I've noticed some trends in the discussions of the pathfinder RPG, but I'm unsure where to address them, so I thought I'd do it here. These are three completely unrelated thoughts.
This is a question concerning backwards compatibility: I realize that Paizo is attempting to ensure that previous 3.X material is easily converted to Pathfinder (at least I think they are), but will it be as easy to convert Pathfinder back to 3.X? I might like to use some of the material from it without a wholesale conversion.
I have noticed that some people see pathfinder as a way to fix rules that have never seemed quite right. While I agree that many of these small things could be fixed, perhaps many of them would be better implemented as house rules? For simplicity's sake, I think a few well-placed reminders that game rules are ultimately up to the DM and perhaps some suggestions in the book would be enough.
Finally, I have seen, specifically in the psionics thread, but perhaps it is elsewhere, arguments against including things in the name of space. Space is an issue, but in my opinion, a little of everything is more worthwhile than a few fully developed sections: the most useful 3.X book I ever had was the first printing of the PHB, the one with previews of the DMG and MM in the back. If you ever needed something from either, you could just pull it from the back of the book. Admittedly, the selection was limited, but the convenience was amazing.
I've noticed some trends in the discussions of the pathfinder RPG, but I'm unsure where to address them, so I thought I'd do it here. These are three completely unrelated thoughts.
This is a question concerning backwards compatibility: I realize that Paizo is attempting to ensure that previous 3.X material is easily converted to Pathfinder (at least I think they are), but will it be as easy to convert Pathfinder back to 3.X? I might like to use some of the material from it without a wholesale conversion.
As the root is 3.5 taking what you like from Pathfinder and going back shouldn't be an issue except in regards to powercreep. As an example, my personal fav. class is the Sorc. But mechanicaly it was the most broken class in 3rd. Skills that didn't depend on Cha. no bonus feets that the wizard got. Before Pathfinder, in my group we gave the Sorc. d6 hit die (because they hadn't spent years studing), a bouns feet every five levels (either meta magic or heritage feets) heritage and bagrounds relating to why Sorc. had magic has been cropping up over the enter run of 3.5 by many differnt publishers. Oddly only WotC did little with the Sorc. Instead coming up with new Dragon type player races or using the Warlock to replace. Then I added Cook's spells known/perday list from Eldric Might book. The latter I still use.
I could make the argument that only the Fighter, Bard, and Sorc. need the update that Pathfider gave and plug them into a standard 3.5 game. Powercreep as a concept isn't a issue for me (as a paladium player we leep to new levels of power and laugh at you creepers) however I have noticed that many 3PP base classes stayed balanced with the core classes, WotC did most of the creeping these last 5 years. In this regards Pathfinder is finding the correct eh path. If you have 3.5, then you can pick what yo like from the core book and plug it into your old stuff. On the other hand new players can use the game as is, or simply remove stuff from the classes that there GM is using. Hence the system works for eveyone.
I have noticed that some people see pathfinder as a way to fix rules that have never seemed quite right. While I agree that many of these small things could be fixed, perhaps many of them would be better implemented as house rules? For simplicity's sake, I think a few well-placed reminders that game rules are ultimately up to the DM and perhaps some suggestions in the book would be enough.
This isn't an enterly bad Idea, however one must remeber that the goal is to make the game better. Moreover house rule suggestions by a core product are in my experince ignored as the group(s) always thinks they have something better. Except for my own rules this is never the case, but every group always thinks they have a better idea. So at lest with core rule changes they can go back, or simply implament there own ideas. However I wouldn't mind Paizo keeping a link to Alpha 1,2,&3 open so's to take ideas from them for houseruled games.
Finally, I have seen, specifically in the psionics thread, but perhaps it is elsewhere, arguments against including things in the name of space. Space is an issue, but in my opinion, a little of everything is more worthwhile than a few fully developed sections: the most useful 3.X book I ever had was the first printing of the PHB, the one with previews of the DMG and MM in the back. If you ever needed something from either, you could just pull it from the back of the book. Admittedly, the selection was limited, but the convenience was amazing.
This I have to disagree on, espeically with giving the core classes new abilites. Remember that 3.5 PH book could be split up into two categories, spells arcane/divine support and everything else, which wasn't as much. I'd put it at about 70/30 in favor of magic. Magic should be more complex but I think even the guys who came up with 3rd would say, we really only tagged on the Sorc. to the game because 35% of the book was all built around 1 class, the Wiz. Packing in Psionics along with all the new stuff would simply make Pathfider into such a monster of book it might rival Worlds Lagest Dungeon for thickness.
Moreover you'll have all the players who howl at the word psionics as not being fantasy or whatever. And honestly I'm not sure how much of the psionics handbook is open. For instance I think the classes are but not psionic dragons. I think I read that Pathfinder has the Matalic and Colored Dragons, but what about the Psionic dragons? not sure what can leagal be put in or out. Better for them to work on the core first, and develop the rest later.
As a side note, I did notice towards the end of the Dragon Mag days Paizo did introduce some dragaons that, while not a cast as the Metalic, Psionic, and Cromatic Dragons were, did have better spell ablities. If a Pathfider RPG Dragonomicon type of book is in the future (distant or otherwise) I do hope they bring this concept back, Arcane Dragons could fit the whole lacking for chotic dragons. Correct me if I'm wrong but works like this.
Metalic-Good.
Cromatic-Evil
Psionic-netural
Heavy metal-Lawful
so Arcane should be Chontic.
Just a thought.
I assume by 'this' you meant only the last part of my post? I apologize for posting three disparate thoughts in one place.
I think the idea they were floating was just including the soulknife, which is psionic, but has no ability to manifest psionic powers. Obviously, including the entirety of psionics would be too much, but I was arguing that just a little might be convenient - it includes psionics in the mix enough that you can use it without an entirely different book. And although I can't think of specific examples, I would argue this in similar cases too.
I didn't follow last bit about dragons. What is chontic? Although yeah, gem dragons were in the MM2, so they're not open game content :(
I assume by 'this' you meant only the last part of my post? I apologize for posting three disparate thoughts in one place.
I think the idea they were floating was just including the soulknife, which is psionic, but has no ability to manifest psionic powers. Obviously, including the entirety of psionics would be too much, but I was arguing that just a little might be convenient - it includes psionics in the mix enough that you can use it without an entirely different book. And although I can't think of specific examples, I would argue this in similar cases too.
I didn't follow last bit about dragons. What is chontic? Although yeah, gem dragons were in the MM2, so they're not open game content :(
My bad I don't use spell check on the messageboards, I was trying to say Chaotic(sad irony is I want to be a writer some day, just to lazy to put the time in on messageboards). Chaotic dragons that can be classified as Arcane Dragons, like the neutrals are use psionic powers and are known for that. Answered you other questions under each question but it came out looking like it was part of your orgional post.
