While I don't want to be considered as inflamatory as some other folks on these boards, I have to say that I won't be pursuing the Pathfinder RPG.
I agree with the opinion I've seen voiced: namely that the Pathfinder RPG has not lived up to its promise to be the place to go for current 3.5 players.
What I see instead is a new game. Sure, it's compatible with 3.5 - sort of - if you're willing to redo tons of info, willing to learn a whole new skill and feat system, memorize tons of subtle differences in most of the spells, figure out all of the new powers of the core classes, and all of the other stuff that turns Pathfinder into an entirely different game.
I'm sure it's exciting for Jason to be given the helm of a new game, but everyone should realize that is IS a new game, just as 4E is a new game. 3.5E was significantly more compatible with 3.0E than Pathfinder is with 3.5E, and that means my entire library goes out the window, along with my three-year old epic campaign and the eight-year old convention campaign that I help run.
Alas, I don't see that happening. While I continue to wish Paizo luck, this is far too drastic. Frankly, I'm crushed - I was truly hoping for something that would fragment D&D less, rather than more, and I was eagerly anticipating that Paizo would be at the forefront of a popular effort to keep 3.5e alive in the face of WoTC stuffing 4E down our throats when 3.5 had been out about 5 years.
The killer is that I love the Pathfinder adventure path, and once they switch that away from 3.5E and to this new game system they're designing, I'll have to drop that too, for it's way too much of an investment for something that will be useless in terms of game-usable material. I won't be able to use that as source for my games any more than I can use AD&D or 4E as material for my games. Ideas, sure, but I'm not paying $20/month for ideas.
So, farewell, I think.
(There, see? No Nazi references, I didn't make any off color comments, and very little of it was ALL IN CAPS!!!!! :-)
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I think you are overreacting.
The changes do not seem that extreme to me. You WILL be able to run a Pathfinder AP with 3.5 characters with little or no problems, even after we switch the rule system over in 2009.
I do not think the changes are so drastic that there is more of a difference between 3.5 and "3.P" than there was between 3.0 and 3.5. I don't think conversion is that difficult.
I don't think there is any reason to feel "crushed".
But, of course, YMMV.
From the Beta we go into the Open Playtest in earnest, and we'll be paying very close attention to things that the audience feels pull the game too far from its 3.5 roots.
If you feel it necessary to move on all I can say is thanks for sticking with us this long.
But I really don't think it's as bad as all that.
Certainly there are going to be people who prefer regular 3.5 to the new, "improved" Pathfinder version. Don't worry about running out of adventure paths and other module just yet, though -- you can still stock up on 3.5 Paizo stuff for another year before they switch systems!
The changes do not seem that extreme to me. You WILL be able to run a Pathfinder AP with 3.5 characters with little or no problems, even after we switch the rule system over in 2009.
I don't run them, but I mine them extensively for creatures, items, and other such, as I write all my own material. But that's a good point, modules and adventures tend to be more forgiving than rules.
I do not think the changes are so drastic that there is more of a difference between 3.5 and "3.P" than there was between 3.0 and 3.5. I don't think conversion is that difficult.
I don't think there is any reason to feel "crushed".
Well, I haven't gone anywhere yet. We're still deciding what to do with our convention campaign, but our fear is that Pathfinder will be different enough from 3.5E for people to resist change, or will be drastic enough that they'll just want to make the jump to 4E.
Without any epic material for Pathfinder, there's no reason to switch my home campaign yet - and a decent set of epic Pathfinder material would be a strong incentive for me. In fact, I'd probably have more input in that regard than I do for the non-epic stuff.
Anyways, I appreciate the reply!
If you feel it necessary to move on all I can say is thanks for sticking with us this long.
But I really don't think it's as bad as all that.
I'm hoping!
|
I have some of the feelings the OP has expressed, but not nearly to that degree.
From the Beta we go into the Open Playtest in earnest, and we'll be paying very close attention to things that the audience feels pull the game too far from its 3.5 roots.
That is great to hear, while I am a huge Paizo fan I do beleive the changes have gone too far. But I look foward running with the Beta to see just how much game play has changed and how difficult converting entire modules will be.
I don't think the changes are very big at all.I have been useing it with 3.0 stuff as well as 3.5 .It really isn't all that big a change all in all
|
Without any epic material for Pathfinder, there's no reason to switch my home campaign yet - and a decent set of epic Pathfinder material would be a strong incentive for me. In fact, I'd probably have more input in that regard than I do for the non-epic stuff.
As another fan of epic material, I strongly encourage you to stay on the boards and make your preference known. Two of the stated reasons why we haven't seen epic material from Pathfinder is that its 1) more complicated and thus requires much more time/space to do correctly 2) its a VERY small fan base that would buy epic material from Paizo.
I fervently hope that we can show Paizo there are sufficient numbers of people willing to support Epic Paizo material. Hopefully, they would then do both a PRPG Epic book and an Epic AP. So far they've said both are possibilities, but far off.
As for the convertability. As another epic loving DM, I can honestly tell you I have a very easy time converting 3.0/3.5 stuff to the Alpha rules, and they will only get CLOSER to each other. So please, use the beta for playtesting, and hopefully, the epic fans will get what we want: Epic done right, epic done by Paizo.
