I think one of the comments made by Paizo was that PRPG might be the version of D&D that 4th Edition players advance too. Why not make this a formal design objective?
This is not totally thought out, but it would go along this line. Try to see if a slight modification of PRPG could make transition easier.Some examples:
1- Actions - I don't see a huge difference between the standard action, movement action, free action of 3.5 and the standard action movement action, minor action from 4.0. Why not just adopt their new methods so it is easy to switch 'up' to PRPG.
2- Movement - 4.0 uses 1 square is always 5'. Rough terrain is always 2 squares. Bursts are always squares. PRPG seems to want to stay with 1-2-1-2 Diagonal movement. And likewise PRPG wants to keep cones and bursts as triangles and circles, not squares. Why not add rough terrain equalling 2 squares (10') to PRGP? Likewise, get rid of the the 5' step and make it a 5' shift. That way if people wish to move up, it is easy to learn the 'more realistic' PRPG rules.
3- Spells - 4.0 uses At-Will, Encounter and Daily powers. PRPG uses the 'more complex' multi-level spell system. But look for ways to make 4.0 system 'forward compatible' to PRPG so it is easy to switch later. Maybe make feats more encounter/at-will power like (as you started to with Combat Feats) so PRPG is seen as a step up.
4-- Likewise, adopt some of Monte's healing based on the character limits, not on the the spell caster ideas. Make the PRPG heaing system the step up from healing bursts, but similar.
Finally, by making it easy to use PRPG with 4.0, it might keep some PRPG customers if they can 'steal what they want with House Rules from 4.0'. Everyone uses House Rules anyway.
P.S. If WotC can steal the Adventure Path concept, we should be able to adopt some of their stuff. I know it is more complex than this, but you get the idea.
|
I think one of the comments made by Paizo was that PRPG might be the version of D&D that 4th Eidtion players advance too. Why not make this a formal design objective?
This is not totally thought out, but it would go along this line. Try to see if a slight modification of PRPG could make transition easier.Some examples:
1- Actions - I don't see a huge difference between the standard action, movement action, free action of 3.5 and the standard action movement action, minor action from 4.0. Why not just adopt their new methods so it is easy to switCH 'up' to PRPG.
2- Movement - 4.0 uses 1 square is always 5'. Rough terrain is always 2 squares. Bursts are always squares. PRPG seems to want to stay with 1-2-1-2 Diagonal movement. And likewise we want to keep cones and bursts as triangle and cirlces, not squares. Why not add rough terrain equalling 2 squares (10') to PRGP. Likewise, get rid of the the 5' step and make it a 5' shift. That way if people wish to move up, it is easy to learn the 'more realistic' PRPG rules.
3- Spells - 4.0 uses At-Will, Encounter and Daily powers. PRPG uses the 'more complex' multi-level spell system. But look for ways to make 4.0 system 'forward compatible' to PRPG so it is easy to switch later. Maybe make feats more encounter/at-will power like (as you started to with Combat Feats) so PRPG is seen as a step up.
Finally, by making it easy to use PRPG with 4.0, it might keep some PRPG customers if they can 'steal what they want with House Rules from 4.0'. Everyone uses House Rules anyway.
P.S. If WotC can steal the Adventure Path concept, we should be able to adopt some of their stuff. I know it is more complex than this, but you get the idea.
Uh-oh. I can feel the explosion of gamer-rage just coming over the horizon! Run Duncan, run for your life!!!!
Rargh!!!
Did you read what I said? Make the PRPG the step up. Make PRGP more complex. Keep the 3.5 things we love, but make it easy for people to upgrade later. The systems are not that incompatible. I am not saying change the things in PRPG that matter. I am saying change the things that DON'T matter.
|
|
Did you read what I said? Make the PRPG the step up. Keep the things we love, but make it easy for people to upgrade later. The systems are not that incompatible. I am not saying change the things that matter. I am saying change the things that DON'T matter.
I'm sorry, did you think that gamer rage was somehow rational? You mentioned changing PRPG to be more like 4E. It doesn't matter how minor the change, or how well-intentioned, the gamer-rage shall be unleashed before people realise exactly what you've said.
Besides which, PRPG is going have a hard enough time being compatible with 3.5 while fixing its most egregious faults without trying to do that and make things in common with 4E (assuming the 4E phrases aren't protected content, which is a possibility).
You got Peanut Butter in my Chocolate! Well you got Chocolate in my Peanut Butter! YUCK!
I'm sorry, did you think that gamer rage was somehow rational? You mentioned changing PRPG to be more like 4E. It doesn't matter how minor the change, or how well-intentioned, the gamer-rage shall be unleashed before people realise exactly what you've said.
