Why buy the Pathfinder RPG instead of using D&D 3.5?

[Arlith Waywatcher lll]

Bocklin wrote:

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.

Just as a reminder, some people still play AD&D. There are enough books out know that it will be a long, long time until every one is unusable do to wear. I'd guess sometime around A.D. 2500. Hardcovers last. I myself am still on the fence.

[Sunderstone]

The big thing for me is 3.5 compatibility hopefully without power creep. If the Pathfinder changes too much of the core it will become an optional variant rulebook for us. We may mix and match what we feel isnt too drastic of a change.

I already like the changes to class HD, some class changes, the grappling fix, and I definately like the experience point options for slower advancement. Ill be using most of these (except the class changes till the final hardcover cut) in my upcoming campaigns.

The problem with using the xp system (which I reeeealllly like) is that Id probably have to add some encounters for PCs to hit target levels (or a side trek from time to time), or I could simply use the old mechanic of awarding experience for roleplaying. Both solutions are easy enough to implement.

The bottom line is that it all will still work with 3.5, that alone brings me to the table.

The Campaign Setting Issue...
All I can say that Im excited about Golarion. Its a fresh start to what looks to be a great setting.
Ive been with the Forgotten Realms since the beginning and Ive owned just about every accessory/sourcebook (I still own every 3/3.5 book even though I wont use them anymore). All the RSEs finally took their toll and I left FR behind for good. Every novel by Tom, Dick, and Harry altered cannon, most of my older hardcovers became obsolete then except for a few crumbs here and there. FR suffered from power creep as well with the retired archmage meddling sages, the retired warlord innkeepers etc. It just became too comic-bookish with Super heroes everywhere. My group was like "meh, if we fail Elminster will never let Irae T'sarran overrun the Dales anyway" etc. From what I read on messageboards alot of FR fans felt the same way too.

I looked high and low for a new setting and eventually returned to Greyhawk using the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer as a core with a few 2E PDFs. Using 2E and 3E materials to keep a largely unsupported CS alive wasnt much fun either but it kept us gaming nonetheless.

The timing (imho) is right for a fresh new CS and Paizo seems to be crafting a very interesting world indeed. I like the way its taking shape so far and the plans that I read about here I like as well.
For the first time since the original FR grey box, im actually excited about a campaign setting. I just wish the accessory/sourcebooks come out quicker. :) Ive already picked up most of the older gamemastery modules that ive missed for more little tidbids of Golarion.
Finally, the folks at Paizo have been my favorite designers since the Dungeon Magazine modules and the SCAP. Some of it has to do with Erik and the gangs treatment of Greyhawk in all their APs and Dungeon adventures. You can tell they care about the setting as a whole and dont change things for the sake of change like the people at WoTC. These are the people I would trust with a campaign setting. Add to that that Paizo has an interest in what fans think about it all.

My only advice is that Golarion remains a Paizo created world. Fan feedback is great as long as it doesnt change what Golarion is shaping up to be. Not all fans are designers, and Id personally prefer being taken along for the Paizo rollercoaster ride without the overcrowded fans trying to break it on their first run. :) No offense to anyone here of course.

I cant wait for all this gaming goodness to trickle out. Some nerdy feelings have awoken within my jaded shell.

[Burrito Al Pastor]

The simplest reason for using the Pathfinder RPG is this: backwards compatibility is, by definition, one-way. There is no reason to believe that 3.5 will be "forward compatible" with new Pathfinder RPG material.

[KaeYoss]

Arlith Waywatcher lll wrote:

Bocklin wrote:

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.

Just as a reminder, some people still play AD&D. There are enough books out know that it will be a long, long time until every one is unusable do to wear. I'd guess sometime around A.D. 2500. Hardcovers last. I myself am still on the fence.

They want more than just some people. Pathfinder stuff is supposed to be an ongoing product line (or actually 4 or so ongoing product lines - I stopped counting after the Companions). And it seems that if you want to sell new stuff that's based on some core rules, the core rules need to be readily available. Customers must be able to walk into a gaming store, see Return of the Runelords (potentially fictitious title for a later adventure path) and the books you need to play that on the same shelf.

If they have to go hunt down 3e core rules on the flea market, they might be discouraged to try it.

[VedicDragon]

Because those leather-bound Special Edition Core Rulebooks 3.5 are in short supply, and are FAR too pretty to bring out for anything but truly special occassions.

[Cpt_kirstov]

Absinth wrote:

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.

This is already started in PATHFINDER (harrow rules, chase rules, sin points, ect )

[SSquirrel]

I know not everyone lives in a town w/a used book store, but every used book store I've been in in the last 10 years has some amount of roleplaying product and the current and most recent before that edition of D&D always have at least a couple of copies. I don't forsee obtaining a 3.5 core book for a LONG time.

