Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
The Beta Playtest Edition necessarily omits some stuff to focus on things that were changed and that need the most playtesting. The final edition will likely be at least 200 pages longer, and will include a lot of the stuff you mention.
By the time the final edition comes out in August, you will not need any other rulebooks to play Pathfinder other than the core rulebook and the soon-to-be-announced monster book.
The Beta Playtest Edition necessarily omits some stuff to focus on things that were changed and that need the most playtesting. The final edition will likely be at least 200 pages longer, and will include a lot of the stuff you mention.
By the time the final edition comes out in August, you will not need any other rulebooks to play Pathfinder other than the core rulebook and the soon-to-be-announced monster book.
What I want more than anything, Erik, Jason, anyone who is listening, is to hand this book to a new and interested player, and not have it scare them off.
I wonder if your observation, toyrobots, might be suggestive of a different need? What I mean is, even a player's handbook can be intimidating to a new player. Would the real answer to this problem be not to worry about the size of the final PfRPG, but to have a small paperback starter book for new players, say, giving them the basics to play a fighter, rogue, sorcerer, or cleric in the Pf setting? If this did well as far as attracting new players, it could then become the centerpiece for a boxed starter set (as I merrily wander off-topic...)
Aside from this, it seems to me that really we induct new players into the game by the support of the GM and the group, and only later after they get a little experience and enthusiasm do they start purchasing books which would have been too much if the momma gm had not first digested them and then hacked them back up into their eager newborn throats.
I wonder if your observation, toyrobots, might be suggestive of a different need? What I mean is, even a player's handbook can be intimidating to a new player. Would the real answer to this problem be not to worry about the size of the final PfRPG, but to have a small paperback starter book for new players, say, giving them the basics to play a fighter, rogue, sorcerer, or cleric in the Pf setting? If this did well as far as attracting new players, it could then become the centerpiece for a boxed starter set (as I merrily wander off-topic...)
Aside from this, it seems to me that really we induct new players into the game by the support of the GM and the group, and only later after they get a little experience and enthusiasm do they start purchasing books which would have been too much if the momma gm had not first digested them and then hacked them back up into their eager newborn throats.
I'm all for that.
But mainly, the Beta has left me with a LOT of explaining to do for my newbies. I know it's a work in progress, but it has created a pronounced need for me to have a complete, and well-written final.
But mainly, the Beta has left me with a LOT of explaining to do for my newbies. I know it's a work in progress, but it has created a pronounced need for me to have a complete, and well-written final.
Got ya.
|
Would the real answer to this problem be not to worry about the size of the final PfRPG, but to have a small paperback starter book for new players, say, giving them the basics to play a fighter, rogue, sorcerer, or cleric in the Pf setting? If this did well as far as attracting new players, it could then become the centerpiece for a boxed starter set (as I merrily wander off-topic...)
Love this idea every time it comes up.
|
Hi all! Although I'm kinda new here, I'd like to start off with a big criticism.
<please don't flame me mode on> :-)
Is it just my imagination, or does the Beta Playtest look a =lot= like the WotC System Reference Document (hereafter called the SRD)?
I've got copies of the entire 3.5 SRD here on my computer, and it seems to me that some of the material in the Beta Playtest is just direct quotes from the SRD.
Not that this is a -bad- thing mind you - using the SRD to formulate rules is a sure fire way to achieve compatibility with 3.5.
But what happens in December? I had heard that WotC was not going to allow any more 3.5 product after the end of the year. In fact, at least two game stores near me are clearing their shelves of 3.0 and 3.5 stuff as fast as a 50% off of cover will allow them to get rid of it.
<please don't flame me mode off>
In my next post, I promise I'll have something positive to say.
Pathfinder 4290
Hi all! Although I'm kinda new here, I'd like to start off with a big criticism.
<please don't flame me mode on> :-)
Is it just my imagination, or does the Beta Playtest look a =lot= like the WotC System Reference Document (hereafter called the SRD)?
I've got copies of the entire 3.5 SRD here on my computer, and it seems to me that some of the material in the Beta Playtest is just direct quotes from the SRD.
