By which I mean...can it leave 3.5 too far behind and still remain viable as an independant rules system?
To further clarify...if PFRPG changes too much or the changed go to far and create a lot of work for DMs wanting to use all their 3.5 resources, will said DMs buy into it?
I love the Pathfinder world. I love the APs. I'm not so fond of some of the design decisions being proferred in the Beta Playtest.
This is a pretty open topic so dive right in. Politely, please.
|
From what I've seen and read on tested with PFRPG, I don't think it's going to be an issue, especially from a DM standpoint. As a player, will you probably be spending some time converting characters and trading out aspects (feats/skills/etc) that are no longer needed? Sure, but you'd be doing that with any kind of rules conversion too.
We also need to keep in mind that there isn't a DMG or MM for PFRPG yet. So from what I've seen the only changes that a DM will need to make, at least initially, is to account for the average party being able to handle a little more. I'm hypothetically putting a PF party ECL = 3.5 party ECL+1 in terms of setting up encounters.
So do I think that PFRPG will discourage DMs because of the changes they are making? No. I think many DMs who have heard of Pathfinder will check out the changes and use something. Whether they make the full switch over or not right away I cannot say, but I do not believe that any of the discussions or changes in the PFRPG will hurt the appeal of the system.
The reason I wonder is that for so many of us who've stayed with Paizo rather than go with 4E was because Paizo was staying 3.5.
I honest to god like some of the stuff in Beta. But I also really really hate some of it (Power Attack, Cleave/Great Cleave, cleric Domain spells gone...).
I'm hypothetically putting a PF party ECL = 3.5 party ECL+1 in terms of setting up encounters.
I think that was not what Paizo had in mind.
I remember them stating somewhere that they buffed the base races and classes because those were not on par with the current splatbooks. It was to balance the base with the extended source out there, so that playing a Dwarven Fighter is an option besides an (Race from Splatbook A) (Class from Splatbook B).Therefore upping the ECL is counter-intuitive, if you only do it for PF races and classes.
would like to point out Pf classes at low level don't fair a whole lot better then 3.5 ones did.
Ask franz I dropped 3 out of 6 PF pc's with a 3.5 adventurer. If it wasn't for his high Ac it would have been much worse.
+1EL is a bit much
|
To further clarify...if PFRPG changes too much or the changed go to far and create a lot of work for DMs wanting to use all their 3.5 resources, will said DMs buy into it?
I wouldn't. I want that backwards compatibility, and so far my playing the Alpha/Beta rules in a campaign and one-shots -- as opposed to mentally dissecting it -- has supported that goal.
I do think that PF can stand on its own.
Sure, many people decided to support Pathfinder over 4e because Pathfinder is the game they like, but I don't think that most of them think that 3.5e is perfect.
I think the consensus is that yes, 3e has its problems and can use some improvements, but that 4e was a step (or, rather, lots of steps) in the wrong direction. Pathfinder seems to be taking the right steps most of the time.
Yes, some of the things (power attack and similar feats and cleave among them) aren't to my liking, but the vast majority of changes is.
We also need to keep in mind that there isn't a DMG or MM for PFRPG yet.
The core book will do the DMG's job, too. So only the Monster Manual is missing so far, and that one's almost definetly coming, too.
|
|
Sure, many people decided to support Pathfinder over 4e because Pathfinder is the game they like, but I don't think that most of them think that 3.5e is perfect.I think the consensus is that yes, 3e has its problems and can use some improvements, but that 4e was a step (or, rather, lots of steps) in the wrong direction. Pathfinder seems to be taking the right steps most of the time.
And there are some (apparently a minority) who like both systems (three if you separate 3.x and Pathfinder) and support them all.
And there are some (apparently a minority) who like both systems (three if you separate 3.x and Pathfinder) and support them all.
Yes, but not for long. Soon, we will have hunted down and killed every last one of them!
Seriously, though, what I want to say is this: 4e, no matter how great or bad it is, doesn't feel like D&D to many people. Some of those will play both 3e and 4e, but for them 4e is D&D only in name.
And for those people, I think Pathfinder still feels like the D&D they know.
And for those people, I think Pathfinder still feels like the D&D they know.
I'm one of these guys.
And a lot of friends of mine are converting/already converted.
|
To further clarify...if PFRPG changes too much or the changed go to far and create a lot of work for DMs wanting to use all their 3.5 resources, will said DMs buy into it?