P.S. yeah closed content but Pathfinder may still come out with something to replace them with, eith add to the dragon name like the Great Red Horn Dragon instead of simply Red Dragon. Just an idea.
It's all good, I'm just spoiled by built-in spellcheck.
I think that Pathfinder wanted to avoid "cheating" the terms of the license with name-changes and similar, although perhaps they would be favorable to a more complete rework of the dragons. As far as already OGL dragons, there must be some out there.
Anyway, my concern was less with balance than ease of conversions back and forth, although thanks for those thoughts on power creep, I'll keep them in mind. It doesn't seem conversion will be as big a problem as I was afraid.
My second point was that while some people are absolute about what they want put in pathfinder, a house-rule might be the best solution, the exception being in situations when Paizo might actually change the way material is published because of a decision. On the other hand some of these issues are valid, merely tangential, so the supplement of house rules I envisioned more as a list of issues discussed, in order to highlight potential problems and solutions. Keeping the early versions of Pathfinder would mostly solve that though, and perhaps more conveniently.
Anyway, thanks, you've helped me solidify my ideas and given me things to think on.
My two cents -
I don't use psionics, but thats neither here nor there (I still bought the books for it). I would MUCH prefer a better thought-out complete system in a seperate book, then a barely-playable bunch of scraps that you'd have to go back and reference the 3.5 books for.
Even though Magic takes up a greedy portion of the rulebooks, it is a cornerstone of fantasy and RPGs, so it belongs. Now, I'm not saying psionics doesn't have a place, but it isn't a staple of fantasy, and not everyone uses it.
Besides, do we want Paizo to do something half-assed? I'd rather wait a litte longer until they could produce soemething worthy of the Pathfinder line.
(I'd stiil like to see some synergy between Ki and psionic points - hint, hint)
Now, as far as backwards compatibility - I don't see why you couldn't use the Pathfinder book like the 3e UA - just a massive tome of options. I don't think any one particular 'new' system is all that dependent any any other, so you can'mix & match' to your heart's content.
Just be careful of mixing classes from both - Pathfinder's are a bit stronger.
Actually ki always bothered me more than psionics because it was never fully explained or appreciated, but an overlap with psionics might be pretty cool...
My only concern with conversion was some of the rule changes, for instance to flying, but they don't look hard to deal with.
I think psionics does deserve to be developed better than it has been, although the 'Expanded Psionics' treatment was good. But my main reason to include it is convenience. If I want to find an alternate use for a skill, I don't want to have to look through a book other than the PHB - the book associated with skills. Similarly, including a nominal amount of psionics in the core book would make it that much easier to use psionics for anyone who wanted to. Actually that's not quite a good analogy, but I like both arguments so I'm leaving them.
This is a question concerning backwards compatibility: I realize that Paizo is attempting to ensure that previous 3.X material is easily converted to Pathfinder (at least I think they are), but will it be as easy to convert Pathfinder back to 3.X? I might like to use some of the material from it without a wholesale conversion.
Pathfinder's compatibility will mainly be in only one direction. You should be able to easily use 3.5 material in a Pathfinder game, but Pathfinder material will probably have to be heavily adapted to be put into a 3.5 game. It is main reason I will be sadly dropping my subscription when they convert over.
I have noticed that some people see pathfinder as a way to fix rules that have never seemed quite right. While I agree that many of these small things could be fixed, perhaps many of them would be better implemented as house rules? For simplicity's sake, I think a few well-placed reminders that game rules are ultimately up to the DM and perhaps some suggestions in the book would be enough.
If the intention had been to stay with 3.5, then your suggestion would make sense. Including variant rules is great. Unfortunately Paizo is not interested in staying with 3.5 but instead wants to push their own unique game system, so significant changes have to be included as the default rules to make purchasing their materials more "worthwhile".
Finally, I have seen, specifically in the psionics thread, but perhaps it is elsewhere, arguments against including things in the name of space. Space is an issue, but in my opinion, a little of everything is more worthwhile than a few fully developed sections: the most useful 3.X book I ever had was the first printing of the PHB, the one with previews of the DMG and MM in the back. If you ever needed something from either, you could just pull it from the back of the book. Admittedly, the selection was limited, but the convenience was amazing.
It might be nice to have such material but I think some of the Paizo staff have stated on ocassion that they have a dislike of psionics, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
[QUOTE.]Pathfinder's compatibility will mainly be in only one direction. You should be able to easily use 3.5 material in a Pathfinder game, but Pathfinder material will probably have to be heavily adapted to be put into a 3.5 game. It is main reason I will be sadly dropping my subscription when they convert over.
With respect I must disagree with you, going back to 3.5 should involve no more work then say WOW RPG to standard 3.5 In fact every new 3.5 book that came out by WOTC mod. the rules to some extent, so while differnt to be sure, Pathfinder is by no means the "death kneel" to 3.5 Are you ending your time with the system altogether or going 4th? Not saying one way or another is a good thing, just that I'm surprised you actually find Pathfinder so far removed. Alpha 1 was a departure to be sure, but Alpha three (which isn't the final product) I fully see as 3.75 and I think the final book will be more 3.6 then even most on these boards suspect.
You almost sound like you would not let racial sub. levels from the complet series because they alter the PHB too much. Most 3PP did that and more with changes to the core system. Mongoose complet series for instance. I'm assuming here that you were not against 3PP material if you like Paizo stuff so far, lest for the last year since they stop being "offical" via Dragon and Dungeon mag.
...
Let me explain my problem with the new Pathfinder RPG with telling a story.
A few weeks ago, I purchased two products on sale here on the Paizo site. They were older products from another company, a pair of modules. On the covers of these books they had the d20 logo and they said something to the extent of "You will need the 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual." Though I am currently playing 3.5, I know 3rd enough that I can easily convert (or not bother as necessary).
So I thought to myself, "Great!" The books also said they offered new spells and other things in each modules, bonus! Then I opened the modues and began reading them. In fact the cover was wrong, or at least in complete. You didn't need the PHB, DMG, and MM, or at least not just those, you also need the campaign books for this setting because they changed how the magic system worked. Those "new spells" I was promised, useless to me. And NPC spellcaster in the modules, also useless to me.
In the end, I said to myself, "Gee, I'm glad I only spent $2 on each of these, for all the use they will be to me."
