We all know that PFRPG is being designed with a high degree of backwards compatibility. But for each of us, there is a point that the system can be modified before it "breaks" and it's no longer "backwards compatible" for your own use. So, I'm wondering - what areas do you feel can be tweaked without breaking backwards compatibility, and is there a point where you draw the line that its gone too far?
For me, the limitations are:
- Spells should remain the same level, though their components can be tweaked making them stronger or weaker. I can handle the renaming of a spell or two, as long I have a table or reference of what the name change is (For example, if Sleep was renamed Slumber). When I look at an NPC or monster's spell list, I don't want to be rewriting the spell block.
- Skills should remain approximately the same. I can handle combining rolling skills together, but I don't want to spend time reallocating or recomputing NPC skill blocks. I can handle PCs rebuilding their skills to be more advantageous, but NPC skill blocks should be usable as-is.
- No core class, race or monster should be lost in the upgrade.
- Hit points should remain relatively the same, say within about no more than 2-4 extra HP per level.
- Class abilities should add, not take away. I should be able to recreate or use an NPC as built, though PCs can configure themselves slightly differently. I don't mind adding an ability or two to a class to bring it up to snuff, but a total re-envisioning of the class and its abilities is a no-no.
I guess my real break point is compatibility with modules. If I have to spend a lot of time revising NPCs/monsters/encounters (PCs can rebuild all they want - that's their time) for adventures, PFRPG would be a turn-off to me.
I haven't seen anything that hits the breaking point for me yet, though there are, of course, a few points that stretch me close to such a point. The polymorph/shapechange changes come the closest, I would have to say.
What are others seeing as bending/break points for their game?
I have two different breaking points.
The first breaking point is whether or not I'll buy and use the Pathfinder rules for my games.
This first breaking point is more stringent. I'd like to not see many changes to core spells or feats, but things like races, classes, I'm more open to. Spells which are considered 'broken' by the majority of gamers can have spell descriptions changed, but don't mess with levels, schools of magic, or which caster list the spell appears on. The current Pathfinder skill system is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Finally, sub-systems such as grappling , turning undead, and cover rules are open game for changing and so far seem changes for the better. Overall, the first breaking point is close for me right now. Changes to polymorph is also on my bad list and if I wind up with 10 pages of house rules using Pathfinder compared to my 1 page using 3.5 rules, well I'll just stick with 3.5. If my house rules for Pathfinder are comparable in length to my 3.5 ones, then I'll switch and use Pathfinder.
The second breaking point is whether or not I'll continue to use Pathfinder campaigns, adventures, and game world rulebooks.
As long as I can reasonably convert Pathfinder adventures and run them using 3.5 rulebooks I'll be sticking with these. The rule changes so far wouldn't make much of an impact when trying to run a 3.5 game, so something drastic will have to change in this category to get me to stop using the adventure and game world products. The adventures and game world books have been great so far and I'm willing to do a little bit of work to run then if I have to under 3.5 rules.
So far I am not even close to breaking.
I like what is being done so far.
Since Alpha 3 and the Beta are not out yet, I am not sure what, if anything is being changed.
I have 3 very minor house rules
All core classes have a minimum of 4 skill ranks per level.
Favored Class gives you a bonus skill rank rather than a bonus hit point.
Racial weapon proficiency bonuses can be exchanged for a weapon focus for which the char qualifies thru their class weapon proficiencies.
Those are my only issues so far, and they are very minor.
My break point has more to do with flavor than particular rules. Maybe I just don't notice or maybe I just don't care, but I don't think Polymorph is that broken. I never really felt there was a huge problem with Turn Undead. I was happy to hear that there was a fix for Turning, but it's not a fix, it's a replacement. That is too far for me. I no longer look at PFRPG as an upgrade but rather a book of alternate/house rules. Turning feels like D&D to me- channeling energy to heal people and as a side effect harm undead is not the same.
Damage done. I'm out. Oh well.
The breaking point for me is that I want to see the 3.5 rules largely intact. If I pick up PFRPG, and look through it and it doesn't look like 3.5 Dungeons & Dragons, it won't interest me.
I would really like to see the problems with 3.5 fixed, as the top priority. I want to see a re-working of the existing rules before any new ones are added. I do realize that this is a playtest, and that they have thrown out a lot of new experimental rules for us to try. But if too many of these are incorporated into Pathfinder, I would take that as Paizo using 3.5 as a framework, and then building their own system on top of that.
