|
I've seen elsewhere that Paizo will not depart from the Vancian magic method of spell reserves. Has Paizo set out a list of other themes, that while interesting, are beyond a concept of backwards compatibility?
I imagine that Paizo is walking a fine line between implementing house rules and restructuring 3.5 into a "new system." For instance, the concept of domain powers and wizard specialist powers seems like a bold step away from house ruling (as does condensing skill lists) . . . but this isn't to say that I don't approve. I'm just wondering how Paizo is defining this balance, i.e., rhyme and reason.
Any guidance from Paizo would be most welcome.
Creative Director
|
We haven't officially set out a list or anything, but I suppose one way to look at it is this: I want a time traveler from 2005 to be able to pick up the finished Pathfinder RPG, read through it, and then use it to run Dungeon #112's Maure Castle with a minimal time spent adapting and updating. In other words... the final game should FEEL like the game we've all been playing for ages. And that means that we're not departing from things like the Vancian spell system, the alignments, the base races and classes, the spells, the monsters, the magic items, etc. Stuff like condensing skills and giving wizards a (in my opinion much-needed) boost in power and interest in the Alpha is also our way of testing our readers' limits, to find out what THEY think is too far or too much.
In the end... I want our time traveler running Maure Castle to feel like the game's changes are more akin to the switch between 3.0 and 3.5 than the switch between 2.0 and 3.0.
... giving wizards a (in my opinion much-needed) boost in power...
Oh dear God, I can feel the blood vessels in my brain bursting like firecrackers on a string.
My opinion is very different. 3.5 wizards could use a little more survivability in their first four levels. After that, they need to be nerfed in a big way.
They're adding and improving, not taking away from 3.5.
Hunh. Publishing new spells, feats, classes, skill tricks, et. al. is adding. Modifying the rules and existing spells, feats, et. al. is changing, which necessarily involves both addition and subtraction. Improving is entirely a matter of personal opinion.
This isn't to say I disapprove of the changes. But from Alpha 1 playtest release it was apparent that Pathfinder will resemble 3.5 far less than 3.5 resembled 3.0.
[
This isn't to say I disapprove of the changes. But from Alpha 1 playtest release it was apparent that Pathfinder will resemble 3.5 far less than 3.5 resembled 3.0.
Sorry I just dont get that at all.
But from Alpha 1 playtest release it was apparent that Pathfinder will resemble 3.5 far less than 3.5 resembled 3.0.
Hunh.
|
|
Sorry I just dont get that at all.[
This isn't to say I disapprove of the changes. But from Alpha 1 playtest release it was apparent that Pathfinder will resemble 3.5 far less than 3.5 resembled 3.0.
I see what he's saying. For instance, the notion of clerical domains and specialist domains are a departure from how both 3e and 3.5 did things. CMB is different. It does feel like it'll be a "new" edition that is "built" off 3.5, as opposed to 3.5, which was more like an update and fix-up to 3e.
|
|
The thing is, it is only the Alpha. For the people who say 'Pathfinder is not for me' (and there are a few of them), I'm really surprised. How can you judge a game that is clearly 'not finished'. This isn't even like D&D 4.0 where they were mostly finished with the playtest and didn't have enough time to change anything.
I do think that the Pathfinder Beta is going to have to be in a near final form in the near future. Probably 6 weeks or so. But then there will be another 8-10 months to change anything and everything in it before Pathfinder is officially released.
Pathfinder is very obviously a work in progress. It is very obviously open to comment and criticism, and playtesting report.
|
They're adding and improving, not taking away from 3.5.Hunh. Publishing new spells, feats, classes, skill tricks, et. al. is adding. Modifying the rules and existing spells, feats, et. al. is changing, which necessarily involves both addition and subtraction. Improving is entirely a matter of personal opinion.
This isn't to say I disapprove of the changes. But from Alpha 1 playtest release it was apparent that Pathfinder will resemble 3.5 far less than 3.5 resembled 3.0.
I disagree. You can modify core mechanics slightly and still have things be very identifiable as structured off 3.5. There is not question in my mind that 3.5 needed to be updated. That is why philisophically, I wasn't opposed to a 4th edition. The problem is that when they did 4th edition, they completely threw away 30 years of tradition and shared story telling that D&D players have come to love. Then when questioned about it, they said anyone that wasn't a 4th edition fanboy was an old grognard dinosaur whose input wasn't valid anyway because we just couldn't see how awesome the public dismemberment of our favorite game was going to be.
Pathfinder RPG as presented in the Alpha is what 4th edition should have been IMHO. Fix some things that needed to be fixed, and evolve the rules so that game play works better. As an example, the changes to the Wizard class amount to a few flavor abilities (hand of the apprentice for example), some added staying power (with the spell like abilities each day), and better survivability and class utility at low levels (better HD and a power usable at will so that once the wizard casts his 2 spells for the day he still has something he can do besides fire a crossbow).
There is still considerable work that needs to be done to get the alpha where it needs to be, and we have as of yet to see what they are doing with other classes and spells etc. On the whole though, I think the process and mentality of the changes they have made in the alpha make a lot of sense. The rationale that motivated WotC to change to 4th edition is a valid one. Their execution of it is what was the problem. I pick up the alpha and look at wizard and its basically 3.5 with a few additions to bump staying power, flavor, and survivability. Vancian spell slots are still there. Familiars are still there. Feats, skills, races, saving throws, ability scores, and core combat mechanics are all still there with tweaks and additions here and there. Even if I had never heard of Paizo, did not follow the playtest, and knew nothing else, I could pick up a copy of the Alpha in a gamestore and easily recognize it as an evolution of 3.5. Everything I am accustomed to and love about D&D is there. Some of it has been modified slightly or added to, but its easy for me to figure out how things are different and requires a minimal learning curve to master the new stuff.
To me that is the perfect solution. I did not, nore have I ever expected 3.5 to stay statically the same forever. I did not want to see 30 years of my favorite game flushed down the toilet in the name of attracting a "newer, younger, hipper audience". We are still several months from the beta, and a full year after that from the finished product, so I have no doubt things can and will change with the alpha. So far though, I am really liking what I am seeing.
Jeez, I didn't say Pathfinder will resemble 3.5 less than 4.0 resembles 3.5; I said Pathfinder will resemble 3.5 less than 3.5 resembled 3.0. And I said that I don't necessarily disapprove of the changes. Although there are some things I balk at, on the whole I'm reserving judgment.
... I want a time traveler from 2005 to be able to pick up the finished Pathfinder RPG, read through it, and then use it to run Dungeon #112's Maure Castle with a minimal time spent adapting and updating. In other words... the final game should FEEL like the game we've all been playing for ages...
Amen!