Besides which, PRPG is going have a hard enough time being compatible with 3.5 while fixing its most egregious faults without trying to do that and make things in common with 4E (assuming the 4E phrases aren't protected content, which is a possibility).
I got you. I thought you were being totally serious. It was about a 50% chance. Although I agree it might be too much to make happen, I would also like to see PRPG 1.5. Not because of sigificant changes, but I would like to see it live past one publishing.
Contributor
|
I was just following up on Paul's Joke (and I agree with him). The problem is that a) no matter how unimportant a rule is to you, it has become apparent that someone on these boards thinks that rule is the core of what D&D 'really is' to them. and b) any suggestion of making Pathfinder resemble 4E will generate a slew of "If you like 4E go play 4E" and similar comments.
At its heart, your idea is a good one. I just think that it's likely to set a few people off.
|
|
I got you. I thought you were being totally serious. It was about a 50% chance. Although I agree it might be too much to make happen, I would also like to see PRPG 2.0. Not because of sigificant changes, but I would like to see it live past one publishing.
I'm rarely, if ever, totally serious, but I agree it can be hard to tell on messageboards.
At its heart, your idea is a good one. I just think that it's likely to set a few people off.
Maybe you are right. Maybe Jason should make it a design goal and NOT tell anyone. See if we notice. ;p
|
|
So I posted a funny, now I'll address it more seriously.
1) Standard/Move/Minor/Free is a very solid mechanic and should be compatible with either system. I especially like the rachet down they use of Standard->Move->Minor - makes it more clear. Thumbs up on this one.
2) Movement as 1-2-1-2 is going to be tougher. That's built into a number of mechanical items and alot of people get excited about it. We tried 1-1-1-1 in our 3.5 game the last few sessions and it actually worked fine. I see this more as a house rule as it's upon the DM to mitigate the resulting changes.
3) Spells: You're pretty much stuck with this one. There are OGL products out that have alternate magic systems available. I'm sure someone could create an at-will/encounter/daily mechanic within OGL but not sure that's worth an effort. Certainly not for PFRPG.
4) Healing: Adapting some sort of optional healing system is again more of a house rule option. I, personally, like the healing surges because it frees up the Cleric to do more happy-fun Cleric things and less fixing of other people's owies. But not something for base PFRPG.
I'd say most of your items are good house rules. Might be something to turn into a project on a Wiki somewhere.
Pete
2) Movement as 1-2-1-2 is going to be tougher. That's built into a number of mechanical items and alot of people get excited about it. We tried 1-1-1-1 in our 3.5 game the last few sessions and it actually worked fine. I see this more as a house rule as it's upon the DM to mitigate the resulting changes.
I want to keep 1-2-1-2. Just add rough terrain and Shift. I wish I could draw a spreadsheet.
3.500 1-2-1-2 Movement, Circle Bursts, Triangular Cones, 5'Step, No Rough Terrain, Run = Move times Y, Charge = Full Rd Action4.000 1-1-1 Movement, Square Bursts, Square Cones, Shift, Rough Terrain, Run = Move +2, Charge = Standard Move
PRPG 1-2-1-2 Movement, Circle Bursts, Triangular Cones, Shift, Rough Terrain, Run = Move +2, Charge = Standard Move
EDIT: Ok I added somethings.
3) Spells: You're pretty much stuck with this one. There are OGL products out that have alternate magic systems available. I'm sure someone could create an at-will/encounter/daily mechanic within OGL but not sure that's worth an effort. Certainly not for PFRPG.
I don't want to change spells. PRPG uses the more complex 9 level spell progression. I would only want to make some feats that give options in combat so people moving up to PRG are not totally confused.
4) Healing: Adapting some sort of optional healing system is again more of a house rule option. I, personally, like the healing surges because it frees up the Cleric to do more happy-fun Cleric things and less fixing of other people's owies. But not something for base PFRPG.
This one is probably too much. But a bunch of people seemed receptive to Monte's idea. Maybe test it in Beta?
|
Contributor
|
I have to admit that when i played Keep on the Shadowfell, i really wanted to hate the 1-1-1-1 movement and square bursts, but my resolve broke in the first fight. It just didn't actually bother me all that much. There has been talk of importing it to our 3.5 game. I would have never chosen that beforehand.
Yea, I think people are upset over nothing about 1-1-1 movement. I don't think people would notice if it had changed at a time other than 4.0. But my idea still stands that 1-2-1-2 stays in PRPG. We already tried to rock that boat.
|
I think one of the comments made by Paizo was that PRPG might be the version of D&D that 4th Edition players advance too.