Sincerely,
FP
|
|
I'm a curmudgeon. While I was excited by all the prospects of change for the better that Pathfinder offers, I feel that there are too many changes for the sake of change, and I agree that is a problem.
But, we're not even in the Beta. We certainly are not in the final product. I'll reserve final judgment for a final product. This is much different than 4.0. Here, not only is the product NOT finalized - we as the target audience have full access to the designers to recommend changes based on our playtesting. There is no 'secret' to Pathfinder like there was with 4.0. The fact that it is so open is both refreshing and a source of hope for me for it's quality.
PS - After Pathfinder is well established as a sequel to 3.5, I wouldn't mind a Pathfinder 2.0 in a few years - one that occurs when it is TIME to change, not just to 'relaunch' everything because core book sales had slowed.
I respectfully disagree with Your assertion that the Pathfinder RPG is NOT the place for 3.5 players.
Disclaimer: While Your decision to leave is really no one else's business, as an act it serves to make a statement against PFRPG. Therefore, while I wouldn't deign to try and talk someone into staying, I do feel the need to make a statement of my own to defend PFRPG...
While our current 3.5 rulebooks are not going to undergo spontaneous combustion, there are two primary issues we face:
1)- No more brand new 3.5 rulebooks means there is suddenly a limited and ever-diminishing supply of rulebooks for new players or for those of us who need to replace ours. While ebay remains an option, the lack of retail presence severely hurts the chances for new blood.
2)- Many 3.5 players think that there's a good bit about 3.5 that has grown long-in-the-tooth or could really use maintenance. Yet having to house-rule everything fragments things even further.
When looking at other currently published alternatives, IMO the Pathfinder RPG is the only one sharing enough compatability with the default expectations of 3.5 adventure design and player/party composition to cut it as a replacement.
True20? No HP, no XP is a pretty radical departure.
Iron Heroes? Real men don't use magic. So much for my campaign.
Arcana Unearthed? Probably the closest to an alternative there is. However, IMO the changes and additions here require a bigger conversion commitment than PFRPG (i.e. flattening the power-curve from 20 to 25 levels for example).
With that in mind, what other place is there for the 3.5 "faithful"?
In terms of the proposed changes in PFRPG, by and large I agree with them. More importantly, nothing I have seen so far makes me feel like it would cause any additional preparation time as a DM were I to use a "standard" d20 adventure. Time increases caused by conversion (which occur mostly at the character/NPC creation level) are offset by time savings in the Skills and Combat departments — particularly at the table.
I am someone who felt that 3.5 really needed some thorough maintenance and that 4E* wasn't best-suited to the sort of stories that I want to share. (* This being after I was an early supporter of 4E due to my frustration with 3.5's shortcomings.) For that reason, I returned to these boards (after having once been driven away by 4E-hate), because I see PFRPG as the best chance for the continuation of the sort of roleplaying game that I have grown to love over the last 16 years.
Now I do understand concerns over the Epic rules. However, until such time as all of us here can lend our input to help Paizo craft a better version of them, I don't see how my current Epic Level Handbook has become irrelevant beyond repair.
The changes I’d like to see to 3.5 could easily be put in a pamphlet, so I’m probably not going to leap all over the PFRPG either, but regardless, you’d need a heck of a lot of stump remover to get me out of here. I haven’t liked everything Paizo has put out, but I’ve always like something. Mine what you like, discard what you don’t, and if you are me, bleat about what parts specifically are OGL. ;)
While I don't want to be considered as inflamatory as some other folks on these boards, I have to say that I won't be pursuing the Pathfinder RPG.
I agree with the opinion I've seen voiced: namely that the Pathfinder RPG has not lived up to its promise to be the place to go for current 3.5 players.
What I see instead is a new game. Sure, it's compatible with 3.5 - sort of - if you're willing to redo tons of info, willing to learn a whole new skill and feat system, memorize tons of subtle differences in most of the spells, figure out all of the new powers of the core classes, and all of the other stuff that turns Pathfinder into an entirely different game.
I had a lot of the same feelings as you did; there are definitely some things in the current alpha I feel go too far. BUT there is still time to rein in what I see as overzealousness (no doubt well-intentioned; after all designers like to DESIGN thins) on Jason's part.
Nothing is written in "stone" until August 2009.
That is great to hear, while I am a huge Paizo fan I do beleive the changes have gone too far.
Some of the changes in alpha were deliberately pushed too far, to see what people would think of them. I don't have a quote, but I remember Jason (or someone else from Paizo) saying that the final product will probably be a lot tamer than the alphas.
An example is combat feats. The 1-per-round aspect will be gone in beta. There will still be "combat feats", but that will just be the descriptor for feats a fighter can take as bonus feats.
What I see instead is a new game.
I don't see that. I wouldn't even call it a new edition. The game is still compatible. You can run PF monsters with 3e, use 3e feats in PF, mix classes, all that.
Sure, it's compatible with 3.5 - sort of - if you're willing to redo tons of info
You don't even have to. I know I won't throw away my Monster Manuals 2-5 even though monsters there have spot and listen.
willing to learn a whole new skill and feat system
I wouldn't call the skill system whole new. The Alpha 1 system was, but that was shot down. The new system is very easy to learn (I'd say 5 minutes if you're slow) and a lot easier than the old. And, unless you have cross-class skills, the final check modifier won't change (if you do have cc skills, it will just go up.
