How much can be changed in Pathfinder before backwards compatibility is abandoned?
For how many of you would no or little backwards compatibility be a dealbreaker in terms of adopting the PFRPG?
How attractive will PFRPG be to other game developers with a lot of their work invested in 3.5 (as in those who aren't making the jump to 4E)?
How much of Pathfinder do you want to stay "3.5"?
Just some thoughts I've been thinking about a lot.
I have yet to see it go to far. I have been running 3.5 mods with no changes. It runs well and there seems to be no issue with BC
I say PF should go far enough to handle the old problems, such as they are, but not too far to make it possible to use 3.5 material with only trivial update work.
So far, I say it worked out quite well.
I say PF should go far enough to handle the old problems, such as they are, but not too far to make it possible to use 3.5 material with only trivial update work.
So far, I say it worked out quite well.
Old problems? Such as....?
Old problems? Such as....?
Some classes being a bit over the top (clerics, druids).
Some classes being on the weak side (e.g. bards).High-level play getting weird.
Stuff lke that.
Bards are the only core class 3.5 got right. Everyone else either ended up overpowered by a very large margin (Cleric, Druid, Wizard), overpowered by a smaller but still large margin (Sorcerer) or underpowered by a very large margin (the other six guys).
Some of those underpowereds are saved with non core. Rogues are pretty respectable once they can negate those 5 blanket immunities to SA, always SA, do Strength damage through Fortification armor, and found the trick to making TWF suck less (namely, taking advantage of the fact you can take a bonus feat instead of a Rogue ability which does not require any of the normal prerequisites, see also Perfect Two Weapon Fighting). Some are less salvageable. Best you can hope for is a one trick pony with a half decent trick.
With that in mind, they need to stray a lot further than '3.51' in order to actually mean anything and not be wasting their time here. 2nd edition to 3rd was 'backwards compatible'. That's a pretty big allowance. You just have to assign the term the proper definition to realize that as opposed to erroneously thinking say... making Fighters suck less violates backwards compatibility.
I'll be using a mixture of the things I like from 3.5 and the things I like from Pathfinder. So it doesn't particularly matter how far Pathfinder "strays" to me, since I can always lead it back to where I want it. :-)
There is a good amount of non-OGL content for 3.5 that I'm planning on including in PFRPG. Also, my group is pretty familiar with the 3.5 system, and adopting a 'new game' is something us old timers (at my table) are slow to do.
I like the fixes in PF, but I REALLY like the added flavor it offers. And so far my group agrees.
So far, we've had PRPG core classes along with our non-OGL classes running in adventures, and both are doing very well. Scouts and Rogues can tag-team like nobody's business, and Sorcerers and Warmages feel a lot more on par with each other.
Frankly, there's a lot in 3.5 one can change for the better without affecting the host of material that exists. Certain things will be left by the wayside, but those are easily converted. Grappling as a status effect hasn't actually been that injurious to our favorite Reaping Mauler.
The real problem with 4th ed. for my group is not that it's a bad game, it's that it isn't a better game. There's nothing in it that makes me want to leap from the rules I know into a more arbitrary system. PRPG has added an fun new element to our games without invalidating my extensive library.
So long as PPRG doesn't drift from the core mechanics, overhaul the feat system, or change magic in to the indistinguishable mess it is in 4th ed., I'm willing to give these guys some room to manuever. They've done a great job so far, and since I see they're listening to their playtesters, I hope for even better.
See thats the big problem with my group they dont see any problems with 3.5 they are all very happy with besides some small things that Pathfinder is covering. I dont want a new game i just want my 3.5 DnD really, but i understand as a bussiness there are some things that need to be changed to sell books. I hope once its out I can pick up Pathfinder adventure paths and run my 3.5 characters though it.
I like the fixes in PF, but I REALLY like the added flavor it offers. And so far my group agrees.
You know, I think that perfectly sums it up for me!
The issues (if you want to call them that) I have with 3e are mainly in the "nice if fixed" category, rather than the "the game is unplayable because" category.
But the added flavour in classes like the Bard or the Paladin really rock.
I think the flavor of Pathfinder can't be beaten. Flavor is what drew me in. But can flavor alone sustain it?
I know some folks like CoL would be happier with a more drastic overhaul. In some ways I wonder if Crusader wouldn't be happier with 4E. But then again [to quote the Incredibles], "If everyone is super then no one will be".
Crusader made a pretty good point when he pointed out what a balancing factor it was in 1st edition that different classes advanced differently. 2 characters with the same amount of XP could be completely different levels.
Should balancing decisions be that simple or should every class be ubered to the same degree?
I think the flavor of Pathfinder can't be beaten. Flavor is what drew me in. But can flavor alone sustain it?
Doesn't have to. It still has the solid rules mechanics, improvements that I think many will like a lot, Paizo's loyal fan base, adventure modules and adventure pahts that enjoy a very high reputation, and the fact that it will basically replace the 3.5 books on the shelves to back up the great flavour.
smurf out!
I think the flavor of Pathfinder can't be beaten. Flavor is what drew me in. But can flavor alone sustain it?
I know some folks like CoL would be happier with a more drastic overhaul. In some ways I wonder if Crusader wouldn't be happier with 4E. But then again [to quote the Incredibles], "If everyone is super then no one will be".
Crusader made a pretty good point when he pointed out what a balancing factor it was in 1st edition that different classes advanced differently. 2 characters with the same amount of XP could be completely different levels.
Should balancing decisions be that simple or should every class be ubered to the same degree?
I despise 4.0 with a passion. It effectively removes everything from the game except combat, then makes combat a super slow, boring drag. You'd think if they were making it into a skirmish game they'd at least ya know, make combat good. Instead it's just slow. If I wanted to just mindlessly kill mobs, I'd put a DVD in the appropriate drive and save myself the trouble of doing my own math.