James has been telling anyone who asked about using APs to playtest not to convert anything and play directly out of the book as much as possible (CMBs are about all that had to be changed) So that they could test how easy it was to drop a 3.5 adventure on PFRPG PCs
|
I think Pathfinder may be the next step for those who played enough 3.5 to notice the issues that Pathfinder is meant to fix.
However for those people like me who have not played enough 3.5 to notice those issues, then moving to Pathfinder is more effort than it is worth - and I will stick to running 3.5 and if any player wants to buy the core rulebook I will direct them to eBay to get a copy of the D&D3.5 players handbook.
When I heard about Pathfinder I had hoped that at least all stats etc would be exactly the same with only slight changes on how those stats are used in play.
My mate seems to like Pathfinder and we are playing Beta at the moment, he seems to think it is extremely backward compatible.
However the other week we spent a lot of time looking up how to do a grapple in Pathfinder (we only had one hardcopy of the rules). If this had been 3.5 I already know the rules and it could have played faster.
Also, my recent purchase of SORD means my 3.5 games will go a lot quicker, but SORD is not compatible with Pathfinder so I have not been able to use it in the Pathfinder game :(
I have bought a hardcopy of PF Beta now, just so I can reference it during play to see how feats have changed etc.
So, in summary I think PF can stand alone, but that it has actually fractured the market further with some people like me staying 3.5, some going to Pathfinder, some going to 4e and some doing a combination.
I imagine 70+% of Pathfinder users will take bits and pieces from it and bits and pieces from 3.5. The real acid test will be the first adventure path published using the PFRPG rules (since Paizo's revenue stream is mostly from adventure paths and not rulebooks, at least so far). It could be "too 3.5" for some folks and "not 3.5 enough" for others.
Do any of you find Pathfinder to be needlessly complicating things?
For instance: Beta reintroduces the mechanic of: if your sword has enough plusses it will bypass certain types of DR. However, the description under Greater Magic Weapon says it can only bypass DR/magic. Despite it being the spell used to make a +5 sword or whatever.
That doesn't make any sense at all and seems to greatly complicate things in my mind. Even worse than golf bags.
|
Do any of you find Pathfinder to be needlessly complicating things?
For instance: Beta reintroduces the mechanic of: if your sword has enough plusses it will bypass certain types of DR. However, the description under Greater Magic Weapon says it can only bypass DR/magic. Despite it being the spell used to make a +5 sword or whatever.
That doesn't make any sense at all and seems to greatly complicate things in my mind. Even worse than golf bags.
That is why it is in Beta... to find inconsistencies now and tweak what needs tweaking.
The difference between Pathfinder and 3.5 is no greater than 3.0 to 3.5 was. If I prefer Improved trip from 3.5 (which I do) then I will throw that into my game instead. If I prefer the buff durations from some spells from 3.0 (which I do), then I will use them. You can't beat that for backwards compatability.
I think too many people are under a false illusion that backwards compatability means that Pathfinder will fit 100% perfectly with every single variation of every single book by every single publisher for 3.0 and 3.5 and any variation thereof.
What it means is, you can use those old books that are no longer published to plug and play your favorite stuff in where you want with some tweaks and common sense. As time passes those books will be replaced by newer versions from paizo, and other publishers. As time passes those old books will become archaic and new games and gamers will not even have real access to the books so their material has a very limited use for future gaming.
By which I mean...can it leave 3.5 too far behind and still remain viable as an independant rules system?
That's an interesting question.
The less that Pathfinder changes 3.5, the less necessary a new product becomes, as it's less different than what we already own.
The more that Pathfinder changes 3.5, the more necessary it becomes as a product, as it's "more new" than base 3.5.
Thus, Pathfinder's adherence to backwards compatibility is both its strength ("I can use the books on my shelf!") and its weakness ("Damn, they didn't fix Element X That I Think Sucked About 3.5. Why should I buy this?").
What Pathfinder really needs to decide upon is how far removed it wishes to be from 3.5. High-level play, I predict, will be its "entrance exam," as the higher-level a 3.5 game gets, the more the fundamental issues become known (e.g. Challenge Rating), and the higher in magnitude of problems those issues cause.
-Matt
By which I mean...can it leave 3.5 too far behind and still remain viable as an independant rules system?