And the feat system is still the old - except that you get a couple of feats more than before. The Combat Feats as they're now will be gone with Beta (not that it was hard to learn: You can use only one combat feat per round. Another 5 minutes if you take it slow).
I'm sure it's exciting for Jason to be given the helm of a new game, but everyone should realize that is IS a new game, just as 4E is a new game.
Come on, that's just not fair: PF's changes aren't nearly as big as 4e's. You still have skill points, feats still serve the same purpose, classes still work the same (even if they got some extra abilities), there's still Saves, AC/FF/T, BAB, and spells as we know them.
I feel I can easily take any 3e or 3.5e adventure or supplement and use it with Pathfinder.
The killer is that I love the Pathfinder adventure path, and once they switch that away from 3.5E and to this new game system they're designing, I'll have to drop that too, for it's way too much of an investment for something that will be useless in terms of game-usable material.
They're saying that it will be backwards compatible, and the way things are now, I'm convinced it's true.
|
|
I can't add much more then what KaeYoss already said but I will say one thing...
figure out all of the new powers of the core classes
Take a look at the 3.0 Ranger, then take a look at the 3.5 ranger. You can't honestly tell me they're the same. Paizo has done for all the classes what Wizards did for the Ranger.
I am personally very happy with the direction PRPG is going. It is definitely backwards compatible so far and it is still the same game. As for the changes, for the most part they seem absolutely necessary for me. Note here that backwards compatible does not mean that they will be exactly the same, at least thatt's the way I get it.
And it was pretty easy for me to learn the "new" system. I don't sympathise with what you say about the trouble converting 3.5 to 3.P
I can't disagree with what you say about the level range playability sweet spot... I think PRPG is doing some things about it (starting HP, at-will cantrips/orisons, etc), but it could be improved.
Which part of "open playtest" and "nothing is finalized" has not been clearly communicated here?
Pathfinder RPG is still in developement so I think it's premature to duck out now.
And, quite frankly, who else gives enough of a damn about us to make their stuff 3.5 compatible at all? Not WotC. Necromancer is going whole hog for 4E.
So where are you going to go?
Stick around and see the end product. Also, if there's things you don't like find the relevant forum and thread and start posting. You might find yourself making a difference.
|
Creative Director
|
I would actually agree with the thought that "some things in the PF RPG go too far" from 3.5, actually. Several of those drastic steps have been ramped back already in the beta, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more of them ramped back in the final rules. Over the next year or so, I know for sure that I'm going to be running and playing and doing a lot of playtests of the Pathfinder RPG, and I'll certainly be looking at the parts of the rules that I think don't mesh well with the game already.
THAT SAID: I also think that it's not as different a game as one might think. The vast majority of the changes have been additive, as in new options added to the game, rather than having old options taken away. If, for example, the concept of sorcerer bloodlines isn't for you... it's a simple enough matter to throw them all out while keeping just the arcane bloodline (which is pretty much supposed to be the "standard" bloodline that sorcerers in 3.5 were using).
And THAT said... if you feel that we've gone too far with changes, we ABSOLUTELY want to hear about it. After all, the driving force behind the Pathfinder RPG is to preserve the style of gameplay you find today in Pathfinder's Adventure Paths and modules. If the new game doesn't let us do APs like Rise of the Runelrods or modules like Entombed with the Pharaohs, then we built the wrong game.
And finally... keep in mind that we ARE sticking with 3.5 all the way up through August of 2009. A lot of things can change in 14 months...
James, could you give us a few hints to what some of the changes are?
|
My impression was that Alpha was the place to try all the really radical changes. Toss out ideas and see what happens. A few things depart quite a bit, true. But this is the Alpha release.
As JJ said, I expect the Beta to come closer in line to the 3.5 rules.
A lot of the class changes I think are awesome, but rather far from their roots. I could support the changes cause they are cool, or support retruning closer to their roots.
Some feats got butchered, some rules are a bit clunky. But this is the Alpha.
Knowing the quality and just the talent at Paizo, Beta will be pretty darn good. The final version will be what I was hoping 4E was going to be.
I'd say stick around, be a part of the discussion, and influence the direction of the game. Don't be passive aggressive. Just be aggressive and dig in deep and contribute to the discussion. We need voices and opinions to be heard if this is going to be the game we all want it to be.
While I don't want to be considered as inflamatory as some other folks on these boards, I have to say that I won't be pursuing the Pathfinder RPG.
What I see instead is a new game. Sure, it's compatible with 3.5 - sort of - if you're willing to redo tons of info, willing to learn a whole new skill and feat system, memorize tons of subtle differences in most of the spells, figure out all of the new powers of the core classes, and all of the other stuff that turns Pathfinder into an entirely different game.
So, farewell, I think.
Sorry to hear it's not for you.
But before you go I have to ask- have you actually tried converting things over for your campaign and running it under Paizo rules or are you just looking at the new stuff and assuming it's going to take a lot of work to convert?
I've been running an ongoing campaign for 2 years and converting things over is a snap. It took very little time at all to. And even if it was hard to convert, my players love it and want to play it, SO I WOULD DO IT FOR THEM. In the end it's your players that matter. Do what they want, not what's easiest for you.