Linky? That information contradicts their previous statements that one of the reasons they're developing PfRPG is that the 3.x system worked best with the stories they wanted to tell.
I think one of the comments made by Paizo was that PRPG might be the version of D&D that 4th Edition players advance too.
Linky? That information contradicts their previous statements that one of the reasons they're developing PfRPG is that the 3.x system worked best with the stories they wanted to tell.
I don't know how to make linkys. http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/dnd/lisaStevenThought Exercise
So why couldn't Paizo, IF we were to stay with 3.5, get a regular influx of younger gamers who got weaned into the industry by 4th edition, but got bored and started looking for a more complicated game, or perhaps heard about this amazing campaign setting called Pathfinder Chronicles? I don't really understand why everyone thinks that IF a company stuck with 3.5, that it was like they were stuck in a hermetically sealed room or something.
To remember the context, this was months ago. A lot has changed and she did title this thing a "Thought Exercise" but I think we now know she was talking about PRPG.
Anyways, I don't see conflict with their goals. I was talking about changing the stuff that doesn't affect what 'worked best with the stories they wanted to tell'. I was talking about changing stuff that is trivial. What difference does a free 5' step versus the 1 square shift have to do with story telling? Now whether the 5' shift (notice I did not say one square) is reverse compatible I am trying to get my hands around.
I know the Paizo plate is full. I just wanted to bring it up again. And this is political as CHELIAX. If Paizo was forced to choose, make the 3.5 camp happy. But if you can prepare PRPG for a future market, I am in favor of it. Lisa & Jason, I would also love to help play test PRPG version Charlie; wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
P.S. If anyone says that changing a 5' step to a 5' shift won't allow role playing in PRPG, I am going to summon Sebastian.
|
|
I don't know how to make linkys. http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/dnd/lisaStevenThought ExerciseSo why couldn't Paizo, IF we were to stay with 3.5, get a regular influx of younger gamers who got weaned into the industry by 4th edition, but got bored and started looking for a more complicated game, or perhaps heard about this amazing campaign setting called Pathfinder Chronicles? I don't really understand why everyone thinks that IF a company stuck with 3.5, that it was like they were stuck in a hermetically sealed room or something.
Huh. Interesting. Well, I did post a question on how to demo PfRPG to newbs who've only played 4E. It's still way too early to tell if they'll find the former's more complex system that enticing (e.g., 1-2-1 step, saving throw DCs, disparate class BABs, ALL the conditions for AoO, etc.)
Remember in the 3.5 DMG how there was actually a section on how to improve speed of play? I believe it mentioned (among other things) rolling damage and crit confirmation at the same time as the attack roll, etc.
I mention that because many of the ideas here could be accomplished in a similar fashion. In a "behind the mechanics" sidebar, the suggestion could be made to use 1-1-1-1 movement and squaring the circle on bursts and cones. It would note that this benefits both the players and the monsters which is what ensure that it is fair.
As for the Standard->Move->Minor actions, I absolutely agree that this goes a long way towards resolving some of the misunderstanding that took place at-the-table in 3.x. It's changes like that which originally had me holding out hope that 4E would deliver everything I wanted. Yeah... so it didn't, but that doesn't mean I can't use parts of it that do work in my own game.
Now I don't know the legality of such matters, but I have often seen tutorials included with software package that detail upgrade paths based around where likely users would be immigrating from. Perhaps the Paizo site could have such a PDF file available for download that intros a 4E player to PathfinderRPG and explains the differences. In fact, in the interest of advertising, I'd imagine such a free, easy-to-follow document (along with a sheet of paper inside the PathfinderRPG cover directing 4E players to check the site) would be a great sales aide.
A key component of such a guide would be a concise, step-by-step guide on how to create a new character along with the necessary chapter references and even the page numbers of important charts (like the XP table or equipment chart). The 4E PHB does a much better job of this than in prior versions, though I still think there could be room for improvement.
In addition, another page would be needed on how to multiclass a character (remember the 3.x way is radically different from 4E). I made some suggestions on how to improve this process in this thread and I think it's a critical issue for PRPG to address, especially in light of the changes to multiclassing in 4E!
Movement: 1-1-1-1 makes it more boardgame-like, don't want it, don't like it. 1-2-1-2 is far more geometrical correct on a square battlemap. Keep it that way, it is more realistic.
Spells: ok, if you cast a fireBALL, it should be ... you know ... round/circular, it ain't a firesquare or firecube, plus it would do away with something that has been with (A)D&D since the beginning and is IMO "sacred". Plus, on the physical side, I've never heard of an explosion, be it grenade or whatnot, to be cubic. A gout of flame from a flamethrower does not go straight, at least not totally, otherwise it would be kinda pointless and you could better shoot a gun into a place, same effect much cheaper ammunition. Physics should always be taken into account. So, hell no!