[NotJeff]

William Edmunds wrote:

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 know it's unrelated to the topic, but I'm at the end of book 3 of the first pathfinder series, and my players, as well as myself are already getting this sense of generic boredom that comes with reading a trite fantasy novel about the most typical of creatures and themes.

That is not to say that I haven't enjoyed some of the ideas that have come out of pathfinder, it's just the execution so far has left me a little discontent.

I loved how goblins were re-done, but nothing further was ever done with them, and aside froma weapon or two, nothing intriguing to the story line was used with them. and later, the idea of hill-billy ogres and giants was a great concept, but then it just came accross as a sidequest that had no real purpose because the true story was a stone giant under the leadership of an epic jerk was telling the giants to attack a fort.

And really, the goblins, and the hillbilly ogres, and the haunted mansion, these are what have shined in pathfinder so far. The actual story, the streets of magnimar, the first town you land in, the thorny forest, these have been so colorless and ignorable, that my players, and myself, have felt that these stories only exist to showcase the bizarre creations of creative minds, in small little windows in between the pieces of fluff that the designers expect everyone wants, but in reality, what we want is the unique haunts, the goblin chants and weapons, the gory hillbilly incest. Stone giants, dungeons under the town, these have been done. I've seen it, written it, ran it. There are probably twenty modules with dungeons under the towns. I have 2 staring at me from my bookshelf right now.

What's exciting is the new, the intriguing elements of pathfinder that take us to a new place in D&D. What bogs the game down are the cliche' and the typical.

I love pathfinder, and the idea of a 3.75, though originally not what I was expecting or wanting from paizo, is now something I encourage, but I sincerely hope that in the future, at least with the pathfinder line, paizo lets the creative minds behind these books let loose, and no longer tries to reign them down with ropes of decency(as commented upon in the editors notes in book3), normalcy(cliche' ideas found in every module), and expected(big boss behind it all, bigger boss behind him).

[SirUrza]

SSquirrel wrote:

I know not everyone lives in a town w/a used book store, but every used book store I've been in in the last 10 years has some amount of roleplaying product and the current and most recent before that edition of D&D always have at least a couple of copies. I don't forsee obtaining a 3.5 core book for a LONG time.

I can tell you this, I have 3 local gaming stores, 1 used book store. The book store has no pre-3e stuff. 2 of the local gaming stores have used pre-3e stuff. ALL of the pre-3e stuff is in just as bad, if not worse condition then my own collection.

It doesn't make sense to replace a book that's falling apart with another book that's falling apart.

That said, the softcover 3.5 PHB is the greatest book WOTC ever made. :)

[Gotham Gamemaster]

NotJeff wrote:

And really, the goblins, and the hillbilly ogres, and the haunted mansion, these are what have shined in pathfinder so far. The actual story, the streets of magnimar, the first town you land in, the thorny forest, these have been so colorless and ignorable, that my players, and myself, have felt that these stories only exist to showcase the bizarre creations of creative minds, in small little windows in between the pieces of fluff that the designers expect everyone wants, but in reality, what we want is the unique haunts, the goblin chants and weapons, the gory hillbilly incest. Stone giants, dungeons under the town, these have been done.

Great observation. I see this discordance as a result of the Pathfinder adventures pushing the envelope in terms of adventure design and content--and not yet finding the sweet spot of convergence between the cutting-edge genre elements you mentioned and the classic dungeon medium these elements must be funneled through.

I want the dungeon under the town. I want the bigger baddie behind the big baddy--and the biggest baddy behind them all. They are core elements of the D&D experience. But, like you, I would like to see the "Pathfinder Goblin" facelift blend more seamlessly (and more integrally) into the dungeon experience.

[SSquirrel]

SirUrza wrote:

I can tell you this, I have 3 local gaming stores, 1 used book store. The book store has no pre-3e stuff. 2 of the local gaming stores have used pre-3e stuff. ALL of the pre-3e stuff is in just as bad, if not worse condition then my own collection.

It doesn't make sense to replace a book that's falling apart with another book that's falling apart.

See here in Louisville we have 3 gaming stores, I know of at least 2 Half-Price Books, another really good used book/cd store and probably more I haven't seen. In Iowa City where I used to live, there were 3 gaming stores in a 30 minute radius (till they all closed w/in 4 months of each other) and now only 1 pure gaming store and 1 store that has been there the whole 10 years I was there and has great gaming selection but is more about model cars and things like that. There were 2 or 3 used book stores and they all had gaming stuff too.

Iowa City was reasonably small, but had a large college that tripled the town population when school was in session. Louisville is bigger yet. I grew up in a town of 9000 w/one small family owned bookstore that carried a few products and later a comic store that sold gaming. Cincy or Lexington was it for gaming and there were no used book stores.

