Couldn't agree with you more. I would add that Pathfinder could, in theory become the new core were most OGL games come from. What I mean by that say someone wanted to convert Conan or True 20 to Pathfinder it is possible, and from there to another OGL system. I think Pathfinder, as of Alpha 3 does this also.
Sadly I think a lot of the people who are unhappy fall into the category of people who say "I only play 1st edtion. or ADD 1st, or 2nd, or ADD 2nd. or I only play 3.0 or 3.5" They will argue with you forever about why there version is the best version. The worst part of this is that they do have valid points, its what works for them.
Moreover they don't seem to understand, or admit that nothing is pure, and they could, in theory pick and chose what they want. For example I really like what they did with the Sorcerer but think while the cleric is badass it did not need to be powered up. It was the most overpowered class in 3rd. held back only by being a healing machine. Others will disagree with me, that's fine, maybe they would go the other way, but for me I'm inclined to say sorcerer in Cleric out. But Pathfinder RPG is still needed and useful.
Myself I take the melting pot approch to my game. For example was thinking of doing Pathfinder with the added rules of Dodge and Perry from Conan. Both are OGL and both can work together, but you have to put in the effort. Pathfinder means that the rules which all this comes from the "core" rules will surive the death of 3.5.
|
Respectfully, Pathfinder RPG has become too different from D&D version 3.5 for me. I was not looking to the Pathfinder RPG to try to fix every problem in v3.5. ...
I will not be changing over to Fourth Edition either. We ran a demo game with my local group with Scalegloom Hall aka Kobold Hall in the DMG. Overall the system is not poor but it simply doesn’t feel like a step in the correct direction to us. When I had my first taste of Third Edition I knew that it was going to be a very good upgrade. Fourth Edition is a replacement and not an upgrade of the previous AD&D series and I certainly understand the need for something like Pathfinder. I just think it is becoming too different. It has to work with the majority of existing d20 v3.5 material for me.
Keep in mind that all we have seen of the Pathfinder RPG so far is an ALPHA test. On a couple of occasions, Paizo staff have indicated that they included some bold changes in the alpha version because they wanted to guage how they worked in play -- including how badly they broke backward compatibility with 3.5. It remains to be seen how many of these changes survive subsequent rounds of playtesting. I suppose we'll have a better idea when the first beta comes out in August.
Personally, I'm more concerned about whether the Pathfinder RPG fixes some of the known problems with 3.5 (at especially at higher levels) and whether it still "feels" like the D&D that we know and love. One thing that really excites me is that Erik seems to be steering the game back to its pulp fantasy roots...
Don't want to start a fight but it seems odd that people really have such an issue with this. Sure its not 100% compatable but its no worse then say 3.0 or Conan or anyother setting with slight variants. Yeah I've had some issues come up, and a few things actually become a problem, but its never been a major issue. I get the edtion wars between 3rd and 4th as they are so differnt as to be two seperate games having only a few terms in common, but 3.0, 3.5, 3.75 are really the same game (in terms of mechanics) The changes may or may not improve the game (thats subjective) but in terms of running an advanture I don't see it as an issue. Its sort of like looking at a DCC advanture that says in this game we recomend not allowing this spell as it makes it far to easy to accomplish characts goals, Is it good, are the stats compatable, fine I'll play it. Moreover I've always said that most Wizards splat books, by 3.5 only logic, shouldn't be allowed.
Sorry if I'm comming off mad, I'm really not I actully respect people who prefer one editon over the other, I just don't like the Idea that just because a skill is gone or a class as a new ablity in written adv. people seem to think they cannot use it. If you're so pro 3.5 (and please don't miss understand I love 3.5 myself) then conversion of a Paizo advanture from Pathfinder which is backwards compatable should litterly be an afterthought while playing.
|
I'm running a 3.5 canned campaign as-is straight out of some old Dungeons with Pathfinder characters and rules - so far I've not had to change anything...
