...I went ahead and signed up for *just* Pathfinder again; I probably shouldn't have dropped my subs to begin with. I will, as originally planned, stay through the end of Crimson Throne.
But...for me, the biggest thing that will make or break Pathfinder RPG for me is backward compatibility. I have zero interest in a 3.75, and I think the current alpha leans too far in that direction. I may still go 4, but a truly backward compatible game is at least a possible competitor. Pathfinder as it exists right now (alpha 1) seems to offer the worst of both worlds...living with the clunky parts of the 3.5 legacy *and* giving up backwards compatibility.
Not saying this to stir up trouble, but rather in the hopes that the game can be steered closer to a slightly cleaned up 3.5. Things like big racial changes and specialist do-overs, while cool, don't belong in a product largely intended (by Paizo's own statements) to keep the 3.5 rules in print. I know designers want to design things, but don't hobble yourselves more than you already have. And I say that as a customer who loves your work.
I disagree with you
If they dont change the races classes feats and a few other things then why would anyone who has the old 3.5 books buy the Pathfinder stuff?
why would anyone who has the old 3.5 books buy the Pathfinder stuff?
I thought the answer was "people who have the old 3.5 books don't need to buy Pathfinder RPG because that's the point of it being backwards compatible." I thought that Pathfinder RPG is for people who start playing next year and find that they can't get the old 3.5 books anymore, or for people who need replacements for their old core books because they're falling appart.
Its a little off topic, but I'm not sure that just because domains shift to powers instead of spells, that that would preclude being able to get arcane disciple to work. As long as you have a source that lists the spells in the list, the concept still works fine. Same thing with allowing a character to spontaneous cast domain spells . . . as long as you know the list, the feat still pretty much works fine.
Not saying this to stir up trouble, but rather in the hopes that the game can be steered closer to a slightly cleaned up 3.5. Things like big racial changes and specialist do-overs, while cool, don't belong in a product largely intended (by Paizo's own statements) to keep the 3.5 rules in print. I know designers want to design things, but don't hobble yourselves more than you already have. And I say that as a customer who loves your work.
This sounds like a request for Pathfinder to be a straight reprint of the 3.5 SRD. Why would anyone want to buy a reprint and why would Paizo want to sell it? It's free, it's online and it has been available in other forms from other publishers (Mongoose Pocket Handbook, etc.).
Pathfinder is the only thing it can be--an evolution of the 3e ruleset as opposed to the re-invention that 4e is.
This sounds like a request for Pathfinder to be a straight reprint of the 3.5 SRD. Why would anyone want to buy a reprint and why would Paizo want to sell it? It's free, it's online and it has been available in other forms from other publishers (Mongoose Pocket Handbook, etc.).Pathfinder is the only thing it can be--an evolution of the 3e ruleset as opposed to the re-invention that 4e is.
QFT!
|
If it helps with your frustration over a new rule set. The answer I got from Jason if any thing need to be done to existing monsters or material to make for a better playtest.
His answer was that there was no plan to beef up the monsters thaye should be played as is.
So go to Pathfinder RPG or don't the adventure material being published should be viable for both.
|
I pretty much agree with the original poster. Yeah, there are some areas of the 3.5 rules that could do with some improving, but always with the goal of compatibility.
For example:
I don't see casting cantrips at will a game-breaker. You either allow it in your games, or you don't.
I don't see tying HD to BAB progression (sorcerer/wizards now get D6, and rogues D8) a game-breaker. It makes these classes a little more survivable, and able to participate longer in encounters, instead of being glass-cannons.
Increased feat progression only starts to make a difference at 5th level when you gain your 3rd feat early. I don't think 3.0 developers imagined such an explosion of feats when they first designed the concept. There is a lot of competition for so few feat slots. It is my hope that increasing feat progression will encourage more versatility, being able to explore character themes such as racial inheritance feats, but not at the expense of combat feats.
The changes listed above apply across the board, not only to core classes, but base classes from other sourcebooks too - therefore maintaining compatibility with the other books in your game library.
Consider a mixed table of PHB players and Pathfinder RPG players
- at a convention (eg Pathfinder Society organised play):
If the power creep isn't too extreme, just run with it.