Since they have asked us for our opinions, my opinion is that I want to play a renewed, enhanced, and better 3.5 D & D.
For me the breaking point will be ease of use with existing modules whether Paizo, AEG or Goodman Games. If it becomes too much work to use
my already purchased material I will have to stay with 3.5.
Thanks,
Doug
For me Paizo isn't breaking it enough. Alas the problem with backwards compatibility.
That's actually a hard question. Seems it comes down to the amout of work your willing to do and/or if you are a D&Der or D20 eh, OGLer.
For example:
WOWRPG & Conan RPG for me are easily convertable (though in the latter case some could argue that you wouldn't want to). In either case I use all Tech. rules and even added Tech. skill to my game form WoW as well as the all ablity bonus that conan gives for levels. Which made Pathfinder alpha one rule of ganing new skills every other level fantastic as the only two classes in my game that could get use technology was the Tinker and Rogue. Thus making the rogue very powerful combined with spell like ablites in Pathfinder, but a Wiz. or Fighter could also get use tech. at some point.
On the other hand.
True 20 and Iron Heros while convertable back, is slightly more problematic for me (note this is not a slam to the games, I own Iron heros and thinking of geting True 20 like them both). Also form alpha one the skills system itself was not to my taste. Skills help define the character and all that.
Having said all this I have read some people say that Pathfinder is too far from the the way WotC did D&D during the 3.5 years. Which I don't agree with at all. Nor do I have any problem between 3.0 to 3.5 sure some skills changed, I converted when I need too. Magic item way too expensive, explained it by saying it was very decorated with jewels, move on.
In the end I look at it this way, all companies/systmes that came up during the 3.5 years were hoseruled stuff from the 3.5 core books. Those books will soon be gone, there will not be a center. Everyting I've heard about 4th is that it is not convertable, I've heard only one person say he could in theory do it but he has 35+ years of playing games or all types. Pathfinder creates a new center. With any luck a center that other publishers can thrive with which was the spirt of 3.5
As you can see it would take a lot for Pathfinder to break the system.
|
I can't really say that I have a designated breaking point (yet). I'm interested in improvements, and from what I've seen, I want more. E.g., more skills condensed, more spells improved, more variants/builds for core classes, etc.
In the end, I suspect to house rule in variants to what I'm not happy with.
That said, there are two critical factors that I want to see for PRPG to really stand strong:
1. The ability to pick up a 3.5 book and use it in game without conversion. Primarily, I speak of monster manuals, magic items, and spell compendiums.
2. A guide on the quick and easy 1, 2, 3s of converting classes and prestige classes (and well as 3.5 characters). I don't know how easy this can be achieved, but a SHORT chapter on the "how tos" would speak volumes.
With both of these accomplished, I'm accepting of a heck of a lot of bending before the break.
|
It's exciting to see Paizo take on a project of this magnitude, and I've been one of their strong supporters, but have we as players asked for too much? Has Pathfinder gone too far?
Pathfinder as it stands now is not backwards compatible. Sure it uses the same mechanics as 3.5, and the math works out fine, but the "playability" backwards is gone.
Using Pathfinder classes in older modules such as the Dungeon Crawls or even Dragon Magazine would be a joke. These new characters would waltz through older adventures with little or no effort. Yes, the DM can adjust the modules, but for those DM's strapped for time, updating modules is not possible. If the DM has enough time to readjust the entire module, then what's the point of having pre-printed adventures?
Yes we still can use the "old 3.5 books" but with the power creep, these older books just can't compare, thus we are back to where we were when 4E was announced, upgrade or leave. Paizo will continue to produce splat books for it's game system and over time our 3.5 libraries will become obsolete. I only begrudge them a little over this, and as a businessman myself, I understand creating a need for an ongoing product or service; however, there are those of us 3.5'ers that wanted a 3.75, not a complete rewrite of the spells, feats, skills, magic items, races and classes--a 'tweak' to the rules, not a 'rebuild'.
With all the fervor surrounding the Pathfinder game system, are we as players asking too much too soon? Are these changes too much?
I'm probably in the minority, so thank you for giving me this opportunity to address my concerns.
I appreciate Paizo's willingness and ability to continue to produce an OGL game and supporting products, and for the foreseeable future I will continue to support their company with my purchases.