Now what does that have to do with Pathfinder RPG? Well, just like the modules I purchased, I have no interest in converting new material to 3.5. I intend on playing 3.5. Pathfinder will not be 3.5. The class abilities are all different, the magic system is different, the skills and feats are different, the combat rules are different. Sorry, no thanks.
As for the fact that WotC changed things, so what? That is not really an argument for someone like me sticking with Pathfinder, merely why I shouldn't bother with later WotC material. Also many of the changes didn't change what was already there. By adding a warmage, that didn't change the wizard. The wizard still functioned exactly as it did before, its spells still functions the same. The fighter with improved trip still worked the same.
Now, sure I could stick with Pathfinder and just ignore all the changes they made. Heck, I could treat every single NPC as a very good or extremely poor expert or warrior, but that loses much of the reason for me purchasing their products.
This is not a slam on Paizo and Pathfinder. I just plan on sticking with 3.5, and will only purchase products that will be immediately useful (I might take some chances on things that are very cheap, see the above story). Gaming is not a charity. Paizo wants my money, they will make something I want, if they can get more money from others by making something different, they will do that instead. I am not going to purchase (effectively) useless items out of some kind of feeling of "loyality" to them and they shouldn't feel responsible for making unprofitable material in some feeling of "loyality" to customers like me.
But, telling me that Pathfinder will still be just as useful for me is just as deceiving as those modules I purchased that made it seem like all I needed was the 3ed PHB, DMG, MM. Please do not insult my intelligence, nor your own.
Fair enough, think its really a matter of where one is coming from. I suppose, for lack of a better term I'm an d20 guy, not hard core, still isn't my #1, well from the amount of books I have maybe it is my #1 system. So rules mod. and game "drift" isn't an issue for me. Whereas, and this is an assumtion, you are purely a 3.5 gamer, or at lest you make a sharp distiction between 3.5 and D20. Thats valid, its just not where I come from.
Example: I got a pdf archer class that I really like, and works great with 3.5 but is lacking in Pathfinder, so I will have to update it.
Meanwhile GR's Black company book had the Weapon Master and alternative magicless Ranger both of which I want in Pathfinder. Now the rules in Black Company are very differnt then 3.5, but the core is still there. Magic system very diffent, don't care classes didn't use magic. Skills diffent, actualy I took there version of language and added it to my own game. While the Ranger is a bit harder because Pathfinder put most of what this Ranger had, minis weapons path, they had two other options on top of two-weapon and Archery. So for my world I'm thinking of keepint both of the old Rangers and dropping pathfinder. Yeah its work, but for me I like to tinker and play with a system, Pathfinder gives me a place to do this.
As for giving you money away, we are in agreement, which is why I didn't go 4th. Honestly I would have gotten the core books because I do like to tinker with rules, so just to see what they are doing, but the compnay turned me off. So while I do like Paizo as a company I don't just give them money for anyting. If they come out with 4th editon stuff or true 20 stuff I will not get it. On the other hand the Pathfinder line I do like, and I don't see as much an issue with it as you do.
The only problem, and it may not be an issue for you is the end of 3.5. Last year when 4th was annouced I was, to an extant happy. I could finish getting 3.5 stuff, and some of the other D20 games and settings I liked and end my time in the D&D pool. The WotC stared to piss me off, thats a sperate issue, but I was still simply ending my time. When Pathfinder was annouced it didn't chanve my attitued, until I read Alpha2, one was a little too differnt. Thats what got me hooked. Moreover, assuming 3PP with there home settings do not join the bandwagon, Pathfinder will be the only place to find material easily, ehhh convertable at all? to 3.5 Are you ending your buying or do you know of a company that will support the 3.5 ruleset as is? If so please tell me, because the two biggest supportes that have not made there own home game (Conan, True20 etc.) are Goodman and Necro and they are going 4th. I would like to know because this give men another source for material. Thanks.
|
...Now what does that have to do with Pathfinder RPG? Well, just like the modules I purchased, I have no interest in converting new material to 3.5. I intend on playing 3.5. Pathfinder will not be 3.5. The class abilities are all different, the magic system is different, the skills and feats are different, the combat rules are different. Sorry, no thanks.
This is a patently untrue statement. The magic system is still Vancian. The only changes made are the exact wording of some of the spells, and the casters all get some added abilities to increase their power to be comparable to classes, feats, and PRC's made by WotC for 3.5 D&D more recently. Feats are for the most part the same. You get them more often, and a few of them have been modified in terms of what they do, but a feat is still a feat and more than 80% of them do the same thing they did in 3.5. The rules for combat are the same. Armor class, saving throws, intiative, standard actions, flanking, cover, sneak attacks, spells, terrain, and so on and so forth are all there and work the way they did in 3.5. The class abilities are not different. The meat and potatoes is the same, they have simply added features to make the base classes stronger. Power creap was a constant occurence with each new 3.5 book published. By the time we were getting to the second wave of complete books, the core classes were all vastly underpowered. These changes make the core classes relevant again for something other than a stepping stone to prestige classes. The changes to CMB take all the various individual combat mechanics and unify them under a single system. It makes it simpler. That said, you can still grapple, trip, tumble or whatever you want. Skills have been modified so that PC's don't pay such a hefty "skill tax". That said, skills are still there and now what you can do with them is more clearly defined than in 3.5.
As near as I can tell, you are bitter that they are making a product to sell instead of putting together a printed copy of the 3.5 SRD verbatim and selling it to you with full color art for "really cheap". If you can use 3.5 material in PFRPG, then you can use PFRPG material in 3.5. The power level of the material in PFRPG will be higher than in 3.5 on average, but there is a super easy fix for that right out of the gate. If you don't want to have to convert the Pathfinder material for use in your 3.5 game, just increase the average level of the PC's in your group by 1 or 2 levels when using Pathfinder material. That is to say if you are running a Pathfinder AP, simply bump the average level of the party by 1-2 levels above the recommended amount and it should cover the difference in power at any given level. As a DM that doesn't require you to tweak anything. You don't have to remove powers or take away feats or anything else. You just let the players be a level or two higher.
Another point to make, is that a PFRPG sourcebook is a necessity for Paizo to create, because all 3.5 books are going out of print. In a year or two, it will be much harder for players to replace the core books. New players won't have easy access to the books they need to play 3.5. So Paizo had to make a core book. The cost of that book is going to be less than the PHB and DMG combined, but will contain the essential content of both books. Since they had to make a core book anyway, it makes sense to fix some of the problems the 3.5 system has.
