A lot of the suggestions I see on these boards scream 4ed. Remember the goal of the Pathfinder RPG is to keep all the existing 3.5 materials playable without spending time to retro fit them.
Pathfinger RPG should be 3.75, not pre 4ed.
That being said, I trust the Paizo staff to seperate the wheat from the chaff and provide us with a fantastic game that keeps 3.5 alive.
ASEO out
I'd also like to mention that many of the ideas presented that are being labeled as "smells like 4th edition" would have been accepted without any issue at all had they been prompted PRIOR to the announcement of 4th edition.
Its not been in Pathfinder yet, to my knowldege, but the 4th edition "Bloodied" mechanic has existed in my own 3.5 game for almost 2 years now, and in a far more robust manner (feats, powers, penalties, all built around it).
What is and what isn't 4th edition (or WoW based, or anime based, or whatever) is all just a matter of relative perspective. Rather than naysaying mechanics based on that perspective, we should examine them for the intended goal: To make the Pathfinder an attractive and enjoyable "upgrade" from the existing 3.5 system.
Will I be getting Pathfinder? Honestly, probably not. I don't often have much money to spare on game stuff, to my dismay, and as much fun as Pathfinder looks to be, there are mechanical aspects of it I don't agree with. But I am tearing through the Alpha documents for mechanical and fluff that I like, and am loving it very much. I did the same thing with d20 World of Darkness, Iron Kingdoms, and a host of other OGL products. I'll probably even do it with 4th edition. To me, Pathfinder is a repository of the efforts of the greatest minds of d20 game design, all concentrated in one spot for my perusal. When I buy pathfinder, it will be 90% for assimilation into my "house rules" games. If I'm lucky, I might even find room for the 10% "actually play a Pathfinder game".
Just my 2cp.
I'd also like to mention that many of the ideas presented that are being labeled as "smells like 4th edition" would have been accepted without any issue at all had they been prompted PRIOR to the announcement of 4th edition.
Its not been in Pathfinder yet, to my knowledge, but the 4th edition "Bloodied" mechanic has existed in my own 3.5 game for almost 2 years now, and in a far more robust manner (feats, powers, penalties, all built around it).
What is and what isn't 4th edition (or WoW based, or anime based, or whatever) is all just a matter of relative perspective. Rather than naysaying mechanics based on that perspective, we should examine them for the intended goal: To make the Pathfinder an attractive and enjoyable "upgrade" from the existing 3.5 system.
Honestly much of the stuff that appears in 4th does have it's origins in variants from 3.5, even though it's been heavily, heavily reworked for 4th edition. Things like bloodied show up in a variant way in the Game of Thrones RPG (it's not exactly like the bloodied mechanic, but the inspiration is there).
Honestly I'm not seeing anything in the Pathfinder rules that scream 4th edition. I am seeing stuff that makes me want to compare gaming shelves with Jason and the Paizo crew however. There's certain rules that have shown up that look like variants, or like they were inspired by other OGL products. Honestly I think that's a good thing.
I'd also like to mention that many of the ideas presented that are being labeled as "smells like 4th edition" would have been accepted without any issue at all had they been prompted PRIOR to the announcement of 4th edition.
Or not. You are right that it is the idea that is the issue and not whether it is 4e or PFRPG that is using them. Many of these ideas are things that turned some 3.x groups off of 4e. It was not just the lack of easy compatibility, but also changes to some fundamental ideas that were distasteful for those groups. Seeing those same changes occur in PFRPG, does not endear it to those groups. Not because 4e is using the ideas but because they disliked the idea in the first place.
|
Bloodied, good, bad, or 4e doesn't matter. If Paizo wants it in the game, it'll be in the game. People need to stop worrying about what 4e does and focus on what 3P does.
Does it work? Does it make anything in 3E not work? Is it broken, overpowered, or confusing?
Those should be people's only concerns. If it works, if it doesn't trash a 3E supplement, if it isn't broken, overpowered, or confusing then YAY!
|
I'll tell you what I want: if I'm running a 3.5 adventure (as one of the current Adventure Paths or a Gamemastery module) using Pathfinder RPG, I don't want to 'convert' anything more than adding a few hps to monsters or something like that.
By now, that's been possible with the Alpha releases (perhaps Alpha 1 was a tad too far with the skill system and the chained feats, but nevertheless I was still able to run "Conquest of Bloodsworn Vale" as written), and I don't think the Beta is going to be too different from Alpha 3, except for adding missing SRD content to make it a full game instead of a "parchment".