All of my books are in pretty nice condition, even while being used heavily, b/c I've always been pretty careful w/stuff like that. I don't let my wife dog-ear my novels either ;) All of the stores in my area that have gaming product have it in pretty darn good condition b/c books in bad shape don't sell. I can easily go pick up 10 3.5 PHBs in a day if I want and they'll all be probably 7s or 8s on a 10 scale.

People on Monte's boards already have a thread where people post if their game store has a copy of Ptolus available, but Ptolus was always much more rare. Down the line if people really want a copy of the book and ebay has nothing, something similar will happen. Or maybe Pathfinder will end up close enough that people who have their PHB die on them will just buy it. Depends how close to core things end up I suppose.

[Majuba]

Burrito Al Pastor wrote:

The simplest reason for using the Pathfinder RPG is this: backwards compatibility is, by definition, one-way. There is no reason to believe that 3.5 will be "forward compatible" with new Pathfinder RPG material.

That is *precisely* what is meant by backwards compatibility.

It has been somewhat lost in the bustle over what should go into it, but Paizo has set out to create a new revised version of D&D, so that when they publish Adventures for that new version, you can run them in either Pathfinder RPG, or in 3.5.

As far as I know, the intention is for stat blocks and other mechanics to be close enough to run without update required, and very little needed to bring it fully in line.

Thus the fighters will have Power Attack and Cleave; the Clerics *will* have "Turn Undead", not Channel Energy; the rogues will have Sneak Attack; and the wizards will have spellbooks and specialist schools.

AFAIK, The shorthand will work for either, even if the meat of the mechanic has been significantly adjusted.

[NotJeff]

Gotham Gamemaster wrote:

Great observation. I see this discordance as a result of the Pathfinder adventures pushing the envelope in terms of adventure design and content--and not yet finding the sweet spot of convergence between the cutting-edge genre elements you mentioned and the classic dungeon medium these elements must be funneled through.

I want the dungeon under the town. I want the bigger baddie behind the big baddy--and the biggest baddy behind them all. They are core elements of the D&D experience. But, like you, I would like to see the "Pathfinder Goblin" facelift blend more seamlessly (and more integrally) into the dungeon experience.

I suppose these elements of "adventure" are inescapable. Many people have explored the corners and hollows of small sewers or alley ways in their own home towns and wished for a real fantastic adventure, and many people have faced bullies and villians in their lives, and inside of these elements we can find the backbone of what makes the "dungeon under the town" and the "boss behind the boss" compelling.

And, like you, I agree that a more seamless transfer of the more memorable and unique experiences of pathfinder so far would be appropriate for future products. But I would like to see what NEW elements these minds can come up with as the backbone for adventures. I suppose I can't cast aside the cliche' adventures that have become a staple of the game, but I can call out to the writers to try their hands at searching for something new inside of themselves, rather than borrow from past great minds.

It is obvious that these creators are very talented and capable of crafting original, brilliant content that can draw players in. I just don't feel that using old techniques is entirely necessary when they clearly are able to generate such fabulous content in between the main story driving parts of the adventures.

I make no claim to be an amazing writer of adventures. I've only been DMing for about four years, and my creative education is at the level of an associates degree. But I can definitely spot great ideas. I've at least created or read enough terrible ones myself to know the difference.

Paizo has at its disposal some great talent. I have a lot of faith in their abilities. I want to see them go nuts. And I want the Pathfinder RPG to follow suit.

There are many ways in which I could suggest they fix 3.5, or add to it, but I think I would fall to far off topic, so I'll leave my thoughts at that.

[Cpt_kirstov]

NotJeff wrote:

And, like you, I agree that a more seamless transfer of the more memorable and unique experiences of pathfinder so far would be appropriate for future products. But I would like to see what NEW elements these minds can come up with as the backbone for adventures. I suppose I can't cast aside the cliche' adventures that have become a staple of the game, but I can call out to the writers to try their hands at searching for something new inside of themselves, rather than borrow from past great minds.

Looking at your feelings, the issue may be more RotRL and the structure of adventure paths than pathfinder itself. by the end of the first book, you've whiped out a whole clan of goblins (1/5? of the population in the area)and are much to for them to be antagonists any more. RotRL was a little disjointed, because it was the first big product out there to really introduce the setting to us. The setting the way it is, with them wanting it to feel more oldschool Mysteria-like means that they had to showcase that the old classic adventure types would fit into the world. CotCT shows more of the seamless transfer your are asking for I think.

Personally, I'm glad the goblins didn't get more air time, because if they did, than there would be no more goblins for future adventure parties to kill... in one adventure you kill on of the 5 tribes off - if you came back two levels later you you could most likly take on the entire rest of the goblins in open combat and eradicate them

[Timespike]

Why buy the PRPG instead of using my old 3.5 stuff?

