Well... One day the 3.5 will be out-of-print, so if you need to buy new copies, you'd probably go for Pathfinder.
But beside that, it is a bit like "back then" when 3.5 came out: the changes were there, definitely making the game better and smoother, but not bringing about a major revolution, nor burning down the house. There was continuity and betterment.
That's how I feel about Pathfinder RPG: it will allow me to keep on playing the same game, but with enough fixes and changes so it runs smoother at the table.
Plus I won't have to "throw away" my old books. Thanks to compatibility.
So you get to play true D&D revised and improved, with access to a full game setting, if you want it, that is well and fully supported with sourcebooks and loads of adventures.
What's not to like? :-)
|
I do see differences in the two games based on the Alpha release, but I'm still not convinced the game itself is going to contain enough changes to justify its purchase. The world of Pathfinder seems generic so far as well... so I'd like to see more reasons from Paizo that show me that PF RPG will be a unique product and gameworld. Basically what's the hook for this game and line of products, other than it basically continues 3.5?
Other than the quality of the products Paizo offers, the best reason to purchase the PFRPG will be the collapse of the spine on your 3.5 rulebook.
The thinking behind the rulebook is that people who play 3e and want to continue to do so, if they want a rulebook in their hands during a gaming session are eventually going to need a replacement for their old books or for new players.
Well... One day the 3.5 will be out-of-print, so if you need to buy new copies, you'd probably go for Pathfinder.
This reason above, AFAIC.
Going to something too unique would just turn me, for one, completely off. I buy Pathfinder because I can adapt them to my long-running campaign world - not because they're in some wacky, strange, and "unique" world using wacky, strange, and "unique" rules.
|
I only found out about this a few days ago, but here's my take:
1) WotC is going to stop supporting 3.x, and is more or less telling me to throw out three or four *dozen* game books because now there's 4.0
2) 3.x is actually a pretty good game system, but it does have some clunky rules, flaky level progression, and poorly made classes (even the base classes). It doesn't need to be totally scrapped, it's not as screwed up as AD&D 2nd by a long shot, but it needs work. I mean, hell, AD&D 2nd is still playable.
3) This work from Paizo is very good. They address a lot of the 3.x core problems, and I can see they're headed in the right direction for most of what they've done. WotC is doing the same thing, but they've gone to an extreme where the new system looks like a very structured MMO on paper and has no conversion or compatibility. That's fine, if that's what you want to play.
There's really no need for a specific setting. One of the strengths of D&D has always been that it's generic high fantasy, and you can invent whatever specific world details you want. I like that: I like being able to make up whatever world I want and have a list of materials to pull from to flesh it out. I don't need anyone to tell me specifics about a world setting. What I DO need is solid, consistent rules that don't take too long to play or build characters with and avoids clunker mechanics that slow a game to a halt.
I'm not saying "f#+% 4.0, 3.5 forevah!" or anything dumb like that, I just don't want to have to toss out a good system that just needs some tweaking and balancing.
|
The world of Pathfinder seems generic so far as well... so I'd like to see more reasons from Paizo that show me that PF RPG will be a unique product and gameworld.
Speaking as someone currently working on the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, I can say that the Pathfinder world (Golarion) is most definitely NOT generic.
Of course, the PCCS won't be out until August, so I would recommend picking up the Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer to get a preview of just how unique Golarion is shaping up to be. And that comes out in April! Woo!
not being generic is a good thing for me. one of the great turn of for me when it came to D20 was its generic nature. I have always been one for unique systems for unique games.
After all, systems flavour a game.
Seriously, Deadlands isn't deadlands unless your playing with poker chips and cards.
Warhammer isn't warhammer without career and d100's
Cthulhu isn't cthulhu without sanity points, POW and great old ones who eat d6 investigators a turn.
And i would like to see more which is unique to pathfinder.(admittedly i wouldn't mind if such rules could be neatly extracted so that other people could use the system as a generic :) )
Myself, I preordered both the beta and the final product already. But I am in two 3.5 games that have no plans to go 4E and I doubt if either will ever go PRPG. So why did I buy it? I am forward thinking enough to know that while my current groups will stick with 3.5, I've seen rpg groups fizzle out or break up or etc and I have to find a new group. In two years, how easily will 3.5 material be available? I don't know, but its an easy guess that it'll won't be as easy as now. So, I'm just thinking ahead.