Pathfinger RPG should be 3.75, not pre 4ed.No it shouldn't. The PfRPG is its own game that backwards-compatibility with 3.x as one of its objectives.
Isn't that essentially what "3.75" refers to? An "edition" that maintains backwards compatibility with 3.5/3E and fixes a few minor issues?
Obviously, the Pathfinder RPG is going to have a bunch of different fluff...
Those should be people's only concerns. If it works, if it doesn't trash a 3E supplement, if it isn't broken, overpowered, or confusing then YAY!
Personally I think people should feel free to be concerned if something is just not subjectively to their liking even if it is not game breaking. Why should anyone feel they like they should play a system that they don't find personally appealing just because it ain't broken.
|
|
Isn't that essentially what "3.75" refers to? An "edition" that maintains backwards compatibility with 3.5/3E and fixes a few minor issues?Pathfinger RPG should be 3.75, not pre 4ed.No it shouldn't. The PfRPG is its own game that backwards-compatibility with 3.x as one of its objectives.
I used to think that. But as I got deeper into the PfRPG ARs, I realized that it was its own beast with as much compatibility with 3.x material as True20 has with 3.x.
I used to think that. But as I got deeper into the PfRPG ARs, I realized that it was its own beast with as much compatibility with 3.x material as True20 has with 3.x.
Is there a "changelog" somewhere, that shows exactly what's been changed/updated?
I've got the Alpha PDF, and have found some, but it'd be nice to see a list of everything - I'm weird that way...
I have to say that a lot of things I've read in the alphas are not 3.5e compatible.
|
|
Personally I think people should feel free to be concerned if something is just not subjectively to their liking even if it is not game breaking. Why should anyone feel they like they should play a system that they don't find personally appealing just because it ain't broken.
No one says they have to play a system they don't like. But this Alpha and beta is about making sure the final rules THAT PAIZO DECIDES ON works, not keeping out rules that are too similar to another game system.
Dwarves are 4E! They have to go or I'm canceling all my subscriptions!
Bloodied, good, bad, or 4e doesn't matter. If Paizo wants it in the game, it'll be in the game. People need to stop worrying about what 4e does and focus on what 3P does.
Does it work? Does it make anything in 3E not work? Is it broken, overpowered, or confusing?
Those should be people's only concerns. If it works, if it doesn't trash a 3E supplement, if it isn't broken, overpowered, or confusing then YAY!
AMEN BROTHER!
..
.
.
But about BWC:
The fact that Pathfinder has (heavily) changed the races, classes, skills, combat mechanics (the maneuvers) and spells, there is NO chance in just taking a random 3E supplement/adventure and play it right away.
The DM ALWAYS has to adapt NPC (especially those with PC-classes), add stats to the monster entries, change skills ...
But personally, I don't mind! But I think Paizo has to realize while trying to keep as close to 3E as possible (not like True20 - only 3 classes, free feats, etc.) they should put this notorious Backward Compatibility down the list of their goals for Pathfinder.
Don't restrict yourself which something you cannot achieve at all!
|
|
The DM ALWAYS has to adapt NPC (especially those with PC-classes), add stats to the monster entries, change skills ...
You really don't even have to do that. If the NPC encounter doesn't involve hiding or detecting hiding or any kind of conversation.. just pure combat, then the only thing you have to do is make sure the NPC has the right about of HP, feat, and abilities (or spells.)
No one says they have to play a system they don't like. But this Alpha and beta is about making sure the final rules THAT PAIZO DECIDES ON works, not keeping out rules that are too similar to another game system.
Dwarves are 4E! They have to go or I'm canceling all my subscriptions!
So the only thing that should be looked at is whether the rules work and no consideration should be made if they are actually desirable by a large number of potential customers?
|
|
So the only thing that should be looked at is whether the rules work and no consideration should be made if they are actually desirable by a large number of potential customers?No one says they have to play a system they don't like. But this Alpha and beta is about making sure the final rules THAT PAIZO DECIDES ON works, not keeping out rules that are too similar to another game system.
Dwarves are 4E! They have to go or I'm canceling all my subscriptions!
I think Sir Urza is trying to say that just because something comes from another game system is no reason to reject it.
The Bloodied mechanic is actually quite a good one, and I have no problem with rituals as long as the original spell also exists. Hell, some of the various powers might be convertible into 3.5 format without too much trauma (haven't tried this yet, but it's possible).