I want to know though. Where are these sorcerer nerfs that make them 'more on par with a Warmage'? Because I see nothing indicating sorcerers got nerfed, therefore they are still quite capable of being a 'warmage', and being able to cast spells that aren't of the blasting (see: ineffective) variety.
By the way, Reaping Mauler is not an offensive grappling class. You can't even increase your size beyond Medium if you have it. It's a half decent defensive grappling class (as in don't get grappled) but you need a feat to get in. If you're going to burn a feat, make it Close Quarters Fighting (same book) which does both the feat, and the entire class far better so you can not waste levels on traps. This is without considering Freedom of Movement if you're scared of being grappled that badly.
Letting 2nd edition go was hard. Some people even still wanted to play, and di for some time, but when everyone abandoned the 2nd, and the 3rd was a little better, most people went to it.
I never liked the 2nd edition. There were sub-rules for everything, and gods, it was a pain. But it was evolution from the 1st edition. Then came the 3rd, innovative, and very different from 2nd, but you still could see evolution.
Now, at the age of the MMORPGs, 4th is some sort of evolution also. It is strange and barely recognizable...but in theory it's D&D. PF just tries to help people who, like me, think those changes were too extreme. I just hope that in two years all the efforts going into PF RPG don't lose steam. While we may play, we don't know if PF RPG will hit the market and keep hitting it for some time...
I just hope so. If not, there will be still material to play for some 10 years.
Maybe 5th edition rolls back to old ways, like Metallica...
The trick really isn't about how much change. The three camps basically fall into Love 3.x just fix (insert whatever you think), hate 3.x love 4.0 (look out for 4.5 next year and 5e in 2010, course that'll be a computer game only anyway) and the third camp is there is roomfor both.
Put me in the first camp but the question then becomes what to fix. For me the deal breaker comes into play if I cannot house rule/fix the game mechanices with other versions of the game. Example can I put the Tinker into the game? yes works fine. ADD R&R Excalaber Hobgoblins, easy, great. So far nothing I've seen has been a deal breaker.
The next question is "Backwards compatable also means Foewards compatable" by this I mean if say you had a few major issues, like for me the two big ones being...
A. Don't like the new revised skill list, Love the new way skills work, I actually think that was best change to 3e they ever did. The only problem is that its too easy to multi-class and get just about every skill on the list. Solution, for me at least, use old skill or a modifed version of the older skill list. "Hello Use Rope", Listen is back, but spot and search can become perception, thats fine, and add a lot of Psionic and Tech skills. Is doing all this easy? Yes, great haven't gone too far.
B. The Cleric. You've made every other class as powerful as the 3.5 Cleric, then make the 3.P Cleric more powerful, Jezzz. Two things I've learned over the years however. One others feel something else is too powerful. Two I can keep whatever older class I want in the game. Not to mention of all the classes Clerics are the hardest to convert (because of all the domains in other books) its just easier to keep to the old Clerics. Can I do this with Pathfinder, yes, great they haven't gone too far.
All in all the deal breaker comes when mechanics drift too far to convert, change, or houserule into your own home blend.
The Irony being, and yeah this is a slam for most DnD playrs sorry, but its simply my life experince, is that most hard care DnD players do not like to houserule, lest not to the exent that OGL companies have done. All my life all I've ever heard was I only play 1e, 2e, ADD, ADD 2e, 3.0, 3.5, in the latter two they collectively rejected 3pp. If history holds true 4e will be the same. Hell many on these boards reject pathfinder because it goes too far. One of the reason I embrace it is because the mechanics are the same, the specifics drift but I like customization.
Just my coppers.
TTFN Dre
|
I love all the Pathfinder stuff so far, but I have mixed feelings on the Beta rules (I don't mind some of the changes, but for example, I wonder why the fighter needs stuff every level or so?!?)
I think the current Pathfinder adventures (rise of the runelords, etc.) are doing just fine with the regular 3.5 rules. I know for a fact that, while I have purchased many Pathfinder books/adventures, my group of players won't have anything to do with it because "they find the fly skill ridiculous" and other comments of the genre. I, as a DM, could adapt the game easily, but there seems to be a mental block with my players, mainly due to this:
1) I have bashed 4$ so much and told them that I'd have nothing to do with it. In fact, I told them I wouldn't be pissed if they find another DM to fulfill their "4E urges", and some of them have done so... and quickly came back to my weekly 3.5 game!
2) They reason that if I insisted we stay in 3.5, that I shouldn't come back on my promise to them and forcefeed them a weird 3.75 version...
3) They have tons of 3.5 books such as Complete Adventurer, Scoundrel, Mage, Champion, etc. and they want to see some use out of them.
Therefore, I think that if Pathfinder RPG strays too far from 3.5, Paizo would lose a lot of people because in general, players buy less books, and are more attached to their "Core edition of use" (i.e. if the players have bought 3.5, they play 3.5; if the players bought 4E, they want to play 4E) So having a 3.75 version means not only DMs need it, but all players also, and I know this is an uphill battle most DMs won't win, because let's face it: we all love the freshness and new creativity coming out of Paizo, and we wouldn't like them to start hashing out a Paizo version of Complete Fighter, Divine, Scoundrel, etc. If you tweak the Core classes, then you need to tweak the DMG PrCs, then you need to tweak C, D, E, F, etc. (i.e. everything else!) In the final version of Pathfinder RPG, I think they should concentrate more on new region-specific feats, new items, etc. rather than trying to put out a slightly different 3.5 PHB. But hey, if the final Pathfinder RPG rules ARE much different, at least provide a quick DM guide on how to convert back to 3.5, if some changes result in PCs being more powerful, or monsters having different "effective CRs" due to these tweaks, etc. Even after the publication of Pathfinder RPG, I'd still like to pick up new Paizo adventures without the need to worry about what I need to change to make it fit my regular 3.5 campaign...