EITHER allow the PHB players to upgrade their characters - assuming all characters begin at first level as in Greyhawk, and not a level-bump system as in Eberron, this should be relatively easy - no-one is going to refuse additional hitpoints at first level;
OR play them as they are, straight out of the PHB. Sure, they may be a little under-powered compared to their Pathfinder RPG companions, but that's just one of the advantages of using the Pathfinder RPG in a Pathfinder Society game.
It's a bit like a Living Greyhawk player being drawn unexpectedly to his first Living Arcanis game, due to the Greyhawk tables being full. Arcanis point buy is more generous, and the races are a bit different, but with a few quick adjustments, you can run with it.
Now consider a mixed table of PHB players and Pathfinder RPG players
- at a home game (something standard, perhaps 3.5 Greyhawk):
This one is a bit more difficult to run with.
By the time Pathfinder RPG is available in hardcover (Aug'09), 3.5 PHBs may no longer be on the shelves. The online d20 SRD is a useful resource for those that are aware of it, but doesn't replace a hardcover in the hands of a new player.
If Pathfinder RPG diverged too far from the PHB, and I were a GM running a 3.5 campaign using the PHB, I wouldn't allow it at my table any more than I would Monte Cooke's Arcana Unearthed or Iron Heroes. I would want to be assured that we were playing by the same rules.
What I would like to see from Pathfinder RPG
(and what I sincerely wished from 4E long before it was announced)
would be an updated PHB incorporating some of the divergent systems introduced during years of sourcebooks - eg racial substitution levels and alternate class features should be built into the core classes as options (talent trees?), and much needed innovations such as reserve feats (or similar mechanics) should appear in an updated PHB, so that future sourcebooks have a consistent base from which to provide options, without adding more clutter.
The primary goal being to provide options consistent with the current 3.5 system, while striving to maintain compatibility.
|
|
What I find more difficult with regards to the alpha rules and backward compatibility, are increases to the core races ability bonuses: +2, +2, -2. The problem is the questions it raises when someone wishes to play a non-core race, do you grant them a +2 to one stat too? If so, which stat? etc.
Perhaps granting the core races a bonus is a way of encouraging their play in a Pathfinder campaign, where monstrous races are discouraged, and I'm okay with that if that is the stated purpose. But if one of Pathfinder RPG's goals is to keep the D20 SRD in print, this raises questions for the many other campaign settings that use the D20 SRD that might have players purchasing Pathfinder RPG.
Not saying this to stir up trouble, but rather in the hopes that the game can be steered closer to a slightly cleaned up 3.5. Things like big racial changes and specialist do-overs, while cool, don't belong in a product largely intended (by Paizo's own statements) to keep the 3.5 rules in print. I know designers want to design things, but don't hobble yourselves more than you already have. And I say that as a customer who loves your work.
This sounds like a request for Pathfinder to be a straight reprint of the 3.5 SRD. Why would anyone want to buy a reprint and why would Paizo want to sell it? It's free, it's online and it has been available in other forms from other publishers (Mongoose Pocket Handbook, etc.).
Pathfinder is the only thing it can be--an evolution of the 3e ruleset as opposed to the re-invention that 4e is.
To be clear, it doesn't need to be a straight reprint. Rather, changes that will alter a stat block in a non-trival way should largely stay out. For example, changing the darkness spell is fine by me. Bumping the hit die size for wizards and rogues is fine, because adding 1 hit point per wizard or rogue level is fast and easy. 0-level spells at will? No big deal. Changing racial modifiers is *not* easy, because it cascades into skill points, skill modifiers, hit points, AC, feat pre-reqs, etc. Adding a progression of abilities for specialist wizards is not OK, because it requires I go back and add powers to wizards, plus possibly changing known/prepared spells that make no sense in the context of having the new powers.
So, while I wouldn't object to a reprint with all new art direction kept in print (Especially as a single book), I'm not opposed to changes. I just think the fewer changes have to be made to stat blocks, and the more supplemental material (new races, etc.) that can be used without modification, the stronger value proposition Pathfinder RPG represents.
Would you need to change around all the npcs the party faces? If you are running the Pathfinder RPG adventure then it should be safe to run the creature without changing all it's abilities back.