None of these actually change 3.5. The change to 4E was mostly the restrictions on things (classes very much role defined, dropping classes and races). If you leave those out, adding more options is a good thing. But the priority should be keeping as close to 3.5 as possible while fixing some of its more egregious faults. So I'd say concentrate on 3.5 maintenance. 4E will still be around to steal good things from in a year or so.
|
My criteria for whether Pathfinder works or not is if I can play my huge catalogue of 3.5 scenarios with only moderate changes. SO far they've hit the nail right on the head.
The reason I turned to Paizo is because they produce quality adventures. I've enjoyed the majority of their stuff far more than anything I bought from other companies (although some people told me red hand of doom was a superb War based scenario, ive never tried it).
There are going to be rules that my group don't like....so we won't use them. There are rules in 4th edition that we do like ....so we will use them.
I think there's plenty of companies out there that can create good game systems, but I haven't read too many great adventures from other companies. I don't have the time to create my own games, nor would I be any where near as creative as these guys are. Paizo does these well, so I'll use their system if it means I can keep getting their amazing adventures.
Cheers
The fact that Pathfinder has (heavily) changed the races, classes, skills, combat mechanics (the maneuvers) and spells, there is NO chance in just taking a random 3E supplement/adventure and play it right away.
The DM ALWAYS has to adapt NPC (especially those with PC-classes), add stats to the monster entries, change skills ...
The changes that are really necessary are minimal. Really minimal. I admit that I don't use all Alpha rules now, but a mix of Alpha 3, 3.5, and my own house rules (I'll probably do a major transition in my campaign once we have the beta rules), but I've found that little needs to be fixed. So the monster still has spot on its sheet? No big deal.
I think that no one can really expect that he can just use everything as is. That would only be possible if PF didn't change a thing. But if you're willing to have some minor inconsistencies, it will work out just fine.
I think Sir Urza is trying to say that just because something comes from another game system is no reason to reject it.
And I agree. All I am saying is that if a mechanic was in part why someone rejected another game system, then it may be a legitimate reason for someone to reject this game system as well. That is if for example someone rejected 4e in part because of the removal of save-or-die spells, then they may decide to reject PFRPG for the removal of them as well. It is not that 4e did it so it is bad, it is that for a player, the idea is bad, the player's opinion, to begin with no matter what system uses it. Now is the idea game breaking from a mechanical perspective, not necessarily, but it may be less desireable.
The only reason why 4e keeps getting brought up is because some people feel that if you want changes A, B, and C that are currently in 4e, why don't you just play 4e? They don't understand why make a new system with that is a 3.oid but with those changes? It is like the Classic Coke-New Coke-Pepsi idea. If you want something like Pepsi, why buy New Coke when you could just purchase Pepsi?
|
I agree:
1. PRPG should retain maximum compatibility to 3.5e
2. Does this mean that it is to reject any change that resembles 4e? No!
Some first glances into the 4e core books showed some quite promising changes which could really facilitate game play. If backwards compatibility isn't affected by any such change: why not?
Somewhat off topic: One of the downsides of 3.5e were the long combat duration of high level encounters. Are those addressed better in 4e? Any plans to find a solution in PRPG (not to my knowledge so far, is there?)?
Greetings,
Günther
Somewhat off topic: One of the downsides of 3.5e were the long combat duration of high level encounters. Are those addressed better in 4e?
As far as I heard, HP have gone down in 4e - instead of HD+Con each level, you get your con (score) once, and twice your normal HP at first level, but then get a fixed amount per level (old average hd) without con.
That would make one think that things get faster.
But since damage seems to have gone down (e.g. 8d6+int versus 24d6+8d6 for meteor swarm), and save-or-die effects are gone, I'd say combats still take a long time since you need a lot more rounds to drop the enemy. And I hear the big critters can have 1000 and more HP.
So your very highest attacks do 50-75 points of damage per round (if you hit), and your enemy has 1500 HP - you do the math. And that's the strongest stuff at highest levels. As far as I know, the good stuff is encounter based or day based, so after round 3, you're back to the weak stuff.
Is there a "changelog" somewhere, that shows exactly what's been changed/updated?I've got the Alpha PDF, and have found some, but it'd be nice to see a list of everything - I'm weird that way...
I whole-heartedly agree with this.
Once the game has entered beta, I would really, REALLY, like a summary of the changes so that I can evaluate how much time it will take to do adventure conversions "on the fly".
Hopefully the answer is "very little".
Somewhat off topic: One of the downsides of 3.5e were the long combat duration of high level encounters. Are those addressed better in 4e? Any plans to find a solution in PRPG (not to my knowledge so far, is there?)?