Pathfinder RPG will remain a viable, independent rules system for as long as people keep subscribed to Pathfinder Adventure Paths.
There are a lot of DMs who don't have a lot of other 3.5 resources or have few enough they are willing to deal with the compatibility issues. Then again, maybe I'm in the minority here, maybe everyone else has 40+ books sitting on their shelf and is dreading having to deal with compatibility headaches.
I see people complain about the Domains...
When there is nothing stopping you from playing a 3.5 Cleric with Domain Spells, and using all the other improvements (Channel Energy, etc, etc)
If someone did that, I would probably give them only one Domain instead of two, but the rules don't interfere with playing like that...
(I don't think there's ANY other changes to the Cleric so far besides Domains, all the changes to Channel Energy, Favored Class, BAB/HD, etc are actually outside the Class itself, so if you drop the 3.5 Cleric into a Pathfinder game, he/she would get all those benefits while retaining their Domain Spells...)
I hope it dosn't straight too far from 3.5... althought if its changes completely into a new system I would change my gameplay to it.
|
|
By which I mean...can it leave 3.5 too far behind and still remain viable as an independant rules system?Pathfinder RPG will remain a viable, independent rules system for as long as people keep subscribed to Pathfinder Adventure Paths.
There are a lot of DMs who don't have a lot of other 3.5 resources or have few enough they are willing to deal with the compatibility issues. Then again, maybe I'm in the minority here, maybe everyone else has 40+ books sitting on their shelf and is dreading having to deal with compatibility headaches.
*raises hand*
I have 40+ books and frankly find most of the splatbooks to be worthless. Sure wish I had my money back for them. As a result I tend to use Core Books, with maybe one feat from this book, one spell from that book... lot of money for very little useful content.
I do like monster books though.
That pretty much defines me in a nutshell. I find it easier to contemplate going backwards from pathfinder to 3.5 then the otherway around.
Maybe easiest just to stick with 3.5 if you are in love with the supplemental material then. There is a good chance you will be able to continue using your material with the PRPG APs... I guess that would be a little wonky, you'd have to do some back-porting to get grappling and some other stuff across. Though 3.5 grappling sucks so bad I think I would use at least those rules :)
*raises hand*
I have 40+ books and frankly find most of the splatbooks to be worthless. Sure wish I had my money back for them. As a result I tend to use Core Books, with maybe one feat from this book, one spell from that book... lot of money for very little useful content.
I do like monster books though.
Monster books are good mmmmKay... and probably won't require much changes.
Overall I got into 3.5 late in the game and didn't buy many supplements.. and was pretty disappointed with the ones I did buy. Some of the stuff I did like was made more or less made obsolete by pathfinder (reserve feats, fiend blooded sorcerer, etc). The little that's left I can do without or port.
Then again, maybe I'm in the minority here, maybe everyone else has 40+ books sitting on their shelf and is dreading having to deal with compatibility headaches.
I don't want to go downstairs to count, but 40 doesn't sound too far-off: Most of D&D core wizards released, everything Rokugen d20, several Midnight books, Nearly everything FR 3e (but that stuff will not use much action any more), and a smattering of other books. And Pathfinder, of course.
But I'm not very concerned about compatibility issues. I'm confident that Jason and his team will find the right balance between maintaining compatibility and fixing things. And so far, it hasn't been that much of a hassle.
However the other week we spent a lot of time looking up how to do a grapple in Pathfinder (we only had one hardcopy of the rules). If this had been 3.5 I already know the rules and it could have played faster.
How can they fix things that need fixing if they cannot touch it? Some mechanics, grapple probably being foremost among them, are in need of a fix. That means that in the beginning, you'll lose some time looking them up again. But I'd say that the changes are learned quickly enough, and after that, there'll be a lot less headache for everyone.
So, in summary I think PF can stand alone, but that it has actually fractured the market further with some people like me staying 3.5, some going to Pathfinder, some going to 4e and some doing a combination.
Pathfinder doesn't fracture anything: the PF core book will replace the 3.5e core books, which are no longer printed and will, sooner or later, disappear off the shelves. People can either hunt down used copies of the old books or get the PF book right off the shelves.