Not that this is a -bad- thing mind you - using the SRD to formulate rules is a sure fire way to achieve compatibility with 3.5.
But what happens in December? I had heard that WotC was not going to allow any more 3.5 product after the end of the year. In fact, at least two game stores near me are clearing their shelves of 3.0 and 3.5 stuff as fast as a 50% off of cover will allow them to get rid of it.
<please don't flame me mode off>
In my next post, I promise I'll have something positive to say.
Pathfinder 4290
I guess I don't see this as "a big criticism". How could it be compatible with 3.5 and not look like the SRD? I think the more you read, playtest, and compare PfRPG with the 3.5 SRD, the more changes and additions will become evident. The baseline Paizo position is that the 3rd editions need revising, not replacing, as improvement.
But what happens in December? I had heard that WotC was not going to allow any more 3.5 product after the end of the year. In fact, at least two game stores near me are clearing their shelves of 3.0 and 3.5 stuff as fast as a 50% off of cover will allow them to get rid of it.
Got a source for this?
Because, as written, the OGL (which the SRD is under) is perpetual, and cannot be revoked. And WotC can't legally prevent another company from continuing to use it, unless that company signs the far more restrictive GSl document.
If WotC could actually "disallow" more 3.5 (or more precisely, OGL) content, then Paizo (and every other d20 publisher out there) would either be doing dramatically different rules, or working under 4E.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The Beta Playtest Edition necessarily omits some stuff to focus on things that were changed and that need the most playtesting. The final edition will likely be at least 200 pages longer, and will include a lot of the stuff you mention.
If I were king of the world, Erik, I would offer selections from the Pathfinder basic Game book in three or four smaller (64-page) editions. One would have information for arcane spellcasting characters. Another, divine apellcasters, and a third for everybody else.
If you want to play a wizard, here's a small book detailing what you'll need to know for the first several levels.
As it turns out, I am not king of the world. This usually makes me happy, but in this particular, it makes me sad.
...don't make Chris sad. That makes others of us sad too.
My verdant felicity now is diminished.
|
Just as an FYI, YMMV, FoxIt wouldn't display the Beta PDF or the web enhancement correctly on my computer. Every other page was just the background layout page, no text or text blocks. Very strange. I had to download Acrobat Reader just to read it.
I get the same problem, actually. I've been trying to come up with a way to fix it, but it seems i may need to download acrobat for it. I'm not sure if it does this for the modules as well, but if it's only the beta, then i'll just use my work comp to read that.
For my new players, I am forced to look them in the face and tell them that they really need to know two books (PHB and PF), and exactly what to pay attention to from which source and what to ignore. But still even at best I am forced to direct them to the SRD, where it will tell them why something doesn't work they way they want it but through no fault of their own but just because the book they made their character off of was incomplete.
To clarify, you have an issue with the fact that you, well we, are getting a chance to shape the end product. That our ideas are being listened to....???
Yes, new player's need to look at 2 books, but the end result, after all the play-testing is done, will be all the better because of this process.
So in short, you have a problem with the fact that it's not finish yet!
|
|
Ah! Thanks for clearing that up. I still wonder about everyone else just rushing to dump 3.0 and 3.5 stuff at bargain prices if the end-of-year cutoff wasn't so seemingly cut and dried, but if the ability of anyone to produce 3.5 compatible merchandise -isn't- over, than we have a lot less to worry about. I suspected that Paizo (who published 'Dungeon' and 'Dragon' magazines) would have done their homework on this question a long time before putting the bucks necessary to have Pathfinder out.
Now a good comment...
It seems to me that multiclassing (exactly the problem talked about in the intro) has gone the way of the dodo bird. I see nothing about multiclassing in the Beta Playtest, and there's a sentence after each class in the Beta that says "Once made this class cannot be changed." If this is true it might be one of the better things to happen to GMs. Heck the book even talks about people not taking fighter after 4th level and/or taking rogue after 2nd level. If this is true it might be one of the best things to ever happen to a GM. I can't tell you how many times I've occasionally struggled with a player that wants to run (for instance) a Rogue till 2nd level and then switch classes to a Ranger so as to get the benefits of both fairly quickly. Or is the multiclassing option one of the things that will be added after the playtest?