Not sure how you could reduce combat time without taking away combat options.
The easiest way to reduce combat time is to remove things like attacks of opportunity and critical hit confirmation rolls, while using average damage rather than rolling dice (e.g., your 10d6 fireball will always do 35 points of damage).
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing these types of things as suggestions, but I like the AOO and critical confirmation rules in the game.
|
|
I think Sir Urza is trying to say that just because something comes from another game system is no reason to reject it.And I agree. All I am saying is that if a mechanic was in part why someone rejected another game system, then it may be a legitimate reason for someone to reject this game system as well.
Ok valid argument, but what about the people that keep harping about Sneak Attack? The magic system? They've been told no repeatedly and yet they still harp about it.. are they being constructive or helpful? No.
I ranted and raved, argued, twist, almost flamed people about Arcane Bond because it was poorly worded, intent was unclear, and how it could be exploited was crystal clear, and it got fixed. Unclear wording and definition brought about some changes to Hand of the Apprentice too. Must we point to the 3rd skill system we're on? :)
The only reason why 4e keeps getting brought up is because some people feel that if you want changes A, B, and C that are currently in 4e, why don't you just play 4e?
I guess they should go play 4e then and toss all their 3.5 stuff.
If A, B, and C are copies and pastes out of the 4E PHB but are still compatible with their 3.5 books, they should shut up, stop whining about 4e, and see if the mechanic is actually good or not for the game.
They don't understand why make a new system with that is a 3.oid but with those changes?
Hence why they need to take my advice to heart. Stop thinking about 4e, stop being such blind 3e fanboys, and think about helping paizo develop 3p into a better game system that not only works better then 3.5, but work WITH 3.5 material.. unlike 4e.
Paizo might not say it, but I will.
If you're happy with 3.5 and don't think it needs changes then Pathfinder RPG isn't for you.
It's THAT simple.
I used to think that. But as I got deeper into the PfRPG ARs, I realized that it was its own beast with as much compatibility with 3.x material as True20 has with 3.x.Isn't that essentially what "3.75" refers to? An "edition" that maintains backwards compatibility with 3.5/3E and fixes a few minor issues?Pathfinger RPG should be 3.75, not pre 4ed.No it shouldn't. The PfRPG is its own game that backwards-compatibility with 3.x as one of its objectives.
I guess I mis typed. What I meant that while there are changes to 3.5, hence making Pathfinder a bit more than 3.5 (hence 3.75), It MUST keep all existing 3.x products playable within the Pathfinder RPG rule set.
If I want to run adventures from DUNGEON 146 under the Pathfinder RPG rule set, I shouldn't have to change ANYTHING in the adventures within DUNGEON 146 to have a balanced game.
Did that make my stance clearer?
ASEO out
|
|
One thing that's been tripping me up on backward compatibility is the tweaking of races. Because there are so many races out there for our game, I'm wondering - to the degree Paizo hasn't altered/touched a race, "Leave well enough alone?" Or - tweak it in the spirit of Pathfinder.
Admittedly, the latter option risks becoming a bit loosy-goosy.
Second, I don't mind the classes so much. Because, worse comes to worse, just offer a bonus feat at each of the blank levels for other classes. Admittedly, this is a crude fix . . . but unless Paizo has a formula that it can share on how to guide us in the future . . . we'll have to do something.
|
|
I want Pathfinder to 'refer' to the 3.5 materials I already have. I want changes to be 'explainable'. I don't mind change, far from it. There are a lot of things I WANT to see changed for the new system. But there are also changes that I don't agree with.
Those are a major concern for me. If there are 10 changes and 5 are good and 5 are bad, should I stop playing 3.5 and switch to Patfhinder? I'd say no. I'm not really getting a better game - just a different one. I want to see something along the line of 80% of the changes are good and 20% of the changes are so-so. And I think that is entirely possible.
I'm concerned that is not what we'll get, however. For example, I like combining listen/spot and combining hide/move silently. Basically they're used at the same time, and it just means we roll 4 dice (opposed checks) instead of 2. Combining them makes my life easier, it reduces die rolling, seems 'realistic' enough for me and therefore works out as a good change. A change like removing Concentration however? I just don't understand why it is being done. I fail to see the benefit, and I see a number of 'bad things' about that change (regarding compatability with other products, particularly).
If I were rating the Pathfinder System as a whole, I would give the Alpha 3 a C-. I know that Combat Feats are going away, so I have high hopes of a B or B+ for the Beta - especially if we can get a final version of skills that strikes that magical balance between compatible and improved. So, I'm not ready to write off Pathfinder, but it isn't the game I want to play - at least, not yet.