I guess that other publishers will not make that many 3.5 books any more, since they face the same problem as Paizo would face if they didn't make their own book: It's not easy to sell supplements for a game that is no longer available in the stores. Some might continue, but I guess more will instead directly support Pathfinder.
Since the two are meant to be compatible, players of both can use both without too much fuss, anyway.
|
|
How can they fix things that need fixing if they cannot touch it? Some mechanics, grapple probably being foremost among them, are in need of a fix. That means that in the beginning, you'll lose some time looking them up again. But I'd say that the changes are learned quickly enough, and after that, there'll be a lot less headache for everyone.
For those people who find it a problem, the fix is most likely welcome. For those who didn't have an issue with it then it is a bit of a pain to learn the new rule. But I admit the latter people are probably in the minority. I wish my current GM was sticking with 3.5 at the moment, but then he has just been kind enough to buy us all copies of Pathfinder beta :)
Pathfinder doesn't fracture anything: the PF core book will replace the 3.5e core books, which are no longer printed and will, sooner or later, disappear off the shelves.
The 3.5 core books may disappear, but a hell of a lot of people already have them, and so I don't think it will "die off" quickly or to the extent that older editions have (and no edition ever truly dies).
My concern is that some people may want to play 3.5 and not be bothered about Pathfinder, and vice versa. If in a couple of year's time I go to a convention and offer to run a D&D3.5 game, will there be players who have moved onto Pathfinder who now won't give my game a go because it isn't Pathfinder? Maybe not, but I have that worry.
Even in my home group one GM has chosen to go Pathfinder and we are using the Beta rules. I however will run 3.5. Our players will have to get used to the subtle differences and I expect to run into a fair bit of confusion, e.g. "Improved Trip only adds +2 to the roll, I though it was +4?", "Why are my HP so high? I added my racial HP bonus, what do you mean that doesn't exist in 3.5?"
Again, I may be worrying over nothing, but it does give me concern that subtle differences could trip people up or cause issues that we don't immediately notice (like the time I played in a Star Wars d20 Living Force game and a D&D only player doubled his damage on a critical, the GM didn't notice and applied it to the BBEG's Wounds and the climactic battle was over in 1 round).
Also, for things like the living campaigns where GMs & players have to run by the RAW and cannot just plug and play, then people will really have to learn the differences. I for example plan to GM Pathfinder Society Season Zero scenarios as they are D&D 3.5, but come season 1 and the move to Pathfinder I will stop GMing as I don't plan to get that familiar with the Pathfinder rules (I will only play, if that).
I guess that other publishers will not make that many 3.5 books any more, since they face the same problem as Paizo would face if they didn't make their own book: It's not easy to sell supplements for a game...
If 3pp do start making supplements specifically for Pathfinder I really hope they will label them as such - so those of us who don't want to handle any conversion issues can choose appropriately.
What I would really live is to have Pathfinder lead to someone publishing a book of Feats that are 100% compatible with both 3.5 and PF - unfortunately due to the change in most skill names I doubt that will be easy and will put me off buying it, if it is not 100% compatible with 3.5
Most of D&D core wizards released, everything Rokugen d20, several Midnight books, Nearly everything FR 3e (but that stuff will not use much action any more), and a smattering of other books. And Pathfinder, of course.
Strange that you mention Midnight. I found the changes that Midnight made to D&D 3.x quite interesting. But I don't think that Midnight would be compatible with other books. (I know it is a third party product, but, Pathfinder is nearly that as well.)
How can they fix things that need fixing if they cannot touch it? Some mechanics, grapple probably being foremost among them, are in need of a fix. That means that in the beginning, you'll lose some time looking them up again. But I'd say that the changes are learned quickly enough, and after that, there'll be a lot less headache for everyone.For those people who find it a problem, the fix is most likely welcome. For those who didn't have an issue with it then...
... it is even easier using the 'old' 3.5 rules.
That's what houserules are for.
True, in a living campaign you have to stick to one ruleset RAW. But you will know which ruleset that is as you join.
|
|
I think too many people are under a false illusion that backwards compatability means that Pathfinder will fit 100% perfectly with every single variation of every single book by every single publisher for 3.0 and 3.5 and any variation thereof.
On that topic, I remember when my friend and I went to the store looking for an adventure for Basic D&D. We found 'I1-Dwellers of the Forbidden City', but saw it was for the as-yet-unfamiliar AD&D, and asked the guy behind the counter how easy it would be to use.