I doubt that the players would notice if you sent a Pathfinder Wizard against them unless you really pushed it's special abilities a lot.
The same would go for using 3.5 rules against a Pathfinder RPG party. I don't think they would notice the handful of hit points or the fact they still have their specialist slot.
Right now, the biggest break from the 3.5 system in PFRPG's Alpha Release is the new skill system. Everything else could be considered setting-specific variants with a minor effect on play, IMO.
The skill consolidation continues with the 3.0 to 3.5 changes and I have few problems with it (just some of the skill combinations). It's the automatically gaining new skills every even level and the loss of skill ranks that causes the most compatibility headaches.
|
What I find more difficult with regards to the alpha rules and backward compatibility, are increases to the core races ability bonuses: +2, +2, -2. The problem is the questions it raises when someone wishes to play a non-core race, do you grant them a +2 to one stat too? If so, which stat? etc.
I can answer that for you, since I have already considered this for my current campaign. if the creature has a net modifier of +2 to stats and an ECL of 0 dont change a thing. for ECL +1 if their stats result in a net modifier of +2 consider reducing their ECL to +0, if they have unusual abilities such as spell-like abilities or resistances then leave them at +1.
If you still need to consider adding a stat to a race to bring it in line with the rest make sure you balance the stats so the race has +2 in 1 physical stat and +2 in one mental stat.
for my campaign I use the Lesser Assimar and Lesser Tiefling variants in the Player's Guide to Faerun and decided to leave them as is for pathfinder. When i first introduced them they were still too powerful a choice for players (my first pathfinder game ended up with 2 assimars and 2 tieflings in the party!) however my newer game has seen the step back towards dwarves, elves and half-orcs and even a half-elf. this is a complete change to years of playing Forgotten Realms where 75% of the group was almost garanteed to be human.
One aspect of the game that I have noticed however is that 20 is the new high stat, there isnt a single race now that cant have a 20 in its core stat.
|
|
Would you need to change around all the npcs the party faces? If you are running the Pathfinder RPG adventure then it should be safe to run the creature without changing all it's abilities back.
I doubt that the players would notice if you sent a Pathfinder Wizard against them unless you really pushed it's special abilities a lot.
The same would go for using 3.5 rules against a Pathfinder RPG party. I don't think they would notice the handful of hit points or the fact they still have their specialist slot.
My concern isn't regarding PHB players and Pathfinder adventures, nor with Pathfinder players with PHB adventures. In both of these situations, play as normal, no need to alter anything.
My concern is when PHB players mix with Pathfinder players at the same table - when one player has a power creep advantage over the other players, or when the GM is unfamiliar with the rule differences in a player's Pathfinder RPG character which claims to be "backwards compatible" with the PHB.
I would guess that in home games, if the group is going to switch over, everyone will get the new book or share copies of the new book.
And with the convention games, there probably won't be any mixing because the new Pathfinder games will be all Pathfinder and 3.5 will no longer be supported at conventions.
|
|
Right now, the biggest break from the 3.5 system in PFRPG's Alpha Release is the new skill system. Everything else could be considered setting-specific variants with a minor effect on play, IMO.
The skill consolidation continues with the 3.0 to 3.5 changes and I have few problems with it (just some of the skill combinations). It's the automatically gaining new skills every even level and the loss of skill ranks that causes the most compatibility headaches.
Paizo have already indicated that the skill system is under revision, due to feedback from the messageboards, so I'm not too concerned with skills for the moment.
I'm okay with consolidating skills, but the new system has to be comparable with the 3.5 skill system to the extent that the two systems can be use interchangably, or side-by-side, even in the same game, in the event that one player is using the PHB, another player using the Pathfinder RPG, and the GM could be running an adventure written for either system.
Eg, characters have comparatively equivalent skill points (more points in PHB, less points in Pathfinder due to consolidation), distributed for roughly the same result. A GM could call for a Spot or Perception check of 25, and a PHB or Pathfinder RPG player at the same table would make the appropriate roll. Some on-the-spot conversion between skill checks would be required, but Hide or Move Silently = Stealth; Listen or Spot = Perception etc, should be a no-brainer.
|
|
I would guess that in home games, if the group is going to switch over, everyone will get the new book or share copies of the new book.