Just my 2 cents. take it as you will.
My impression was that Alpha was the place to try all the really radical changes. Toss out ideas and see what happens. A few things depart quite a bit, true. But this is the Alpha release.
I agree, It is best to place everything on the table then cut away items that do not fit.
It may also be wise that if there are certain controversial additions that these be optional variants. That may be the key to making this a more universal system. Nobody is going to agree on every rule change. The game should be easily customizable depending on the parameters of each individual campaign.|
|
I'd like to make a suggestion to the folks who feel that Pathfinder is going too far away from 3.5.
Don't convert. Seriously.
And no, I'm not telling you not to participate in the playtest. Far from it, actually. Instead, what I'm suggesting is that you take Pathfinder adventures and run them with 3.5 characters. For now, you can use the fan conversions of RotRL or CotCT that have already shown up, not to mention the inevitable SD ones when they appear. (Once the Beta comes out, though, I'd like to start seeing original Pathfinder adventures showing up, as fan work or teaser material or whatever.) Tell us what elements aren't working for you as a GM - what don't you understand, what is too difficult to bridge - and what is translating just fine.
For instance, I suspect that a wizard with a series of SLAs may look weird, but if the DCs are provided and the spells are called things you recognize, you'll still be able to run that NPC just fine. On the other hand, rage points and rage powers might be more difficult to deal with - or maybe not. The Paizo statbox almost includes raging stats - maybe you just don't need to worry about the rest of it.
It's a viewpoint that is vitally necessary to Paizo's long-term goal of supporting the APs, which represent their most reliable and popular material. It's also, at the moment, the least available viewpoint out there, because the playtesters are almost entirely of the early-adopter mindset. So be that voice for us. Don't walk away - stick around, and help us make Pathfinder what we want it to be. We'll all be better off for it.
|
Director of Games
|
Hey there Everybody,
I can certainly understand the notion that some aspects have gone a little far. They were "pushed" to see where the envelope was. Much of that "pushing" has showed me where the boundaries are and were I can push a little farther. That is the great thing about this process. Are we going to make a game that pleases everyone? No. But I can aim for making a game that pleases most folks. I hope that you will stick around with us for the ride.
I gotta get back to the Beta...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
I don't see that. I wouldn't even call it a new edition. The game is still compatible. You can run PF monsters with 3e, use 3e feats in PF, mix classes, all that.
What I see instead is a new game.
The biggest change, IMO, between PRPG and 3.x is the CMB and the application of conditions especially grapple.
I'm sure it's exciting for Jason to be given the helm of a new game, but everyone should realize that is IS a new game, just as 4E is a new game.
Come on, that's just not fair: PF's changes aren't nearly as big as 4e's. You still have skill points, feats still serve the same purpose, classes still work the same (even if they got some extra abilities), there's still Saves, AC/FF/T, BAB, and spells as we know them.
As a DM prepping to run a 4E campaign, the change between 3.x/PRPG and 4E are as drastic as 3.x/PRPG and True20. Interestingly, it's a lot easier to convert a 4E PC -- especially spell-casters -- into True20 and vice versa than either to 3.x/PRPG.
If nothing else, think of Pathfinder RPG as "Unearthed Arcana II". Use the changes that you like and ignore the rest. My group has adopted some of the alternate rules from Unearthed Arcana (skill points and turning undead). I'm not sure that we will switch to the final PF skill points/turn undead versions or not (I still like the UA rules), but we will probably use most of the rest.
Instead, what I'm suggesting is that you take Pathfinder adventures and run them with 3.5 characters.
This is going to be my plan - run the adventures as written, and do skills and CMB adjustments on the fly.
|
|
Here's the rhetorical question I asked a lotta folks after the mags were cancelled that wanted to get a refund instead of the *Pathfinder Charter* tag: Are you never going to buy D&D stuff again?
I understand there will be alot of folks who aren't happy with Paizo's final product. But will those folks really not buy gaming stuff anymore?
I think the questions you have to ask yourself are 1} What is the best gaming product/ gaming system out there? and 2} What company is most likely to respond to its customers.
In case you missed it, Erik Mona responded to this question 9 minutes after the OP. The EiC and Lead Designer have also posted. And this is not unusual.
Are you really not going to buy anything else?
-W. E. Ray
OP,
I am running a 3.5 adventure as is (Rise of the Runelords), using Pathfinder rules.
No problems so far. The only thing that I have had to do is calculate the CMB for the opponents, which is a snap.
XP, I just look at the table (with them already having calculated the XP for various party sizes, it is very fast).
So, I would say that Pathfinder is very close (backwards compatible).
Like the others have said, stick around, and speak up with your concerns. You have a chance to influence the course of the game.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
The killer is that I love the Pathfinder adventure path, and once they switch that away from 3.5E and to this new game system they're designing, I'll have to drop that too, for it's way too much of an investment for something that will be useless in terms of game-usable material. I won't be able to use that as source for my games any more than I can use AD&D or 4E as material for my games.
Right now, we've got several threads in the playtest forum where people are using the Pathfinder RPG to run 3.5 products, and pretty much all of them seem to be having a very easy time with it.
In August '09, when we begin publishing our products using the Pathfinder RPG rules, one of our goals is to make sure that you can run those products using the 3.5 rules as easily as those folks are running 3.5 adventures under the Pathfinder RPG Alpha.