Actions: It could use some streamlining...
Movement: 1-1-1-1 makes it more boardgame-like, don't want it, don't like it. 1-2-1-2 is far more geometrical correct on a square battlemap. Keep it that way, it is more realistic.
Hey, did write it wrong or something? I am saying keep 1-2-1-2 Movement in PRPG. I have to take this as poor writing on my part because half the people got me wrong. The idea is the 'simple 4.0 version' is 1-1-1-1 Movement and square area effects. The 'complex PRGP version' is 1-2-1-2 Movement and rounded area of effects.
And to reiterate; 'simple 4.0 version' is At-Will, Encounter and Daily Power. The 'complex PRPG version' is 9 level spell progression.
Everyone so far seems to like the 'action streamling'. If we have copyright issues, why don't we just define the actions different. Use the 3.5 mechanic of Full Round, Standard Action, Movement Action and Free Action. Maybe say open door, draw weapon and quickened spells are free actions. Add Interrupt Actions as either Readied Actions or 'Immediate Actions'. (Did I remember that right? My bad memory is reason enough to change.)
The 'simple 4.0 version' is Standard, Move & Minor Action. The 'complex PRPG version' is Full Round, Staged Round and Interrupting Actions. The proposed PRPG version is below:
Full Round Action (including 5' step w/o AoO) - [I think we need Full Rd Action for reverse compatibility]
or Staged Round Actions
Standard Action (Various, Charge)
Movement Action (Move, 5' Step w/o AoO, Run[Straight Move +2])
Free Action (Swift Action, Open Door, Draw Sword, Drink Potion, More work needed here) - [I guess Free Action might need a new name]
and finally Interrrupting Actions
Readied Action
Immediate Action
OK, I read ya now :)
|
|
ok ok i admit i just read a couple of lines of the frist posts...
jajaja but hey the politic of using other more advanced RPGs to "graduate" from WotC DnD, was already used by White Wolf with the 2nd Edition of Exalted... i loved the idea... it was so low, so much "hit you in the face with belbet globe with an iron inside" that i could not stop laughting...
aside of that my only regret was i never had 3.5 books to change for my Exaled copy... and i have an exalted copy already... (never passed from 3.0 until i meet Pathfinder... i have to give credit to them for that, the only thing i ever ever liked about 3.5 was the Ranger, and Monte Cook's Ranger was better)
Think of the marketing campaign! The anti-4.0 crowd would love it.
Step up from 4.0! Play the real D&D! All Orcs are not meant to be the same! Mystra still lives!
KaeYoss can think of something dirty for us.
Excuse me?
|
|
I like the ideas presented. I am a proponent of PFRPG = D&D 3.75. Fix up the issues with 3.5, adopt some of the 4th rules/standards as appropriate. I get the feeling that with 4th ed, WotC did try to incorporate some of the more common house rules along with trying to make it a more streamlined system.
The movement system 1-2-1-2 or 1-1-1-1 is not a big deal for me.
I really like the idea of promoting Pathfinder as an upgrade from 4e.
If we want to sell Pathfinder as an Upgrade, we'd probably have to shy away from calling it 3.5 or 3.75 or even 3P. Just leave it at "Pathfinder: Advanced Fantasy Roleplaying" or something to that effect and leave the numbers out of it. It doesn't need to borrow anything from 4e to make it less complicated, Advanced = More Complicated.
Excuse me?
Oops. Sorry. I am bad with names and I must have gotten the name wrong. I was on a different thread and someone was making comment about a 'Babes of Golarion - X-rated Calendar.' It was one of you frequent posters. My bad. I can not even find the thread now to see who I confused you with. Sorry again.
Excuse me?Oops. Sorry. I am bad with names and I must have gotten the name wrong. I was on a different thread and someone was making comment about a 'Babes of Golarion - X-rated Calendar.' It was one of you frequent posters. My bad. I can not even find the thread now to see who I confused you with. Sorry again.
Ah. I see where you're coming from. I thought the dirty part referred to something derogatory, since the rest of your "war cry" didn't consist of X-rated dirty stuff.
The X-rated Calender was indeed my post.
So you want to show that PF is D&D for grownups? If the mods set the profanity filter down to the "World of Darkness" setting, I can write you a nice introduction. Otherwise, get a picture of Seoni. One where you can see all her tattoos ;-)
Then mention some of the nice stuff from Hook Mountain (or Edge of Anarchy, for that matter), to make it clear that Pathfinder isn't for Micky Mouse's Phantastic Adventure or anything. Sex, Drugs, and Confirmation Rolls!