Plus, as a writer, I want to get in on the ground floor on a new RPG. Thus far, all my guesses about 4E have been right (that 4E would be announced at GenCon 07, it would be completely different then what is traditionally called D&D, it wouldn't be OGL, and 3rd party relations with WotC would be a mess). I'm currently guessing that in 2 to 2-1/2 years, PRPG will be a major force in the market. Perhaps not as big of a market share as Vampire, but I believe the game will mostly drawing customers from those that would have ended up buying 4E had they had no other major 3.5-type option and they will have a zeal that will be common among Exalted gamers. That would basicly mean a weaker D&D-force to recon with. A company that can do that would from that point on be one of the major player in the RPG market.
admittedly i wouldn't mind if such rules could be neatly extracted so that other people could use the system as a generic :) )
Paizo has said the system will be OGL, so 3rd party companies will be able to write material for it. And while Paizo's trademark license hasn't been finalized yet (AFAIK, it's only in the conceptual phase right now), I have faith in them enough to believe that alternate settings will be allowed.
admittedly i wouldn't mind if such rules could be neatly extracted so that other people could use the system as a generic :) )Paizo has said the system will be OGL, so 3rd party companies will be able to write material for it.
i realise that.
What i mean is, that i personally would like to see them go much further with the ways in which they fiddle with D20, make it LESS generic.
Ofcause, i understand why they won't.
Best i can hope for is that they will include rule subsystems which can be neatly plugged in, or pulled out, to represent stuff from the pathfinder setting.
EDIT: Wait.... you're saying you want Paizo to tweek the system to make it fit their world, yes? If so, I hope that they don't do that; I think that it would make back compatability an issue.
For an rpg game to maintain mass popularity, it appears to need new releases. The OGL allowed many companies to create vast waves of support for D&D. Since WotC is going to allow 3.5 to go out of print, we'll need both physical rulebooks, and a new baseline for *other* companies to refer to as they produce their own 3.pi support books. Not many companies have a shot of being universally accepted as the 3.pi baseline, but Paizo does.
Since we'll need a new book, we might as well fix those few things that DO bog down games, if we can do so without making my 5-foot high pile of 3.pi books obsolete.
|
|
Since we'll need a new book, we might as well fix those few things that DO bog down games, if we can do so without making my 5-foot high pile of 3.pi books obsolete.
Excellent point. And, even for those of us (like my group) that takes such good care of their books we'll still have our 3.5 PHB's in fine shape by 2015, here's a new take by the folks at Paizo fixing some stuff and with new art and Golarion stuff here and there. I will support that any day.
-DM Jeff
|
|
For an rpg game to maintain mass popularity, it appears to need new releases. The OGL allowed many companies to create vast waves of support for D&D. Since WotC is going to allow 3.5 to go out of print, we'll need both physical rulebooks, and a new baseline for *other* companies to refer to as they produce their own 3.pi support books. Not many companies have a shot of being universally accepted as the 3.pi baseline, but Paizo does.Since we'll need a new book, we might as well fix those few things that DO bog down games, if we can do so without making my 5-foot high pile of 3.pi books obsolete.
Yep I agree and the new Alpha rules shows a lot potential for being the game that keeps 3.5 alive. Paizo is a good vehicle to keep it going and keep your libraries from getting all dusty in some closet or attic somewhere.
EDIT: Wait.... you're saying you want Paizo to tweek the system to make it fit their world, yes? If so, I hope that they don't do that; I think that it would make back compatability an issue.
Yes, i am saying that exactly. But i also think that such systems should be build in such a way that they can be easily removed, so that people who don't want them, don't have to use them.
I do see differences in the two games based on the Alpha release, but I'm still not convinced the game itself is going to contain enough changes to justify its purchase. The world of Pathfinder seems generic so far as well... so I'd like to see more reasons from Paizo that show me that PF RPG will be a unique product and gameworld. Basically what's the hook for this game and line of products, other than it basically continues 3.5?