So even if we can't convince you to try out the Pathfinder RPG, I hope you'll at least try using our PRPG products with the 3.5 rules before you choose to move on.
Just to point out to some folks that the OPer said that he was not leaving this moment, he realized that Paizo will continue to produce quality 3.5 products for another year. He was just stated at the point when they switch he would not likely continue purchasing products.
I think the questions you have to ask yourself are 1} What is the best gaming product/ gaming system out there?
For me and mine, 3.5 is. That is why when Paizo put up that survey a while back, the option I chose was "3.5, you can take my core books from my cold dead hands". That statement was true for WotC and 4e and it is equally true for Paizo and PfRPG.
and 2} What company is most likely to respond to its customers.
No company is capable of giving all of its customers what they want. How many of the people that are currently excited about PfRPG would still be if in the end the only change from 3.5 was the skill system? What if all the classes, magic, combat, races, and feats converted back to 3.5? Because that is about the level of change I am willing to tolerate. So would you be as excited with my level of change as you expect me to be with yours?
Are you really not going to buy anything else?
Well considering that there are lots of 3.5 products, even from just Paizo, that I do not yet own, no I intend to purchase items in the future. But what I don't intend to purchase is items that don't have "crunch" that I want to use. Could I convert stuff? Sure, but at that point, why do I need their material, I could just create the stuff whole clothe. I don't purchase gaming products so I can do MORE work, but less.
While our current 3.5 rulebooks are not going to undergo spontaneous combustion, there are two primary issues we face:
1)- No more brand new 3.5 rulebooks means there is suddenly a limited and ever-diminishing supply of rulebooks for new players or for those of us who need to replace ours. While ebay remains an option, the lack of retail presence severely hurts the chances for new blood.
Of course if you end up going with PfRPG, you will then have to toss out your old rule books (figuratively at least), because PfPRG rule books and 3.5 core rule books will not work together. What skill list do you use? What feat description? What spells and/or spell like abilities? Will this elf player use 3.5 and that elf player use PfRPG? It just won't work together, you'll have to pick one or the other. Some people have suggested that the changes aren't much different than what you saw in the WotC splat books. Perhaps, but when I bought Complete Warrior, I didn't have to make all the other players toss their 3.5 PHB and buy Complete Warrior, just so I could use it.
2)- Many 3.5 players think that there's a good bit about 3.5 that has grown long-in-the-tooth or could really use maintenance. Yet having to house-rule everything fragments things even further.
Change for change's sake is rarely a good idea in the long run. Many 3.5 players also don't feel the need to purchase the newest and shinest product that has come out, hence the lack of conversion to 4e. I would also suggest that if you know there are 1,000s of different ways people do things, it is better to continue to produce products using a system that each of those 1,000s are derived from, then producing products that use one of those 1,000s of ways of doing things. Do I use houserules? Sure I do. Would I like to see everyone use my houserules everywhere? I am not entirely sure, heck I change my houserules. Would I purchse a product that was your's or anyone else's collection of houserules? Not a chance.
This being after I was an early supporter of 4E due to my frustration with 3.5's shortcomings.
That's really the point. PfRPG isn't being created for the 3.5 fan. Comments about how core books will go out of print and such are a red herring. It is for the people that don't want either 4e or 3.5, or who want an alternative to 4e. Look at the combat manuevers. They haven't simplified jack-or-squat, and jack just left. Using PfRPG, I have to now go and look at charts and tables to find out what it means if I win by 5 or 8 or 23 or whatever. "Well you won, but only by 7, so that just means you can't really stop them but just inconvience them a little." That isn't simplier, but it is more into what some folk want.
|
|
How many of the people that are currently excited about PfRPG would still be if in the end the only change from 3.5 was the skill system? What if all the classes, magic, combat, races, and feats converted back to 3.5? Because that is about the level of change I am willing to tolerate.
Let me ask you something, pres man. Let's say that Paizo listened to you, and released a new hardcover that did, in fact, completely reprint the 3.5 SRD, except for the skill system changes. Nothing else was different.
Would you buy it? Would you actually be willing to set down $35 or $40 for a book with only a different skill list in it?
Would you expect anyone else to do so?
I don't mean to diss your position, and I realize that your argument isn't really intended to suggest that Paizo should listen to you, per se, but I think this is a really important point that keeps getting ignored or overlooked by the contingent that thinks things are changing too much: Pathfinder has to be different from 3.5, or else printing it will be financial suicide. The people who are genuinely, utterly, and completely satisfied with 3.5 won't pick up Pathfinder no matter what, because they already have the books they want. Pathfinder's only chance for success is to appeal to those who like most of 3.5, but who want to see widespread, if minor, improvements made - enough improvements to actually justify the sticker price of the book, while staying close to the elements of 3.5 that made us decide not to switch to 4E in the first place.
In the long run, things may be different, and Pathfinder may actually be able to draw genuine "new blood," but for now, Pathfinder's audience almost certainly going to be 3.5 enthusiasts who wanted a 4E that improved on 3.5, rather than tossed it out the window. That audience is the one that Pathfinder has to target, in order to make sure that its survival is assured.
