|
It sure would be nice not to stray far at all. Continued support for 3.5 makes sense. And I am happy with the few important improvements and tweaks made already. After Beta playtest feedback is compiled, I vote for refining the few fixes the Beta provides, but straying no farther.
Let's preserve our ability to use our grand 3.5 collections with ease.
There are some other great areas PAIZO should focus on too: like creating the best DM screen ever, including a bookmarking ribbon in the final PRPG, creating tutorials for new gamers, and continued creation of the best high end modules and quality stories in the business.
|
Let's preserve our ability to use our grand 3.5 collections with ease.
There are some other great areas PAIZO should focus on too: like creating the best DM screen ever, including a bookmarking ribbon in the final PRPG, creating tutorials for new gamers, and continued creation of the best high end modules and quality stories in the business.
Yes.
In an ideal world, class changes would contain within them the ability to construct something like the old classes (perhaps by making sub-optimal choices, admittedly) within them. That way there's a de facto backwards compatibility, modulo CR.
For the most part, it's definetly there: Just ignore extra abilities (like weapon training) and choices (like expanded bonus feat lists) that were't there before.
How much can be changed in Pathfinder before backwards compatibility is abandoned?
As long as I can play a Pathfinder AP adventure with my 3.5 rulebooks with virtually no changes (eg. it's fine if NPCs are built using Pathfinder rules) then I don't care what they do.
So far, that's pretty much what's happening, I think.
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.I think what finally drove the point home for me was a post that I was reading of all the changes that had been made so far in pathfinder. A poster explained why pazio needed to make pathfinder a different game. All of these reasons made sense - for pazio. But I don't play D&D for any company. I play for me.
If I decide at some point to try something new, then I will give pathfinder a look, but if I do I will look at 4th edition as well. But at this point, it looks like I still have years of play left in 3.5.
Yep. You and Hogarth are thinking along my line. I've got so much invested in 3.5. Not just money but huge gobs of time working on my campaigns. Throwing it out the window for the next new thang is just not working out for me. Looking over at DriveThruRPG I can see that there's still plenty of 3.5 stuff waiting for my cash.
Paizo has me with the APs as long as they are 3.5. I think they're going to lose me when I'm required to invest in a new rules system to keep going.
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.
According to what? Anything I've read would suggest they are bumped up in CR for both things (barring non-associated classes, which is a concept I love to break over and over again).
|
|
Paizo has me with the APs as long as they are 3.5. I think they're going to lose me when I'm required to invest in a new rules system to keep going.
Because you now feel that an on-the-fly conversion (or a few minutes with a notepad before DMing) will be too hard or inaccurate? In which case, fair enough, I guess. Myself, I'm pretty sanguine about the chances of using PFRPG with 3.5, but I'm mostly expecting to be going the other way.
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.According to what? Anything I've read would suggest they are bumped up in CR for both things (barring non-associated classes, which is a concept I love to break over and over again).
NPCs with PC classes always get the elite array. So no, they don't get a double bump.
Also, you can do mean things with creature advancement rules.
Also, you can do mean things with creature advancement rules.
Yes indeed. If I'm really wanting to trounce my victims...uh...players I mean...I usually do so with advanced monsters and/or "non-associated" class levels.
For instance, binder is a class that's pretty much non-associated with anything. Very abusable. Or if you're feeling really mean spirited (ahem, I mean want to challenge your party) fighter is non-associated for spell weavers. Give them fighter levels up to their hit dice along with a melee-oriented spell selection.
By the by, is anyone else receiving a messageboard policy reminder at the bottom of their pending post page? Or have I been a bad boy somewhere in here?
|
Also, you can do mean things with creature advancement rules.Yes indeed. If I'm really wanting to trounce my victims...uh...players I mean...I usually do so with advanced monsters and/or "non-associated" class levels.
For instance, binder is a class that's pretty much non-associated with anything. Very abusable. Or if you're feeling really mean spirited (ahem, I mean want to challenge your party) fighter is non-associated for spell weavers. Give them fighter levels up to their hit dice along with a melee-oriented spell selection.
By the by, is anyone else receiving a messageboard policy reminder at the bottom of their pending post page? Or have I been a bad boy somewhere in here?
i'm pretty sure everyone is getting it. the paizo folks want to get the message out, but they don't want to single anyone out. beats the heck out of moderation, and the guilty parties know who they are.
(and i still say just get the system right, with a nod to compatability. they can bend quite a few things without making old adventures and splats obsolete, imo. and, as PfRPG is meant to pretty much replace the core books, i don't think it needs to be compatable with them, per se, just with the supplimental stuff...)