I think it's cool that I'm going to be able to run Pathfinder products with either PFRPG or 3.5 (just a little bit of converting to use the latter).
|
I think they already did that with deciding not to go 4E, a system that doesn't support some basic elements of Golarion. I guess it is possible that there'll be more Golarion-specific add-on rules in future Pathfinder-products, but not in the core rules. Sure, there'll propably a few Golarion-specific things in there like weapons, gods etc., but it is one of their goals to make the rules somewhat generic and useable with other fantasy settings.
I must say, I'm hoping that the final edition of PRPG ends up being a bit closer to 3.5 than what we have in the alpha. Some of the changes (combat maneuver, etc.) are great, but I feel like the changes to the skill system and the ramp up in power of the classes, while they are easy to grasp and don't change the game mechanics too much, <i>do</i> amount to a significant change in the power level of PCs and NPCs. This is fine if you're using material specifically written for PRPG, but once PRPG is out and the APs are being written for it, we'll have to convert any old material we want to run (i.e. rebuild anything with class levels and alter monsters significantly), or at the very least we'll have to run a sort of hybrid game using the old stat blocs and accepting that the PRPG characters we're running them with are significantly overpowered for their level compared to the NPCs. Either option is possible, but it means that if I want to run an old AP out of the box I'm going to run it in 3.5, most likely.
So, I'll probably buy the finalized version of PRPG, but I may not use it right away.
I think that 3.5 to the PRPG envisioned in the alpha is actually a significantly greater amount of change than 3.0 to 3.5. It does preserve the spirit of 3.5, and I could even see running a PRPG homebrew campaign set in Greyhawk, something that is hard to envision doing with the 4e ruleset at this point. But it looks to me like PRPG is pretty close to an alternative 4th edition. It will just be easier to adapt old material to run with it.
Keep in mind that this is an Alpha. We are intentionally pushing things a bit to gauge people's reactions. Skills is a good example, and that system is currently undergoing revision based on playtest feedback.
I'm glad you commented on the skills, that was one of the items that stood out to me as a concern from my initial skim of the rules.
Is it really a majority view that players (in 3.5) pick their initial limit of skills and then stick to those throughout their character's levels? I would find that interesting, because while I /tend/ to do that, I don't always, and no one else my group does. I'm the exception in the group!
Cool! What kind of things differentiate it from Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc? Gunpowder perhaps? Different magic?Speaking as someone currently working on the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, I can say that the Pathfinder world (Golarion) is most definitely NOT generic
The Kobolds are cool here. ;)
As others have said: Pathfinder (the adventure paths, modules and campaign setting) keeps using 3.5 rules (or a ruleset that is going to be compatible with 3.5 - the Pathfinder RPG). If you want to sell stuff like that, the core rules absolutely have to be on the shelves. If new players can't pick up the books in a game store, bookstore, or on amazon.whatever, the game will probably tank.
That's why they have to do their own set of rulebooks: Wizards isn't going to keep publishing the 3.5 core books.
Cool! What kind of things differentiate it from Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc? Gunpowder perhaps? Different magic?
The great thing about Pathfinder Chronicles and its world Golarion is that it feels new, but at the same time familiar.
And all the stuff sounds really good.
I think the real question is, "How do you define 'generic game/campaign setting'?" Personally, I define it as "designed to be able to run just about any kind of game there" and specific defined as "the setting is built around one single feel, one single kind of adventure type."
Examples:
Forgotten Realms - general - (it has the Dalelands if you want a lack of a strong central government/wilderness, Thay for evil wizards ruling, Zentel keep for post-apocoplyptic/militaristic, etc)
Greyhawk - general
Castlemourn - specific - the game is built around a post-apocoplyptic concept. Everything in the setting is post-apoc. Post-apoc wilderness, post-apoc ruins, post-apoc civilization, etc.
Promethean (nWoD) - specific - while you can run any kind of game in it, the game is built around the main characters search to become human.
So in my mind, Pathfinder Chronicles is general.
|
|
Cool! What kind of things differentiate it from Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc? Gunpowder perhaps? Different magic?Speaking as someone currently working on the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, I can say that the Pathfinder world (Golarion) is most definitely NOT generic
I don't want to go into specifics (that's more Paizo's bailiwick), but I'm not talking about mechanics, I'm talking about flavor. I'm not too familiar with Greyhawk, but I've played in the Realms for quite a while, and nothing I've seen of Golarion reminded me of Forgotten Realms.