Please keep Pathfinder RPG as close as possible to D&D 3.5! Do not underestimate the powers of standardization!!!!
As far as it will be necessary I'd say...
I think that the multiclassing skill problem can be solved by allowing you to pick only one or two new class skills when you acquire a new class. I saw this sollution somewhere already, although I can't say whether it was 4E, d20 Star Wars saga, or PRPG... whatever, I'm too lazy to look.
|
heck, as long as it has vancian magic, dragons and uses a d20 to resolve most everything, i'm cool.
i know a lot of people invested heavily into 3.5 stuff, and i respect that, but paizo needs to stand on their own at some point. if they're too slavish in the "backward compatability", they might lose something in making this their thing, and i think it is important for paizo to have its own identity, not just be the company that "cleaned up" 3.5.
but, considering that they are using the srd for 3.5 as the launching point, i don't think anything they do will be so far afield that the existing books will ever become useless. i just hope that jason, et al, see backwards compatability as just one aspect of the whole, not a leash that inhibits potentially awesome additions/changes to the system.
|
|
For me, the Beta is already too far removed from 3.5 to make it backwards compatible. I was hoping that the written stats for a character would remain unchanged, just the implementation of the rules behind those stats would change to fix things.
For example, I don't have a real issue with the way they changed the Improved Trip feat, the rules behind that feat have changed, but the feat has not been merged with another, renamed or has its pre-requisites changed. This means if I see an NPC stat block that lists that feat, I know that in Pathfinder he would still qualify for it and that it is still applicable.
The change to 15 of the original 35 skills, and the way that skill ranks and cross class skills work means that there is now some conversion work to be done, even if it is for some people trivial.
These changes also mean some forward compatibility will be lost. For example, say I wanted to stick with D&D3.5 for a base ruleset, but that I was interested in a Pathfinder supplement that includes some new feats and prestige classes.
If one of those PF feats or prestige classes has a pre-requisite of Acrobatics 4 ranks, I would assume that I would need 7 ranks in 3.5, but I am not sure. Also, because Acrobatics is actually three skills in 3.5 (Balance, Jump and Tumble) would my 3.5 character need all 3 skills at rank 7 or would he need only one of those skills at rank 7? What if he had 7 ranks spread between all 3 skills?
So for me, Pathfinder seems to have already lost its backwards compatibility. So I will likely stick with 3.5, however even though I will be sticking with 3.5 I was also hoping to maybe buy some Pathfinder supplements - but forwards compatibility has been lost as well. So I will likely buy up old WOTC D&D3.5 supplements rather than buy Paizo stuff.
If it ever gets to the point where Pathfinder RPG becomes so popular that it effectively replaces D&D3.5, i.e. where players will refuse to play in a game if I use 3.5 rather than Pathfinder then I will probably convert to D&D4e - as it will likely have a larger fan base than Pathfinder, will actively be supporting my favourite fantasy setting (Eberron), and would also open up stuff like D&D Experience and D&D Games Days to me.
So, I am afraid that for me, Pathfinder has lost me. My only interest in it now it purely as a player because one of our GMs has chosen to go Pathfinder (and has even bought us all copies of the Beta edition).
|
|
As an addedum, the more conversion a GM and player has to do to use Pathfinder with 3.5 scenarios and sourcebooks the more I fear that Paizo run the risk of having some players simply decide to use another OGL system which they already own and are familiar with, for example True20, Castles & Crusades etc.
For example, if I am going to have to convert stuff I may simply decide to go a bit further and use Mutants & Masterminds (possibly with upcoming the Warriors & Warlocks sourcebook).
|
Since Pathfinder was released, I'm finding I'm having more players attracted to my games than ever before! I'm running two adventure paths (RotRL, CotCT), as well as running Pathfinder Society adventures.
Some of these are old gamer friends. Some are recent recruits from work, and one of their daughters. Others are recent players I've met through running Pathfinder sessions at conventions or game days.
My point is that some of these are long-time 3.5 players, others are new to gaming and have picked up the Beta. Further, some are playing Pathfinder Society (3.5), others are playing the adventure paths (Beta), and some are playing both.
Given this mish-mash of players and rules, it might be useful to release a Compatibility document (preferably as a free PDF download) that outlines the minimum changes to play a Pathfinder character while still using your PHB. This PDF might include, at a minimum, points such as:
- +2 +2 -2 racial ability adjustments;
- bonus hit points at first level;
- gain a feat at every odd level;
Though the Compatibility document might also include:
- necessary replacements, such as Druid's wildshape;
- useful tips such as Weapon Finesse no longer has a BAB pre-requisite;
- advice such as when a feat, spell or other rule differs between the 3.5 PHB or Pathfinder RPG, whichever source the GM is using trumps.
It shouldn't matter too much if a Barbarian uses 3.5 Rage per day or Pathfinder Rage points; if a Cleric uses 3.5 domains or new Pathfinder domains; the PHB should now be regarded as one might incorporate a variant class from another sourcebook. With the adjustments in the Compatibility document applied, 3.5 PHB and Pathfinder RPG characters should be able to be played at the same table.
|
|
Given this mish-mash of players and rules, it might be useful to release a Compatibility document (preferably as a free PDF download) that outlines the minimum changes to play a Pathfinder character while still using your PHB.