1. I like Paizo. I want to support Paizo. Therefore, I need to get some money into Paizo's coffers. Best way to do this? Buy stuff from Paizo.

2. Better iconics. I'll take Amiri over Krusk, Lem over Gimble, Kyra over Jozan, Lini over Vandania, Valeros over Regdar AND Tordek, Sajan over Ember, Seelah over Alhandra, Harsk over Soveliss, Merisiel over Lidda, Seoni over Hennet, and Ezren over Mialee ANY day and twice on Sundays.

3. Some nice little tweaks. Clerics are proficient with their deity's weapon. Fighters can specialize in armor and groups of weapons now. Wizards get d6 hit dice. Better turning rules. Better grappling rules. Consolidated skill list.

4. The sheer thrill of a new gaming book that's compatible with all my old stuff.

[Daeglin]

Timespike wrote:

Why buy the PRPG instead of using my old 3.5 stuff?

1. I like Paizo. I want to support Paizo. Therefore, I need to get some money into Paizo's coffers. Best way to do this? Buy stuff from Paizo.
...
4. The sheer thrill of a new gaming book that's compatible with all my old stuff.

Amen, Brother!!

(And more Seoni pictures - HooWaah!)

[chaoticprime]

Yeah, where there is DnD there MUST be Greyhawk. I will not partake of such a hellish un-combination.

Thankfully there are enough 1st edition Greyhawk adventures to populate a lifetime of gaming, but still, GH is the seed in which fantasy gaming was planted, and as far as I can tell Pathfinder is the fruit.

As Paizo cannot have Greyhawk, they have done us all a justice by making its little brother.

And I don't like the Forgotten Realms, but I don't want to start a fight.

[Timespike]

chaoticprime wrote:

Yeah, where there is DnD there MUST be Greyhawk. I will not partake of such a hellish un-combination.

Thankfully there are enough 1st edition Greyhawk adventures to populate a lifetime of gaming, but still, GH is the seed in which fantasy gaming was planted, and as far as I can tell Pathfinder is the fruit.

As Paizo cannot have Greyhawk, they have done us all a justice by making its little brother.

And I don't like the Forgotten Realms, but I don't want to start a fight.

I suppose Golarion feels more like Greyhawk than the other major D&D settings (Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Eberron, Planescape, Birthright, Dark Sun, Al Quadim, Spelljammer) but it also seems very unique and fresh to me. Which is part of why I like it so much.

[chaoticprime]

Timespike wrote:

chaoticprime wrote:

Yeah, where there is DnD there MUST be Greyhawk. I will not partake of such a hellish un-combination.

Thankfully there are enough 1st edition Greyhawk adventures to populate a lifetime of gaming, but still, GH is the seed in which fantasy gaming was planted, and as far as I can tell Pathfinder is the fruit.

As Paizo cannot have Greyhawk, they have done us all a justice by making its little brother.

And I don't like the Forgotten Realms, but I don't want to start a fight.

I suppose Golarion feels more like Greyhawk than the other major D&D settings (Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Eberron, Planescape, Birthright, Dark Sun, Al Quadim, Spelljammer) but it also seems very unique and fresh to me. Which is part of why I like it so much.

If I could give you money right now, I would, because you are correct as hell.

[KaeYoss]

chaoticprime wrote:

If I could give you money right now, I would, because you are correct as hell.

I also said something like that in the past. Do you want my paypal address? :P

[nightflier]

Till eight months ago I was still using Skills&Powers. Now I am preparing for a transition to the 3.5 Ed. In the meantime I've discovered PRPG, and I'm thrilled with the changes it brings to the gaming table. I'm very dissatisfied with the WotC editors and their work on the Planescape - especialy their treatment of Asmodeus and Blood War. I could go on like that for a long time. For me, Pathfinder RPG is a chance for a fresh start and fresh continuity. It's a chance for suma sumarum of all that is good and well in 3.5 - and with an input from gaming community. It's a whole different approach comparing to the WotC, and that's what I like the most, and that is why I will support Paizo as a company. They value not only my money, but my gaming experience as well - and the time that I've dedicated to gaming.

[DitheringFool]

because you want to play with the cool kids...

[sciencephile]

William Edmunds wrote:

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?

It gives us something to look forward to that doesn't have the Wizards of the Coast trademark. That's a definite selling point in my book.

[chaoticprime]

KaeYoss wrote:

chaoticprime wrote:

If I could give you money right now, I would, because you are correct as hell.