The lands of Golarion have a rich history, which ties each country together, but each country still has a special feel all its own. There's a place for just about any kind of adventure or campaign. Keep in mind also that Golarion/Pathfinder are still new, and don't have the years of development that GH and FR do, so there's not as much there.
Like KaeYoss said:
The great thing about Pathfinder Chronicles and its world Golarion is that it feels new, but at the same time familiar.
And that newness is, I think, one of the big selling points. Without the years of history and canon that GH and FR have, I think there's a lot you can do to make Golarion (or just a part of Golarion) your own.
Also, I'm just one new guy among many great writers and designers working on the hardback PCCS setting (for a list of some of the greats working on this project, check out Mike McArtor's announcements in this thread). The point is, I've seen very little compared to what will come out in the full campaign setting in August. And you can bet that all those talented guys are completely going to bring the awesome!
The Gazetteer will be a preview (but still a lot more information than we've piked up from various sources here and there), but the Campaign Setting will be pure win. I can't wait! :)
but I've played in the Realms for quite a while, and nothing I've seen of Golarion reminded me of Forgotten Realms.
I find that highly suspect, since you go on to say this:
The lands of Golarion have a rich history, which ties each country together, but each country still has a special feel all its own. There's a place for just about any kind of adventure or campaign.
Wha...? *shrug*
In any case, I've been able to adapt Pathfinder to FR without too much trouble (just ignoring vast wastes-of-space like history lessons that go on for far too long), so I'm taking your comments with a large grain of salt. Hopefully the Pathfinder APs continue to remain that way (for me to keep being a customer, at least).
|
|
but I've played in the Realms for quite a while, and nothing I've seen of Golarion reminded me of Forgotten Realms.I find that highly suspect, since you go on to say this:
The lands of Golarion have a rich history, which ties each country together, but each country still has a special feel all its own. There's a place for just about any kind of adventure or campaign.Wha...? *shrug*
In any case, I've been able to adapt Pathfinder to FR without too much trouble (just ignoring vast wastes-of-space like history lessons that go on for far too long), so I'm taking your comments with a large grain of salt. Hopefully the Pathfinder APs continue to remain that way (for me to keep being a customer, at least).
I'm talking specifically here about the Pathfinder campaign setting of Golarion, not the Pathfinder adventure paths and modules. Of course those should and can be be converted to other campaign settings. But that doesn't make the default setting those adventures are set in any less unique or interesting or fun.
(And regarding FR, most of my experience there was in the 1e-2e days, so I admit I'm not up to date on everything that was done in the recent 3.x days, when I expanded into other settings.)
can someone point me toward the 1.1 update instead of just the designer notes.
Chief Technical Officer
|
can someone point me toward the 1.1 update instead of just the designer notes.
It simply replaced the file that was available at My Downloads. Assuming you downloaded the earlier version, that is. (If it shows as already personalized, you'll need to repersonalize it to get the new version.)
I do see differences in the two games based on the Alpha release, but I'm still not convinced the game itself is going to contain enough changes to justify its purchase.
Right now probably not enough changes, but when it's finally released i'm sure it will be a much improved version of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5. Only time will tell. I look forward to perusing the Pathfinder RPG in its final draft.
One great example of the "newness" is Pathfinder goblins, as seen in Burnt Offerings (and Classic Monsters Revisited).
Read Ten Fun Facts About Goblins in the weblog here
Also check out the Sandpoint Devil (a monster from Burnt offerings), which is Golarion's version of the Jersey Devil.
Read about him here in the weblog (under The Sandpoint Devil)
Speaking as someone currently working on the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, I can say that the Pathfinder world (Golarion) is most definitely NOT generic.
Of course, the PCCS won't be out until August, so I would recommend picking up the Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer to get a preview of just how unique Golarion is shaping up to be. And that comes out in April! Woo!