'Oh, very easy', he said. 'It's virtually the same game'.
Well.
I bought it, got it home, and was faced with a load of completely baffling entries, for races, classes, creatures I'd never heard of.
The creatures had stats in their blocks I had never heard of (Magic Resistance? What's that?).
One of the pre-gens was a Gnome Illusionist? What the hell are they?
I put it down, and I was rather miffed, thinking I'd been mis-directed. And it sat on my shelf for a few months, while we tinkered around the Isle of Dread, and fell through the mists into Castle Amber (was that the first 'Ravenloft' domain?).
But then there were no more scenarios for Expert play. We made some up, but we were just kids, and they weren't as good as the 'real thing'. And that module sat on the shelf, tempting us with the words 'For Characters of levels 4-7'. And we cracked it open, to give it a try, rolled some new characters,, and off we went (No, we didn't play campaigns, we just rolled up a new bunch of PCs each time).
Somehow, despite all the incompatible stats, unfamiliar rules, and weird creatures, we bumbled our way through it.
We only saw the xorn from the waist up, we didn't know it had three legs, I imagined it as an upside-down Piercer, with a slug-foot, which oozed after the PCs, demanding their gems.
Unfamiliar spells were swapped for similar-level equivalents, or I just made crap up, which seemed to fit.
We'd grab a dictionary or encyclopedia to decipher strange words.
I stopped seeing it as a chore, since it kept me interested, due to the exotic location, the flavourful main villains, and the open-ended, sandbox presentation.
No doubt an Advanced D&D purist would have shuddered at the liberties we took with the material, but it proved to me that I liked flying by the seat of my pants, winging my way through, and creating my own stuff.
We found 'I1-Dwellers of the Forbidden City', but saw it was for the as-yet-unfamiliar AD&D, and asked the guy behind the counter how easy it would be to use....
Dude - that is one of the best D&D stories. Ever.
Thanks for sharing!
tfad
Pathfinder doesn't fracture anything: the PF core book will replace the 3.5e core books, which are no longer printed and will, sooner or later, disappear off the shelves.The 3.5 core books may disappear, but a hell of a lot of people already have them, and so I don't think it will "die off" quickly or to the extent that older editions have (and no edition ever truly dies).
It won't? I suspect in 2 years no one will be publishing new material for 3.5 outside of very small PDF publishers. Look at the big 3PPs they are all moving to either 4e or Paizo. I don't think the 3.5 market is fracturing, I think it's dying and Paizo is ensuring that it's legacy continues in PRPG so they can keep publishing APs.
The big problem is new players are not going to have access to the core 3.5 material, it will be harder and harder to onboard players. One thing Wizard's proved is that people want new material on a regular basis. Paizo provides will be providing that for PathfinderRPG, I don't see anyone trying to breath life into 3.5.
No doubt an Advanced D&D purist would have shuddered at the liberties we took with the material, but it proved to me that I liked flying by the seat of my pants, winging my way through, and creating my own stuff.
Actually the developers I've talked to know their stuff isn't used as written or that everyone has a different interpretation or flavor, they generally like that people adapt it.
|
|
The reason I wonder is that for so many of us who've stayed with Paizo rather than go with 4E was because Paizo was staying 3.5.
I honest to god like some of the stuff in Beta. But I also really really hate some of it (Power Attack, Cleave/Great Cleave, cleric Domain spells gone...).
But being backwards compatable, you don't need to convert. Paizo just needs new players to buy into the system, so that when the APs switch over they can sell to three groups:
1. New players using PRPG who cannot get the 3.5 books..
2. Old players who convert to PRPG.
3. Old players who want to keep using their 3.5 books, but also want to keep playing the PRPG-APs.
The best thing for groups 2-3 is that we can use what we want from both systems, and it should just be a matter of ignoring things in the PRPG statblocks to make it more like 3.5.
The 3.5 core books may disappear, but a hell of a lot of people already have them, and so I don't think it will "die off" quickly or to the extent that older editions have (and no edition ever truly dies).
Their target market is not people who already have all the books they need. That's a pretty hard market.
Paizo believes that selling books for a game whose core rules are no longer available isn't goint to work, and since they have a lot more knowledge about these things, and no record of lying to people, I believe them.
3e will probably not die out anytime soon, but it will decline.