And with the convention games, there probably won't be any mixing because the new Pathfinder games will be all Pathfinder and 3.5 will no longer be supported at conventions.
No, I wouldn't make these assumptions.
Some of the 4E backlash is from people who don't want to re-purchase their core books, and if 3.5 works for them, they shouldn't have to.
I don't want to exclude players from my games because some with the PHB refuse to purchase Pathfinder RPG, while new players who can't get their hands on a PHB, purchase the Pathfinder RPG out of necessity.
And to attract new players to Pathfinder Society at conventions, I wouldn't expect them to have a copy of the Pathfinder RPG either.
You don't want to shut out PHB players from Pathfinder RPG games, because these are the very audience Paizo stuck with the 3.5 system for!
|
|
I can answer that for you, since I have already considered this for my current campaign. if the creature has a net modifier of +2 to stats and an ECL of 0 dont change a thing. for ECL +1 if their stats result in a net modifier of +2 consider reducing their ECL to +0, if they have unusual abilities such as spell-like abilities or resistances then leave them at +1.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I had in mind. Though it would be nice if Paizo suggested this process in a sidebar or something.
I'd kind of prefer to see the PHB defaults printed in Pathfinder RPG. Every campaign setting has it's own customisations of the core races, as no doubt Golarion would (particularly with fey Gnomes), perhaps called out in a side-bar. However, the core races should remain in print for those purchasing Pathfinder RPG for use with other D20 campaigns.
My response to PFPRG is what I voted in the poll they had, which is sadly ironic given who just died.
Q: What edition of D&D do you currently expect to be playing at the end of 2008?
A: 3rd Edition. You'll have to pry the core books from my cold, undead hands.
And I would say that goes for the forseeable future. I'm not going to set them aside for WotC, and I am not going to do it for Paizo either. Sadly that means after the third AP, I'll probably be ending my subscription. Quick adjustments are still adjustments, and I'm not going to bother purchasing a product for that.
To the OP.
The closer the rules stay to 3.5 the more messes that won't be fixed. The 3.5 world has evolved, but the core 3.5 ruleset has not. This makes core stuff less attractive to players and DMs over the long term.
Have you played the PfRPG alpha playtest yet?
While it may not matter to a given person, it is true that 3.5 "drifted" a bit with new core classes and the like. If you don't use the new classes, that's fine, but even for players that like 3.5 and don't want to switch to 4th, it was pretty easy to get used to the higher expectations of some of the later classes.
WOTC put out several arcane casters after the initial "core" ones, but they never made another arcane caster that only had a d4. Every one of them had a d6 for hit dice. For this reason, and a few others, if you really wanted an "evoker" type wizard, you might as well play a Warmage, and a Beguiler had more "oomph" than either an enchanter or an illusionist.
In a way, tweaking the classes isn't so much changing 3.5 as brining the "core" back up to even with all of the stuff that Pathfinder is suppose to be backwards compatible with.
WOTC put out several arcane casters after the initial "core" ones, but they never made another arcane caster that only had a d4.
Wu Jen (Complete Arcane)?
Wu Jen (Complete Arcane)?
Good point, I stand corrected. That's also the only arcane class that got some really cool spells that weren't on the sorcerer/wizard lists as well.
However, Warmages, Shadowcasters, Dread Necromancers, and Beguilers were all d6 classes, and all except for the shaodwcasters more or less replaced a specialist (or two!) with their abilities.
But to add a slight bit to your point, the Dragon version of the Sha'ir was also a d4 class.
Right, but how many people play actually play a Wu Jen? Classes like the Warlock and those closer to the Bo9S fighter-types are overpowered compared to their 3.5 PHB equivilents. The PHB classes really need a power boost. I like the alpha release and the direction PfRPG is going.
Warlocks, however, are also intended as arcanists, and they too have a d6.
And dragonfire adepts (ugh) as well, but I was sticking to classes that had 1st-9th level spell abilities, just to avoid any confusion. If you throw in arcane classes that don't have traditional 1st-9th levels spells or mysteries, you can also throw in Binders and Truenamers as arcane classes that have a d6 or higher.