The other thing that we should remember here is that Pathfinder's role in Paizo's overall business model is to support their bread-and-butter product line: the APs. Paizo would very much like for Pathfinder to be a success, but what really matters to them is the continued success of the Adventure Paths, and that's why I suggested those who, like you, don't want pretty much any changes whatsoever should not convert, but try to run Pathfinder adventures with 3.5 rules, to see what happens. That's the viewpoint that Paizo needs to make sure that this whole project will ultimately a success, and it's both vital and currently horribly underrepresented around here.
Of course if you end up going with PfRPG, you will then have to toss out your old rule books (figuratively at least), because PfPRG rule books and 3.5 core rule books will not work together. What skill list do you use? What feat description? What spells and/or spell like abilities? Will this elf player use 3.5 and that elf player use PfRPG? It just won't work together, you'll have to pick one or the other. Some people have suggested that the changes aren't much different than what you saw in the WotC splat books. Perhaps, but when I bought Complete Warrior, I didn't have to make all the other players toss their 3.5 PHB and buy Complete Warrior, just so I could use it.While our current 3.5 rulebooks are not going to undergo spontaneous combustion, there are two primary issues we face:
1)- No more brand new 3.5 rulebooks means there is suddenly a limited and ever-diminishing supply of rulebooks for new players or for those of us who need to replace ours. While ebay remains an option, the lack of retail presence severely hurts the chances for new blood.
I'm not sure what Your purpose in quoting me was, but I think You missed my point: the lack of a 3.5 compatible retail presence for new players. Unless a new player acquires a used 3.5 PHB, they will not have a core rulebook to toss out figuratively or literally.
To address the new point that You raised...
If I myself use PFRPG to run my own game, I will hold onto my 3.5 rulebooks just as I have my 2nd Ed materials and the (currently unused) 4E core books on my desk. They'll be useful should I be invited to play with a group using one of those systems... Nevermind the fact that I'm sentimental and wouldn't eBay them anyway.
As for the other players in my group, their exiting 3.5 PHBs will work fine for the other groups they play in. When playing in a game I run, yeah, it might be nice to have more than a single copy of the PFRPG handbook to go around so a couple players might actually consider buying their own and sharing — just like we've done thus far with 3.5 (3 PHBs amongst 7 player and 1 DM).
2)- Many 3.5 players think that there's a good bit about 3.5 that has grown long-in-the-tooth or could really use maintenance. Yet having to house-rule everything fragments things even further.Change for change's sake is rarely a good idea in the long run. Many 3.5 players also don't feel the need to purchase the newest and shinest product that has come out, hence the lack of conversion to 4e. I would also suggest that if you know there are 1,000s of different ways people do things, it is better to continue to produce products using a system that each of those 1,000s are derived from, then producing products that use one of those 1,000s of ways of doing things. Do I use houserules? Sure I do. Would I like to see everyone use my houserules everywhere? I am not entirely sure, heck I change my houserules.
I'd hardly consider maintenance to smooth out the rough spots of 3.5 "change for change's sake". In fact, I think that's something of a slap-in-the-face to everyone that has been spending their time trying to help PFRPG be the best it can be. :-\
As has been stated many time by Jason, James and others, the Alphas specifically were bolder and more daring in trying to see what could work so they could gauge feedback. In otherwords, it's more likely than not that a lot of the changes people think are "for their own sake" are likely to be scaled/rolled back.
Also, while I admit that a core rulebook isn't the place in which to include everyone's house rules (and I don't see that as what's happening here), books that are nothing but house rules are actually quite popular. [I cite the 3.5 editions of "Unearthed Arcana" and "Tome of Magic" as examples.] Furthermore, I'm going to go out on a limb here and express the opinion that the professional designers working on PFRPG have a good bit more skill and experience at that craft than Your average D&D'er making customized house rules for their own campaign.
This being after I was an early supporter of 4E due to my frustration with 3.5's shortcomings.That's really the point. PfRPG isn't being created for the 3.5 fan. Comments about how core books will go out of print and such are a red herring. It is for the people that don't want either 4e or 3.5, or who want an alternative to 4e. Look at the combat manuevers. They haven't simplified jack-or-squat, and jack just left. Using PfRPG, I have to now go and look at charts and tables to find out what it means if I win by 5 or 8 or 23 or whatever. "Well you won, but only by 7, so that just means you can't really stop them but just inconvience them a little." That isn't simplier, but it is more into what some folk want.
I think You missed my point again. I was supporting 4E originally because I was hoping they were fixing what was rough with 3.5 because I basically liked it. Instead, 4E is a totally different game and not compatible at all — hence it's not of much use to me.
For that reason, I patently disagree with Your conclusion that PFRPG is for those who don't want 3.5 OR 4E. If that was the case then those of us supporting it wouldn't care one whit about backwards compatiblilty.
As for Your further comments about red herrings. If You don't even appreciate the sincerity of someone else's concerns then I suppose I should just stop typing now.
Let me ask you something, pres man. Let's say that Paizo listened to you, and released a new hardcover that did, in fact, completely reprint the 3.5 SRD, except for the skill system changes. Nothing else was different.
Would you buy it? Would you actually be willing to set down $35 or $40 for a book with only a different skill list in it?
Would you expect anyone else to do so?
