paizo's got my attention. That's for sure.
|
|
I understand the hesitation to change the 3.5 system. But it is time to face the fact that later "core classes" added to the game break one of the primary rules of the PHB - that no new core class would be better than the original core classes.
The Warlock broke that rule, and the SCout just followed along. An arcane spellcaster that can do damage every round, with no recharge or lose? Why play a Wizard? A wilderness fighter designed with guerilla tactics in mind? What purpose does the Ranger serve then?
And lets not forget the mechanic of class specific feats (such as Wild feats, Bardic Music feats and Rage feats), though no increased access to those feats was given to the classes they were designed for.
The original core classes got the shaft. Pathfinder looks to fix that. I am willing to make the conversions for easy of play and a restoratin of class balance.
Yet another person here who agrees with the OP.
What's absolutely critical for me to continue buying Pathfinder when it hits 3.Paizo is that I'll be able to play the Pathfinder modules with 3.5 characters (yes, from the 3.5 PHB) and not a bit of work on my part.
So far, the Alpha looks like it'd be able to accomodate that, but just barely... and it's just balancing on the edge (eg. the NPCs would be considered special "NPC classes" IMC, Perception = the same ranks in Spot and Listen, no NPC has Use Rope, etc). Now it needs to be dialed back a bit.
Interesting discussion, and the OP has a lot of valid points.
Part of the problem is, compatibility does not mean effortless. It means you can still use your 3.5 material but you *will* have to make changes, some perhaps small, some possibly large. If you did not, then it is not compatible with 3.5 it *IS* 3.5
If you are a tried and true 3.5 or death person, not only will 4E not fit your bill, neither will Pathfinder. It really means you need to look deep inside and decide where your limits really are.
I think this is a very cool thing for Paizo and has a lot of potential for the 3.5ish crowd!
:)
I think a lot of people are looking at the word "Alpha" and are seeing in their mind's eye the word "Omega".
Its the Alpha test. Which means after some pruning and tweaking there will be the Beta test. Which after some pruning and tweaking will be either another test, or a final product.
This is like any capable carpenter/seamstress/craftsman-of-any-sort will tell you: measure long. Round up. Give yourself some leeway room so that WHEN your screw up (not IF, WHEN) you've got spare material.
I opened the Alpha expecting to see more changes than I would feel are neccessary, because a good Alpha test is audacious. It shows what "could" be done, so that you can stop and look at it honestly and decide what "should" be done. A conservative Alpha is worthless.
My opionions? Races: Works for me. Classes: I like what I see, but reserve power creep judgements until I see reworked monsters. Skills: Like the folding, hate the "slot" system. Feats: Scattered approval and concerns. Combat: The CMB is genius. I eagerly await Alpha II for more to peruse.
Adding my support for the OP. My homebrew campaign makes extensive use of warlocks, samurai, ninja, scouts, and so forth. If I can't make PFRPG work with a minimum of fuss, I simply won't buy into it.
|
I was very excited, ecstatic even, when Paizo announced sticking with 3.5, but some of the changes in the PRPG seem to run contrary to that stated goal.Some of the changes in the Alpha, perhaps... but as Jason's stated elsewhere, that's part of the Alpha's job; to test limits. We've got well over a year to nail things down and to make sure that folk are happy with the game... and that includes me, who wants it to be as backwards compatible as we can make it!
I'm glad to hear you say this James, Magnus Magnusson states my reaction and opinion exactly.
And to elaborate, as others have said the simple changes to races are easy enough to work with, the CMB would be easy to calculate and apply existing 3.5 feats to, but the Feats themseleves not compatable, the classes? no way too much change especially the Cleric and Wizard, skills may be easy to calculate but are so generous old NPSs would have to be redone every time and every PC would be a skill horse by 10th level.