I also said something like that in the past. Do you want my paypal address? :P

I give all of my money to the Trinity Broadcasting Network *looks around suspiciously*

[Danflor]

Timespike wrote:

2. Better iconics. I'll take Amiri over Krusk, Lem over Gimble, Kyra over Jozan, Lini over Vandania, Valeros over Regdar AND Tordek, Sajan over Ember, Seelah over Alhandra, Harsk over Soveliss, Merisiel over Lidda, Seoni over Hennet, and Ezren over Mialee ANY day and twice on Sundays.

Here here! :D

While I like Sam Wood and Todd Lockwood, the execution of the iconics was... shabby. Has anyone every seen a good picture of Mialee?

[Timespike]

Danflor wrote:

Timespike wrote:

2. Better iconics. I'll take Amiri over Krusk, Lem over Gimble, Kyra over Jozan, Lini over Vandania, Valeros over Regdar AND Tordek, Sajan over Ember, Seelah over Alhandra, Harsk over Soveliss, Merisiel over Lidda, Seoni over Hennet, and Ezren over Mialee ANY day and twice on Sundays.

Here here! :D

While I like Sam Wood and Todd Lockwood, the execution of the iconics was... shabby. Has anyone every seen a good picture of Mialee?

Wayne Reynolds, man. Accept no substitutes.

[KaeYoss]

Danflor wrote:

Has anyone every seen a good picture of Mialee?

I might have. Don't quote me on that, though. But it's true that on most pictures, she just looks aweful. Take a look at Golarion's iconic female spellcaster in comparison. Damn!

[Timespike]

KaeYoss wrote:

Danflor wrote:

Has anyone every seen a good picture of Mialee?

I might have. Don't quote me on that, though. But it's true that on most pictures, she just looks aweful. Take a look at Golarion's iconic female spellcaster in comparison. Damn!

Seoni is both hotter and cooler than Mialee. Talk about making the laws of nature sit down & shut up...

[Mike McArtor]

KaeYoss wrote:

Danflor wrote:

Has anyone every seen a good picture of Mialee?

I might have. Don't quote me on that, though. But it's true that on most pictures, she just looks aweful.

We call her the "horse-faced elf" around these parts. Whenever we got to do art order for WotC books we worked on, we tried to avoid including Mialee (unless she was getting killed in the piece). And yes, I did use her once or twice in Class Acts, but always with the hope that SOMEONE could make her not hideous.

I hear she's got a great personality, though, and she obviously has the perfect face for radio. She should totally be a DJ. ;)

[Timespike]

Mike McArtor wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

Danflor wrote:

Has anyone every seen a good picture of Mialee?

I might have. Don't quote me on that, though. But it's true that on most pictures, she just looks aweful.

We call her the "horse-faced elf" around these parts. Whenever we got to do art order for WotC books we worked on, we tried to avoid including Mialee (unless she was getting killed in the piece). And yes, I did use her once or twice in Class Acts, but always with the hope that SOMEONE could make her not hideous.

I hear she's got a great personality, though, and she obviously has the perfect face for radio. She should totally be a DJ. ;)

Yeah, good grief, what was her CHA score? 4?! Ezren & Seoni > Mialee & Hennet.

[SirUrza]

Timespike wrote:

2. Better iconics. I'll take Amiri over Krusk, Lem over Gimble, Kyra over Jozan, Lini over Vandania, Valeros over Regdar AND Tordek, Sajan over Ember, Seelah over Alhandra, Harsk over Soveliss, Merisiel over Lidda, Seoni over Hennet, and Ezren over Mialee ANY day and twice on Sundays.

Yeap, Pathfinder is all better. Where'd there 3 artists responsible for the D&D iconics?

Timespike wrote:

I suppose Golarion feels more like Greyhawk than the other major D&D settings (Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Eberron, Planescape, Birthright, Dark Sun, Al Quadim, Spelljammer) but it also seems very unique and fresh to me. Which is part of why I like it so much.

I dunno.. the Pathfinder Society feels kinda like the Harpers to me. Eando is reminiscent of Volo. There's no reason Pathfinder can't have a little flavor from Greyhawk and the Realms... especially since so many Realms fans have been displaced by 4th edition.

[Wicht]

Timespike wrote:

Merisiel over Lidda

Um... don't know about this one. All the others sure but I always liked most of the early Liddas .

[KaeYoss]

SirUrza wrote:

so many Realms fans have been displaced by 4th edition.

I'm one of them. But I must say: The more I read about Golarion, the more the realms earn the first part of their name in my mind.

[simon withers]

For me, to continue to use 3.5, as a DM. I need an improved version.So either its 4E or PRPG.

I feel like I'm more the target buyer for PRPG , whereas 4E I don't.

As a player I could probably stick with 3.5. As a DM I need to change.

[Mike McArtor]

Wicht wrote:

Timespike wrote:

Merisiel over Lidda

Um... don't know about this one. All the others sure but I always liked most of the early Liddas .