And if you count the Dragon Compendium Volume One, while Sha'ir's get a d4, Death Masters get a d8 as full on arcane casters.
Creative Director
|
The main reason we're doing the Pathfinder RPG ISN'T to introduce dramatic new changes to the game; you won't see a new flying PC race, for example, nor will you see alternate magic rules or a 12th core class.
The main reason we're doing this is because once WotC switches to 4th Edition, they'll no longer support 3.5. That means they won't be reprinting those core books. That means that a year or two years or five years or whenever from now, there'd be a HUGE barrier to entry for a new player of Pathfinder games.
By doing the Pathfinder RPG, we keep the 3.5 OGL rules in print. And since there ARE parts of the rules that can use tweaking or fixing, we're doing that. The Alpha rules are, remember, ALPHA rules. That's where you try out your big and crazy plans and changes and see what people hate and see what they accept. The Beta's about fine-tuning.
Once the final game is in print in August 2009, our goals are that you can play the 5th Pathfinder Adventrue Path using the Pathfinder RPG or using the 3.5 rules. All the 3.5 books you already have are still useful. You can adapt an adventure by including monsters from Frostburn and NPCs from Book of Nine Swords. Your players can build characters using Dragon Magic or Races of the Wild, take feats from Book of Exalted Deeds, and use the Spell Compendium. There WILL be a few points of clashing or awkwardness (just as there already are if you build a 3.0 character and play him in a 3.5 game), but the GM will be able to address and fix those problems relatively quickly and easily.
Warlock is not really a replacement for sorcerer/wizard at all. In terms of versatility and role in the party, they fit much more in the ranger role--reliable ranged attacks. Warlocks have few area attacks, and the number of powers they get are pretty limited, though all are pretty cool. Like the ranger, a lot of their powers fall into the area of mobility and perception.
Shadowcaster turns out to be quite underpowered, even at low levels. They are interesting, but not really a viable PC class as written.
Warmage, I think is overpowered--particularly with the various energy orb spells available. Both overpowered and completely lacking in versatility at the same time. In this sense, he's not a good replacement for a sorcerer/wizard in a party.
While the d4 hit die for wizards is a real liability at low levels, wizards really only need one high ability score (intelligence), so it's easy to drop your second best score into constitution and pick up lots of bonus hit points. A gnome or dwarf wizard will often have more hp than a cleric, if you're rolling hit points per the RAW. Sorcerers are at a bit more of a disadvantage here, since they are more likely to focus on offensive spells that require a ranged touch attack, and they need at least a decent intelligence score to get any skill points at all. Anyhow, I can buy bumping up the hit dice of everyone who has a d4, including kobolds and commoners. I don't think that would break the game. Alternatively, you could give wizards and sorcerers toughness as a bonus feat at 1st level just to make them survivable. Attribute it to some sort of preternatural toughness you get while working with magic.
On skills--I like the simplicity of the Alpha proposal, but dislike two things about it--its lack of versatility and the lack of backwards compatibility. I'd be more in favor of keeping the skill system more or less intact and just giving every class an extra two skill points per level. This preserves the advantages that rogues and others have over fighters and clerics, but gives these classes a little more opportunity to shine outside of battle. I think clerics in particular ought to frequently have better-developed knowledge and language skills--priests are supposed to be the educated class in a pre-modern society, and it makes sense that they should be good in knowledge religion/planes/nobility, decipher script, and so forth. Maybe not as good as wizards in as many of these areas, but not slow and stupid either.
Anyhow, I guess I share some of the same concerns noted above about changing 3.5 too radically all at once, and am reassured by James Jacobs' statement above to the effect that we're throwing on the table all the crazy stuff we've thought up, and will pare back and refine after this stage. I do, very much, appreciate Paizo letting us all in on the playtesting/design feedback loop, even if I don't have a lot of time or inclination to do any playtesting myself. Thanks, Paizo folks, for continuing to keep us involved in the process, and for risking raising the sorts of concerns that have been expressed so that you can get a better idea of what your customers really want.
|
I'd like to go on record here for a moment and note that I have run one playtest with Pathfinder characters and a 3.5 module, and did basically zero conversion. The changes I made, I made on the fly; these consisted of skill changes exclusively, taking the highest modifier of the collapsed skills and using that. I would have no difficulty whatsoever running most other 3.5 modules in a similar fashion, I think - it will, unfortunately, be a few weeks before I get a chance to test that theory, however. As it stands now, though, they seem entirely backwards compatible to me...