So it doesn't necessarily need to be compatible, at least as long as the changes they make improve the game. If I wanted change for the sake of change, I'd switch systems.
|
|
I guess I mis typed. What I meant that while there are changes to 3.5, hence making Pathfinder a bit more than 3.5 (hence 3.75), It MUST keep all existing 3.x products playable within the Pathfinder RPG rule set.If I want to run adventures from DUNGEON 146 under the Pathfinder RPG rule set, I shouldn't have to change ANYTHING in the adventures within DUNGEON 146 to have a balanced game.
Did that make my stance clearer?
ASEO out
But then there is no need for Pathfinder at all. If all you are looking for is a reprint of the SRD with a few rules corrections then bust out your 3.5 stuff and house rule the changes you want. If you want a vibrant and dynamic system that works with 3.5 but gives you more options and makes things work smoother than 3.5 than play Pathfinder.
Sorcerers are a good example of what I'm talking about. In 3.5 sorcerers were just a pale shadow of wizards. They had some cool flavor text, but they got less spells per day and had access to less spells than a wizard did. The only thing that they had going for them was that the could cast the same spell over and over again if they chose too. No worrying that the spell you had prepared was not the one that the job requiresPathfinder takes a piece of the fluff about sorcerers have arcane bloodlines, and expanded it into a cool new mechanic that convinced two of my players that only play combat monkeys that they wanted to be sorcerers. This is what Pathfinder to me is all about, keeping the familiar but adding cool new options that make everything better. I think that rather than worrying about BWC or about straying into 4th edition, Paizo and the playtesters should focus on ways to pump up the awesomeness factor, because that is what will sell books.
|
|
In my mind, changes come in two varieties.
Some changes are changes to systems. I put things like CMBs and the specific descriptions of what spells and feats do in this category. These changes will affect the way I play but won't really require me to re-figure a lot of stats. I can pretty much run old 3.5 Dungeon adventures as is and just use the new descriptions of spell, feat and combat maneuvers. As far as I'm concerned, Paizo can make as many changes as they want to these kind of things, as long as they result in a smoother, more fun game.
Other changes are changes to how things are built - monsters, magic items, and especially characters. These are more problematic as they do require me do some re-writing. A little bit of that is fine, especially if it makes the game dramatically better. Spot + Listen = Perception, great! Hide + Move Silently = Sneak, great! But if it doesn't make things better, if it just fits people's perception of how things "ought to be," then it's not okay. Also, changes that add things, like class abilities or a few more skill points or hit points are fine, as it a new stat like CMB that is based on existing stats, because these are easy to add and don't require much work. But taking away feats or abilities or magic items or altering the level when lots of spells are available, that's going to be a pain in the butt to have to rework for my old Dungeon adventures. I'll do a little of it, but more likely I'll just try to run the old adventures as is and hope they're not too different.
Lots of folks, myself included, are having a great time suggesting rules tweaks and new ideas that we think would make the game better. It's a lot of fun having these discussions and it's a great way to stimulate your mind. But we can't expect too many of our great ideas to make it into Pathfinder because Paizo is not inventing a completely new game, they're improving on an existing one. A lot of this stuff is just going to have to end up as house rules. I'd love to see a Pathfinder Unearthed Arcana full of optional rules or a big section of the forums devoted to house rules, but that is not what is going to establish Pathfinder as the game of choice for thousands of gamers, and that is what needs to happen for Pathfinder to continue as a viable game. In the end, as a rabid house ruler, what I am hoping for are good, clean rules and systems that I can build on with my own house rules. Example: I don't agree with the way languages are doled out (1 rank Linguistics = 1 language), BUT I agree that this is simplest, most neutral language system possible and I am fine with it because I can use it build my system (different languages have different costs). People like or don't like DCs being static. Either way, it's going to be easy for one side or the other to house rule it the way they want. This is not a hill to die on. We suggest, we debate, we play-test, we debate some more.
In the end, I'm looking for a product that remains largely true to 3.5 but fixes some of the major flaws and most cumbersome systems, that has a few new innovations but doesn't require me to re-write too much of the old stuff, and that continues to showcase the talent and quality I have come to expect from Paizo. Do that and you've got a customer for life.