I don't get any reminders about the policies. In fact, I get accolades for impeccable behaviour, so it really must be you guys.
No, really, I'm not making this up. I'd send you a screenshot, but my Print button had an accident the other day and is in the hospital. And my dog ate it, too.
I don't get any reminders about the policies. In fact, I get accolades for impeccable behaviour, so it really must be you guys.
No, really, I'm not making this up. I'd send you a screenshot, but my Print button had an accident the other day and is in the hospital. And my dog ate it, too.
So this is finally my moment of infamy. I have been recognized at last! ;P
And I also think you seriously overestimate what Paizo was considering as priorities with "backwards compatibility". Thier main concern was in preserving the usability of thier own module line, first, WOTC and third party source books, far in far second places.
No, that doesn't sound right to me.
|
No, that doesn't sound right to me.
And I also think you seriously overestimate what Paizo was considering as priorities with "backwards compatibility". Their main concern was in preserving the usability of their own module line, first, WOTC and third party source books, far in far second places.
No, it doesn't sound right to me either.
But I do think that the Pathfinder Beta playtest has taken on a life of it's own, like a runaway train. Not saying I don't enjoy the enhancements and fixes, but it is causing my groups some incompatibility issues.
I'm running Falcon's Hollow, Runelords and Crimson Throne in Pathfinder Beta and Pathfinder Society games in 3.5 PHB. Some players have the Beta, others DON'T have the 3.5 PHB. I have a mix of long-time players, and newcomers to the game.
I'm trying to keep things managable, but particularly between the players who are both in my Adventure Path campaigns who have also played Society adventures (slot zeros and convention sessions), I'm getting questions like "but Concentration is now Spellcraft, right?" or having too many or too few hit-points for a first-level character, or "which version of grapple are we using today?"
In an ideal world, I would restrict them to one rule-set to avoid such confusions. But when they own the Pathfinder Beta book and playing Crimson Throne, and hear I'm running Pathfinder Society adventures at a convention in a couple of weeks, why wouldn't they want to sign up to play more great Pathfinder stuff?
I have also had a few players ask why Pathfinder Society isn't played by Pathfinder Beta rules? Pathfinder Society is Season Zero playtest year; Pathfinder Beta are playtest rules; so why not use playtest rules in Pathfinder Society's playtest year? Players are really enjoying the Pathfinder Beta rules, but are frustrated by not being able to use them in the Pathfinder Society setting. I've even had one player claim he doesn't want to play any more Pathfinder Society sessions, because they're not using Beta rules.
I'm not having any difficulty playing Pathfinder adventures with either PHB or Beta rules, backwards-compatibility isn't an issue in this regard. The problem is having two sets of rules, and players having access (or not) to each set, and confusing themselves between both sets that is causing headaches. This is where Pathfinder Beta lacks in compatibility.
Once Pathfinder hardcover is released, and Pathfinder Society is in Season One, these issues should be largely reduced in the games I play, because I'll be going Pathfinder all the way (though allowing 3.5 material in my non-Society games). However, I am sure it will remain a barrier for other GMs/Players with mixed access to the 3.5 PHB and Pathfinder RPG books.
|
|
Let me flip your question back to you. Would half of us give two cents about Pathfinder if it was little more than Moongooses's pocket reprint of the SRD?
Funnily enough I wouldn't mind having a digest sized PHB - but I haven't found any of the Mongoose ones around, and I am not sure whether they are 3.5 or 3.0 anyway.
But yes, I agree that if PF RPG was exactly like D&D3.5 then we might not be so excited about it. However, we might ALL be excited about the supplements, adventure paths and organised plays scenarios that would be being produced for it.
As it is, some people like me who will continue to focus on 3.5 will be reluctant to buy Paizo PF supplements as they won't be 100% compatible.
I will likely be focusing my supplement spend on just one system - and that may be 3.5, PF or 4e, I don't know yet. But if PF and 3.5 had been the same then my choice of supplements would be a no-brainer as any supplements bought for PF would complement 3.5 and vice versa.
Basically by changing PF too much Paizo are changing a player's decision from "stick with 3.5 or go 4e" to "stick with 3.5, go PF or go 4e". The amount of change has actually got me considering 4e again.
|
|
I have also had a few players ask why Pathfinder Society isn't played by Pathfinder Beta rules? Pathfinder Society is Season Zero playtest year; Pathfinder Beta are playtest rules; so why not use playtest rules in Pathfinder Society's playtest year? Players are really enjoying the Pathfinder Beta rules, but are frustrated by not being able to use them in the Pathfinder Society setting. I've even had one player claim he doesn't want to play any more Pathfinder...