Finally, of course PFRPG is not 3.5. That is because 95% of 3.5 is the sole property of WotC. Paizo is only allowed to use material covered under the OGL. PFRPG is not going to be 3.5, it is going to be PFRPG. It will be the system closest to 3.5 there is other than games run strictly using 3.5 books people already own. It is not healthy for the game to stay statically the same forever. That said, Paizo is giving 3.5 a natural evolution while keeping the vast majority of the 3.5 system in tact. If you can't see that all those mechanics you claim aren't there actually are, then I don't know what else to say. It sounds like you are rationalizing not playing PFRPG because you don't want to pay for a new core book by saying the PFRPG is nothing like 3.5. That simply isn't true.
This is my thought on the direction of Pathfinder: I would prefer to see it hew as closely to 3.5 as possible. And I would like to see its innovations be as modular as possible, meaning that it would be possible to pick and choose which to implement; if they're all interrelated and interdependent, then using some but not others could end up being unbalancing or just simply impossible, and that's likely to make me skip the whole thing entirely.
I doubt that I'll ever play a straight Pathfinder game. More likely, I might take ideas that I like and houserule them into a 3.5 game. I'll probably take ideas from 4E and houserule those in, too. (Some of those ideas will be the same, like compressing some of the skills - Perception instead of Spot, Search and Listen - but I'm not sure I'll necessarily adopt Pathfinder's skill set in its entirety.) So the farther Pathfinder strays from 3.5, the less useful it will be to me.
I suppose, for lack of a better term I'm an d20 guy, not hard core, still isn't my #1, well from the amount of books I have maybe it is my #1 system.
If you don't mind my asking, what is a "d20 guy"? I mean what system is "d20" in your mind? Is True20 a d20 game system? Is Conan a d20 system? How different from the SRD/OGL can a system get without stopping being a d20 system?
Whereas, and this is an assumtion, you are purely a 3.5 gamer, or at lest you make a sharp distiction between 3.5 and D20.
Yes, I'm a 3.5 gamer, as are everyone I game with. We have no interest in playing systems that are similiar but still different. If it is close enough, why not stick with 3.5, is how we think. And we are not interested in any thing radically different for that genre (though some of us have gamed with SW:SAGA).
Pathfinder will be the only place to find material easily, ehhh convertable at all? to 3.5 Are you ending your buying or do you know of a company that will support the 3.5 ruleset as is? If so please tell me, because the two biggest supportes that have not made there own home game (Conan, True20 etc.) are Goodman and Necro and they are going 4th. I would like to know because this give men another source for material. Thanks.
Nope, I am not sure of any other companies sticking with 3.5 for real, sadly. Yet there is a large amount of 3.5 material out there by WotC, Paizo, Necromancer, etc that I do not own. Onces Pathfinder switches, I might just start going back and picking up their 3.5 modules. Old issues of Dragon and Dungeon that I don't have, as well as other books. Heck, who knows I might even start buying setting material like Forgotten Realms, which previously I had no interest in. So I'm not too scared that there won't be any material out there that will be new to me for quite awhile.
This is a patently untrue statement.
LoL, sorry but from your perspective you might believe that, but from mine you are wrong. I find it humorous that you claim this haven't changed and then proceed to talk about how they have changed. Look it will be different. The Pathfinder rule books will not be compatible with a 3.5 game, it is that simple. If a player sits down in a 3.5 game with the 3PP book, they will be extremely confused, because it is just a different system.
Another point to make, is that a PFRPG sourcebook is a necessity for Paizo to create, because all 3.5 books are going out of print. In a year or two, it will be much harder for players to replace the core books. New players won't have easy access to the books they need to play 3.5. So Paizo had to make a core book. The cost of that book is going to be less than the PHB and DMG combined, but will contain the essential content of both books. Since they had to make a core book anyway, it makes sense to fix some of the problems the 3.5 system has.
Just because Paizo feels a need to create a different system doesn't mean that someone like me has a need to purchase it. And if the only way I can make sense of Paizo's future products is to have to purchase their system, then it is not compatible. Sorry, I plan to run one system, and 3PP isn't it. If I wanted to switch to a new system, I'd just skip ahead and go to 4e.
Finally, of course PFRPG is not 3.5. That is because 95% of 3.5 is the sole property of WotC. Paizo is only allowed to use material covered under the OGL.
Well I guess that goes to how you define "3.5", I am defining it as the core system, which 99% is open material, i.e. SRD/OGL. You seem to be defining it as everything that was created under the 3.5 core system, which still might not be accurate that 95% is property of WotC, if we add in all the other products made using the system by third parties.
It will be the system closest to 3.5 there is other than games run strictly using 3.5 books people already own.
Or that use the 3.5 SRD. And being the closest doesn't endear them to me, sorry.
It is not healthy for the game to stay statically the same forever.
You are so right, I mean look at Chess ... I mean how about Monopoly ... That is what I mean is ... Yeah, whatever. RPGs as we now know them have only been around for something like 30 years, I don't see how anyone can claim to be 100% sure that the core system being the same for a long time is a bad thing. In fact I could argue that the exact opposite is the case. By constantly changing the system, you lose the ability to have one generation influence the next. While Dad tries to teach the system he knows to his kids, they want to run the new system that their friends are using. In the end this cause a division in which the family can't play a game together because they are used to totally different systems.
It sounds like you are rationalizing not playing PFRPG because you don't want to pay for a new core book by saying the PFRPG is nothing like 3.5. That simply isn't true.
You are right on some level. If 3PP was close enough to 3.5, I wouldn't have to buy new core books. Like the survey that was in the 4e boards a while back said, "You'll have to take my 3.5 core books from my cold (un)dead hands". I'm not switching from 3.5, not for WotC and not for Paizo. I never had the problems with 3.5 that others seemed to have. I understand how grappling works, I don't need wizards to cast spells without limit, I've never found fighters to be totally ineffective at any level. Bards are quite useful in my games. Do have some house rules that "fix" things I don't like, sure, but most are more of flavor issues than anything else. For example, I don't have a problem with the favored class system in 3.5, but I think elves should be bard and gnomes should be wizard.
|
|
You are free to feel how you like. I think you are wrong that a person who plays 3.5 couldn't pick up PFRPG and understand what is going on. I guess if they had the intelligence of a retarded 3 year old that might be true. Assuming even average intelligence, I think PFRPG is enough like 3.5 that you could pick it up and play it with no difficulty at all. The changes made are not drastic changes to the system. They are minor tweaks to adjust things.