Pathfinder 4290
|
|
> I guess I don't see this as "a big criticism". How could it
> be compatible with 3.5 and not look like the SRD? I think
> the more you read, playtest, and compare PfRPG with the 3.5
> SRD, the more changes and additions will become evident.
> The baseline Paizo position is that the 3rd editions need
> revising, not replacing, as improvement.
My problem with this similarity was that the quotes were
=exactly= from the SRD. I realize that Paizo wants to havealmost total compatibility with the vast bulk of 3.5 stuff
out there. But sometimes it seems to me that the text from
the SRD can be a little dry (to put it gently) and could be
written in a way to make the Pathfinder book a fun read at
the same time that it provides rules for their game.
I'll try to come up with some examples this weekend, as my
local gaming group meets on Sun.
Pathfinder 4290
|
|
> Because, as written, the OGL (which the SRD is under) is
> perpetual, and cannot be revoked. And WotC can't legally
> prevent another company from continuing to use it, unless
> that company signs the far more restrictive GSl document.
Hm. That I'd like to see proven. Under the old SRD
License isn't the ability to revoke the license still in
WotC's hands?
And I've seen the new GSl license. Talk about restrictive.
> If WotC could actually "disallow" more 3.5 (or more
> precisely, OGL) content, then Paizo (and every other d20
> publisher out there) would either be doing dramatically
> different rules, or working under 4E.
OK - If the old 3.5 rules are still capable of being
used, then why is every other company but Paizo in a
hurry to 1) get rid of all 3.5 stock, 2A) make a new
game with their own rules or with another less
restrictive rules set or 2B) convert everything over
to 4.0. I've already got the Kingdoms of Kalamar
setting for 4.0 on PDF here.
Pathfinder 4920
|
My problem with this similarity was that the quotes were =exactly= from the SRD.
Two player's (or DM's for tha matter) can read the exact same paragraph from the SRD and interpret it differently. If Paizo changes the language on those paragraphs that are remaining the same between 3.5OGL and PRPG, then they will just be adding to the problem.
Translation: if the rule hasn't changed from the SRD, the rule text shouldn't change either. Afterall, the SRD is almost entirely crunch text; Paizo can add their own flavor without changing the rules.
-Skeld
|
|
This is =very= true. I've had rules lawyers challenge me on
this before, and I always have the same response = "If you
think you know better you run the game."
> Two player's (or DM's for tha matter) can read the exact same
> paragraph from the SRD and interpret it differently. If Paizo
> changes the language on those paragraphs that are remaining the
> same between 3.5OGL and PRPG, then they will just be adding to
> the problem.
> Translation: if the rule hasn't changed from the SRD, the
> rule text shouldn't change either. Afterall, the SRD is
> almost entirely crunch text; Paizo can add their own flavor
> without changing the rules.
> -Skeld
Hm. That I'd like to see proven. Under the old SRD
License isn't the ability to revoke the license still in
WotC's hands?
I could be wrong, but that's only if a company violates the OGL for some reason, and then only for that company. Doing an internet search for "OGL revoke" should provide more than a few places that discuss the topic better.
OK - If the old 3.5 rules are still capable of being
used, then why is every other company but Paizo in a
hurry to 1) get rid of all 3.5 stock, 2A) make a new
game with their own rules or with another less
restrictive rules set or 2B) convert everything over
to 4.0. I've already got the Kingdoms of Kalamar
setting for 4.0 on PDF here.
Probably because those companies have the D20 logo on their products, which they'll either have to rebrand, or stop selling.
Although I can't say for certain, as I'm not privy to the major decisions of any game publishers. ;P
|
|
For my new players, I am forced to look them in the face and tell them that they really need to know two books (PHB and PF), and exactly what to pay attention to from which source and what to ignore. But still even at best I am forced to direct them to the SRD, where it will tell them why something doesn't work they way they want it but through no fault of their own but just because the book they made their character off of was incomplete.