That sounds like an interesting product, but how is the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting going to to relate to the Pathfinder RPG? Is Pathfinder RPG going to be a stripped down version of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting (in the same way that the PHB gave us a stripped down Greyhawk)?
I found WotC way of working with Greyhawk, but not actually making a proper Greyhawk Campaign Setting, really ruined that aspect of 3rd edition for me. I like Greyhawk, but WotC just didn't give us enough Greyhawk to make the world seem more than two dimensional to me. I've only enjoyed playing D&D when a complete campaign setting was added. So while I'd like your new rules to work for publishers of other 3.X campaign settings, I'd also like the fluff to have a bit more meat to it than the fluff in the PHB and DMG.
For example, I'd like Prestige Classes to get a proper association with part of the culture of Gollarion instead of being "generic". For me PrCs like the Red Wizard (from Forgotten Realms) and the Wizard of High Sorcery (from Dragonlance) are so much better than generic PrCs.
Anyhoo, to get back to my original point, if Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting is the full thing and Pathfinder RPG is a subset, I think I'd be better off waiting for the complete campaign setting. So what is Pathfinder RPG going to do, that makes it something I need to get as well as your book?
|
|
That sounds like an interesting product, but how is the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting going to to relate to the Pathfinder RPG? Is Pathfinder RPG going to be a stripped down version of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting (in the same way that the PHB gave us a stripped down Greyhawk)?
Your question seems a bit confusing to me. The Pathfinder RPG will be the rules with which to run a game. Whether that game is in Golarion or not is up to you. It will be, according to the publisher, fairly setting nuetral, as a good rules book should be.
The campaign setting book on the other hand will be a setting book about Golarion. It will describe the world.
If you don't want the rules and just want the world, don't buy the rules book. If you want both rules and the world then buy both.
Keep in mind that this is an Alpha. We are intentionally pushing things a bit to gauge people's reactions. Skills is a good example, and that system is currently undergoing revision based on playtest feedback.
I'm glad you commented on the skills, that was one of the items that stood out to me as a concern from my initial skim of the rules.
Is it really a majority view that players (in 3.5) pick their initial limit of skills and then stick to those throughout their character's levels? I would find that interesting, because while I /tend/ to do that, I don't always, and no one else my group does. I'm the exception in the group!
The changes to Skills (pick a set, then pick one every even level) and they keep at "max ranks" is something that I *really* like about the alpha, for two main reasons.
1) As DM it makes it easier to stat out BBEG once they get past 5th level or so.
2) It does away with the players, take diplomacy and keep it at max, take 5 ranks Sense Motive, 5 ranks Knowledge (Nobility) and I get +4 to Diplomacy and then drop the sense/nobility for other skills now that they have the synergy bonus.
-- david
Papa-DRB
|
Instead, we are seeing 3.5+significant power creep.
I think the power creep is, as the designer says, make it more attractive to stick with the core classes in the long run, and to maintain balance/backwards compatability with the more recent WotC releases which had gotten significantly more powerful than the original PHB core rules. I stopped buying published stuff by Wizards a couple of years ago, because I thought things in their complete series and races series were growing significantly more powerful than what was found in the SRD.
The question becomes how are all the adventures developed? Are most adventures out there designed to be pretty much in line with the CR system in the DMG or are they taking into account all these extra-curricular classes? Most that I've looked at feel closer to the CR system, meaning some groups may already be blowing thru encounters more easily than they should. I see people whose groups allow anything and everything that can be found in a d20 book and some who say WoTC only or even just core only.Granted, Paizo can't account for which books people play with, but I question how useful the re-balance ends up being. I also see no evidence of the lessening of the christmas tree or several other key flaws of 3.X that get listed rather frequently.
Well, for one thing, there won't be any more "one ups" from official WOTC products. No more new classes that get to do everything that the old classes can do "and more." In a way, since much of d20 is over and done, Pathfinder can look back at the whole and make their decisions based on this.
I get your point, but I do like some of the options that later books introduced, if not all (what the hell was up with Abjurant Champion, for example), and this seems to be a good way to still be able to use some of these options and have a nice new step off point.
You may be right though. This just may not be your thing, although it won't be a "done deal" for a year or so yet. Plenty of time to keep an eye on it and offer your comments. On the other hand, the more I found out about 4th edition, the more I felt that it wasn't for me, and I had to realize that it might be for someone else, and that's fine too.