Ah, but there is why I said the whole "no new core books" was a red herring. Would I, as a DM, I might. I have considered purchasing some used 3.5 PHBs just to have a couple extra for players that might forget their's. If the PfRPG book was as little changed as I wished (though don't realisticly expect), I might suggest to the one or two players in the groups I game with that still haven't purchased a PHB, to purchase a pathfinder. Heck, my group might do what we did a couple of years ago and put in $5 each to purchase a player a book for Christmas. Then of course there are the new gamers that might join the group in the future. If I could point them to the PfRPG, that would fit in the group seamlessly, they could purchase one.
But if the goal of the PfRPG core books is to get me and my entire group, some of who are still going to college and living basically hand-to-mouth to drop all of the old core books and purchase new ones, sorry that is not going to happen. The problem of lacking one PHB for a new player is not likely to be solved by my group by forcing everyone to purchase a new one.
Pathfinder has to be different from 3.5, or else printing it will be financial suicide.
I am not entirely convinced of that. A huge printing might very well be. But a more modest one might not. As people have said, if everyone that is sticking with 3.5 as well as those that claim to be interested in PfPRG were to stick with 3.5, then there would still be a need for new core books from time to time. For new players or to replace destroyed or lost books. Is that a large market? No, but there is a market there. I agree the profit level on that market may not be enough to make it something a company would truly want to invest in. But as you say, the real point of the PrRPG is to just keep a system in product that can be used for Paizo's modules which is where they really make their money.
|
|
There's no way a fresh print run would be able to compete against the secondary market - you yourself noted that you'd thought about buying a "used" PHB or two, and pretty much everyone else in the kind of situation you're suggesting would be similarly inclined.
But if the goal of the PfRPG core books is to get me and my entire group, some of who are still going to college and living basically hand-to-mouth to drop all of the old core books and purchase new ones, sorry that is not going to happen. The problem of lacking one PHB for a new player is not likely to be solved by my group by forcing everyone to purchase a new one.
That's very much a misrepresentation of Pathfinder's stated purpose. They're not trying to get your entire group to replace your core books. Paizo has said several times that they want the APs to be playable with 3.5 almost as easily as with Pathfinder - no one is suggesting that you have to switch anything.
I'm not sure what Your purpose in quoting me was, but I think You missed my point: the lack of a 3.5 compatible retail presence for new players. Unless a new player acquires a used 3.5 PHB, they will not have a core rulebook to toss out figuratively or literally.
To address the new point that You raised...
If I myself use PFRPG to run my own game, I will hold onto my 3.5 rulebooks just as I have my 2nd Ed materials and the (currently unused) 4E core books on my desk. They'll be useful should I be invited to play with a group using one of those systems... Nevermind the fact that I'm sentimental and wouldn't eBay them anyway.
As for the other players in my group, their exiting 3.5 PHBs will work fine for the other groups they play in. When playing in a game I run, yeah, it might be nice to have more than a single copy of the PFRPG handbook to go around so a couple players might actually consider buying their own and sharing — just like we've done thus far with 3.5 (3 PHBs amongst 7 player and 1 DM).
I'm sorry if I didn't make the comment as clear as I should. In your comment that I quoted, you seemed to be suggesting that new players to the game would not have access to 3.5 core books, just as existing player wouldn't that needed to replace their books due to damage or lost. And I can see some truth to that (though the SRD will be availabe until the end of time). The problem with that though is if you have a group of people playing 3.5, and a new player arrives without a book.
Well the PfRPG core books will not solve that problem in any way, shape, or form. Because the PfRPG will not be able to be used in a 3.5 game. As I said, if you attempted to let it in, what rules do you use for races, feats, magic, skills, etc? They won't mesh. So either you have a choice, (a) search for any alternative 3.5 book (used copy, ebay, amazon, maybe even print out relevant parts of the SRD) or (b)have the entire group shelve all their 3.5 core books and go out and purchase new PfRPG core books just so this 1 new player can be included. Well your group may be more finacially stable then mine and may not mind dropping $30, or whatever it will end up costing, each just so a new player may be included, but my group isn't likely to do that. That is why I say the "no new core books" is a red herring. This is not a viable solution to that problem for a lot of groups.
There's no way a fresh print run would be able to compete against the secondary market - you yourself noted that you'd thought about buying a "used" PHB or two, and pretty much everyone else in the kind of situation you're suggesting would be similarly inclined.
Except many people, for their own primary use, would prefer a brand new product. Something that was "their's" and not something that was "second-hand". I have purchased many gaming products brand new instead of more cheaply as a used product for that reason.
That's very much a misrepresentation of Pathfinder's stated purpose. They're not trying to get your entire group to replace your core books. Paizo has said several times that they want the APs to be playable with 3.5 almost as easily as with Pathfinder - no one is suggesting that you have to switch anything.
So your claim is that a single brand new player using a PfRPG core book joining a group of 3.5 players using their core books would fit in seamlessly? If not, then the choice is, if you intent to use the PfRPG core books, you have to convert the entire group to it.
That's very much a misrepresentation of Pathfinder's stated purpose. They're not trying to get your entire group to replace your core books. Paizo has said several times that they want the APs to be playable with 3.5 almost as easily as with Pathfinder - no one is suggesting that you have to switch anything.So your claim is that a single brand new player using a PfRPG core book joining a group of 3.5 players using their core books would fit in seamlessly? If not, then the choice is, if you intent to use the PfRPG core books, you have to convert the entire group to it.