I don't care for more powers in general. In specific, if wizards, druids and clerics get more complex or more powerful, then, no thanks. If fighters and melee folks in general have some parity with the casters, then yes, I'm willing to make those changes. But make the changes with the minimum necessary "resource management" book-keeping. Players don't care as much about book-keeping burdens: they only have to keep track of one character. I have to keep track of adjudicating their character's powers, the NPCs' powers, and tell a story and describe the combats. DMing combats is difficult enough as it is without turning every class into the nightmare that is druids.
If I have to memorize a new system rather than do a few tweaks to this one, then no thanks. 3.5 is complicated enough. The fewer the interventions to achieve only the most necessary shifts the better it is, even if the system is not perfect.
I buy modules first as a time-saving device to prevent my burning out, like I did when I had to do it all myself. If the system requires so much time that the modules become prohibitively expensive in terms of time+currency, then no thank you.
In short: Simplicity, simplicity.
I can't imagine there is a breaking point for me. I like everything I've read. However, selling my group on certain changes will be difficult given most of them have just barely begun to wrap their minds around 3.5. So I will likely be using a PF/3.5 hybrid.
Rules that likely won't be adopted:
1. Races: The coolness factor on these definitely went up with PF. But it's a change I can live without. Off it goes.
2. Magic: With the exception of shapechange, detect magic, and identify, I'll be leaving the spells unaltered for familiarity reasons (though I may go ahead and add Breath of Life. It's just too cool).
3. Feats: My least favorite alteration. And pulling the rug out from under the old feat system will have my players throwing empty coke cans and cheese puffs at me.
Rules that I will be incorporating in my next campaign:
Classes: Not only will I be using these classes, but they will be the only classes allowed, with no PrC-ing out. Class abilities from other sources will be converted to feats, talents, and core class additions/replacements.
CMB: For simplicity sake. I doubt my group will argue too much with this one. Most don't have an inkling as to how the originals work anyway. This means that the new CM feats will be the only ones swapped out.
Skills: The new system is awesome, and this is one area I won't compromise with. They are just going to have to deal with it.
Magic Item Creation: Fine. Whatever. None of my folks ever make anything anyways.
CR/XP/leveling: A DM's dream. Thanks ; )
Curses: Just plain excellent. I can never have too many new and exciting ways to mess with PC's lives.
And there you have it. Understand though that I have never, do not, and have no intention of ever using a module. The stuff that originates from my own mind is some of the coolest I've ever run. Sorry to go all ego-centric on you.
I was already bending pretty far by the sheer glut of material instead of what I imagined would be a few fixes to longstanding rules slowdowns. I was willing to flex though, seeing as it was packaged as a campaign setting and not a 3.75 update. The polymorph change finally broke me; same reason I jettisoned the RPGA.
I was already bending pretty far by the sheer glut of material instead of what I imagined would be a few fixes to longstanding rules slowdowns. I was willing to flex though, seeing as it was packaged as a campaign setting and not a 3.75 update. The polymorph change finally broke me; same reason I jettisoned the RPGA.
Would nerfing gate do the same thing, or are broken spells part of the 3.5 experience?
Would nerfing gate do the same thing, or are broken spells part of the 3.5 experience?
No. Gate (and other easily adjudicated spells) are covered in the "don't do that" DM's policy. I think the majority of the arguments on updating 3.5 stem from people confusing "abuse" with "broken."
No. Gate (and other easily adjudicated spells) are covered in the "don't do that" DM's policy.
Erm...and what about shapechange?
Erm...and what about shapechange?
What about it?
Erm...and what about shapechange?What about it?
Is that covered by an unspoken, unwritten, assumed rule that de-breaks the game?
No, it's covered by the "refuse to be baited by a pointless 3.5 conversion argument" clause. ;)
No, it's covered by the "refuse to be baited by a pointless 3.5 conversion argument" clause. ;)
So is that a "I don't want shapechange nerfed" or a "I think shapechange should be nerfed"?
First off...
I love the effort, the momentum and intensity this 3.5 revision has stirred. I love the dedication from the players and developers alike.
I'm 50-50 on the PF system so far. I'm worried that after years of poorly written and unbalanced splat books that have been thrown at us that most people are stuck with the mentality that "more power = better."
I'm concerned with the upcreep of power of the classes, all of them generally. While some effort is given to flavor and a little part goes into playability, the average level of power creep is building more and more momentum, and with that comes the very thing that will drive me from this wonderful effort.