To clarify, you have an issue with the fact that you, well we, are getting a chance to shape the end product. That our ideas are being listened to....???
Yes, new player's need to look at 2 books, but the end result, after all the play-testing is done, will be all the better because of this process.
So in short, you have a problem with the fact that it's not finish yet!
That's one take. I don't really get the feeling that new ideas are being listened to very well. I guess that's why I'm so sad about Pathfinder. From the beginning it seems like there were a few ideas that were entirely from Paizo (consolidated skill list, combat feats, etc) that they were trying REALLY HARD to hammer into the new game, even when they were not good ideas. Some they've had to change because of how problematic they were (combat feats) but I didn't really feel like they wanted to.
There are also a lot of other really good ideas out there that have a strong basis on actual playtest. Not the wild stuff, either. The minor changes that make the game better. The things like minimum of 4 skill points for every class... Those things are considered 'bad for backward compatability', but at the same time we're changing the barbarian from rages per day to a number of rounds (so they could rage for a moment or a long, long, long time at their discretion) and throwing in how many new powers and abilities?
I'm sad because I think that Paizo is being a little inconsistent in what they're willing to try in this playtest. And maybe it is because they have a narrow window to finish everything in (their print deadlines are hell) and trying lots of 'new things' just means that the 'big things' won't get tested - but how many big changes should there be? The little changes are where I'm lost. Changing Concentration to be Spellcraft is a 'small change' - but it really ruins things for me. It means that my character (the wizard) never loses a spell, but the cleric and the sorcerer in the party virtually never succeed at casting defensively (that's what a +5 ability score at 1st level gets you).
I guess what I really want is someone at Paizo to help us with the 'why' of a change. I can tell you when something doesn't work in my game after actual playtesting, but it doesn't seem to get any more consideration than when I mention why something won't work in my game based on my understanding of how that rule works... I guess I don't feel that Paizo has been very inclusive... Maybe it is too big a project for one man to handle all the different voices. I can see that.
But the reason Pathfinder is being released is that a whole lot of people thought that 3.5 needs improvement. I'm one of them. But I have so much experience with 3.5 that improving it is easy. Switching to Pathfinder and having to houserule the heck out of it to make it playable is too much work.
I really thought I would be more excited about Pathfinder. I mean, I was. I went to GenCon for the first time because of the Beta release. The Pathfinder scenarios and the Paizo talks were the only events that I attended (well, there was one when I didn't have any Paizo things available). And I guess the only reason that I'm still hanging around and checking out the boards every day is that I want to be excited again. I want to believe that Pathfinder is where it's at.
So I guess I havea request. Can't we have a 'Designer's Explanation' board where people can say 'Let's talk about this rule... This is what I see. This is what happens in game. What was the goal of the designers? Is it achieving it's goal'. Not a place to talk about proposed house rules or problems with the existing rules - just a place to understand the reasoning behind the changes. Because frankly, most of the changes either have little interest to me, or annoy the heck out of me. Even the changes I like (the way skill points are allocated for example) are ruined by things I don't (consolidated skills, no increase in skill points for the classes that didn't benefit from consolidation).
Here's to hoping.
|
|
I don't really get the feeling that new ideas are being listened to very well. I guess that's why I'm so sad about Pathfinder. From the beginning it seems like there were a few ideas that were entirely from Paizo (consolidated skill list, combat feats, etc) that they were trying REALLY HARD to hammer into the new game, even when they were not good ideas.
I'm still hopefully, but I can see where DeadDMWalking is coming from. We had some GREAT discussions about things like skills and feats back in the Alpha rules days. Alpha1 tried something new with skills, most folks hated it, Jason listened. Cool. But after that we had huge brainstorm sessions over skills, consolidation, skill points, synergy, etc. and ... nothing. Alpha3 didn't pick up on any of the ideas, and neither did the Beta rules.