That said it is abundantly apparent that you are completely close minded on the issue and bitter that WotC took your game away. More power to you. Like it or not, 3.5 will not return as constituted in anything other than the SRD. That will fortunately exist forever. You can print it out whenever your current copy gets worn enough that you need to do so and you can probably run with that the rest of your natural life. Its unfortunate you won't be continuing with Pathfinder. I think you will be missing out on some great products that Paizo makes in the years to come. That said, there is more than enough support to insure that Paizo can continue to make the great products they do. I don't expect everyone to love what Pathfinder is doing with the game. Most folks can use the 3.0 and 3.5 books they have for years. Personally, I want new content to read and new books to purchase. I already own every 3.0 and 3.5 book and supplement published under WotC, and close to 100 3rd party books. I have several thousand dollars worth of miniatures and the like as well. This is my hobby and I don't want to have to use only the books I have in perpetuity.
Paizo is keeping the heart of 3.5 in tact in my opinion. I think they are making some great improvements that are easy to pick up and don't alter the core mechanic at all. When Dragon and Dungeon were being published as official 3.5 material I consistently felt the work Paizo produced was much higher quality than WotC. Pathfinder only continues to reinforce that opinion. The good news for you is that there is a free SRD available to you forever that contains what you consider to be 99% of 3.5. So you don't need to buy anything ever again. Good for you. You made it clear that if a product was close enough to 3.5 you wouldn't buy it because it was too similar and thus there wouldn't be a reason to buy it, and that you wouldn't buy it if it is even a little different from 3.5 because you don't want to change systems. So as near as I can tell, you just don't want to have to buy anything.
So I understand your position now even if I don't agree with it. Happy Gaming!!
|
You are free to feel how you like. I think you are wrong that a person who plays 3.5 couldn't pick up PFRPG and understand what is going on. Assuming even average intelligence, I think PFRPG is enough like 3.5 that you could pick it up and play it with no difficulty at all. The changes made are not drastic changes to the system. They are minor tweaks to adjust things.
I agree with this completly.
When I saw the character sheet they threw in the back of the new Alpha 3, I knew right then and there it would be just fine with my old collection. Sure, a few feats change abilities, but Power Attack by any other name...(and so on).
I feel that in picking up an August 2009 issue of Pathfinder and turning to the Bestiary srection, a 3.5 gamer will be able to use those monsters in his game with no real problem at all. At first, I too was worried about backwards compatability, but I firmly beleive they did their job well.
-DM Jeff
This is a question concerning backwards compatibility: I realize that Paizo is attempting to ensure that previous 3.X material is easily converted to Pathfinder (at least I think they are), but will it be as easy to convert Pathfinder back to 3.X? I might like to use some of the material from it without a wholesale conversion.
So far, from what I can see in the Alphas, this shouldn't be hard to do. In fact, I will only continue buying the Pathfinder APs and modules if I can continue using 3.5 PCs in them with little to no conversion (much like I can do with 3.0). So far, it looks like the Alphas will allow me to do so with little to no problems.
I plan to run the APs/modules with no conversions - Pathfinder NPCs vs. 3.5 PCs. This looks to be no problem, at least for me and my group (for once, classed NPCs will actually be worth their CR).
I have no interest whatsoever with the PRPG, but it looks like I can still use the APs and modules with no problems.
I think you are wrong that a person who plays 3.5 couldn't pick up PFRPG and understand what is going on. I guess if they had the intelligence of a retarded 3 year old that might be true. Assuming even average intelligence, I think PFRPG is enough like 3.5 that you could pick it up and play it with no difficulty at all. The changes made are not drastic changes to the system. They are minor tweaks to adjust things.
I am not sure how I can be wrong about something I never claimed, but whatever. Yes, I agree that someone who is familiar with 3.5, could easily pick up the PFRPG system. That is not what I was talking about, it was about using 3.5 and PFRPG in the same game. They are different systems, they are not compatible. Whether knowing one makes learning the other easier isn't really that important. Heck, knowing how 3.5 works might make learning 4e easier to, or at least that is what some claim (I personally have no experience with 4e, so can't say).
That said it is abundantly apparent that you are completely close minded on the issue and bitter that WotC took your game away. More power to you.
Woh there brother. Why all the hate? "Bitter" "close minded" "retarded", why all the hatred? I plan on sticking with 3.5, you plan on going with PFRPG. I don't begrudge you your choice, why the hate for me for mine?
Like it or not, 3.5 will not return as constituted in anything other than the SRD. That will fortunately exist forever. You can print it out whenever your current copy gets worn enough that you need to do so and you can probably run with that the rest of your natural life.
I know, it is fantastic. And from what I've heard, one of things WotC is a bit upset about. Sure I would love to purchase professional copies for my future children when they "come of age". But heck, I guess I could design my own books and use the local copy shops to print them.
Its unfortunate you won't be continuing with Pathfinder. I think you will be missing out on some great products that Paizo makes in the years to come. That said, there is more than enough support to insure that Paizo can continue to make the great products they do.
Indeed, that is why I said earlier that I do not expect Paizo to continue to produce products for customers like myself if it is not profitable for them. If making a new system is the most profitable choice, then by all means they should do it. There is no bitterness here or close mindedness, merely simple market functions.
Personally, I want new content to read and new books to purchase. I already own every 3.0 and 3.5 book and supplement published under WotC, and close to 100 3rd party books. I have several thousand dollars worth of miniatures and the like as well. This is my hobby and I don't want to have to use only the books I have in perpetuity.
While I have a fairly large store of materials, I probably have far less than yourself. There is still a large number of products out there that I haven't see, so I still have a lot of material I can purchase (used perhaps) before I will feel the "need" for new material that is not immediately functional. Heck there is materials I have now that I haven't fully read or used. And even though any of my material is available for players, probably 90% of most things in our games come from the core rules/SRD. We are more likely to have an Aristocrat/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight than a Duskblade in our games. So despite playing 3.5 for 6+ years, me and mine are not nearly bored yet with it.
The good news for you is that there is a free SRD available to you forever that contains what you consider to be 99% of 3.5.
3.5 system. Not 3.5 products or options. Just the system, just the system.
So you don't need to buy anything ever again. Good for you.
Thank you. I would find it strange if anyone felt they NEEDED to purchase any gaming products. Want to? Sure, but need to?
You made it clear that if a product was close enough to 3.5 you wouldn't buy it because it was too similar and thus there wouldn't be a reason to buy it, and that you wouldn't buy it if it is even a little different from 3.5 because you don't want to change systems.
Close. I feel no need to replace my core books and the system I am using for a very slightly different system. And if I wanted to make a drastic change, why not just change to 4e?
So as near as I can tell, you just don't want to have to buy anything.
Ha, ha, sure ... sure. That is why I said that once I stop purchasing Pathfinder, I'll go back and probably pick up some 3.5 modules and magazine issues, as well as setting products. Because I don't want to buy anything.
