|
This idea has been talked about over and over, that Pathfinder would be some sort of "new edition of D&D", with the implied "PRPG is what 4E should have been".
Anyone is free to share insights on the question and discuss them all here, but I hope the Paizo staff will come in and share their own opinions on the topic.
So here it is: is PRPG a new D&D edition?
|
|
I have thought of PRPG as a continuation of 3.5. It will provide the framework for 3.5 gaming into the future and offer the benefits of the no-longer published PHB/DMG/MM core books.
To further increase the usefulness, it makes effort to correct some of the major problems people have had with 3rd Edition.
I guess you could think of it as a "4th Edition", since 3.5 was technically the fix for 3.0. But it seems most people think of it as just Pathfinder 1.0 or D&D 3.75.
I never liked the whole "0.5" edition thing, so I just think of PRPG as Advanced 3rd Edition or something similar.
I do not think of it as a new edition. Or at least not 4.0 but rather 3.something. I base this on reverse compatibility. Or maybe the problem is with the WotC 4th Edition. Since the design structure has changed so much with 4e, it should have been 'D&D - The Next Generation' or something. I think PfRPG will be a new edition when they feel they have to sacrifice some reverse compatibility to reach the next goal. Which by the way should be making PfPRG the step up from WotC D&D 4e. Players will learn DDM, then D&D 4e and then PfRPG. This is not terrible original, Lisa basically said it once (minus the DDM part).
I think Pathfinder will be known in time as its own system but will always be thought of as the 'inheritor' of the 'spirit' of D&D. 4e will be D&D but without any of the 'spirit' of the game. So PRPG is the essential continuation of 'D&D' (emphasis on essence) and 4e will be D&D in name only where in reality it will be like selling peanut brittle in a turkish delight wrapper.
By definition, I would say that this is indeed a new edition.
There will be mechanical & rule changes, new art, a new book, and is being printed by a new publisher. It will be compatible but many books that have multiple editions put out have considerably fewer changes than Paizo is having in this one.
|
Pathfinder isn't DnD to me--the consistent high production values (art, writing, editing) and, most importantly, the amount of fun I have playing Pathfinder far exceeds the standards TSR/WotC traditionally set. These values are amplified in the Pathfinder RPG project thus far, especially the level of community involvement in the creation process.
However, Pathfinder is D&D 3.75...
I like whoever called it "3.P"
Nope...
Pathfinder is Pathfinder.
However, Pathfinder is D&D 3.75...
I am still a Pathfinder newbie, but I agree with it being D&D 3.75. I am looking forward to playing an arcane caster after all the fixes Pathfinder makes to 3.5.
I don't get it. It is what it is, it's Pathfinder RPG. It is based on the OGL 3.5. What number you put after it is meaningless.
I am still a Pathfinder newbie, but I agree with it being D&D 3.75. I am looking forward to playing an arcane caster after all the fixes Pathfinder makes to 3.5.Nope...
Pathfinder is Pathfinder.
However, Pathfinder is D&D 3.75...
To clarify, in normal terms of book-making I think you could also classify 3.5 as a new edition even though it was very very similar to 3.0.
I don't get it. It is what it is, it's Pathfinder RPG. It is based on the OGL 3.5. What number you put after it is meaningless.
Speaking for myself, Pathfinder is part of an evolution of a game I have played for 30 years. Looking at the game in terms of it being a new edition, or a revision of an older edition characterizes my perception of where the game is now on the evolutionary scale. For comparison's sake, I see 4th edition D&D as a completely different game. The numbers just help to quantify where the new game is in the grand scheme of things. But your mileage may vary. :)
To clarify, in normal terms of book-making I think you could also classify 3.5 as a new edition even though it was very very similar to 3.0.
I quite agree with you, David. To me, Pathfinder is a new edition, with a similar "evolutionary step" that occurred between 3.0 and 3.5.
I think of Pathfinder as an alternative new edition of D&D. I agree that 3.5 had its rough spots. Pathfinder finely smooths out those rough spots and makes for a nearly flawless set of rules; while 4th edition chucks 3.5 and sets off in an entirely new direction. I don't like the direction that 4th edition went, so I'm sticking happily with Pathfinder.