It's always easy to make a splat book where the classes look more interesting because they are more powerful (See Players Handbook II or many of the numerous 3rd party products that came out during the 3.X era). It's much more difficult to make a book where interest is generated by addressing issues of obvious weaknesses or imbalance are presented. In fact, I would argue that just about the only person that really made an effort in working toward this was Monte Cook.
I don't want 4E, which is all about increasing the power of all the classes, making balanced groups a non-issue. To do this, 4E has mechanically attempted to balance all the classes, and they immediately lost many of us that had been carrying the D&D torch for 20+ years.
I will go as far as being unable to present my old 3.5 modules to my players, because they are able to shrug off the core of the threats due to the increased power of all classes. I don't want to have to increase the statistics on the encounters in my old 3.5 adventures to make them a challenge. Weakness of all the characters in 3.5 is not a problem with the game, so PF hasn't necessarily fixed a thing if they up the power on all classes. Some classes needed boosts, in class features, and abilities that allowed them to fulfill certain roles within the group, but increasing damage is not necessarily the fix for this.
I'm fearing that I will have to throw my first level PFRPG characters through 3rd level modules to get them to feel a remote challenge, and if that proves to be so, I think I will probably slowly let this effort slip away from my attention.
Playability is better, flavor and flexibility are better. Power is not always better, and if done too much, will lose the main interest for me.
If certain classes were thought to be weak, fine, spruce them up, but all the classes being equalized in damage is the first way to destroy this effort. Heck, just go buy 4E and save yourself the hassle of creating this thing if thats the case.
|
|
When I prepare for a session from an OGL adventure, I frequently have to rewrite most of the encounters to take advantage of all the WOTC splatbooks, simply because a core OGL SRD character has like minimal impact on the characters my players end up with after gaining a few levels. So I have to crank them up a few notches.
So I honestly don't care if I have to rewrite every monster, because I do that anyways. So far I've been doing less rewriting overall than average, and keeping monsters (in a Goodman Games DCC adventure, Castle Whiterock) more or less "as is." It's working out so far.
I'm all for streamlining rules so they play faster. So far I like the way they play out. My current campaign has already made extensive use of the CMB and Energy Channeling rules changes, and we like how quick they are.
I personally dig the way Turn Undead works now. Once WOTC defined turning undead as blasting them with a burst of positive energy, which could be "channeled" to other uses, this interpretation of the ability was sort of inevitable.
For me the breaking points are basically: adding non-generic setting elements that break from the D&D canon, adding things that won't fit in my "Mystara" campaign world (which is only nominally rooted in the TSR published Mystara). It absolutely must have Fighters, Magic Users, Clerics, Thieves, Elves (that can be Fighter/Magic Users), Dwarves, and Halflings. If it's going to have more than that, then I would prefer Gnomes, Half-Orcs, and Bards (*heart*) to Tieflings, Warlocks and Dragonborn (wtf? seriously? seriously? fu wotc).
But basically I just want something that updates and streamlines the game I'm already playing, and PRPG seems to be right on track to do just that.
|
|
I am in the good position of starting a new campaign after a getting-married-and-spawning-future-gamers hiatus. Most of my recently recruited players have little experience in pen and paper games.
Converting 3.5 encounters is most of the time as easy as adding a couple of mooks or giving a couple of levels to the big baddie. I don't see how a few extra HP for some classes will invalidate all your low level scenarios. Fully updating minor disposable NPCs is overkill.
Updating important NPCs takes time, but in most cases it's just a couple of basic calculations (some of which will be done in the PF Monster Manual). If I recall correctly, converting from 2 Ed. to 3 Ed. represented much more work.
Bear in mind that I usually run quite a few encounters below the party's level. This warms them up, let's them test the characters' powers and abilities and gives them a measure of confidence.
Also, things I don't like in a rule set get tweaked, streamlined or simply ignored. I like to see myself as the one who bends the rules, rather than trying too hard to accommodate something that doesn't work for me and my players.
I guess it's not so much for specific things, but the total % of the changes. Of course different things would have more of an impact if they're changed e.g. removing feats has a larger % impact than increasing HD to match BAB.
For me, I'd go pretty far with the changes if I like what I'm seeing. There were some nice things in the much-maligned Everquest PHB, like XP penalties instead of LA, weapon speeds etc. Far from perfect but perfectly workable in 3.X.