My concern is that some people may want to play 3.5 and not be bothered about Pathfinder, and vice versa. If in a couple of year's time I go to a convention and offer to run a D&D3.5 game, will there be players who have moved onto Pathfinder who now won't give my game a go because it isn't Pathfinder? Maybe not, but I have that worry.
Almost assuredly. There's always people who move onto a new edition and never go back. Personally, circumstances would have to become dire indeed before I played AD&D again.
But since PF and 3e are so closely related, you'll find people willing to go back to 3.5 if you run it.
Of course, they might expect the same of you: Adapt to them.
Even in my home group one GM has chosen to go Pathfinder and we are using the Beta rules. I however will run 3.5. Our players will have to get used to the subtle differences and I expect to run into a fair bit of confusion
If you don't want that confusion, agree on a game and run that.
I added my racial HP bonus, what do you mean that doesn't exist in 3.5?"
What racial HP bonus?
Also, for things like the living campaigns where GMs & players have to run by the RAW and cannot just plug and play, then people will really have to learn the differences.
That's the price we pay for progress. It wasn't really different with the 3.0 - 3.5 transition.
If 3pp do start making supplements specifically for Pathfinder I really hope they will label them as such - so those of us who don't want to handle any conversion issues can choose appropriately.
I'm sure they will lable them, to get people who had to buy Pathfinder (because D&D 3.x was no longer available) to buy more readily, since they don't have to do any conversion work with genuine Pathfinder RPG material (not that there is much conversion to do).
What I would really live is to have Pathfinder lead to someone publishing a book of Feats that are 100% compatible with both 3.5 and PF - unfortunately due to the change in most skill names I doubt that will be easy and will put me off buying it, if it is not 100% compatible with 3.5
I'm starting to think that you're in the wrong place, as you seem quite uninterested in the Pathfinder RPG.
Speaking for myself, yes, it can stand on its own. As long as there is enough backwards compatibility that I can use spells and monsters from 3.5 sources I'm good. I probably won't use many prestige classes and if I do I'm fine with a little tweaking to make it work.
Frankly, even if it lost this level of compatibility, I'd probably still stick with Pathfinder, assuming the changes were ones I like and that still maintained the feel of past D&D editions. I don't like the style and feel of 4e...but that doesn't mean I don't ever want so see the rules evolve, I'm fine with updates that work well with the fundamental feel and traditions of the game.
|
|
It won't? I suspect in 2 years no one will be publishing new material for 3.5 outside of very small PDF publishers. Look at the big 3PPs they are all moving to either 4e or Paizo. I don't think the 3.5 market is fracturing, I think it's dying and Paizo is ensuring that it's legacy continues in PRPG so they can keep publishing APs.
unfortunately I wasn't talking about the market, I was talking about the player base - which i think will / is fracturing with those players who will stick with 3.5 (just like many people still play AD&D 2nd ed) and some going to Pathfinder.
I am worried that if the rulesets become too different, Pathfinder players won't want to play a 3.5 game, and 3.5 players will find it difficult to adjust to play a Pathfinder game, especially for one shot con games.
|
|
Their target market is not people who already have all the books they need. That's a pretty hard market.
Its not the people who have all the books they need, but the people who have the core books they need, but who want to continue to buy supplements. I.e. me!
Paizo believes that selling books for a game whose core rules are no longer available isn't goint to work
I agree, and that was why I was originally enthused about the idea of Pathfinder. I imagined it would be teh 3.5 rules with a minor tweak here and there - but little enough that the PF core and teh D&D3.5 core books could be used interchangeably. Those new to the game could buy PF, those who already owned 3.5 could simply buy the Pathfinder supplements. It seems however that the 3.5 players will need to buy Pathfinder core to really make the most of any new supplements.
But since PF and 3e are so closely related, you'll find people willing to go back to 3.5 if you run it.
I hope so. I guess my concerns are based on my own attitude of not wanting to have to do any conversion. I have never bought any 3.0 books and would be put off playing in a game if someone were using the 3.0 rules. Hopefully most players aren't like me :)
Of course, they might expect the same of you: Adapt to them.
Well I am trying it out because our GM has decided to run it. The fact that the PDF is free at least makes me more likely to give it a try. Now, if the PDF of the final release is signicantly priced it may dissuade me from playing beyond the Beta, instead relying on my GM to spoon feed me the rule changes.