I think of Pathfinder as an alternative new edition of D&D. I agree that 3.5 had its rough spots. Pathfinder finely smooths out those rough spots and makes for a nearly flawless set of rules; while 4th edition chucks 3.5 and sets off in an entirely new direction. I don't like the direction that 4th edition went, so I'm sticking happily with Pathfinder.
I share these sentiments. For my money this is what 4E should have been.
I don't see it as a new edition. It's still 3.x. At least in the D&D editions I know, there have always been some basic changes in the system - 3e exchanged THAC0 for attack bonuses and made higher AC better than lower, unified the ability modifiers and what you get out of the abilities, changed the way saving throws worked, and generally got rid of many restrictions and irregularities. 3e also introduced all those special combat actions like grapple, attacks of opportunity, skills (as they're now) and feats.
Compared to that, the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder will not fundamantally alter that much: Classes still work the same, attacks, saves, AC, and the like are still the same, feats work the same (though you do get a couple of feats more than before, but that's hardly a fundamental rules change), skills work virtually the same as before.
The changes are, like in 3.0->3.5, in the details, though there are a lot of those. And the new way combat manoeuvres work could be called a fundamental change, but that's about it.
Pathfinder isn't DnD to me--the consistent high production values (art, writing, editing) and, most importantly, the amount of fun I have playing Pathfinder far exceeds the standards TSR/WotC traditionally set. These values are amplified in the Pathfinder RPG project thus far, especially the level of community involvement in the creation process.
I like you, and I also like whoever truly treasures this world and the staff that gives us this world.
GAME ON!!!
To me, yes it is a new edition. But it's the good kind of new edition. It's like when you went from 1st edition to 2nd edition and all of the old modules were still playable (whether 2nd edition was an improvement over 1E, though, is highly debatable). The new rules are cleaned up, easier to use, things are balanced better, and all my old stuff still works. This is the ideal situation for me because I like having new stuff to run, but I don't like the idea of chucking three bookshelves packed full of stuff in order to play it. What's more though, is that I like this version of the rules. There are things I like with 4E - I'm not a 4E hater - but the overall game just doesn't appeal to me.
So I'm with whoever said that they think of Pathfinder RPG as an alternate new edition of D&D.
|
Pathfinder is just D&D. No number needed to explain that. Paizo is the company that publishes D&D now. From TSR to WotC to Paizo.
The number is meaningless until we discuss history of D&D rules & editions.
When I invite and teach newbies the game or when a gamer asks what I play I say that I play D&D. If they ask what version I say, honestly, there is only one -- Paizo.
It's not the ravings of a Paizonian -- though I do rave for Paizo -- it's just the truth. Indeed, more than truth it is fact. Paizo is D&D. Oh, and there is a new RPG that WotC does that's for, um, "special" people.
-W. E. Ray
For someone who came to 3rd editon without all the baggage that a historicaly loyal D'n'D player has come with I can easily say that Pathfinder is Pathfinder. Its an another interpertation/improvment of 3rd but its no longer D'n'D as I see the name on the brand to be just that, a name.
Do not take this as seeing this as good thing. With the bad marketing, the killing of so much flu-ahh style that made D'n'D, D'n'D. Hasbro as done all they can to destroy what that name brand stands for.
For many this is why they want to call Pathfinder the new D'n'D in spirt if nothing else. In the long run this might be a bad thing as these fans are loyal but it keeps Pathfinder form becoming its own thing. I don't know the future but if Pathfinder is allowed to make a name for itself, not only will it make it the unoffical leader to the OGL movement (stronger then Conan or True20) and perhaps gain it enough power to overtake Dungeons and Dragons. This will be due more to the fact that 5th editon will be a computer game of some type, and not a pen and paper.
All this is simply to say, if you like the name Dungeons and Dragons, its changed completly.
If you love the game system of 3rd/OGL then Dungeons and Dragons is dead, long live Pathfinder.