Yeah, that's a tough call. Lidda is easily the best of the 3e D&D iconics (see Class Acts in Dragon #359, frex). Hmm...

[SirUrza]

Mike McArtor wrote:

Yeah, that's a tough call. Lidda is easily the best of the 3e D&D iconics (see Class Acts in Dragon #359, frex). Hmm...

Doesn't come close to the hottie on page 98. ;)

[Zuxius]

Plognark wrote:

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.

On this I agree. I really like Pathfinder as a setting, but I would prefer a straight 3.75 reiteration of all three books in generic form. I would be happier if Paizo continued where WotC left off. There were several books that should have got printed (that would have completed the 3.5 set). I can think of a few enviromental books. In any event, I would not presume to tell such a far thinking company (as this) what to do.

I would encourage them to subvertly gear up to the demand that WotC thought would be theirs (but actually lost). Paizo has been a very reactive (proactive) company, and though they are calling this Pathfinder RPG, it could easily turn into 3.75 generic if everyone asks them to do it. I am not so sure it will be called Pathfinder RPG to be honest. I think Paizo realizes that their relationship with WotC is important, and keeping everything Pathfinder sounds less intimidating. I also firmly believe that Paizo is going to this effort for exactly the reasons that it states.

"They want to tell stories with a system they feel comfortable with."

In otherwords, they need to create a way, to continue telling stories the way they feel is best. It is a simple premise, though everyone sees something bigger than that. I see something a lot bigger myself (and truly wish for it), but that is something that could turn Paizo staff from storytellers to cruch writers for 3.75. In fact, Paizo could rival WotC as an RPG authority. I would welcome that of course. Who better? Everthing Paizo wrote during their monthly issues of Dragon and Dungeon was absolutely fresh. I still can't believe those magazines are gone.

If I could sum it up, I think I would say that I wish it was as it was. It will never be that again, but I hold the hope that it could be even better, and Paizo is a company I feel can do it.

Cheers,
Zux

[Knight of Roses]

Play the game you enjoy. From what I have seen of Pathfinder, it has a lots of strength, taking some of the ideas of 4E and applying them to the game we already know.

I am waiting to actually see 4E before I decide which way to jump but I know in any case that I will be pleased that Pathfinder is out there as an option.

[-Anvil-]

William Edmunds wrote:

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 have two comments on this for you.

1. It clears up the poor mechanics in an otherwise good 3.5 D20 system. And it gives plenty of new 'crunch'- new game mechanics, new mods and abilities to mix n match, new options. This keeps gamers interested with fresh material and doesn't let 3.5 get stagnant with the same old combos. (Gee a rogue with a rapier, weapon finesse, and Improved Critical...that's original)

2. I totally disagree with the whole "generic" argument. A core rule book should be fairly setting neutral. Archetypical characters and icons should be used so that DM's can transfer them easily into an original setting of their creation. One of the reasons I hate 4th ed. is that the rulebooks read like a setting book, giving me restrictions on what I can and can't do in a world of my own creation.

If you want a unique gameworld get a setting book. Core Rulebooks should be setting neautral and include mechanics and gameplay only.

[Mike McArtor]

Zuxius wrote:

I really like Pathfinder as a setting, but I would prefer a straight 3.75 reiteration of all three books in generic form. I would be happier if Paizo continued where WotC left off. There were several books that should have got printed (that would have completed the 3.5 set).

That's pretty much what we're aiming for. As far as I know, as of right now the only thing in the PRPG that will tie it at all to Golarion and the rest of the Pathfinder line is the list of 20 major gods. Clerics gotta have someone to worship, after all. ;)

[Werecorpse]

Mike McArtor wrote:

Zuxius wrote:

I really like Pathfinder as a setting, but I would prefer a straight 3.75 reiteration of all three books in generic form. I would be happier if Paizo continued where WotC left off. There were several books that should have got printed (that would have completed the 3.5 set).

That's pretty much what we're aiming for. As far as I know, as of right now the only thing in the PRPG that will tie it at all to Golarion and the rest of the Pathfinder line is the list of 20 major gods. Clerics gotta have someone to worship, after all. ;)

It feels to me that PRPG is going too far, it is too different from 3.5. every class is different, every race is different- they are not only mechanically different they feel different. I would have thought a more minamalist approach would have sufficed, I mean isn't the idea that 3.5 is Ok except for a few bugs? Why doesnt PRPG just fix the major bugs? Why change so much?

[DarkWhite]

Werecorpse wrote:

It feels to me that PRPG is going too far, it is too different from 3.5. every class is different, every race is different- they are not only mechanically different they feel different. I would have thought a more minamalist approach would have sufficed, I mean isn't the idea that 3.5 is Ok except for a few bugs? Why doesnt PRPG just fix the major bugs? Why change so much?