Sorcerers are a good example of what I'm talking about. In 3.5 sorcerers were just a pale shadow of wizards. They had some cool flavor text, but they got less spells per day and had access to less spells than a wizard did. The only thing that they had going for them was that the could cast the same spell over and over again if they chose too. No worrying that the spell you had prepared was not the one that the job requires
Ah ... what? Sorcerers have more spells per day than wizards in 3.5. For example a 10th level sorcerer would have:
6 0-level, 6 1st, 6 2nd, 6 3rd, 5 4th, and 3 5th (=total of 32 spells per day)while a 10th level wizard would have:
4 0-level, 4 1st, 4 2nd, 3 3rd, 3 4th, and 2 5th (=total of 20 spells per day) or (specialist has a total of 26 spells per day)
The sorcerer clearly has the advantage on the number of spells per day. The sorcerer also, as you point out, does not need to prepare which spells they need each day, though they are more limited in the number of spells they can choose from. Also a minor benefit is that a sorcerer only needs 15 minutes a day to prepare their spells, unlike the wizard that needs 1 hour. The wizard's advantage is that he gets a level of spells to know before the sorcerer (for example wizards can learn 5th level spells at class level 9, sorcerers can't learn them until class level 10). The wizard also knows more spells than the sorcerer, even if they just take the 2/level.
Of course some of the spells per day and spells that are prepared can be dealt with by the use of scrolls or wands. In that case the wizard clearly has an advantage over the sorcerer as he gets the bonus feats that he can use for item creation and can possibly draw from a larger pool of known spells.
|
|
Ah ... what? Sorcerers have more spells per day than wizards in 3.5.
You are right, my mistake. However, wizards have the clear advantage on number of spell available to them. Not only do they get all 0-level spells, any wizard worth his salt is going to have access to at least twice as many 1st level spells as a sorcerer does. Not only that but a wizard starts getting access to higher level spells faster than sorcerers.
|
|
If you really truly believe that much with the OP, then you're in the wrong board and playing the wrong game.
This just annoys me. I agree with the OP and I don't like being told I'm on the wrong boards. I have a right to my opinion, a right to express it and a right to try to influence the direction I think the product should go. It may not happen that it goes my way, that's Paizo's call, but please don't those expressing an opinion to go elsewhere because you don't agree.
I think that rather than worrying about BWC or about straying into 4th edition, Paizo and the playtesters should focus on ways to pump up the awesomeness factor, because that is what will sell books.
Yes, quite so. Ummmm.....
But have you ever considered that the option that pumps up the awesomeness factor for you may be a bummer for someone else.
And who gets to come up with the list of things that are sure to pump it up so this is the list to choose your topics from?
People who keep straying into 4e concepts do so mainly because most of those concepts have been around in some form or fashion in other places. For example, the bloodied condition isn't exactly brand sparking state-of-the-art new. So are you saying that we shouldn't discuss a concept if it was included in 4e?
Take a look at the discussion on paladin or monks multiclassing for example. To me it seems like a given that the multiclassing restriction is part and parcel of those class designs. Yet, evidently, much to my head scratching, there are enough people out there that it's generating more than a few posts. The discusiion is pretty much just that to me as multiclass restricitions would stay in my campaign but I would never think of telling anyone stop wasting time and discuss something else that I think is more important. Because to them, that discusion is important.
If you really truly believe that much with the OP, then you're in the wrong board and playing the wrong game.This just annoys me. I agree with the OP and I don't like being told I'm on the wrong boards. I have a right to my opinion, a right to express it and a right to try to influence the direction I think the product should go. It may not happen that it goes my way, that's Paizo's call, but please don't those expressing an opinion to go elsewhere because you don't agree.
For all its worth... we are all entitled to our opinions as long as we state them in an appropiate manner and the subject matter is in keeping with the forum/thread.
Lewy was discussing the subject of the thread, wasn't being rude/crude/crass and didn't go off topic about the ramification of last weeks elections in bohemia, so... i have to disagree with LazrX and say Lewy posted in the right board.
Agree to disagree... stop the hatemonging.
You are right, my mistake. However, wizards have the clear advantage on number of spell available to them. Not only do they get all 0-level spells, any wizard worth his salt is going to have access to at least twice as many 1st level spells as a sorcerer does. Not only that but a wizard starts getting access to higher level spells faster than sorcerers.
Quite true (I think I covered those in my post). Yet one thing to consider is that there are usually a handful of spells at each level that most arcane casters focus on. Having more than those is great, but often not necessary. Combine that with the fact of possibly picking the wrong spells for the day and the value of wizards can be greatly reduced. True a sorcerer could pick the wrong spells for the entire lifetime of their character, but one thing people tend to forget is that you can use higher level slots for lower level spells.