The main reason we're doing the Pathfinder RPG ISN'T to introduce dramatic new changes to the game; you won't see a new flying PC race, for example, nor will you see alternate magic rules or a 12th core class.
James, thanks for the honest and informative response. At this point, I trust whatever approach you guys decide. And much like Green Ronin, my regard for Paizo's products is greatly enhanced by your participation on these and other boards.
|
|
Thanks also for your reply, James.
I appreciate that the alpha rules are very much subject to change, and look forward to following them as they're released.
One possible solution to the "Keep the Core Rules" vs "Fix the Core Rules" might be to somehow highlight Pathfinder RPG changes/innovations to the core rules in sidebars, different colour font, or background colour, with explanation that these are optional but recommended enhancements to the game.
Therefore, new players can join an ongoing Greyhawk campaign with the Pathfinder RPG rules, and just stick with the Core; or join a Pathfinder Society session and use the full enhancments, as these are clearly defined.
Eg, Races may have the standard +2 -2 in regular black type, with the additional +2 highlighted with a blue background.
Obviously, there will be some circumstances where rules will be replaced outright, for example, Druid wildshape, because you want to replace something generally considered broken with something that works. D6 mages is another example, where you might explain the update in a sidebar, as you have in the current alpha release, rather than listing both values and highlighting one blue. But instances where rules have clearly been added or upgraded, such as arcane schools, highlighting in blue calls attention to GMs that this is new/changed material.
Wait, no new 12th core class? Is the 12th iconic going to be a fighter-mage via PrC? Or Psionic? (drool)
Sadly that means after the third AP, I'll probably be ending my subscription. Quick adjustments are still adjustments, and I'm not going to bother purchasing a product for that.
The 4th Adventure Path is 3.5 edition. So no need to go after Second Darkness. :)
And I do agree with the OP. The point of the Pathfinder RPG is to contine keeping 3rd edition on the shelves.
Changing rules is (and should be) secondary in importance.
The 4th Adventure Path is 3.5 edition. So no need to go after Second Darkness. :)
Yeah, I realized that a little while after I posted (I guess I had 3 on the mind). Of course, that assumes there is no delay in the products. ;)
|
Creative Director
|
Wait, no new 12th core class? Is the 12th iconic going to be a fighter-mage via PrC? Or Psionic? (drool)
Yes. Our 12th iconic is going to be our iconic multiclassed character. The fighter/mage is probably the most popular multiclass option, so that's what he'll be. Actually, he'll probably be a fighter/sorcerer, to be honest.
Actually, he'll probably be a fighter/sorcerer, to be honest.
Because nobody hates the wizard like James Jacobs...
1) Is there a way to wear armor (without risking arcane spell failure) before 5th level (Ftr 2 / Wiz 3)? I suppose I can cast mage armor, but there's something unsatisfying flavor-wise. I'd rather wear armor to start even if it's mechanically inferior to mage armor.
Instead of wizard, you could go with battle sorcerer. They can wear light armor without chance of arcane spell failure, +3 BAB/4 levels, d8 HD, while losing one spell known (minimum of one) and one spell slot for each spell level. You don't even have to take fighter levels unless you want the feats.
3) Selecting my weapon (a bastard sword as a one-handed melee weapon) as the PC's bonded wizard item is wonderful. The rules allowed me to enchant it to +1 with the spell storing ability. Instead of it being just some random magical sword, it is "mine!"
Agreed. The bonded item is a nice option.
4) I'm not sure why I would take the Arcane Strike feat; by the time PCs encounter creatures harmed by magical weapons, they already own magical weapons. Moreover, the overlap with the original Arcane Strike feat is confusing, and that feat is a better feat to take (sorry).
In turn, because Arcane Strike applies to all the character's weapons and the Arcane Strike in Complete Arcane is not OGL. Sure, the PCs may have a magic weapon when facing a DR/magic creature, but being able to hit it with any weapon is a nice benefit. The Arcane Strike in Complete Arcane may be mechanically better when used, but the PFRPG Arcane Strike is easier to qualify for and doesn't require the sacrifice of a spell slot.