If I'm doing percentages then, I'd break at about 80% change. I know that's quite high, but I'm really excited about all of the fluff we're getting. And the more new fluff that I'm excited about, the more rule changes that I'm not happy with I'd be willing to put up with.
So far Paizo is well in the black on this one, although I'm concerned about the apparent lack of spells for the ranger in the preview.
/personal panic
;P
Peace,
tfad
|
Breaking point for me is the loss of customizability in my skills if I can't be good in some skills, mediocre in others, and downright bad in the rest I don't wan't to play because it doesn't feel real to me, I love skill points/ranks/whatever, I hate auto-perfection if you have it as a class skill or hi john, good thing we are both fighters cause we both have to be really good at riding horses, jacob the mage just cant ride a horse despite having grown up racing horses.
My breaking points:
1) Fix the annoyances and poor mechanics.
This seems to be getting done. The fighter is more worthy of combat, hopefully the bard, monk, and sorc will be as well. Grapple is less annoying and I have already adopted the CMB stuff. Skills are handled roughly the same but a bit cleaner and with some consolidation, which doesn't make me choose as much between flavor and usefulness for my characters and NPC's. So far so good on this one but time will tell.
2) Don't warp the game into something unrecognizable that fundamentally changes the way I game, the way I design encounters + stories, the brews I've made, etc.
This is basically what 4th seems to be doing for me.
3) Make the campaign able to go "backwards" to play 3.5 with.
Not a biggie for me, but I think for those who don't want to adopt the changes, they should have an easy formula for converting new products backwards.
4) Come along with an interesting campaign setting.
yep
So far so good for me.
Can I pick up a Pathfinder module and play it, as-is, with 3.5e D&D characters?
Can I pick up a copy of Dungeon and play it, as written, with Pathfinder characters?
If the answers to those two questions are "yes" -- and as of now, they seem to be -- then I'm on board. If the answer is "no," then we've gone to 4e(b). If the answer is "yes, but you've got to convert the adventures, but don't worry, it will be really easy, all you have to do is to..." I'd probably invoke the Spell of Untiring Laziness and go back to 3.5.
For me, and the friends I play with, the real breaking points would be:
-loss of flavor (not likely since all the core classes and races are there);
-unnecessary added complexity (we like that we have to use our brains, but when you always need to open one or three books, every round...);
-complete power creep (which, in my opinion, is not really happening as a lot of the changes are more like trades; we believe that the real creep went on in the numerous splatbooks from WotC with PrC and non core-classes that just don't make any sense at all).
So far, we are very happy with the changes, and especially with the ear they keep on their community.
Keep up the good work and, mostly, keep listening, it's doing wonders to all.
DW
For me- it's either Paizo, 3.5, or nothing.
Given that 3.5 is getting canned, that leaves me with Paizo, or no new content.
Due to that- I have a *lot* of bend before I break.
There are little things they are changing that I wish they'd leave alone (minority I know, but I *really like* the 3.5 skill system, as a whole.... annd why are they messing with Wish spell?), but for the most part I See what they are doing and I like it.
Absent a total rewrite and a "We've decided to make PRPG into 4.0" I do believe I am with them for the long haul.
Afterall- we've been patching 3.5 with houserules for a good while now: I doubt Paizo will mind too much if we do the same with their final product :)
-S
In response to those who are worried about having to some work to be able to play the 3.5 adventures that they already have:
If you are finding that PF characters are going thru adventures to easily, perhaps, rather than modify the adventures, you may just want to play adventures that are slated a bit higher that what you would have.
That is, if the chars are 3rd level, perhaps you should be running them thru 4th level adventures. If that is still too easy, try 5th level. This will probably allow you to run the adventures as is.
For me, and the friends I play with, the real breaking points would be:
-loss of flavor (not likely since all the core classes and races are there);
-unnecessary added complexity (we like that we have to use our brains, but when you always need to open one or three books, every round...);
-complete power creep (which, in my opinion, is not really happening as a lot of the changes are more like trades
...
Good to see you around here DW!
Polymorph changes seems to hurt a lot of people who didn't abuse it but I think spliting it up into lesser versions and bumping the level of the "original one" namely as Polymorph Other is the only way it could be handled on a level playing field even with min-maxing players and DMs, both of witch I've seen and they aren't always bad people they just play more agressively.