I'm posting because I hope it isn't too late to affect the development of PFRPG, so please keep the "don't let the door hit you" comments to yourself, thanks.
I was formerly balancing on the fence between 4E and PFRPG, but now I'm definitely tipping 4E, even before seeing either ruleset in its entirety. Why?
PFRPG's lack of backward compatability. Despite the stated design goals for PFRPG, there are enough changes in the alpha that I will need to go back and re-do stat blocks, re-read abilities and spells, and generally look everything up nearly as much as if I were using a completely new ruleset anyway. I formed this impression after reading alpha 1, and unfortunately alphas 2 and 3 don't seem to have scaled back the problematic changes (things like dramatically changed wizard specialization, turning undead, racial power creep, etc.). Bottom line: If a PFRPG encounter assumes a spell or ability works a different way than in it is explained in my 3.5 books, that doesn't fit any definition of compatible I've ever seen.
If PFRPG were are re-packaging of 3.5 with small tweaks (wizard hit die size, etc.) and new art direction, it would be far more compelling. As it is, if a thorough reading of the 4E corebooks and the PFRPG beta confirm my current impressions, then I'm going 4E. Which sucks, because then PFRPG represents the worst possible outcome: Paizo supports neither 3.5 *or* 4.0.
|
|
If a player sits down in a 3.5 game with the 3PP book, they will be extremely confused, because it is just a different system.
This is the quote I was referencing. My argument was that a person who sits down in a 3.5 game with the 3PP book can easily figure out what is going on and not be confused. That is unless they have the intelligence of a retarded three year old ;)
I didn't intend for that to come across as quite so hostile. My difficulty with your post is that you are complaining that PFRPG is not what you want it to be and thus you won't buy it. So my question is what exactly do you want? You don't want a 3.5 book. You don't want 4e. You don't want a 3.75 book. I'm just not sure what Paizo could do that would make you happy.
In any event, in an effort to keep myself from being more abbrasive I will refrain from further comment. The SRD is a available for your use and you seem to be ok with that as your game system "source" material. Best of luck!!
My difficulty with your post is that you are complaining that PFRPG is not what you want it to be and thus you won't buy it. So my question is what exactly do you want? You don't want a 3.5 book. You don't want 4e. You don't want a 3.75 book. I'm just not sure what Paizo could do that would make you happy.
What am I currently a subscriber of from Paizo? Am I a subscriber of a new core rule book product? Or an adventure path that uses 3.5 mechanics? That is what I want at this point. I have no interest in purchase a new game system at this time. Though, if Paizo had went the 3.5 with extremely slight changes route, I might have pushed for any player that didn't have a 3.5 book, to purchase a Pathfinder one. As it is now, I can't do that, and they will no longer be making an Adventure Path product for 3.5. So I will stop purchasing from them as they are not giving me anything I want. It is not that I do not wish to purchase anything, if that was the case I wouldn't have an ongoing subscription at this time, now would I?
If you don't mind my asking, what is a "d20 guy"? I mean what system is "d20" in your mind? Is True20 a d20 game system? Is Conan a d20 system? How different from the SRD/OGL can a system get without stopping being a d20 system?
Yes actually. I take what I like and put into the game as I see fit. This is actually what I liked about D20, or maybe OGL is a better term. The SRD was ment to evolve you know.
Yes, I'm a 3.5 gamer, as are everyone I game with. We have no interest in playing systems that are similiar but still different. If it is close enough, why not stick with 3.5, is how we think. And we are not interested in any thing radically different for that genre (though some of us have gamed with SW:SAGA). [/QOUTE]
Well bully for you and your players, but I wonder what radically means to you. I know of player-actually I don't think players mind as much as GM's so lets go with that, who will not play 3.5 because 3.0 did what they wanted fine. So is 3.0 too far? And how about settings. There is some very good stuff that fits good with 3.5 in Midnight, but that game is as far from 3.5 as say Conan, though not as far as Pathfinder. Its not a system in of itself, it depends on the 3.5 core, but it differs. As do most supplment books, all adding to the game (like the Quintessental line from Mongoose). Never mind the Complet series which added racial levels and substatution levels. My players looked at that and said, just make a new class.
Nope, I am not sure of any other companies sticking with 3.5 for real, sadly. Yet there is a large amount of 3.5 material out there by WotC, Paizo, Necromancer, etc that I do not own. Onces Pathfinder switches, I might just start going back and picking up their 3.5 modules. Old issues of Dragon and Dungeon that I don't have, as well as other books. Heck, who knows I might even start buying setting material like Forgotten Realms, which previously I had no interest in. So I'm not too scared that there won't be any material out there that will be new to me for quite awhile.Well finding that pure 3.5 without any diviation is hard to do during the best of the 3.5 years, I'd would say stop buying altogther to keep it err, pure?
You are so right, I mean look at Chess ... I mean how about Monopoly ... That is what I mean is ... Yeah, whatever. RPGs as we now know them have only been around for something like 30 years, I don't see how anyone can claim to be 100% sure that the core system being the same for a long time is a bad thing. In fact I could argue that the exact opposite is the case. By constantly changing the system, you lose the ability to have one generation influence the next. While Dad tries to teach the system he knows to his kids, they want to run the new system that their friends are using. In the end this cause a division in which the family can't play a game together because they are used to totally different systems.Ahhh, yeah actually Monopoly has changed, and if you are going by the first edition of that game the way you are about 3.5 you wouldn't buy a version of that for oh maybe 25 years now. Back in the 90's they came out with a 30th? anaversy editon with orginal rules and write up of places. Not to mention Star Wars Monopoly, Pokemon Monopoly or god help us that fast 1/2 hour Monopoly that came out last year. As for chess yes thats changed a few times too. Chess 3 level, fantasy chess that I playtested a long time ago. Its core has been more stagnet because it had ohh I don't know 1000 years of development? In either case that really is appales and grapes, yeah both are furits but thats about it.
However I agree with you in terms of influince of new players, and unlike past editions of D&D (which are fine systems themselves and easily usable today) the only reason they are dead is because the company made them dead. So 3rd is unique in that it can go on. But I guess we define system differnt. I don't mind new skills, or new ablites fitting into an established system. Sure it changes things, but no more then, say what Palladium did to Robtech shadow chronicles. Added a little MDC, game a +something or another. Even games whose systems haven't changed (and don't need too)for 25 years have changed a little.
For the recored I don't assume you are bitter, however just form the cold text of the board it does come off a bit like that.
|
|
I'm posting because I hope it isn't too late to affect the development of PFRPG, so please keep the "don't let the door hit you" comments to yourself, thanks.