Now this is an excellent idea - while it could be argued that it is not needed as the Beta PDF is free, it would be nice to have a summary sheet per class of the changes - something easy to print out being the key thing.
|
|
Now this is an excellent idea - while it could be argued that it is not needed as the Beta PDF is free
The Beta is free, but it is also a whole lot of paper to print (if you don't bring a lap-top to your game).
But I'm also thinking of players arriving at a Pathfinder Society game (next year, Season 1) at a Game Day or Convention with their PHB in hand.
it would be nice to have a summary sheet per class of the changes - something easy to print out being the key thing.
I'm not even thinking the document would outline all (or any) of the revised class rules, if that's what you're looking for, download the Beta. The Compatibility document would outline only the bare minimum needed to play a PHB character, largely unchanged, at a Pathfinder table, and not feel like they were caught with their shorts down.
They won't be equal, but they should be compatible.
Old problems? Such as....?Some classes being a bit over the top (clerics, druids).
Some classes being on the weak side (e.g. bards).
High-level play getting weird.Stuff like that.
If Pathfinder wishes to repair 3.5, it will have to do a LOT more than simply power-creeping the PCs (PC races get +1 hp/lvl... what about monsters?) and buffing classes. That approach is very shallow thinking, and definitely won't fix high-level play, which is merely a dramatic representation of all the core problems of 3.5... the problems that need to be fixed. Else, we'll be left with the same busted system that led to the conception of Pathfinder in the first place.
Like Challenge Rating. Encounter Levels. The inability to support all values of X in d20+X at high levels. And monster advancement.
-Matt
I wonder why the fighter needs stuff every level or so?!?
Because empty levels are boring. For casters, it's not that bad because they get spells, but a fighter only has fighting ability.
Plus, they could use the boost.
my group of players won't have anything to do with it because "they find the fly skill ridiculous"
So do I (well, not necessarily ridiculous, but maybe not quite necessary), but I won't give up on Pathfinder because of something as minor as that.
3) They have tons of 3.5 books such as Complete Adventurer, Scoundrel, Mage, Champion, etc. and they want to see some use out of them.
No one's stopping them.
we wouldn't like them to start hashing out a Paizo version of Complete Fighter, Divine, Scoundrel, etc.
Never fear, that won't happen.
If you tweak the Core classes, then you need to tweak the DMG PrCs, then you need to tweak C, D, E, F, etc. (i.e. everything else!)
Not necessarily. The changes to the core classes are made to put them in line with later 3e stuff, which they cannot touch. The DMG PrCs will be tweaked, because they are part of the core rules. But the rest should work fine with Pathfinder. I guess it will be like the 3.0->3.5 transition.
For the record: They must put out those new core books. The originals are out of print and will disappear off the shelves, and you can't make supplements for a game that's no longer available (at least not if you hope to make a profit).
Maybe 5th edition rolls back to old ways, like Metallica...
Bad example: They went Country, then rolled back to old ways with St. Anger, and then rolled back yet again to boring music with their new album.
But, in a way, it ifts: Both D&D and Metallica are of no more interest to me.
i know a lot of people invested heavily into 3.5 stuff, and i respect that, but paizo needs to stand on their own at some point.
They already do. Their Chronicles stuff is top notch, their Modules are quite good, and their Adventure Paths are fantastic.
Beyond that, they don't want to do their own take on 4e yet. They think that 3e still has some life in it, and that with a little face-lift, it will serve for another couple of years.
And I agree.
In another 5 years or so, when they decide to do a 2nd edition of Pathfinder RPG, I'll gladly see what they think of, but until then, I'll be happy using my library of 3e books together with Pathfinder RPG.
If Pathfinder wishes to repair 3.5, it will have to do a LOT more than simply power-creeping the PCs
For heaven's sake, give them some more time. Pathfinder has more than half a year worth of development time ahead of it.
|
That being said, deciding how much of the previous edition to keep is always a hard balancing act. Keep too rigidly to the old way and you do not achieve meaningful improvement and may as well stay with the old. Stray too far and it is so alien to it's origin that it is a completely different game (4e is a perfect example). Everyone will have a different level of tolerance for change.
I personally consider myself to be on the more radical side of wanting change but consider 4e too far. I want the game to evolve, replacing pieces with better ones, but keeping the majority recognizable from the previous version. I want to be able to recreate what I did in previous editions, if not with an exact match at least a close approximation, and if possible fit my vision better. The amount of conversion work is less of an issue to me as my experience with modules has been that they have rarely been a good match for...
This is exactly the key issue here -- too little change, and people may consider it not worth their money, which is eaxctly what happened with 3.5 in my group (we were still playing 3.0 before PF Alpha came out). On the other hand, it's easy to stray "too far", which I also feel the designers did with 4E -- not to mention that in my opinion they tossed a lot of the *good* stuff out of the window solely out of business and marketing reasons. Personally, I think that the update from AD&D to 3E was ideal, fixing a lot of broken or weird mechanics and making the system more coherent and mechanically consistent.
I feel quite the same way -- after more than eigth years of 3E, I'm ready for a lot of things to change, but I, too, wish to be able to identify and feel comfortable with the "core mechanics". That doesn't mean that I wouldn't want to see the Vancian spellcasting gone in favor of Spell Points, or the "old" Rage mechanics being replaced with Rage Powers. I feel that Paizo could go even further, while still being within my own "comfort zone" and not reaching the magnitude of changes comparable to 4E. Conversion and "backwards compatibility" are not really issues to me, if PF manages to fix some of the less than ideally working mechanics in 3.5.
Old problems? Such as....?Some classes being a bit over the top (clerics, druids).
Some classes being on the weak side (e.g. bards).
High-level play getting weird.Stuff like that.