I think the direction they have taken Pathfinder RPG is great it just makes all the WOTC splat books not the best classes you can play and makes Base Classes worth playing 1 through 20 there are a few things i dont like but none of them have been breaking points (im looking at you Channel Energy and Combat Feats)
I say screw BWC if the product that will come out at the end is far better than the original.
That's why I too say: They don't bend and break enough for me.
|
Being that I am military, married to a fellow gamer who also holds a job, I will get Pathfinder regardless of how it turns out. I may even pick up 4E after a playtest, but I won't invest in it. I cherry pick what I like and what my friends will go along with from any source I get my hands on and like. And I have no qualms about changing any rule if I feel it will make the game more fun. So while I might not like some things in PRPG, there is nothing so great that it will turn me off to it.
Breaking point for me would have been things like UnNatural Beauty. Not getting into that, it's covered in another thread. But elves balance with other races, which is good.
In short, I'm looking very carefully for where the system breaks. Does the fighter have a non-combat role? (If you're one of the people who thinks NOBODY needs a non-combat role, feel free to consider me mad and ignore me.) Does each class have something OTHER than game mechanics that establishes it as seperate from the other classes?
Does the system have the flexibility that I can build a certain concept in more than one manner? I LIKE most of the changes that have been made, to be honest. I have disagreements with the Paizo staff, most of which can be house ruled.
Power creep: IF all classes are roughly equal, I can balance the monsters to compensate. Mind you, my players won't be too happy with that, they're used to four goblins being a CR1 encounter. But once the classes settle, I can learn and adapt. OTOH, broken Mongoose-level stuff I can do without. And if the line between main class and PrC gets a little blurred? (The right choice of feats gets you most of what some poorly formed PrCs did, I forget which ones right now.) I can live with that.
I think the biggest problem I see with PFRPG is the backwards compatability. If something is broken, does it have to go without a fix? This is the single largest reservation I have. I'm looking at Pathfinder for a full rules system, not just as a set of optional rules to lay over the standard 3.5 game. So far, I've seen great stuff where I've looked for it. As mentioned earlier, I've added a few house rules, but fewer than I'd have to in a 3.5 game.
Backwards compatability is VERY important to me and the guys I game with. We're gaming in Eberron, so we want something that is generic enough to keep using all of the Eberron fluff we've bought over the past years, since WOTC seems to be abandoning all of that to the dustbin, at least for a long time.
So, I want to see seriously broken things fixed, and I don't mind adding things to the mix, but backwards compatibility is important. Things that are getting close to not being backwards compatible, to me, are:
- Turning. Never thought it was broken, and the change changes things A LOT and is a tad too powerful. If this is a way to make clerics more than just healers, then we need to re-think the balance of the cleric. If he can heal tons of hitpoints just by turning, then maybe Divine Power and Righteous Might are a bit too much, because he can now become more "righteously mighty" than any warrior. At least before, if he did that, he wouldn't be much of a healer, but as it is now, he can heal everyone withing 30 feet or whatever in one round. A bit too much.
- Combat feats. I didn't think the old feat system was broken. Why not just add in a bunch of new feats, but not make some weird new system to have to figure out. Why the changes to power attack and cleave? Were they broken. I loved them the way they were.
- Specialist wizards. Seems to make them MORE powerful, which isn't a good thing at high levels. I LOVE making cantrips unlimited and giving wizards an every round action, though. I always liked the reserve feats from Complete Mage.
- Rogues being able to sneak attack everything with every attack every round. Massively overpowered.
|
|
My big breaking point is the backwards compatibility.
To be more specific... I want to be able to convert printed material on the fly. If I have to sit down and think about it, then it's too much.
Currently, the only modifications I'm making to printed material is to reduce the CR of opponents and the recommended playing level of adventures by 1.
A lot of the justification for upping the core class power level is to make them as appealing as Prestige Classes. But if the classes and PC's get too beefy and I can't adjust encounters as easily as now...
Well... I have plenty of old books and I can pick and choose what I want to use.
For me- it's either Paizo, 3.5, or nothing.
Given that 3.5 is getting canned, that leaves me with Paizo, or no new content.Due to that- I have a *lot* of bend before I break.
There are little things they are changing that I wish they'd leave alone (minority I know, but I *really like* the 3.5 skill system, as a whole.... annd why are they messing with Wish spell?), but for the most part I See what they are doing and I like it.