I was formerly balancing on the fence between 4E and PFRPG, but now I'm definitely tipping 4E, even before seeing either ruleset in its entirety. Why?
PFRPG's lack of backward compatability. Despite the stated design goals for PFRPG, there are enough changes in the alpha that I will need to go back and re-do stat blocks, re-read abilities and spells, and generally look everything up nearly as much as if I were using a completely new ruleset anyway. I formed this impression after reading alpha 1, and unfortunately alphas 2 and 3 don't seem to have scaled back the problematic changes (things like dramatically changed wizard specialization, turning undead, racial power creep, etc.). Bottom line: If a PFRPG encounter assumes a spell or ability works a different way than in it is explained in my 3.5 books, that doesn't fit any definition of compatible I've ever seen.
If PFRPG were are re-packaging of 3.5 with small tweaks (wizard hit die size, etc.) and new art direction, it would be far more compelling. As it is, if a thorough reading of the 4E corebooks and the PFRPG beta confirm my current impressions, then I'm going 4E. Which sucks, because then PFRPG represents the worst possible outcome: Paizo supports neither 3.5 *or* 4.0.
I think for a company like Paizo that is a comparatively small player next to Wizards of the Hasbro or whatever, this is the best decision they could make given the situation. There is no question in my mind that 3.5 needed to be tweaked. The stuff Paizo is doing with the system is no more radical than what appeared in any of the complete books. Changing the text of feats isn't any different from adding new feats. The skills are still there, just streamlined now. Is it really that important to have a separate skill for Listen, Search, and Spot? They have changed the text of some spells. How is that different from just adding spells in a splat book? They have given the classes some extra powers and features to increase their power level. How is that any more radical than the stuff in Unearthed Arcana (which is part of the SRD).
Maybe it is just the way I think, but I don't see how the Alpha document is that much different from the SRD. Oh well, I don't think I can convince you it isn't anymore than you can convince me it is. As one final thought, the beta release of the rules is going to be a free pdf download. If you don't want to commit to a system that is "too different" from 3.5 in your mind, at least try the free beta rule-set at your gaming table before writing off things completely. Right now you are saying that since PFRPG is going to require you to "change systems" you will just go with 4e, a decision you admit to not being happy about. So if you have decided you are just going to convert anyway, wouldn't PFRPG still be a less intrusive conversion than 4e? Surely you don't believe that PFRPG is as different from 3.5 as 4e is? Anyway, just some things to think about.
So uhh, I think that gave me a pretty complete view of backwards compatibility in pathfinder, thanks.
Does anyone have other thoughts that I should know about? Preferably, not "you're wrong for X reason" but more along the lines of "hey, nobody's mentioned issue Y." I don't actually need to decide now, I was just wondering about the state of the game, and the direction it was headed.
So uhh, I think that gave me a pretty complete view of backwards compatibility in pathfinder, thanks.
Does anyone have other thoughts that I should know about? Preferably, not "you're wrong for X reason" but more along the lines of "hey, nobody's mentioned issue Y." I don't actually need to decide now, I was just wondering about the state of the game, and the direction it was headed.
Hmm...ok, let me take a crack at that.
****Things I think are good ideas and imo don't go too far (and why) include****
Hit die size changes. Easy to adjust old stat blocks because it is an isolated change. Nothing but the hit point total changes; any NPC/monster that has levels in a class with an increased hit die gets one hit point per such level. Simple and self-contained, yet a good balancer.
Skill consolidation. I like this because it cleans things up and worst thing that happens if I ignore it is an NPC is a few skill points short.
Adding feats: Great! More choices, and can easily be used as a balancing tool for higher level fighter, etc., but no big deal if I don't go back and redo NPCs/monsters.
Adding spells: See feats, above.
Simplifying how grapple works *as long as the bonus doesn't change* is fine, because no recalculation is needed.
****Things that go too far****
Racial bonus changes. This causes a cascading stat-block mess, potentially affecting all skills, hit points, AC, # of spell slots, spell DCs, etc. etc. etc. In short, pretty much everything. No thanks.
Fundamental changes in the way base classes work...bad. I can't ignore them without gimping out existing NPCs. Anything that forces me to go back and re-do stat blocks is, say it with me now, BAD.
Big mechanical changes in existing spells. This are a problem because they can touch stat blocks, NPC tactics, etc., potentially rendering an encounter nonsensical.
********
In short: Additions or simplifications are generally OK; complete re-tools and deducations are generally NOT OK, and imho there are too many of the latter in the Pathfinder Alpha. It isn't that I can't do basic math; it is that compatibility should mean I don't *have to.*
I'll still try it out, but unless a fundamental shift takes place, I believe Paizo is leading PFRPG into an ill-advised (and destined to be short-lived) competition with *both* 3.5E and 4E. Further, I'm afraid the PFRPG is causing them to lose focus the core competency that got them where they are in the first place...writing kick-ass adventures.
Yes actually. I take what I like and put into the game as I see fit. This is actually what I liked about D20, or maybe OGL is a better term.
I do as well, when it can be done easily. I can easily drop in some material from my Creatures of Freeport book, or my Creature Collection 3, in any 3.5 game I am running. I love that.
What I dislike is what happens such as the story I posted above. You purchase a product, and on the outside it looks like it should be totally useful. Then once you get into it you find out that they have used a bunch new rules for spells/magic, or what have you. You find out that to use the product fully, your going to have to purchase their own version of the "rules". Buy another module from a different producer, and now you need to buy their "rules" as well. That is what I find fustrating. As much as I find it disgusting to admit, I begin to see why WotC decided to drop the OGL for 4e in favor of a more restrictive GSL (is that the right letters?).
The SRD was ment to evolve you know.
Yes and no. It was on the one hand suppose to be a common starting place for everyone. Which failed once everyone started deciding to make their own individual versions of the core rules.
Q: Why create Open Games?
A: The tabletop RPG business lost 60% to 70% of its unit sales from the period from 1993 to 1997. After a detailed study of the market data available, business managers at Wizards of the Coast decided that the primary reason for this decline was the dissatisfaction consumers had about the products game publishers made available for sale.
One way to help publishers make products that will be more interesting to consumers is to allow them to use standardized systems that have large networks of players. Designing a product targeted at a large network of players gives that product a better chance of being commercially successful than designing a product targeted at a small, or a new network of players.
One the other hand, it was left open so that if a better mechanic was developed the entire industry could benefit from it.
Q: Any other reasons?