Monsters and NPCs don't live long enough to worry with converting them. I can see bumping their hit points later, but for now it just works.
Pathfinder works.
I'm more concerned about whether the Pathfinder RPG fixes some of the known problems with 3.5 (at especially at higher levels) and whether it still "feels" like the D&D that we know and love.
Here, here. I can respect the stance of those who are not willing to convert their 3.5 because it takes to long...or whatever the reasoning may be, but I am willing to take the time with the PF changes to 3.5 because I like the way 3.5 and PF's alterations to 3.5 feel. It still reminds me of the D&D I like to play and for that I am willing to tolerate some fairly drastic modifications. After years of 3.5 I had already had a sizable handful of house rules that required a little re-tooling of 3.5 anyway...PF is just someone else's collection house rules, and so far...so good.
The F
|
|
Eh the biggest concern for me is that people might not want to prestige out because the base classes in Pathfinder are actually pretty good. I should say it WAS a concern...then I started thinking it might not be such a bad thing for players to want to stay with core classes.
I would considering dropping some of the entrance requirements for PrC's, but I can do that on a case-by-case basis. I've already got one house rule in that players won't be able to get more than one PrC.
I've seen a lot of anti-PfRPG posts/replies on these boards claiming incompatibility, excessive conversion time, etc. by people with suspiciously low post counts.* As I see more and more of these, the thought that there are "shills" roving around here keeps creeping up in my mind.
Why?
For one thing, PfRPG is clearly not finished yet. Anyone who gives these boards more than a cursory glance can easily find posts by the designers noting that some wild and revolutionary mechanics have been shown so that they can actually be tested and to gauge opinion. Those same developers have noted that many of the more revolutionary ideas are being reined-in as development proceeds.
Like in software, the testing phase is crucial to ensure that PfRPG and Paizo don't share the same fate as their counterparts in the video game field. There are countless franchises that have failed due to incomplete testing, sparce innovation or abandoning their core audience (Unreal Tournament is the first that comes to mine). I surely do not want to see PfRPG flop like that.
As such, it is counter-productive to the point of foolishness to judge an unfinished piece of work as though it were complete. Since the best way to ensure success is to stick around and provide constructive criticism rather than crying foul and running, I seriously wonder sometimes if deliberate effort is being taken to undermine the process at work here...
/paranoid elven ramblings
* Thankfully, there have been many more new members who are enthusiastic and helpful.
I am liking PfRPG. When 4e was first announced, I loved the idea. The idea being that now I can stop collecting since I got everything I need with 3.5. I got enough 3.5 to play until I die. 4e was my excuse to stop the madness.
Then PfRPG came along and I said this is even better! I get to use everything I own and Paizo will move the game forward. I think this was the first effort to improve the game by a 3PP that did not go a seperate path. I love games like Arcana Evolved, but it does not seem to fit with Complete Series and the rest of my collection. And don't try to find more than a few adventures for these other games.
I can see why someone would want to just stay with 3.5. Is the issue that those who want to stay with 3.5 will be missing game support in modules and campaigns? Have any major 3PP's said they are staying with 3.5? Are people just mad that they are 'losing' Paizo?
|
I generally like most of the changes in Pathfinder, namely the class abilities.
However, since every player in my group has a 3.5 PHB, I will probably continue to use the 3.5 versions for the following things:
- general level progression (XP, feats)
- skills
- feats (no reason to learn new versions, but might allows new feats)
- spells (but I might waver on this point)
I think it would be pretty easy to houserule these changes, making something more like 3.6.
To be honest, the biggest thing bothering me about PRPG is the extra feats for every character. I will probably come up with a default list of feats to give monsters. Also, a DM using all the splatbooks is just waiting to be victimized by aggressive munchkins.
Eh the biggest concern for me is that people might not want to prestige out because the base classes in Pathfinder are actually pretty good. I should say it WAS a concern...then I started thinking it might not be such a bad thing for players to want to stay with core classes.