So even if a sorcerer's 5th level spells aren't that great, there is bound to be something useful (assuming they made some reasonable choices) in their lower level spells. Heck with some metamagic feats this can even be done without a "penalty" (using a higher slot for a lower level spell with a metamagic feat is less of a "waste"). The wizard on the other hand, once he picks the spells for the day is stuck with them. If he only prepared 2 magic missiles but ends up needing 8 of them, well he's stuck. The sorcerer can just keep using higher level slots.
I am not saying that sorcerers are better, but I haven't found them to be any where near the useless class as some think. I think it is just different types of people are attracted to the sorcerer as the wizard. Most people that I've seen play sorcerers didn't like wargaming and so didn't like having to do a bunch of planning at the beginning of the day. Clerics and druids are the same to an extent (some like favored soul better than clerics), but at least those classes have some spontaneous conversions to deal with a day of poor spell choices.
Did that make my stance clearer?
ASEO out
But then there is no need for Pathfinder at all.
In some part, true. But for new adventures and keeping 3.5 growing and not just stopping with the current products I have, Pathfinder is perfect. The way I see it is that even if I don't buy the Pathfinder core books (Which I will, even if only to support Paizo) I should be able to play all the adventures they release with my existing core books. If that changes, I will be a dissapointed.
To me, a Pathfinder Sorcerer shouldn't have any advantages that make them toughter enemies thah the same level NPC sorcerer from say Dungeon 100.
If Sorcerers all get a new number of spells or innate abilities, then when I run the adventure from early 3.5, I'll have to retro fit the NPC sorcerer so that they are on the same playing field as the PC sorcerer...and if that goes for every PC class, then every NPC with PC classes will have to be retrofitted. And that is not backward compatable.
ASEO out
|
|
To me, a Pathfinder Sorcerer shouldn't have any advantages that make them toughter enemies thah the same level NPC sorcerer from say Dungeon 100.
If Sorcerers all get a new number of spells or innate abilities, then when I run the adventure from early 3.5, I'll have to retro fit the NPC sorcerer so that they are on the same playing field as the PC sorcerer...and if that goes for every PC class, then every NPC with PC classes will have to be retrofitted. And that is not backward compatable.
ASEO out
But it is simple to convert a 3.5 character with hero levels to a Pathfinder hero with character levels. Simply add the class features of that class to the existing mechanic. For example, a 5th level sorcerer gets a few bloodline powers and two bonus spells, that's all. The only class that it really can't be done that easily is the barbarian. You can also decide to simply use the NPCs as written and not try and modify them at all. Then when adventures come out that use PFRPG you just use the NPCs in that adventure as written as well. The process of converting is only as difficult as you choose to make it.
|
|
Yes, quite so. Ummmm.....
But have you ever considered that the option that pumps up the awesomeness factor for you may be a bummer for someone else.
Actually I have. That is the whole purpose of these boards, is to ensure that the voices of the consumer are heard. Many people have said the 4th edition, in the end, has turned out to be a good product, but they were turned off by the way the consumer was cut out of the process. I am willing to concede that if my ideas are not popular then they will not make it into the product. However, we all need to concede that PFRPG is not simply going to be a reprint of the 3.5 SRD. If that is what you want, there are products that will give it to you. This is simply just not one of them.
I am willing to concede that if my ideas are not popular then they will not make it into the product. However, we all need to concede that PFRPG is not simply going to be a reprint of the 3.5 SRD. If that is what you want, there are products that will give it to you. This is simply just not one of them.
I don't expect PfRPG to be a reprint of 3.5SRD...
However, I do own all of the WoTC published splatbooks.I don't use everything in them, probably 10-15%.
I expect to have to tweak what I use out of them to fit with PfRPG.
However, if PfRPG does something like get rid of Vancian casting then all the arcanist splatbooks are totally worthless and so I feel that's too radical a change.
But, anyway, that wasn't the purpose of my statement.
It was to remind you that telling people what they are discussing should be discarded for the more important things you believe should be discussed.
There are plenty of threads out there that i gave a once over and don't go back to them because they don't interest me. I don't tell those people to stop discussing and move to an other topic which is what you post seemed to indicate.
If I misinterpetted your post, sorry.
But it is simple to convert a 3.5 character with hero levels to a Pathfinder hero with character levels. Simply add the class features of that class to the existing mechanic. For example, a 5th level sorcerer gets a few bloodline powers and two bonus spells, that's all. The only class that it really can't be done that easily is the barbarian. You can also decide to simply use the NPCs as written and not try and modify them at all. Then when adventures come out that use PFRPG you just use the NPCs in that adventure as written as well. The process of converting is only as difficult as you choose to make it.