My words won't be popular with many of you, and I don't expect them to change anything, but I think this time next year it might be time for us let the name go.
For someone who came to 3rd editon without all the baggage that a historicaly loyal D'n'D player has come with I can easily say that Pathfinder is Pathfinder. Its an another interpertation/improvment of 3rd but its no longer D'n'D as I see the name on the brand to be just that, a name.
Do not take this as seeing this as good thing. With the bad marketing, the killing of so much flu-ahh style that made D'n'D, D'n'D. Hasbro as done all they can to destroy what that name brand stands for.
For many this is why they want to call Pathfinder the new D'n'D in spirt if nothing else. In the long run this might be a bad thing as these fans are loyal but it keeps Pathfinder form becoming its own thing. I don't know the future but if Pathfinder is allowed to make a name for itself, not only will it make it the unoffical leader to the OGL movement (stronger then Conan or True20) and perhaps gain it enough power to overtake Dungeons and Dragons. This will be due more to the fact that 5th editon will be a computer game of some type, and not a pen and paper.
All this is simply to say, if you like the name Dungeons and Dragons, its changed completly.
If you love the game system of 3rd/OGL then Dungeons and Dragons is dead, long live Pathfinder.
My words won't be popular with many of you, and I don't expect them to change anything, but I think this time next year it might be time for us let the name go.
I think you are right in the long term. PRPG is not DnD. In the short term, its helpful for those who like the 3.5 path to call PRPG Dnd. I'm not saying that its right, but for those who don't follow 4.0, then PRGP is 3.5+.
I think your right. DnD 5.0 might just be a computer game of some sort. As a programmer , I love computer stuff. Still, I love what PnP (Pencil and Paper) bring to your average RPG event. Computer games have their place, but I think PnP games also have a place in gaming. Something I feel WotC seems to have forgotten about IMHO.
Just for the record, I'm don't feel 4.0 is DnD. Just as long time Traveller Player TNE is not Traveller.
D&D 3.5 will be resurrected to serve our cause.
Brand names have power, D&D is a brand name. If you insist on calling Pathfinder D&D then you are giving Wizards of the Coast mind share that they don't deserve. We should all start thinking of it as "Pathfinder RPG". Every time you say D&D you strengthen Wizard's brand and weaken the Pathfinder brand.
Brand names have power, D&D is a brand name. If you insist on calling Pathfinder D&D then you are giving Wizards of the Coast mind share that they don't deserve. We should all start thinking of it as "Pathfinder RPG". Every time you say D&D you strengthen Wizard's brand and weaken the Pathfinder brand.
I wholeheartedly agree.
I think the reason everyone wants to put a label on this, whether it's a new edition or not, is because "New Edition" generally means "spending money" on new supplements.
I think Paizo will put out new Pathfinder supplements eventually because it makes good business sense and it increases the scope of their world.
The good news(for those that don't want to buy a new library of books) is I don't think they will put out nearly as many supplements nor as often as WOTC does. They have less OGL material to work with and offer backwards compatibility to current books which lessens demand for supplements.
So in the end YES IT IS A NEW EDITION WITH A NEW BRAND NAME, but unlike other 'new editions' you won't have to shell out tons of money to keep up with supplement books.
Hooray.
I think Paizo will put out new Pathfinder supplements eventually because it makes good business sense and it increases the scope of their world.
Every single Pathfinder product contains supplemental rules. I suspect they will continue to produce products like the Pathfinder Chronicles and Pathfinder Companion which will have a continual trickle of new rules rather than releasing pure rules spatbooks. The good news is all of the rules pieces are OGL so if Paizo doesn't put out a rules site we can. I wouldn't mind buying an annual summary of the Pathfinder Supplemental rules so I could keep all the new little rules in a few books rather than spread over dozens of Pathfinder supplements.
So in the end YES IT IS A NEW EDITION WITH A NEW BRAND NAME, but unlike other 'new editions' you won't have to shell out tons of money to keep up with supplement books.
One of the reasons I refuse to buy into 4e is the entire concept that the core rules are never complete and the expectation that players are basically required to have 2-3 books and DMs 6-8 by the end of next year.