I would considering dropping some of the entrance requirements for PrC's, but I can do that on a case-by-case basis. I've already got one house rule in that players won't be able to get more than one PrC.
I think your concerns have to do with what you think Prestige Classes should be. I look at them as either A. I'm a Fighter who focuse in Archery so I take the Archer Prestige class. or B. An Order of Knights unique to your setting. But others see prestige classes as being as generic as a standard class or worse as a way of making your characte ungodly powerful, or a be all type of class. As it stands there is something nice about being a 20th level Sorcere or Fighter, neither of which I saw a lot of towards the end of 3.5.
I am liking PfRPG. When 4e was first announced, I loved the idea. The idea being that now I can stop collecting since I got everything I need with 3.5. I got enough 3.5 to play until I die. 4e was my excuse to stop the madness.
Then PfRPG came along and I said this is even better! I get to use everything I own and Paizo will move the game forward. I think this was the first effort to improve the game by a 3PP that did not go a seperate path. I love games like Arcana Evolved, but it does not seem to fit with Complete Series and the rest of my collection. And don't try to find more than a few adventures for these other games.
I can see why someone would want to just stay with 3.5. Is the issue that those who want to stay with 3.5 will be missing game support in modules and campaigns? Have any major 3PP's said they are staying with 3.5? Are people just mad that they are 'losing' Paizo?
Went through the exact same feelings.
|
|
I can see why someone would want to just stay with 3.5. Is the issue that those who want to stay with 3.5 will be missing game support in modules and campaigns? Have any major 3PP's said they are staying with 3.5? Are people just mad that they are 'losing' Paizo?
If anything, PAIZO was the first to step up in support of 3.5, so I don't believe anyone is actually "'losing'" PAIZO. While I can appreciate the OP's position, I also feel these are very good questions (by everyone) to be raising at this time. With the Beta on the horizon, can we, as a community of those who enjoy 3.5 come together and help PAIZO determine which elements of change are ones that make it more of a game we want to play, and which ones are pushing the threshold of what we feel is enough or too much alteration from the 3.5 system.
Jason's design goals are clear, and PAIZO's commitment has been, from what I can tell, genuine, insomuchas they're designing a new rpg that would enable players to continue to enjoy their lifelong fantasy gaming hobby without invalidating their entire game library.
This to me is 3.5 support. However, I encourage everyone on both sides of this question to raise alerts when they feel they've gone to far, or not far enough. I'm sure many of us are proud to participate in the largest open play test ever of its kind! Keep that feedback coming. This thread is a very healthy sign that this community cares deeply about the future of PRPG.
3.5 Never Dies.
PRPG Forever!
Here is my conversion guide for NPCs and monsters, when running 3.5 modules in Pathfinder. I know it is cumbersome, and complicated, but bear with me. The particulars may seem hard to integrate, but with practice, they should become bearable.
a. If a creature wants to grapple, trip, sunder, or whatever, calculate its CMB
1. If the encounter uses multiple creatures to create the challenge, add one more creature of the same type.
2. If the encounter is a boss fight, add ten hit points, one feat, one skill.
3. If the encounter has class levels, use 2. Add whatever you feel like adding from the Pathfinder class, if you think it would be fun.
4. If the encounter is too easy, despite your modifications, have the creatures summon re-inforcements.
5. If the encounter is too hard, because of your modifications, let the players think of a way to escape.
I hope the onerous burden of calculation involved does not scare off prospective players.
Here is my conversion guide for NPCs and monsters, when running 3.5 modules in Pathfinder. I know it is cumbersome, and complicated, but bear with me. The particulars may seem hard to integrate, but with practice, they should become bearable.
1. If the encounter uses multiple creatures to create the challenge, add one more creature of the same type.
2. If the encounter is a boss fight, add ten hit points, one feat, one skill.
3. If the encounter has class levels, use 2. Add whatever you feel like adding from the Pathfinder class, if you think it would be fun.