So in order to keep my NPCs up to par with the PCs, I'll have to add additional powers to them...A few bloodline traits and 2 extra spells...for all 30 NPC sorcerers levels 5-9(I'm guessing that these higher level guys have to be modded even more) in an adventure...and what about the cave comples filled with several score of Kobold Barbarians.
I'm really not sure how buffing PCs is backward compatable...it feels slightly monty hall. "Waaaa, I never play sorcerers because they aren't powerfull enough...I only want the most powerful PC to play...DMs should have to retro fit their old adventures if they want to challenge my uber PC. or don't and let me slash my way through those old 3.5 NPCz ;-)"
Devils Advocate ASEO out
I'm really not sure how buffing PCs is backward compatable...it feels slightly monty hall. "Waaaa, I never play sorcerers because they aren't powerfull enough...I only want the most powerful PC to play...DMs should have to retro fit their old adventures if they want to challenge my uber PC. or don't and let me slash my way through those old 3.5 NPCz ;-)"
Devils Advocate ASEO out
An alternative might be to come up with a "conversion" scale. Maybe a PfRPG character is considered 2 levels higher (just tossing a value out at random) than its 3.5 counter-part. So for example, for a party of 6th level PfRPG characters you could run an 8th level 3.5 adventure.
I'm really not sure how buffing PCs is backward compatable...it feels slightly monty hall. "Waaaa, I never play sorcerers because they aren't powerfull enough...I only want the most powerful PC to play...DMs should have to retro fit their old adventures if they want to challenge my uber PC. or don't and let me slash my way through those old 3.5 NPCz ;-)"
First I think we need to ask: "Are Pathfinder PCs (much) more powerful than 3.5 PCs?" Certainly I think a Pathfinder party is more durable because of increased hit points and an additional source of clerical healing, but I'm not sure I'd equate endurance with power.
Certain characters will be unarguably more powerful, like a fighter or rogue; they get some extra abilities and have nothing taken away. Others are probably less powerful, like a druid or a conjuration specialist wizard. So it's not clear to me whether your PCs will slash their way though 3.5 opponents. I think the intent is that 3.5 monsters don't need to be converted in order to still be challenging to Pathfinder characters, but I could be making that up.
QUOTE]
First I think we need to ask: "Are Pathfinder PCs (much) more powerful than 3.5 PCs?" Certainly I think a Pathfinder party is more durable because of increased hit points and an additional source of clerical healing, but I'm not sure I'd equate endurance with power.Certain characters will be unarguably more powerful, like a fighter or rogue; they get some extra abilities and have nothing taken away. Others are probably less powerful, like a druid or a conjuration specialist wizard. So it's not clear to me whether your PCs will slash their way though 3.5 opponents. I think the intent is that 3.5 monsters don't need to be converted in order to still be challenging to Pathfinder characters, but I could be making that up.
I think you answered the question quite well. So it sounds like every NPC with class levels will have to be reworked to be on par with PFRPG PCs. Mose will need to become more "durable", while Druids and the rare conjuration specialist wizard will need to be tweeked down.
I doubt the intent of PFRPG is to keep onl the monsters and the maps playable.
However, if this is more like the 1st to 2nd edition change and less like the 2nd to 3ed change, then I'll be happy.
I just still see problems with the percieved "Under powered PC" calling for extra buffs to make the PCs more powerful as the main changes in PFRPG.
In all my years of playing 3.5, There isn't a core class that I haven't seen played to good effect by skilled players. Personally, I prefer sorcerers over wizards.
The kind of thing that I would like to see in PFRPG would be a spell book bard that had some adaptability in their spells so they could have a different set of spells for questing than preforming. Maybe I'll post a thread on that.
Still concerned about my overly ample 3.5 library.
ASEO out
I think you answered the question quite well. So it sounds like every NPC with class levels will have to be reworked to be on par with PFRPG PCs. Mose will need to become more "durable", while Druids and the rare conjuration specialist wizard will need to be tweeked down.
I think you missed my point a little bit. There's at least one guy on this board who is playtesting a 3.5 module using the absolute minimum amount of conversion possible for NPCs & monsters (e.g. using the same HPs, feats, etc.), and he claimed that it's still a reasonable challenge for Pathfinder PCs. So it's debatable that NPCs need to be made more durable at all.
The only definitive comment I've heard is that a 1st level 3.5 module is probably too easy for 1st level Pathfinder PCs.