Now what they did to the Realms . . . that's a whole other issue.
|
|
The Realms haven't had a really significant shakeup in quite awhile. Maybe I'm just a lil too chaotic in my own life, but I was also tired of people being like
Except they're shaking it up because they have lazy designers who can't be bothered to read the old AD&D supplements to get their facts straight about certain CANON facts.
Except they're shaking it up because they have lazy designers who write about characters in supplements, but don't both to read about them to make sure they don't invent marriages that don't exist.
Except they're shaking it up because their "editors" don't know the setting well enough from 3 years ago to keep from messing up continuity in stuff WOTC published.
Except they're shaking it up because their "new authors" find it too difficult to come up with new stories... and yet the last 3 years have been one "Realms Shaking Event" after another that amount into NO change.
Don't fool yourself or allow yourself to tell other people Wizard's line of BS. Everything in the Realms is being blown up because today's generation of designers and managers aren't fans on the Forgotten Realms, don't have a clue or REAL history of playing D&D, and are only interested in what they think will keep their jobs. The evidence is there, you just need to read about what's staying the same and what's gone.
Conveniently it's only what makes them money and what was part of their 3.0 pet projects in the Realms.
They're not interested in you, they don't care about you, and they could care less about your collection of gaming products. They've blown up the Realms so they can get rid of all that TSR back log just like they've blown up 3.5 instead of revising it. They're only interested in getting the kid that's playing WoW right now into playing D&D, and they're going to fail.
The Realms haven't had a really significant shakeup in quite awhile.
No. It had so many significant shakeups that people accept them as normal now. So wizards cranked it up another notch and went from realms-shaking to to realms-shattering.
That sounds like an interesting product, but how is the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting going to to relate to the Pathfinder RPG? Is Pathfinder RPG going to be a stripped down version of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting (in the same way that the PHB gave us a stripped down Greyhawk)?
The name is a bit misleading: Pathfinder RPG is going to be the new D&D 3.5 (or maybe 3.6), but since they can't call it D&D, they went for the name they use for their Adventure Paths and Settings. It will not have a lot setting-specific stuff - just the stuff that helps, like deities so clerics don't stand alone.
One design goal is to make 3.5 stuff usable with PFRPG, and vice versa
Now, Pathfinder Chronicles is the Campaign Setting for Golarion (which they also use to run their modules and adventure paths in). It will be just like any other campaign setting out there, enabling you to run your own adventures in a world someone else created for you, and you will be able to convert other adventures to run in that world.
Finally, there's Pathfinder Adventure Paths and Pathfinder Modules. Those are pre-made adventures, as usual. They take place in Golarion.
Now, you won't need the PFRPG to use Pathfinder Chronicles campaign stuff or Pathfinder Adventures (though you need some OGL rules, obviously). You don't need the Chronicles campaign stuff to run PFRPGs or the Adventures, and you don't need the Adventures to use Chronicles or the RPG.
I found WotC way of working with Greyhawk, but not actually making a proper Greyhawk Campaign Setting, really ruined that aspect of 3rd edition for me. I like Greyhawk, but WotC just didn't give us enough Greyhawk to make the world seem more than two dimensional to me. I've only enjoyed playing D&D when a complete campaign setting was added. So while I'd like your new rules to work for publishers of other 3.X campaign settings, I'd also like the fluff to have a bit more meat to it than the fluff in the PHB and DMG.For example, I'd like Prestige Classes to get a proper association with part of the culture of Gollarion instead of being "generic". For me PrCs like the Red Wizard (from Forgotten Realms) and the Wizard of High Sorcery (from Dragonlance) are so much better than generic PrCs.
Anyhoo, to get back to my original point, if Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting is the full thing and Pathfinder RPG is a subset, I think I'd be better off waiting for the complete campaign setting. So what is Pathfinder RPG going to do, that makes it something I need to get as well as your book?
<snip>
Now what they did to the Realms . . . that's a whole other issue.
Kinda looks to me like they liked what the Mournlands did in Eberron, so they recreated it in FR with the spellplague.