That's kind of true. I'm torn between the Compatibility with 3.5 view; and the WOW this Pathfinder RPG stuff is COOL! view.

On the one hand, I want players to be able to join a game (whether it be home game any campaign, or a Pathfinder Society game at a convention) holding EITHER the PHB OR Pathinder RPG, and be able to jump right in and play, regardless of which rulebook others at the same table are using.

On the other hand, every campaign setting tries to add their own spin on things. My next favourite setting, Arcanis, does this - there are Dark-kin (Tieflings), Elves are elemental Elorii, there is a Holy Champion base class for every diety, etc, and it's COOL!

For the most part, Pathfinder campaign background will not appear in the Pathfinder RPG, it will appear in other sourcebooks where it belongs. However, it remains that Pathfinder RPG is somewhat different from the core PHB. Pathfinder RPG needs to market itself to players of ANY campaign setting, because pretty soon, it will be the ONLY version of the D20 rules still in print.

I think the way to achieve this, is to highlight any changes from the SRD in a different colour or background. Eg:

• Standard +2, -2 racial ability modifiers could appear in normal black type, with the additional +2 modifier highlighted with a blue background;
  
• Hit Dice for Rogues could appear in normal black type as D6, followed by D8 in a blue background;
  
• Rules for Barbarian Rage would appear in normal black type, but the new Rage powers could be enclosed in a blue background;
  
• Sorcerer bloodlines, Arcane schools could be enclosed in a blue background;

etc, you get the idea.

This way, a GM running Red Hand of Doom, or Dragonlance, or whatever could accept a player who couldn't purchase the out-of-print PHB, but has the new Pathfinder RPG, by telling him - just ignore the stuff highlighted in Blue.

Meanwhile, a GM new to Pathfinder can quickly get up to speed with the new enhancements, because anything Pathfinder and shiny new is immediately recognisable by it's blue background.

Best of both worlds!

[Stephen Klauk]

-Anvil- wrote:

2. I totally disagree with the whole "generic" argument. A core rule book should be fairly setting neutral. Archetypical characters and icons should be used so that DM's can transfer them easily into an original setting of their creation. One of the reasons I hate 4th ed. is that the rulebooks read like a setting book, giving me restrictions on what I can and can't do in a world of my own creation.

If you want a unique gameworld get a setting book. Core Rulebooks should be setting neautral and include mechanics and gameplay only.

Before 4E, I would have disagreed with you. For example, L5R has an awesome backdrop that made me go out and buy the books for the fluff, and after 6-8 years of having never been played, I'm finally running a L5R campaign*. 7th Sea and Deadlands attracted me for the same reason. Systems with specific game world fluff can be very, very interesting.

However, one of the things that's really attracted me to D&D - and one of the reasons I think its quite popular is that it's a toolbox, not tightly tied to any one world. A theme, yes, but not a specific world. I could stand 3E because I used the SRD stipped of the world fluff (though I am fond of Greyhawk). 4E's invoked background fluff just irritates me. If it had been present in the game system since its inception, it probably wouldn't get on my nerves. But 4E makes me feel like I'm having a specific fantasy world shoved down my throat - and since their fluff clashes with my homebrew, I'm not interested.

That said, I hope the Golarion info is kept lite in the PFPRG, and really saved for a Golarion worldbook. I don't want my D&D rules cluttered with world-specific fluff if I can help it. I want to be able to decide whether or not I use a specific campaign world or go with my own.

*thanks WotC, the lull between the slow death of 3E products and 4E has given me a chance to dust all my unused RPGs off the shelf and actually try them. Unfortunately for them, I've found so many great games I do own...

[KaeYoss]

Stephen Klauk wrote:

Before 4E, I would have disagreed with you. For example, L5R has an awesome backdrop that made me go out and buy the books for the fluff, and after 6-8 years of having never been played, I'm finally running a L5R campaign*.

The way I see it, there's systems tied to a world, and there's generic settings (and there's stuff in between).

L5R is tied to its world, and I like that. It does its job. And I, too, have everything L5R from the dual system Era and several of the 3rd edition books (will probably get the others, too, eventually) mainly for the great fluff.

The point is: I like L5R for what it is.

Now D&D, as I know it, isn't tied to any one world. While it's not 100% free, since it gets harder to do things when you don't cleave to some of the assumptions the game makes, but it's far from proprietary. I have used D&D rules to play in the High Magic World of the Forgotten Realms, explored the depths of horror in Ravenloft, looked Despair in the face in Midnight, let the Runelords rise in Pathfinder, done weird things on weirder planes in Planescape, defended my empire with honour in Rokugan d20, and even played a lech arcanist ("Blue Mage") in a not-to-be-taken-too-seriously(-or-at-all) short campaign.