6) To what extent do certain spells interact with the Combat Maneuver Bonus, if ever? Clearly, bull's strength is a must-have spell. But does being invisible change anything? What is a foe is blinded or stunned? A few lines about this in the rules would be wonderful. I'm wondering how Reilly can use spells to "soften up" monstrous foes to make them easier targets for his maneuvers.
Unless they change the effects in PFRPG, the effects of the various conditions and modifiers can be found in the PHB Glossary (pg. 304-314).
I have to add my support for backward compatiblity being critical to sucess. As a DM, I have enough material from both Paizo and other publisher to run 4 groups from 1st to 20th level and not reuse a single piece.
Upgrading the races, classes and fixing some of the skills and feats is great. Just don't go too far. As a player, I love Iron Heroes but I can't convert a module on the fly which is my hope for Pathfinders.
Doug
|
|
I'm not worried about conversion at all. The key element of backwards compatibility for me is being able to use 3.x material as a DM in my PRPG game.
If a PC is going to be moved from 3.x to PRPG, yes, you'll need to do some retcon, same as 3.0 -> 3.5. But if, as a DM, I introduce a NPC from a 3.5 adventure, I don't need to reconfigure all the stats.
The fact that I can just drag and drop things with very little issue from 3.x to PRPG is what I want, and it's what I'm getting, AFAIK.
One possible solution to the "Keep the Core Rules" vs "Fix the Core Rules" might be to somehow highlight Pathfinder RPG changes/innovations to the core rules in sidebars, different colour font, or background colour, with explanation that these are optional but recommended enhancements to the game.Therefore, new players can join an ongoing Greyhawk campaign with the Pathfinder RPG rules, and just stick with the Core; or join a Pathfinder Society session and use the full enhancments, as these are clearly defined.
Eg, Races may have the standard +2 -2 in regular black type, with the additional +2 highlighted with a blue background.
Obviously, there will be some circumstances where rules will be replaced outright, for example, Druid wildshape, because you want to replace something generally considered broken with something that works. D6 mages is another example, where you might explain the update in a sidebar, as you have in the current alpha release, rather than listing both values and highlighting one blue. But instances where rules have clearly been added or upgraded, such as arcane schools, highlighting in blue calls attention to GMs that this is new/changed material.
I think this is a brilliant idea.
|
|
Wait, no new 12th core class? Is the 12th iconic going to be a fighter-mage via PrC? Or Psionic? (drool)Yes. Our 12th iconic is going to be our iconic multiclassed character. The fighter/mage is probably the most popular multiclass option, so that's what he'll be. Actually, he'll probably be a fighter/sorcerer, to be honest.
A Rogue/Sorc would be nice too
As for including sidebars for every change from 3.5..UGH.
I can't imagine how much this idea would unnecessarily increase the size of the rulebook---and how lacking it would be in terms of flow, presentation and self-identity. I also think it would be needlessly confusing to new players.
First off, let me say that I don't mind the new and different ability score adjustments. If they generate some excitement among the players that's great. I'm kind of a fan of using Core races, and it is nice that somebody might actually pick an elf or halfling instead of a whisper gnome, glimmerskin halfling, etc.
Old 3.5 NPCs (and potentially PCs) can be run just fine using the old racial adjustments, so there's no need for conversion unless it appeals to you. There are already rules for how having a higher or lower ability score would work, and the adjusted scores will all end up in a range that's "normal" for PCs anyhow. Changes to the skill system are a little more complex.
I do like giving humans an extra skill as a class skill. This doesn't cause any conversion problems since it is just an addition. The 3.5 human character in question may have just never made use of that option. Combining and omitting skills is a little more troublesome.
I'm more worried about prereqs for PRCs and feats than determining what skill to use for a certain task in game. I'm sure adjusting things to the PF skill system wouldn't be too difficult, but keeping something closer to the 3.5 system would obviously make PF more backwards compatible. I'm just not sure that the 3.5 skill system was bad enough to bother revising so completely. The only 3.5 skill problem which bothers my gaming groups regularly is trying to recall which Knowledge skill goes with which monster.