No, the point is that you should be able to buy a Pathfinder adventure path and run it using 3.5 rules. So presumably the DM needs to have the PfRPG book and do some light translation beforehand, but the players can stick with 3.5
No, the point is that you should be able to buy a Pathfinder adventure path and run it using 3.5 rules. So presumably the DM needs to have the PfRPG book and do some light translation beforehand, but the players can stick with 3.5
So you agree that the PfRPG core books does not solve the problem of a new player, without a core book, joining an existing 3.5 group in any way, shape, or form? And that it is a red herring to suggestion otherwise?
When I saw that PF was staying with 3.X rules I couldn't be happier. When I started seeing the changes in the alpha version I was as exited as when I first read through D&D 3rd Ed. And no matter the way the final PFRPG end up I'll be sticking to it. I'll take what I like, and change to my own way the rules I don't like. As simple as that.
My position based on a simple value: Loyalty. I had a blast through all 3.5 since I saw much more rules material than ever (me being a DM who enjoys rules), and my players got a real good time also with the amazing variety. But in time things started to turn into an endless reprinted rampage, where even the artwork was cought on it... Pretty dissapointing... And a blame WoTC MKT for it.
I don't know the story behind WoTC placing Dungeon and Dragon mags in the hands of Paizo, but I thing that was one of the best things to happen to the RPG indutry, since I noticed the true care Paizo put into the Magazines. They tried and re-developed the magazines several ways to improve and satisfy the customers, taking hints from the mail and improving the rough edges,something WoTC did not do. In the end the magazines were at its best and it was quite shocking to see them pried out of Paizo's hands... Again, one of the best things to ever happen to the RPG industry, since it took a turn for the best!.
And now as D&D becomes even more a MKT tool, willing to throw away lots of publications on the sake of more money (and more reprinting); Paizo remains true to what brought it into this position: loyalty to the game and its gamers.
As long as Paizo continues to publish original high-quality material (no re-printing please!) and remains true to the game and gamers, they will have my loyalty (and money). Making the rules work for me is MY job. Thanks Paizo! -Pardon the lousy english-
So you agree that the PfRPG core books does not solve the problem of a new player, without a core book, joining an existing 3.5 group in any way, shape, or form? And that it is a red herring to suggestion otherwise?
Sure. Was someone suggesting otherwise?
For what it's worth, I'm sure that lots of people will stick with 3.5. Why should that be a problem? As long as Paizo can keep selling modules to DMs (or people who just like to read modules), it doesn't really matter what system people use.
All you really need to join a 3.5 campaign is a copy of the SRD which is readily available -- for free -- in various places.
|
|
...but I think this is a really important point that keeps getting ignored or overlooked by the contingent that thinks things are changing too much: Pathfinder has to be different from 3.5, or else printing it will be financial suicide. The people who are genuinely, utterly, and completely satisfied with 3.5 won't pick up Pathfinder no matter what, because they already have the books they want. Pathfinder's only chance for success is to appeal to those who like most of 3.5, but who want to see widespread, if minor, improvements made - enough improvements to actually justify the sticker price of the book, while staying close to the elements of 3.5 that made us decide not to switch to 4E in the first place...
This is the crux of the situation and Shisumo you are 100% correct. If enough things weren't diferent, then there would be no reason to buy the product. In the past I never had any problem with WotC doing rules revisions and 'new shinies' (so to speak), because we must never lose sight of the fact, the company is a business and needs to make money to be able to give us the suporrt for our hobby we want.
Paizo HAS to make Pathfinder 'diferent'. As long as the game maintains the familiarity Im accustomed to, they get my business for each 'new shiny' they produce....
Im sure most of the folks around here feel the same. Those that like 4e, likely wont buy the product, and those that dont want change wont either...so a few minor changes won't cut it. Im for the overhaul...its what brought me on board ;)
|
|
Let's also not forget that after 3.5 came out, some people threw a fit about it and swore off 3.5.
Margarette Weis Productions reprinted the 3.0 SRD and lost a ton of money.. mainly because existing players didn't need it and new players.. well why would they buy it when they can use 3.5.
Paizo has to make changes to 3p that make us, the existing player base, want to buy it. If it's a 1:1 copy they'll end up just like MWP, they'll lose A LOT of money printing a book no one wants. And don't even reply to me with some high stance about not supporting a company that's only in it for the money. There are few companies in the world that can afford to see products fail and Paizo isn't one of them.
I have 3 copies of the 3.5 PHB. A hardcover falling apart, a newer hardcover, and the Player's Kit softcover that's holding up better then any 3E hardcover wizards ever made. I know for a fact that if 3P is a almost a 1:1 copy of 3.5 I wouldn't buy it and I'd wager a lot of others people wouldn't buy it either, especially at the price tag they're asking for.
Paizo's only option is to take 3P to the next level, make it backwards compatible with 3.5 (like 3.5 was with 3.0), and improve it while adding enough good stuff to it that we'll want it over our existing 3.5 core.
And let's be honest, if you have a REAL FLG, you can find all 4 versions of the AD&D player's handbook for sale. So it's stupid to say that people won't be able to find the 3.5 books in 5 years.