A: Yes. In addition to the potential improvement in the business of game publishing, Open Games will be subjected to a large, distributed effort to improve the games themselves. Because Open Game licenses allow publishers to make any changes they deem necessary to the material they are using, a publisher who thinks they have found a better way to write a game rule will be free to do so. And, if that new way is perceived as better than the existing alternatives, other publishers will be able to take that new rule and use it as well. In this way, the overall design of an Open Game should improve over time, and be the benefit of far more development and testing than any one game publisher, no matter how large and successful, could hope to apply by themselves.
Sadly, from my opinion and (god I hate to admit I agree with them) WotC, that has mostly been a failure. Instead of having better details arise, in many cases you just got little personal house-rulish changes that just lead to confusion for many regular core players. Think if you had to purchase a $25 printed copy of the house-rules of your DM, how you would feel as a player. Now what if you are the DM? Frankly it just wasn't worth it in alot of cases (though not all, some have been reasonably successful).
Well bully for you and your players, but I wonder what radically means to you. I know of player-actually I don't think players mind as much as GM's so lets go with that, who will not play 3.5 because 3.0 did what they wanted fine. So is 3.0 too far?
Some 3.0 material is. Mainly because it still requires some conversion (not alot mind you, but some). If I had the choice between purchasing a product that was 3.0 or 3.5, I'd pick 3.5 every time. So usually I only pick up 3.0 when there isn't another version (MM2, oriental adventures, savage species [more like 3.25], etc). It should be noted that I haven't purchased any 3.0 material at full price, if I have to do the work to convert it, I'm buying it on the cheap.
And how about settings.
Currently, Pathfinder is the only thing remotely setting specific that I have really purchased (well except for a few modules). But I tend to run homebrew with bits of and pieces of various modules dropped in from time to time (my players loved the haunted house from RotR).
Ahhh, yeah actually Monopoly has changed,...
Yeah, but most of that is flavor changes, not real mechanics changes. I mean it might not be board walk anymore but instead Coruscant (sp?) or whatever but the rules are basically the same. What you are refering to is the equivalent difference between Eberron and the Core setting. I am currently playing in an eberron game, I haven't any setting specific books myself, and am just using my PHB and Complete series books (for 1 specific feat) and am doing fine. The difference between the core rules for 3.5 and Pathfinder is the difference between Hearts and Spades. They are similiar games, but it is all in the differences that matter.
However I agree with you in terms of influince of new players, and unlike past editions of D&D (which are fine systems themselves and easily usable today) the only reason they are dead is because the company made them dead. So 3rd is unique in that it can go on. But I guess we define system differnt. I don't mind new skills, or new ablites fitting into an established system.
I don't mind those either, what I do mind is replacement of the core rules. If you want to make a new class and call it the Weapon Master, fine, just don't make a new class but then claim it is the fighter class, that breeds confusion. You want a new subrace of elves, great, who would notice, but don't say it is the core rules elf. You want to create an arcane caster that uses a special way of doing magic, and gets to cast some magic without limit (a la 4e), great, but leave the wizard out of it.
That is my only problem with how people talk about Pathfinder, they are breeding confusion. They try to tell people, "It's the same system" when it isn't. It is deceptive, just like those modules that I purchased that say on the cover d20 and I needed the 3.0 rule books but made no mention what so ever that in order to use the product fully I would also have to invest in their special rule book as well. If people just said, "Pathfinder will be EASILY convertable to 3.5" instead of trying to claim "Pathfinder IS compatible with 3.5", I would find that more honest.
So uhh, I think that gave me a pretty complete view of backwards compatibility in pathfinder, thanks.
Does anyone have other thoughts that I should know about? Preferably, not "you're wrong for X reason" but more along the lines of "hey, nobody's mentioned issue Y." I don't actually need to decide now, I was just wondering about the state of the game, and the direction it was headed.
Sorry about that, we did sort of forget about your question didn't we.
Pres man said,
"That is my only problem with how people talk about Pathfinder, they are breeding confusion. They try to tell people, "It's the same system" when it isn't. It is deceptive, just like those modules that I purchased that say on the cover d20 and I needed the 3.0 rule books but made no mention what so ever that in order to use the product fully I would also have to invest in their special rule book as well. If people just said, "Pathfinder will be EASILY convertable to 3.5" instead of trying to claim "Pathfinder IS compatible with 3.5", I would find that more honest."
They did say that. There goal is backwards compatiblity with 3.5, not a reissue of 3.5. As for easily convertable, well thats a point of view thing, we differ, but people at lest here, for the most part feel that it is easy, or at lest not a deal breaker. Though Alpha one did go a bit far. Nevertheless we don't know what the finished product will be.
I see where your coming from, to a degree, but honestly it seems a tad restrictive. Though I suppose partly this is simply from the prespective of someone who has played a lot of differnt games over the years, Rifts, WoD, Shadowrun etc. etc. I don't restrict myself to one setting/system, and variat skills feats or powers to a system are not deal breakers.
As for seeing where WotC is coming form, if the current staff (I'm not sure if anyone is left from the people who came up with the OGL are left) did not like or intend the way the game sytem went, then they really should just close 4th. I would have respected that at lest. Instead they don't want the creativty and 'house ruled' systems you seem to dislike, they just want companies to do the Sh** work for them with advantures and settings. Sure give us new classes but no thanks on improving our rules and coming up with something better. Moreover lets face it that market research was spin. They were losing the markent to WW, (who fumbled the ball with the new WoD setting but thats another discussion) and they had just gone though endless fights protecting game systems that cannot be copyrighted. So the went the other way, saying use are system to support us. This actually worked for a while, it wasn't until 3PP come up with better tweeks that WotC undermined the industry by coming out with 3.5. The irony is they created there own monster because most of the new OGL systems came out when the companies all said, well our settings our rules will protect our backstock of merchandice. And wellgive backwards instuctions. Which the more I think about it Pathfinder will prob. also do. Not to mention the whole GSL feasco.
In any case enjoy your game. Let us enjoy ours.
In any case enjoy your game. Let us enjoy ours.
Wow, it took a whole three more posts than I expected before things went all "us vs. them." :/
Anyway, I tried to rationally outline my concerns about the direction of Pathfinder...does that make one of "them?"
In any case enjoy your game. Let us enjoy ours.
Wow, it took a whole three more posts than I expected before things went all "us vs. them." :/
Anyway, I tried to rationally outline my concerns about the direction of Pathfinder...does that make one of "them?"
Yes. Welcome to the Brotherhood, my man.
The stuff Paizo is doing with the system is no more radical than what appeared in any of the complete books.
Actually, from the posts I've seen from Erik Mona, my understanding was that the Alpha was intentionally pushing the envelope, and that the Beta will rein things in. I am still hopeful that the final version of Pathfinder won't be so different from 3.5 as to feel like a completely different game.