Absent a total rewrite and a "We've decided to make PRPG into 4.0" I do believe I am with them for the long haul.
Afterall- we've been patching 3.5 with houserules for a good while now: I doubt Paizo will mind too much if we do the same with their final product :)
-S
I'm with you on the skills, but don't see it as much of a problem. I think most groups and or mod. sklls anyways.
What changes to Wish, not play tested Alpha 2?
My big breaking point is the backwards compatibility.
To be more specific... I want to be able to convert printed material on the fly. If I have to sit down and think about it, then it's too much.
Currently, the only modifications I'm making to printed material is to reduce the CR of opponents and the recommended playing level of adventures by 1.
Wouldn't that, in theory be easy conversion. I mean if collectively or indivdually your goup decides that PF classes are 1 level better then 3.5, then that's all conversion you need. Or add a few CR 1 goblins/monsters to the encounter?
A lot of the justification for upping the core class power level is to make them as appealing as Prestige Classes. But if the classes and PC's get too beefy and I can't adjust encounters as easily as now...
Well... I have plenty of old books and I can pick and choose what I want to use.
The power creep in the Pathfinder rules is somewhat of a concern to me as far as a breaking point. I'm running the Age of Worns adventure path right now, a campaign considered to be difficult, and I've had to max out hit points of monsters, or choose a different set of spells for some of the casters to compensate for the power level of the PCs under the current rules!
Also by increasing the power level of PCs, while not doing so for the monsters (BTW doing this would be redundant), I think it would shorten the list of challenging monsters I could throw at the PCs right out of the MM. For instance an Ogre looks less fearsome at 2nd level, when you have Max HD + Con mod +Racial Mod + Favored Class bonus HD.
I would be dissappointed if I had to compete in an "arms race" with the PCs by upping the threat of the monsters just to challenge them.
|
|
Backwards compatibility is key, I have many different opinions on the changes we've seen so far but as for a breaking point:
Races: The system is designed for different kinds of Races anyway so changes there are just fluff, to a point of course, and then I just add a LA.
Classes: The system is designed for different kinds of Classes, but the question is, for instance, how much of a difference is their between a Rise of the Rune Lords NPC wizard and the PFRPG PC wizard of the same level? And of course, how much time is needed to correct that difference. An awful lot of the changes in the classes are hard to adjust for; adding a few feats and hit points is easy, adding a few tricks to the rogue and barbarian is not so bad. Adding an array of special abilities to Wizards and Clerics, is lots of work and affects the spell selection of every NPC, TOO MUCH. Although I trying get my head around it.
Skills: Plenty of changes but the bonuses will still be similar, no problem.
Feats: A big part of every character and very important to the build and tactics of NPCs. Feats are pulled from multiple sources and (hopefully) balanced against each other. Changing the feats and more importantly, how they are used COULD BE THE BREAKING POINT FOR ME. Yaa I'm talking about Combat Feats, look at Dodge, Mobility and Spring Attack designed to be used together, now explicitly cannot be used together?? what tha..??
Combat: Combat systems were in the most need of tweaking and they have been addressed nicely, once again we have a new system but the bonuses and results are not changed significantly.
Spells and Magic: A tough category since everyone has issues with differents areas, I would have to say that keeping changes to a minimum is the only way PFRPG can proceed, without upsetting compatibility.
Running the Game: We have certain changes that are required by the OGL and good advice about how to handle that is going a long way toward easing the backwards compatibility.
Magic Items: A tough category since everyone has issues with differents areas, I would have to say that keeping changes to a minimum is the only way PFRPG can proceed, without upsetting compatibility.
So to sum up, my Breaking Point will be once there are so many changes that I am forced to rebuild NPCs and encounters from previous sources. Too many extra abilities(a few are OK, adding feats,etc not too bad), forcing us to examine the build and tactics of NPCs(combat feats, access to extra spell-like abilites), or checking too many spells or magic item for chages.
|
|
Personally, I'm confused by what many people are saying. Maybe I'm the odd man here, but I have on several occasions purchased books that have only one or two systems I like. For example, I picked up Call of Cthulhu for sanity and d20 Elder Gods, Arcana Evolved for a fresh take on D&D, even though I only ended up using the Litorian race consistently, and MC's World of Darkness, of which I only really used the spell system as a basis for a home-brewed Engineer class. I love all these books for the fluff and the rules they have, but I play an amalgamation of sources.