If you don't want that confusion, agree on a game and run that.
Unfortunately it is not that simple, my group has a lot of GMs and we all want to run our favourite systems and settings. If I want to run my favourite (currently 3.5 Eberron) I have to accept that I will have to play in other people's favourite games, even if they are not quite my cup of tea.
What racial HP bonus?
Its an optional rule in Beta, but I was using it as an example of how a very core rule may differ significantly between 3.5 and the final Pathfinder.
I'm starting to think that you're in the wrong place, as you seem quite uninterested in the Pathfinder RPG.
Yeah, I'm sorry for pissing and moaning. I am interested in Pathfinder because I am playing in a game and for one GM in our group it will likely become his system of choice. I am also interested in it because its success may in some way increase the peer pressure to convert myself (I plan to run 3.5 at conventions, but if the players are more interested in Pathfinder based games, then I may not get any interest).
And if I do feel the pressure to convert to Pathfinder - which for me woudl mean reading cover to cover the final core rulebook(s) and learning the rules and how they differ from 3.5 - then I may be tempted to simply choose to go with D&D 4e, at least that system will actively be supporting the setting I like (Eberron).
|
|
Unfortunately it is not that simple, my group has a lot of GMs and we all want to run our favourite systems and settings. If I want to run my favourite (currently 3.5 Eberron) I have to accept that I will have to play in other people's favourite games, even if they are not quite my cup of tea.
That pretty much sums up the 80s and 90s for me.
The only difference was that the alternate games back then had radically different rules engines, and were totally incompatible.
What racial HP bonus?Its an optional rule in Beta, but I was using it as an example of how a very core rule may differ significantly between 3.5 and the final Pathfinder.
The key word here is optional. It's not much more than a published house rule. Even with 3.5 games, you're likely to run into complications like that: One GM insists on 3d6 in order for ability scores and rolling HD without any failsaves; the next uses 4d6 drop lowest, any order, and lets you reroll 1's; another grants you 25d6 to distribute among the ability scores as you see fit (minimum 3d6) and every HD roll that is below average will be raised; still another goes for point buy and average HP, or average +1, or 3/4 full.
Some use full HD for first, some give you twice your usual amount, others give you the Con score on first level.
All that isn't really an issue with D&D vs. Pathfinder, but with This GM's game vs. That GM's game.
I'm starting to think that you're in the wrong place, as you seem quite uninterested in the Pathfinder RPG.Yeah, I'm sorry for pissing and moaning.
Yeah. Sorry for the remark. It's just that someone makes a point of mentioning how he will not play the very game that is to be discussed in the current message boards, and further makes a point of saying that books that use the new rules should be marked so he can avoid them more easily, it raises some red flags.
My reaction was probably over the top and you're not trying to troll against PF, so I apologise.
And if I do feel the pressure to convert to Pathfinder - which for me woudl mean reading cover to cover the final core rulebook(s) and learning the rules and how they differ from 3.5 - then I may be tempted to simply choose to go with D&D 4e, at least that system will actively be supporting the setting I like (Eberron).
It's not quite as easy as that: If you convert from D&D to Pathfinder, you might have to read the book again to find the differences, but I'd say that once spotted, it's not so hard to "relearn" things.
But if you go from D&D to 4e, you'll have to learn a whole new system. The differences aren't subtle at all. It's more like learning a new game than learning a new edition, since the things you were familiar with might no longer be true. And in 4e, that seems to go not just for crunch, but even for fluff.
You have to remember that elves aren't the magical race any more, but pure forest dwellers. The magical "elves" are called eladrin now - formerly the name of a type of outsider. You might know lamias as half-woman, half-animal (in D&D, the standard is half-feline, but half-snake is also popular, as that was the original lamia's shape), but now they're a weird swarm-creature that can turn from woman into bunch of dung beatles.
|
By which I mean...can it leave 3.5 too far behind and still remain viable as an independant rules system?
Oh sure, yes.
3.5 is a pretty complicated game, compared to say Call of Cthulhu. If you can handle 3.5, you can handle PFRPG, or a hybrid of both.
I am very busy lately, and couldn't read the whole beta yet. I like a lot of it, but I am not certain yet I want it 100%.
If I don't like something in the end result, I will tweak it to my taste and end of story. For instance, i am not so certain that I want to relearn the whole spell list.