If Pathfinder wishes to repair 3.5, it will have to do a LOT more than simply power-creeping the PCs (PC races get +1 hp/lvl... what about monsters?) and buffing classes. That approach is very shallow thinking, and definitely won't fix high-level play, which is merely a dramatic representation of all the core problems of 3.5... the problems that need to be fixed. Else, we'll be left with the same busted system that led to the conception of Pathfinder in the first place.
Like Challenge Rating. Encounter Levels. The inability to support all values of X in d20+X at high levels. And monster advancement.
-Matt
HP boosts just mean it is slightly less likely the so called tanks don't get TKOed in two rounds. Also, only some classes were buffed. Namely, the ones that least needed such treatment.
Monster advancement is funny business though. See: CR 4 Huge creatures straight out of the MM1.
For heaven's sake, give them some more time. Pathfinder has more than half a year worth of development time ahead of it.
Then we'd better get started. Pathfinder needs to start looking at the big picture, rather than the small screen of individual classes.
-Matt
|
|
This is exactly the key issue here -- too little change, and people may consider it not worth their money, which is eaxctly what happened with 3.5 in my group (we were still playing 3.0 before PF Alpha came out).
Pathfinder RPG does not need to introduce big changes to appeal to people who already own 3.x rules. People who already own 3.x rules are not Pathfinder RPG's target market. The main purpose of Pathfinder RPG is to keep 3.x rules in print to enable new players who don't already own the rules to join the game.
Pathfinder RPG's number one goal is to enable people to purchase and play Paizo's line of Adventure Paths, which are their main juggernaut product.
I enjoy many of the enhancements Paizo are introducing through Pathfinder RPG, however my main concern with Pathfinder RPG is whether 3.x PHB players are able to play at the same table as Pathfinder RPG players (or vice-versa). Whether this be long-time players bringing their 3.x PHB to Pathfinder Society at a game day or convention, or whether it be a new player with Pathfinder RPG joining a long-running 3.x Forgotten Realms group.
We want to provide every opportunity for players to get together, not placing any barriers between them.
|
|
My only wish at this time is that Pathfinder would follow closer to the Star Wars Saga RPG (i.e. Talent Trees for every class, etc).
I think that SW SAGA took everything learned from not only the D20 Star Wars RPG, but D20 Modern and 3E as well, and turned out the best system for options and streamlined roleplaying. Some of Pathfinder's fixes have been awe-inspiring (Rage Powers come to mind), while some seem to go not far enough (no Fighter talents?). And the skill point system created for Pathfinder is better than SW SAGA, though I like the consolidation of skills from SW SAGA better.
All in all, I will play Pathfinder regardless, as it seems to come closer to what I am looking for; a true inheritor of D&D.
Everything else I'll houserule if I have to.
|
|
Pathfinder RPG does not need to introduce big changes to appeal to people who already own 3.x rules. People who already own 3.x rules are not Pathfinder RPG's target market. The main purpose of Pathfinder RPG is to keep 3.x rules in print to enable new players who don't already own the rules to join the game.
Pathfinder RPG's number one goal is to enable people to purchase and play Paizo's line of Adventure Paths, which are their main juggernaut product.
Dead on! I anticipated the PF RPG to just be a means to keep what was an OOP game, in print and thus enable them to continue doing what they were doing prior to 3.5 being dropped by WOTC.
Do Paizo see sales of the Pathfinder RPG core books to be where the main revenue will come from? I saw the PF RPG as just a facilitator to enable their main revenue generating stream to continue.
I had expected the D&D3.5 core books and PF RPG to be pretty much interchangeable - but they are now looking to be far from that.
My worry is that, rather than uniting and supporting the loyal 3.5 player base, they will instead fragment it further into:
a) D&D3.5 players who feel PF is too much of a change and so stick to running and playing 3.5 and wouldn't be interested in running or playing PF.
b) Players who love PF so much (or who hate doing the conversion of 3.5 material to PF) that they move wholly onto PF and wouldn't be interested in running or playing 3.5 anymore.
c) Players who like PF as a ruleset, but are happy to play in both games and use material for both.
I guess Paizo is betting on c) being the biggest proportion, and I guess I hope it will be too so that players will be happy to play in my 3.5 games.
Wouldn't just reprinting of the old text in new graphics somehow violate author license?
To the OP.
For me the deal has already been broken and that happened months ago. What I realized is that I am very happy with 3.5. I don't want a new game, not yet anyway.
[good points snipped]
I'm pretty much in your boat, although there are some things that I will probably incorporate (e.g. sorcerer bloodlines, some of the bard songs+dances, maybe some of the polymorph stuff).
I'm curious: Did you buy Pathfinder modules/adventure paths in the past? And if so, do you think you will continue to buy Pathfinder stuff in the future?
|
Buargh... PF *IS* 3.5, or rather 3.6 or 3.75 or whatever.
Same core mechanic ? check
Same bases ideas - HP, AC, Fort Ref Will, 6 attributes ? check
Same classes with iconic abilities ? check
Same spells ? check
Same items, skills, feats ? check
80% of differences between PF and 3.5 are TWEAKS. The only area where 3.5 rules were given a boot is combat maneuvers, and honestly I doubt anyone will miss the old grapple.
Pathfinder would stray from 3.5 if it became something akin to True20, "similiar yet different" game system with enough changes to force a major shift for players who change.
I'm running ROTRL under PF Beta. All my players had experience with 3.5, and I never happened upon situation of any player arguing that PF changed anything too far.
And that's what I want the PF to be, the ultimate "patch" for 3.5, something the Rules Compendium should have been.
|
They haven't gone too far, yet.