4. If the encounter is too easy, despite your modifications, have the creatures summon re-inforcements.
5. If the encounter is too hard, because of your modifications, let the players think of a way to escape.
I hope the onerous burden of calculation involved does not scare off prospective players.
Like most of your recomendations but wouldn't it just be easier to up or down the CR and make sure your players are at that level?
Sorry. I should have clearly labelled my post as an attempt at humour. I just woke up.
My actual solution is: run the adventures as normal. Reduce the availability of magic items. The power escalation of the base classes makes it feasable to eliminate the MI dependency, and still provide reasonable challenges. I will personally ban stat boosting items, and have no more than three AC bonuses per character. I will thus be able to run encounters without modification.
When I run Pathfinder, later, I will just run adventures one level lower than they are.
I agree 100% with those expressing confusion about people vaguely saying PF is too different from 3.5. As far as I can tell, anything that's not exactly 3.5 is 'too different' because it would require some conversion. I gather that each person has a couple of things that they thought were problematic with 3.5 and if only PF would just address those two or three things it would be perfect.
I think if people started to precisely spell out what changes they would have found acceptable and what ones they wouldn't, we'd all notice that everyone has a different list. Sure there's some overlap (see: Polymorph), but in the end everyone saw somewhat different issues with 3.5. I think that's becoming clear on the thread about PF addressing high-level campaign problems. That thread goes through ten or twelve major issues people have and there are people on both sides of almost every change. Ultimately, most people are going to dislike some aspect of the game -- much like every other edition of D&D, which is where house rules come from.
"Too different" for what? True, that's not really making sense. But I don't see how PF should become the new d20 basic system. There's Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved, Warcraft, and more. I don't see how Pathfinder is much different to them. The classes and races are called the same as in 3.5e, but that's the biggest difference and other alternative d20 systems I see.
True, it's not bad, but I don't see why Pathfinder should succeed the SRD.
Reasonable objections or not, I think those expressing distress over the differences in Pathfinder to reread those posts that mention (over and over) that we've experienced the playtest rules. The beta rules will be out in a couple of months, and the final version in another year.
At the very least, wait and see what the beta rules look like. The pdf will be a free download, so there's no financial committment in taking a look at the rules or running a playtest, or two, with them. If you have specific objections to the way rules are being laid out, well, that's what these forums are for. Let your voice be heard.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that it's way too early to give up on the Pathfinder system. We really haven't had a good look at it yet.
Sorry. I should have clearly labelled my post as an attempt at humour. I just woke up.
LOL, so was I.
If I could offer a nice, compromising insight to this... yes, there are some things that are different with Pathfinder in relation to 3.5. Yes, I can see where Pathfinder could be considered 3.75, I call it that myself actually.
However, it is not too different... in fact, if you will look at many of the later releases of 3.5, it is actually more of a power boost correction in many aspects.
One of the problems that our gaming group ran into with our last, unfinished campaign was that the newer player classes that came out in the Complete books were more powerful than the old core classes. One player was using a warlock while I myself was using a beguiler. In all essence, a beguiler should have been a joke at lower levels... but he did extremely well, almost became a leader on the battlefield and off.
The warlock naturally kicked tail from one end to the next... when you compared many of these later classes to the original 3.5 core offerings, there is lack of balance.
In my opinion, Pathfinder brings up the core book information to the latter 3.5 power level.
Another thing that I like is the fact that this change sort of forces me away from a bad obessive habit to want to recognize only 3.5 materials (with the exception of the Forgotten Realms main book), and not the earlier 3.0 offerings. Now that we have Pathfinder, or as some like to call it, 3.75, I have a renewed desire to mesh it all together now... 3.0 materials, 3.5 books, Pathfinder.... one of the reasons that I hope that the final Pathfinder can and/or will offer the conversions for the 3.0 products.
But in the end, at many gaming tables, including my own, the differences are so minute that the DM can usually make a quick comparison....
Such as asking, "does anyone have any skill that can help us track this monster?"
(and accepting whatever skill check existed with whatever edition)