Let me stir the can a little more.
Why should someone who is more or less happy with 3.5 and all the stuff he/she had bought for it switch to Pathfinder?
What's in Pathfinder that makes it a must have? I know the answer of this one for myself but I'm interested in what y'all think.
Let me stir the can a little more.
Why should someone who is more or less happy with 3.5 and all the stuff he/she had bought for it switch to Pathfinder?
I don't think they would.
As far as I know, Paizo's bread and butter will still be whatever stuff it publishes on a monthly basis: adventure paths and setting stuff for the "World of Golarion". The setting stuff is probably 80% rules-neutral, and the adventure paths should be close enough to 3.5 to allow easy conversion (hope, hope).
Whether an individual buys a copy of the Pathfinder rules or not may not make a huge impact on Paizo's bottom line.
|
|
The key word here is optional. It's not much more than a published house rule.
Okay, I picked a bad example. In my example I was suggesting that Racial Hit Points may be something that is not optional in the final version but a core rule. Anyway, it was purely illustrative and I am sure there are other rules out there that are different and can cause confusion.
Yeah. Sorry for the remark. It's just that someone makes a point of mentioning how he will not play the very game that is to be discussed in the current message boards, and further makes a point of saying that books that use the new rules should be marked so he can avoid them more easily, it raises some red flags.
No need to apologise, to be honest I am probably venting about my current frustration with my gaming in general - I am playing games I am really not bothered about and not playing the games that I have sitting on my shelves. But specifically I am venting because I am only just getting really enthused about D&D3.5 and it seems I am too late - and rather than Pathfinder continuing the game I like, it may actually be helping to kill it further. I am seeing Pathfinder as an alternate 4th edition, rather than a continuance of 3.5.
It's not quite as easy as that: If you convert from D&D to Pathfinder, you might have to read the book again to find the differences, but I'd say that once spotted, it's not so hard to "relearn" things.
But if you go from D&D to 4e, you'll have to learn a whole new system. The differences aren't subtle at all.
To be honest, I think I would find it easier to learn a completely new system than try to seek out and remember all the little tweaks between 3.5 and Pathfinder. If the differences aren't subtle they are more obvious and they easier to notice. Its the same reason I don't find my knowledge of 3.5 confusing my GMing of World of Darkness, but I do sometimes find it confusing me for Spycraft or Star Wars d20 RCR.
|
|
Why should someone who is more or less happy with 3.5 and all the stuff he/she had bought for it switch to Pathfinder?
Yeah, I almost started a thread asking "So what's my motivation?".
For me I am worried that my "motivation" will be based purely on non-games mechanics. For example, if it will become easier to get players to play Pathfinder than it would to get players to play D&D3.5, then yes, there is an incentive to learn Pathfinder.
Also, as one GM in my weekly group (the host) has chosen to run Pathfinder (and doesn't look at all interested in running 3.5) then there may be some incentive to run PF to harmonise the rules knowledge of our players, and avoid confusions. My PF GM is happy to still play 3.5 and is by no means insisting that others switch to PF when GMing, but it is still a potential motivator.
Other than those two things, I am not familiar with the problems of 3.5 to see the benefit of PF. I admit there are changes that I like, for example Cleric's not having to sacrifice spells to heal others and Demoralise being able to be performed at a distance, there are other changes that I don't like, e.g. Improved Trip being toned down. So overall to me it isn't anything I could not houserule (or find an official Feat to do).
|
|
As far as I know, Paizo's bread and butter will still be whatever stuff it publishes on a monthly basis: adventure paths and setting stuff for the "World of Golarion". The setting stuff is probably 80% rules-neutral, and the adventure paths should be close enough to 3.5 to allow easy conversion (hope, hope).
For some people (yes me) however, not being quite 3.5 may mean those sourcebooks and setting stuff are no longer attractive.
I have bought the Pathfinder Gazatteer as it is pretty much all fluff and even then, the rules bits (Deities & their domains) are 3.5 and PF compatible. Such a product would continue to be appealling to bith 3.5 and PF players.
However a book of Feats designed for PF may not be so attrative to 3.5 players if there is significant conversion to be done, or redundancy involved (e.g. Feats that directly affect CMB which doesn't exist in 3.5 may be useless to a 3.5 player).