Everything I don't like I house-rule back to 3.5 or my own concoction. I have always had my own house-rules. I will still be tweaking PFRPG, but I love the changes made thusfar. I want the monk to be changed to be more like the rogue. More "options.!!! I love options!!!
I can't wait to see the PrCs!
To the person who said hard-core players don't like house rules, please justify your statement. the more hard-core the players, the more house-rules tend to be made. I think casual players dislike house-rules.
Here's how I couterpoint the power-creep...PFRPG characters are about +1 EL now. SO I use 75-80% HP for monsters instead of the standard 50%. I also add PF classes to monsters!! and use the elite template with no CR increase for "mini-bosses" and BBEGs! Balanced.
I enjoy many of the enhancements Paizo are introducing through Pathfinder RPG, however my main concern with Pathfinder RPG is whether 3.x PHB players are able to play at the same table as Pathfinder RPG players (or vice-versa). Whether this be long-time players bringing their 3.x PHB to Pathfinder Society at a game day or convention, or whether it be a new player with Pathfinder RPG joining a long-running 3.x Forgotten Realms group.
So how compatible does this need to be? In your opinion, are 3.0 and 3.5 compatible in this way? I suspect that the changes will be roughly the same quantity as between those two editions.
Funny thing. Give some monster one class level of a PC class, they automatically get the 'elite' array. Which means you get the same effect, and a few class features for the same cost.
|
|
I love all the Pathfinder stuff so far, but I have mixed feelings on the Beta rules (I don't mind some of the changes, but for example, I wonder why the fighter needs stuff every level or so?!?)
I think the current Pathfinder adventures (rise of the runelords, etc.) are doing just fine with the regular 3.5 rules. I know for a fact that, while I have purchased many Pathfinder books/adventures, my group of players won't have anything to do with it because "they find the fly skill ridiculous" and other comments of the genre. I, as a DM, could adapt the game easily, but there seems to be a mental block with my players, mainly due to this:
1) I have bashed 4$ so much and told them that I'd have nothing to do with it. In fact, I told them I wouldn't be pissed if they find another DM to fulfill their "4E urges", and some of them have done so... and quickly came back to my weekly 3.5 game!
2) They reason that if I insisted we stay in 3.5, that I shouldn't come back on my promise to them and forcefeed them a weird 3.75 version...
3) They have tons of 3.5 books such as Complete Adventurer, Scoundrel, Mage, Champion, etc. and they want to see some use out of them.
Therefore, I think that if Pathfinder RPG strays too far from 3.5, Paizo would lose a lot of people because in general, players buy less books, and are more attached to their "Core edition of use" (i.e. if the players have bought 3.5, they play 3.5; if the players bought 4E, they want to play 4E) So having a 3.75 version means not only DMs need it, but all players also, and I know this is an uphill battle most DMs won't win, because let's face it: we all love the freshness and new creativity coming out of Paizo, and we wouldn't like them to start hashing out a Paizo version of Complete Fighter, Divine, Scoundrel, etc. If you tweak the Core classes, then you need to tweak the DMG PrCs, then you need to tweak C, D, E, F, etc. (i.e. everything else!) In the final version of Pathfinder RPG, I think they should concentrate more on new...
One of the reasons I was originally so excited about (for a short while...) when 4E was announced was that we could *finally* get rid of the tons of Feats and (certain) over-powered Prestige Classes from X number of supplements. As a DM, you were often suprised by players when they picked Feats and PrCs from supplements you hadn't read, but which were still completely "legal". Eventually we decided to ban all the stuff from books the DM didn't have, unless one of the players agreed to bring his own book to every session. Even then it was a nightmare to keep up with everything.
So, for me personally, it's a relief if PF RPG only includes the core classes and a handful of Prestige Classes -- that is why backwards compatibility is less of an issue for me. I don't *want* the players to use stuff from Complete X, Y, and Z. I'm sure that the Pathfinder Companion line will, in time, introduce more than enough new monsters, feats, spells and prestige classes.
But I can also understand why a lot of people want to preserve as much of the backwards compatibility as possible...
To the person who said hard-core players don't like house rules, please justify your statement. the more hard-core the players, the more house-rules tend to be made. I think casual players dislike house-rules.
Assuming your asking me I'll simply say that I started with Robotech in the mid 80's, then Rifts and on to the OWoD, skiping DnD completly except for occasional games. The thing I and my freinds noticed was that DnD DM's (With excepts of course) seemed to have a very exclusive attitude.....
"I only play 1e""I only use ADD"
"Only 2e in this house"
This isn't to say that House Ruleing did not go on, but of course they are belived there own house Rules were the right House Rule.
I got into 3e because I heard that SW, ST and Dune were going to use D20 core system. I found that I really liked the system, but most not all but most of the best suppluments came from 3pp publishers. Again not a major issue until I started palying. I went to three DM's, and while all but one seemed like nice guys all of which I got the same thing.
"No 3pp don't know if its balanced, only Wizards stuff."
First off Wizards stuff was the most out of balanced stuff, by the nature of the SRD 3pp made more balanced material.
Then came the 3.5 feasico. Two of the three only accepted 3.0 stuff. I see much of the same on this board about how far Pathfinder goes. Not pointing the finger at you mind you, I think we're in more agreement then not.
Example, I've already decided to add Dodge and Parry rules form Conan to Pathfinder. Keeping armor as AC but Shields and helments will add to Parry, cannot Dodge ranged anything, so uncanny Dodge remains effective. Keeping Pathfinder Skill mechanices, but keeping a lot of the old skill list.
Of the classes I'm happy with them except the Cleric which I think is too powerful but my players like it so I'll prob. accept it.
Some said that Fighters should get Talent trees, I think more along the lines of Feats exclusive to there Weapon Choice, so I was thinking of allowing feats from the Man at Arms series of Feats instead of new weapon types.