I think totally writing off Pathfinder because you don't like the skill system, or the changes to spells, or any one aspect of the game, is sort of silly.
You can elect not to use the entry that bugs you and still use other parts of the game. I guess for me its more a matter of whether or not the Pathfinder RPG book will have enough interesting material to warrant a purchase. Of course, because Paizo has given so much of the book to me for free, they cemented my purchase. I don't really believe you need anything more than the free PDF to use the system.
Additionally regardless of compatibility Paizo has me as a customer. They could choose to release an entirely new system that still involves rolling a twenty sided die but is mechanically completely different from "D&D." I'd buy it. The difference between Paizo and WotC is in how they treat the gaming community and their fans, and how they approach game and adventure design. That is to say, Paizo does all those things "better" than WotC.
Personally, I'm confused by what many people are saying. Maybe I'm the odd man here, but I have on several occasions purchased books that have only one or two systems I like. For example, I picked up Call of Cthulhu for sanity and d20 Elder Gods, Arcana Evolved for a fresh take on D&D, even though I only ended up using the Litorian race consistently, and MC's World of Darkness, of which I only really used the spell system as a basis for a home-brewed Engineer class. I love all these books for the fluff and the rules they have, but I play an amalgamation of sources.
Not to bash you, but I'd like to put it in this analogy. Why would you buy a corvette just to pull the engine out of it and put it in a camry? While you can put together a frankenstein of a car (engine from here, body frame from there, stereo system from this, seats from yet another), most people don't want to bother with such time-consuming tasks. If the stock vehicle as a whole doesn't suit your needs then there is little incentive to purchase it - instead you do go for the vehicle/game/whatever that best fits your personal needs.
Important:
- Unbreaking the broken parts, esp. spells Gate, Planar Binding, Shapechange.
- Making some mechanics easier, e. g. Grapple, Trip-
- Clarifying the unclear parts, e. g. Minor/Major Creation, stacking unnamed boni from same/similar sources.
- Balancing the unbalanced, e. g. Animate Dead, Sneak Attack and all the other stuff whose power varies wildly depending on circumstances.
- Preserving the "feel" of D&D in contrast to creating a completely new game. Vancian magic, classes, levels and so on.
Not important
- Backwards compatibility except for aforementioned flair. All adventures and monsters are hand-crafted in our group anyhow.
So far, PRPG works on exactly the right spots. Some fixes are not the fixes I would have preferred, but hey, a fix is fix. Some things haven't been addressed yet, but it's a work in progress, so that's not a problem. So all I can say:
Stay on current course!
|
|
Thanks Stephen Klauk, you pretty summed up my opinion about chosing a system.
I do understand the value of peicing together a system to get exactly what you want, but for me time is a huge issue which is why I love Pathfinder so much.
I have never encounted a a publisher who can consistently give me products, adventures, accessoires and now hopefully a rules system, that I do not have to modify much, or at all, in some cases.
Another consideration for me is my gaming group, a bunch of stubborn old bastards who don't ever want to change anything. And one funny thing is that two of them just now started buying 3.5 material. Now that the system is finished we can pick the best material and use those. So PFRPG really must be backward compatible for me to keep peace around the table. Telling them that the feats and spells from the books they just bought aren't compatible is right out.
As long as these two things are kept I will be happy.
1. be able to use my Complete and races books. I find this a big thing for me.
b. Be able to change monsters quickly and so far PFRPG is doing that well.
|
|
To be more specific... I want to be able to convert printed material on the fly. If I have to sit down and think about it, then it's too much.
Currently, the only modifications I'm making to printed material is to reduce the CR of opponents and the recommended playing level of adventures by 1.
A lot of the justification for upping the core class power level is to make them as appealing as Prestige Classes. But if the classes and PC's get too beefy and I can't adjust encounters as easily as now...
Wouldn't that, in theory be easy conversion. I mean if collectively or indivdually your goup decides that PF classes are 1 level better then 3.5, then that's all conversion you need. Or add a few CR 1 goblins/monsters to the encounter?
Yes, and right now I am perfectly content with what Jason and crew have done. I was merely showing that there is a point where *fixing* or *upgrading* becomes *make my character more beefy*. If it gets to that point... then I will have to walk away. But happily, we have not yet crossed that line.