Maybe having some influence back in Alpha1 went to our heads, and Jason is assuredly crazy busy, but some ideas have seemed to gain enough momentum and popular support then gone nowhere that I'd love to hear some commentary on them from the staff. Like I said, I'm still hopeful that some of the community generated ideas will make it into the final rules, but I haven't seen much of this lately.
|
|
The Beta Playtest Edition necessarily omits some stuff to focus on things that were changed and that need the most playtesting. The final edition will likely be at least 200 pages longer, and will include a lot of the stuff you mention.
If I were king of the world, Erik, I would offer selections from the Pathfinder basic Game book in three or four smaller (64-page) editions. One would have information for arcane spellcasting characters. Another, divine apellcasters, and a third for everybody else.
If you want to play a wizard, here's a small book detailing what you'll need to know for the first several levels.
As it turns out, I am not king of the world. This usually makes me happy, but in this particular, it makes me sad.
Chris, you've just given me the idea to print out the Final and then bind sections together based on classes.
|
|
> If I were king of the world, Erik, I would offer selections from
> the Pathfinder basic Game book in three or four smaller
> (64-page) editions. One would have information for arcane
> spellcasting characters. Another, divine apellcasters, and a
> third for everybody else.
>
> If you want to play a wizard, here's a small book detailing what
> you'll need to know for the first several levels.
This has been a major bone to pick with me for a long time. Remember the "little brown books" of original D&D? Examples:
Chainmail = 46 pages
Men & Magic = 36 pages
Monsters & Treasure = 42 pages
Underworld & Wilderness = 36 pages
Reference Guide = 20 pages
Greyhawk = 72 pages
Blackmoor = 60 pages
Eldritch Wizardry = 60 pages
Gods & Heroes = 72 pages
Swords & Spells = 46 pages
Why does this game seem to get more and more complicated as time goes on? With 3.5, I didn't even try to start my daughter on D&D - I used GURPS. There should be a simplified booklet (There! I said a nasty word! I'll say it again - "BOOKLET"!) that can be given to people who have never played before as a starter kit for Pathfinder - or, for that matter, =any= game system that a ... oh say 8 to 12 year old can understand. That's the way to get new people involved - start small.
And here's the next thing - =give= it away. Or make it cheap enough so people can buy it with their (for lack of a better term) lunch money.
Paizo is good at this - I bought the "Crimson Throne" basic book for $2.00 cover! Although it doesn't have a lot of info, it did give me enough info to decide to look for the mods. The same was true for their "Runelords" basic book and mods. If it worked for the mods it'll work for the game.
Pathfinder # 4290
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Chris, you've just given me the idea to print out the Final and then bind sections together based on classes.
If we're legally allowed to do this, yeah, that's what I'll be doing, as well, for Pathfinder Society events where brand new players would be designing characters.
Maybe we are king of the world.
|
|
> If I were king of the world, Erik, I would offer selections from
> the Pathfinder basic Game book in three or four smaller
> (64-page) editions. One would have information for arcane
> spellcasting characters. Another, divine spellcasters, and a
> third for everybody else.
>
> If you want to play a wizard, here's a small book detailing what
> you'll need to know for the first several levels.
Here's a couple ideas I'm going to throw in the cauldron to see if they boil...
Booklet 1) Fighters: a quick and dirty way to come up with the details of one of the simplest classes to run and play with. Some few feats and skills that every fighter might normally take.
Booklet 2) Mages: ditto the above with a few of the generally used spells (Magic Missile, Fireball, etc) thrown in in place of the extra feats and skills of the fighter...
Booklet 3) Clerics: also ditto, substituting divine spells and feats for magic spells and feats...
Booklet 4) Rogues: also ditto, replacing the magic/divine spells with material on detecting traps, opening locks, etc...
The material for the sub-classes such as Ranger, Barbarian, Druid, etc., would still be in the big book.
Remember, with these small booklets, the idea is to allow people to learn enough to survive a few sessions - maybe even as far as, say, 6th level. At which point they can decide if they want to get a big book and keep playing or not.
Not to mention that these booklets could be finalized as soon as the playtest period for that class is over.
Pathfinder # 4290