Also Tech skills and the Tinker Class from WoWC rpg, as well as a lot of other 3pp classes/races will be added to my game to Pathfinder game, most likely I'm excluding Wizards classes mainly because they don't fit. A Knight (R&R Excalabur style), Archer, and Mystic, are concepts liked and needed, what the heck is a Duskblade, or Hexblade, or whatever. Not all Wizards stuff, but some unless a player really likes it.
Now putting all this into a mix will make many reading this board who like pure 3.whatever or setting, to find this whole concept insane and too much work. I disagree the mechanics are essentially the same. 80% of rules problem can be deciced once on the spot as they may not crop up again.
Someone pointed out how Acrobatics replaces 3 other skills, so if a PrC has a skill requierment of 4 how do you forward compatable it? He made a few suggestions himself, to which I say, very good, pick one and go with it. That example only comes up once when you PrC out, make a choice and move on. Anything that comes up every game needs to be worked out, but for me at lest blending everything is my style of play.
Like I said those who usualy don't like changes to the game are the pure core players. Thats fine, and you Xaaon of Xen'Drik seem more open to house ruling, thats even better, but I don't think the voices who do not like what Pathfinder is doing to be open to house-ruling.
Having said all this I'll admit this is only my experince, but just read on many of the boards who are fighting or not likeing the Pathfinder changes. I accept that they have a valid point, becuase they like playing it x instead of Y, (in terms of some skills I'm the same way) but I'll never really understand why its such a deal breaker. Since day one I've House-Ruled or interperted something for my game, any game mind you not just 3.x, what makes OGL stuff so great is that I can pluck the best ideas to help my House ruling game.
TTFN Dre
|
|
This is exactly the key issue here -- too little change, and people may consider it not worth their money, which is eaxctly what happened with 3.5 in my group (we were still playing 3.0 before PF Alpha came out).Pathfinder RPG does not need to introduce big changes to appeal to people who already own 3.x rules. People who already own 3.x rules are not Pathfinder RPG's target market. The main purpose of Pathfinder RPG is to keep 3.x rules in print to enable new players who don't already own the rules to join the game.
Pathfinder RPG's number one goal is to enable people to purchase and play Paizo's line of Adventure Paths, which are their main juggernaut product.
I enjoy many of the enhancements Paizo are introducing through Pathfinder RPG, however my main concern with Pathfinder RPG is whether 3.x PHB players are able to play at the same table as Pathfinder RPG players (or vice-versa). Whether this be long-time players bringing their 3.x PHB to Pathfinder Society at a game day or convention, or whether it be a new player with Pathfinder RPG joining a long-running 3.x Forgotten Realms group.
We want to provide every opportunity for players to get together, not placing any barriers between them.
That is not exactly correct, and I'm fairly certain that Paizo considers their current fan base -- plus all who either are or become with time "disillusioned" with 4E, or wish to play 3E along with 4E or other games -- their "target market". Drawing in new customers is a tricky challenge, because they're competing against WoTC in that regard, and it requires a lot of marketing effort. It's farm more easier to cater to a certain part of the existing market, who are no longer interested in the products of their largest competitor (i.e. WoTC). New customers are a bonus added on top of that.
You have a point, though, in that Paizo certainly has an interest in keeping the 3E rules in print. However, if their sole purpose was to keep the rules in print to support their existing product lines, it would be far easier to do a slightly "rehashed" version of the 3.5 rules set (i.e. just enough to avoid any copyright issues) without any development or rules design or communal playtest. Now, if they update the rules enough to call it a new edition of D&D, even their existing customers have an interest in buying it -- not just occasional "newbies", who don't own any 3.X books. So far it seems that it has worked even better than anyone even suspected.
IMO it all comes down to *how* much the 3E rules should and eventually will "evolve" with PF RPG -- and each one of us probably has a differing opinion on that. You might want to use stuff from 'Complete Warrior' or 'Complete Divine' without a lot of conversion being involved, while I might want to see PF RPG being closer to D&D 3.9 than 3.51.
One of the reasons I was originally so excited about (for a short while...) when 4E was announced was that we could *finally* get rid of the tons of Feats and (certain) over-powered Prestige Classes from X number of supplements.
Sure. For a couple of months. Before they started with the extra books. And start they will. wizards want to sell lots of books, and more powerful stuff sells - Of course, great adventures and interesting settings and all that sells, too, but they haven't been able to do that for some time. But more power is always easy. You just multiply the old numbers by 1.1 or something.
So, for me personally, it's a relief if PF RPG only includes the core classes and a handful of Prestige Classes
That's not because they want the extra stuff out of the game, it's because that stuff is closed content and they can't use it.
Anyway, it's compatible with Pathfinder.
The only that really helps against players that use "legal" stuff from dozens of books is remembering that the GM defines "legal" and that if you don't want extra stuff in your game, disallow it. Or allow it only on a case-by-case basis. If you do that, you can run any flavour of D&D, or 4e, without players bringing in the heavy weapons.
If you do, no change of game will save you for long. In D&D, it's not death that's the sole certainty, but extra rules.
This isn't to say that House Ruleing did not go on, but of course they are belived there own house Rules were the right House Rule.
Of course they believed that. I, too, believe that my house rules are the right house rules.
That's the thing about house rules: They're quite often the right ones - for the poeple that use them.
Of the classes I'm happy with them except the Cleric which I think is too powerful
Well, pathfinder did tone down their martial prowess by weakening the Triumvirate - Divine Favour, Divine Power, Righteous Might:
The attac/damage bonus Divine Favour and Divine Power grant no longer stack.