'Required' seems a strong word, there. A complete game can easily be run using the 3 core rulebooks (and, indeed, players never need to have more than the PHB itself.)
Well if you want to play a druid or a barbarian they are 'required' for both the player in question and the DM. If you want a wizard with a spellbook anywhere near what it was in core 3.5 the player and the DM will be 'required' to buy another book. Similarly for clerics. Further, the druid class will be introduced in PHB2 but the druid spell list in that book will be anemic just like the wizards spellbook is. So the druid player will have to buy yet another book to get a spellbook comparable to the 3.5 spellbook.
Perhaps required is a strong word but just trying to match the 3.5 core means the DM is buying 3-4 additional books and spellcasting players 1-2 additional books. Fighters are better off then core 3.5 equivalents without ever buying supplements. Barbarians have to buy 1 extra book...
Clearly all the content that players are interested in cannot be contained in a single book.
I don't think this is clear at all. Based on what I've seen I spreading the material over multiple books is a deliberate effort on the part of WotC that has more to do with selling books than how much content fits in a single book. Obviously you feel otherwise and that's your right. What the truth is is only known in WotC HQ.
What has been quite clearly communicated is that Wizards of the Coast feels that CORE is not limited to the 3-4 core rulebooks anymore and is instead a continuous stream of books. What exactly this means to players and DMs is not entirely clear.
In 4E, they aren't scattering content for classes throughout dozens of books - the core material will be in the PHB and their power source supplement. That seems a big improvement.
Considering they only have 3 books and some plans on paper this is quite easy to say. We'll see how things will turn out after 3+ years. I'm a pessimist and I have the weight of Wizard's previous publishing history on my side.
My take on 4e is that if you are the sort of person who owns 40 D&D 3.5 books then you will likely own 40 D&D 4.0 books. If you are like me and don't want 40 books then you are likely to be disappointed in 4e in general.
|
|
I can't understand how just two books will complete the Wizard at all. Soon as they come out with PHB2, PHB3 and PHB4 (yes they said they intend those) it is very likely you will need each of those books to "complete" your wizard. In addition you will likely have splat book 1, splat book 2 and splat book 3 that will add enhancements. Then setting book 1 and setting book 2 will add a few more.
That is just the nature of business. Milk it for all it is worth. I can't blame WOTC for that, though my pocket book once groaned under that system. But not any more.
At leat not due to WOTC... Paizo on the other hand is going to bleed me dry I know it. And I'll LOVE it!
My hope is that Pathfinder will be primarily a scenario market as opposed to a splat book market. What I liked about Living Greyhawk was most of what your character had in the way of magic and special items were given in adventures. Sure you needed the Complete X to use it but the adventure gave it to you. Now if Paizo continues introducing new monsters, races, magic, etc in their scenario books and has those in the adventure then it makes sense. Sometimes trying to fit some special item, like lets say a stone of silence that you rub your thumb across and it works like a silence spell, into your adventure is more difficult than it being written into it in the first place. My players are still trying to figure out what to do with the masks from Skinsaw Murders.
I would say Pathfinder RPG is a new DnD simply because Paizo cannot use the stuff in the complete and other extended content of 3.5 rules.
I would say it isn't because it leans so much on the open 3.5 rules.
Whether or not it's a "new D&D edition", when I refer to it, depends on context. Sometimes, I'm trying to make a point about what Pathfinder is to many D&D 3.5 players -- and I'll call it "effectively D&D 3.6". Sometimes, I'm talking about the game I play in simple terms, such as saying "I've got a Pathfinder game session today." While I think "3.P" is a great abbreviation, I probably won't actually use that one much -- because it doesn't clearly enough make a point I need to make, and if I'm not making a specific point I might as well call it "Pathfinder".
A new edition . . . ? Sure, I guess, as long as by "new edition" you mean "dot release" or "minor revision" -- in that it's the digit after the decimal that's incremented, and not the "major revision" number.
I may find myself calling it 3++, as well. Time will tell.