It's one of D&D's strong points, and d20/OGL expanded on that.

4e no longer feels like an open system. That makes it Not D&D to me.

But after what I've heard/read, Pathfinder RPG will contain extremely little Golarion information: The gods will be there to give you a sample pantheon, any maybe some small towns will be used as examples - any maybe they'll even give us a setting-specific PrC like a Pathfinder Agent to replace the Red Wizard and show people how specific Organisations and Worlds can deal with PCs.

So never fear, in this as in so many things (maybe everything), Pathfinder will be D&D in spirit.

[aboyd]

DarkWhite wrote:

I'm torn between the Compatibility with 3.5 view; and the WOW this Pathfinder RPG stuff is COOL! view.

Here's the problem, as I see it. If they go with the "WOW this stuff is COOL" approach, then they are competing squarely with D&D 4th edition. I mean, if you're overhauling it, if compatibility with 3.5 is lost or tedious, then you basically have a new version of D&D. That pits it against the new D&D 4.0. That's a tough market, and it's going to hurt to compete directly against Wizards of the Coast.

The other way to go with it is to do D&D 3.6 edition. Revise the main broken bits, leave the rest as-is (possibly writing it in your own words so that you don't have copyright issues with WotC, but leaving the actual d20 gameplay as much unchanged as possible). If you do this, you're basically servicing all the players who feel that D&D 3.5 is fine with just a few changes. You're also servicing all the players who want to stick with OGL. This is the "I already put $500 into books, don't invalidate those purchases" crowd. This market is UNTAPPED. Wizards of the Coast has almost flat-out said that they have no intention of servicing this market. They expect their fans to buy into a whole new round of books.

For me, I'm in the "D&D 3.5 is fine" group. Pathfinder needs to be compatible enough to allow me to have a group of players with mixed books. Some will reference 3.5 edition Player's Handbook, and some will reference Pathfinder. They need to be mostly interchangeable. Not 100%, but some reasonable amount.

As a DM, I need to have a list of 4 to 40 items that I change and then I'm converted. If it's more than that -- if it's every aspect of every class, if every NPC needs their stats overhauled -- then it's too much and I might as well just go with 4th edition. Something like this would work:

1. Remove Cure Minor Wounds.
2. Make all 0-level spells at-will.
3. Use new grapple rules on page 35 of Pathfinder book.
4. etc.

A list like that I can handle. I'll go down the list, I'll cross off things in the 3.5 books, or scrawl little notes as needed, and be done. But if I have to buy Pathfinder for every player and re-do everything (if there is no simple list but instead it's just "read the whole Pathfinder book and let it change every single system") then I'd rather just go for 4th edition.

[DarkWhite]

aboyd wrote:

DarkWhite wrote:

I'm torn between the Compatibility with 3.5 view; and the WOW this Pathfinder RPG stuff is COOL! view.

I hear ya. And that is why I suggested specifically highlighting Pathfinder changes, perhaps in a different colour or background or border or box or some-such. Would that address the concerns you have regarding compatibility with 3.5 books, and getting up to speed with any changes?

[aboyd]

That certainly makes a transition easier. The question then becomes, "How much is highlighted?" Most of the book? Too much. Only the section on grappling (while leaving other broken systems such as turning undead untouched)? Too little.

Walk that line, Paizo!

[Timespike]

I don't mind obsoleting my old PHB as long as I can use everything ELSE in my collection. I can still take a Pathfinder barbarian and make a frenzied berserker, Champion of Gwynharwyf, or Runescarred Berserker. I can still use a Pathfinder paladin to build a Fist of Raziel, Pious Templar, or Gray Guard. I can still use a Pathfinder cleric to make a Hospitaler or Sacred Exorcist, etc. All of the old stuff still works, and all of the old stats blocks are still compatible. The shift between 3.5 and PRPG is about as extreme as the shift from 3.0 to 3.5, and I can still use 3.0 monsters with it. I can pull a dracolisk out of my Tome of Horrors Revised, slap a template from my Advanced Bestiary on it and use it to fight PRPG characters with nary a problem.

[Ockbald]

The book is far away from completion so I feel it´s kinda early to tell, but what about new players? Will be Pathfinder be newbie friendly? The art captures new players in my country rather easily but what about the rules? They seems a little more complicated than 3.5.

[Papa-DRB]

aboyd wrote:

For me, I'm in the "D&D 3.5 is fine" group. Pathfinder needs to be compatible enough to allow me to have a group of players with mixed books. Some will reference 3.5 edition Player's Handbook, and some will reference Pathfinder. They need to be mostly interchangeable. Not 100%, but some reasonable amount.

Read Mike McArtor's post (the 6th one) in this thread:

Mike post

In my mind it address' all the "compatibility" issues in a practical way.

-- david
Papa.DRB