Divine power's bonus attack no longer stacks with haste, so boots of speed, so they won't be able to quite mach the fighter's number of attacks.
Righteous Might imposes a minor dex penalty, so the spell no longer effectively increases your AC.
Someone pointed out how Acrobatics replaces 3 other skills, so if a PrC has a skill requierment of 4 how do you forward compatable it?
What do you mean: How a 3e PrC with, say, prerequisite "8 ranks in Hide" works in PF, or the other way around?
If you're asking about 3.5 to PF: Replace the old skills with the new. If you have several skills that got folded into one, like a class that requires ranks in both hide and move silently, you're in luck: It just got easier getting into that PrC.
A note about skill prerequisites: Reduce the 3.5 values by 3 to account for the changed system.
Additionally, you'll need twice as many ranks if the skill is cross-class skill for you.
That all means that 8 ranks in Spot and Listen each turn into 5 ranks of Perception (or 10 if it's a cross-class skill for you).
If you're talking about PF back to 3.5, it may be a bit harder. First of all, turn around the numbers again: 5 ranks become 8.
In the case of skills you need to de-consolidate, you could go with just one of the old skills (5 ranks stealth become 8 ranks of hide), or go with several/all of them if appropriate (with stealth, both and hide and move silently will probably be a good chice), maybe splitting the skill points among those classes (unless they're the only requirement that regulates the lowest possible entry level)
As I said, find the best way to make the requierment fit and go with it.
As for the Cleric, your right on all points, however I felt the Cleric was overpowerd in 3.X, compared to every other class. In truth the upgrade to the other classes and using the old Cleric is about right (IMO) however my group disagrees with me. As GM I'm willing to go with my groups wants on this, but it still feels overpowered to me.
I'll admit. For me, it was never a hard choice.
2nd edition really sucked to me, and I loved the D20 because of the good ruleset. Then came 3.5 and it was natural to upgrade. Damn, it even solved some problems.
But since I think that 4e is too far from what I ever considered D&D, I wanted to stay in 3.5. I'll admit now that I stumbled upon PF by pure chance. I was looking at some community who could help me with some changes and houserules I wanted to make, not a new PHB. Then I found this place by pure chance (and google) and discovered that there is a company doing what I wanted.
But then, my games are already stabilished, and I don't want everything from PF. I really don't want the new races, and I don't want the new skill systems, but I want the merged skills, and taking the idea from 4e, I was already using Level Independent XP from UA.
So, I just get from pf what I really think it's nice, nothing more. I like the new wildshape, then I wrote that down on my "Player's Guide" (we do have one, with only the changes from the PHB, so new and old players alike can just consult it and see if there's a difference), as I did to the new paladin and rogue. But then, the new domains really don't fit my Campaign World, and my own variant rule fits best, so no new domains for me.
So I'll say it again: It was never a hard choice about how much to stray from 3.5. If you point in some ways, I really don't care about PF at all, I only take the good ideas. But then, it's not exactly like this.
For example, I have nothing to do with many of the new feats (I took some ideas, mostly CMB and CMB based feats), but I'll still playtest any change that Jason et all asks. I don't care for the domains, wizard schools or bloodlines of PF, but I'll playtest then anyway. I don't even care for the +2 +2 -2 of the PF races, or the bonus hp, but I'll playtest even then.
That's because I want PF to be really good. If I'm not going to use the book in my games, at least I hope that many players and DM that think that 3.5 needs a boost and some nice tweaks -that as me can't stand the "too much!!!" that came with 4e, but different from me don't have good imagination or design ability- go to PF instead of 4e.
Here in Brazil, the guys from the company who translate the books are with a big problem: They like 3.5, and they think that 4e is videogame -NICE videogame, granted, but videogame still-. But then, they are a company: They will translate and print only the "essential" books left (by the chief guys who spoke to some dms on some kind of "round table" in one convention, this would be PH2 and DMG 2, plus Complete Scoundrel) to the 3.5 lovers to play, but then they will delve deep into the 4e.
No one of them really knows what will happen now. They don't know if 4e will hit the "global" market as expected, and they don't know if the brazilian players will want to use 4e. There are many posers who will, the kind of brazilian player that think that WOTC is god, and that only accept WOTC material. But there are those who will not.
And about PF, I asked if they would try something with paizo (because WoTC REALLY skins the company -called Devir- their last copper piece to print their books!) and at least print the basic PF, as they did with Warcraft D20. The awser was sad: "Man, no, we have 4e". They don't know if PF will hit the market when the people get annoyed with 3.5. That's simple.
Paizo may get some people from other spheres, not only the community or the people that already play in paizo. There are a lot o people who would like some nice tweaks on 3.5, but nothing too different, please, because they are playing this game for some long years now.
As for me, I think that give me the option of seeing many players on the next convention playing 4e, and seeing many players on the next convention playing 3.something, I choose 3.something, no matter what it is.
There's really nothing I can do to make brazilian players play PF or PF rules (except if the big guys of paizo look at this post and consider it a pledge to let them Devir print PF with minimal cost), but what I can do is try to help make this really good. Now, REALLY good, so that many players will look and see what I saw "oh, here's what I wanted". I does not matter if I'll use PF or no, because I can create what I need and my players love Drama, RP, Horror, Fantasy, not necessarily the rules. But there are many who can't, and they need something good to grab.
So, in the end of all things, now that the 4e monster is upon us, I think that PF is going to be 3.5 last stand. PF may win, 4e monster may win, PF may turn in the future into 4e monster, or the 4e monster may die and the 5e return to the origins... In any case, PF can be a great game for anyone to play, and a great book to have on your collection. I won't ever say something like "that depend only of us". We are here only to help.
That depends only of Paizo.