This is a tough one and to be honest I think Paizo made the right call. As so many people are familiar with 3.5 then PFS scenarios have players and GMs ready to go from the start. I for example I soon to GM my first PFS scenario.
However had PFS season 0 been Beta rules, not as many GMs would have been ready to run it right off the bat (I certainly wouldn't be running it) and people may be reluctant to play it either.
The thing about the Beta rules is that although the PDF is free most people like a hardcopy at teh table, and some people who aren't interested in playtesting it, would be reluctant to spend money on a hardcopy of the rules which will be redundant in less than a year. And even for those who can afford a hardcopy not everyone may be bothered to read it, only to have to read another version next year.
|
|
And I also think you seriously overestimate what Paizo was considering as priorities with "backwards compatibility". Thier main concern was in preserving the usability of thier own module line, first, WOTC and third party source books, far in far second places.
Let me add myself to the people disagreeing with this. Pathfinder, to me, is about keeping 3.5 in print as 3.x with 'x' not being far above '5'. It's to give 3.5 players that don't want to go to 4e a supported ongoing game to play. I'm sinking money into it but I wouldn't be if I didn't think that it was going to be close enough to 3.5.
As long as the final game is solid, they can stray away from 3.5 as much as they want as far as I'm concerned. So long as I can convert my old adventures, I'll be happy.
As long as the final game is solid, they can stray away from 3.5 as much as they want as far as I'm concerned. So long as I can convert my old adventures, I'll be happy.
what he said
I will likely be focusing my supplement spend on just one system - and that may be 3.5, PF or 4e, I don't know yet. But if PF and 3.5 had been the same then my choice of supplements would be a no-brainer as any supplements bought for PF would complement 3.5 and vice versa.
IT might still be a no-brainer: It's quite possible that you won't find much new 3.5 material in a year's time, as several publishers will switch to Pathfinder, and others abandoning 3e altogether (as I'm sure others will agree with Paizo that making supplements for a game that's out of print isn't profitable enough).
But I do think that the Pathfinder Beta playtest has taken on a life of it's own, like a runaway train. Not saying I don't enjoy the enhancements and fixes, but it is causing my groups some incompatibility issues.
If you don't like that, don't use it. Wait for the final version. Or use the beta and shut your ears and eyes to any updates.
It is a beta playtest, after all. Things are going to be tested. Things are going to be changed. Things are going to be fixed. If you don't want to deal with changes like that, don't enter a beta.
And transitions are always times of confusion as you have two sets of rules in your head - and playing both at the same time will only make things worse.
That has always been an issue with transitions, or playing different games, and that will not change.
|
|
IT might still be a no-brainer: It's quite possible that you won't find much new 3.5 material in a year's time, as several publishers will switch to Pathfinder, and others abandoning 3e altogether
make things worse.
However there is already a ton of 3.5 stuff out there, both in pdf, available on ebay, and also still available in thevretail chain. I just purchsed PHB II in pdf format and have previously bought up the entire Eberron back catalogue. I am currently eying up the 8 book Complete series.
Also as Eberron is my fave setting, I am now reconsidering my choice to go 4e. As I personally am not willing to mix & match PF & 3.5, if I want to run Eberron games at cons I may as well go with 4e.
|
I'd like to see more rules options, actually. Maybe an option for having different xp progressions for different classes, if the task of balancing within the common xp progressions is just too hard (and I think that, with backward compatibility, it maybe just is).
Paizo have definitely missed the boat on that one, as soon as they chained their new RPG to their organised play format - remember how the press release announced them both at once? I find that telling. Now, I don't think organised play format is a bad thing - I think it's a brilliant thing, especially since I envisage Paizo to be a quite different animal from the RPGA approach to that - BUT. But, it means that even if we get options, we will have to have a fixed set of rules which applies within convention standards. To me, it's not that easy to see how a ruleset can do that - offer options for home groups to tweak with AND offer standardized rules for the convention format. 4E is perfect evidence for that - being the "RPGA edition" - where 3.5 was (unsuccessfully, I think) trying to cater for both audiences. And Arcana Evolved was the first ruleset since 3.0 which was exclusively designed for home play only - meaning, it centres on DM empowerment (rulings, not rules). So what category will PFRGP be? Convention only, mixed bag, or geared towards home tables?*
*Mind you, that's not a question of what Jason will write in the preface of the finalized product. It's a question of which principles the Beta is designed on. I still have a hard time to discern them.
|
|
Paizo have definitely missed the boat on that one, as soon as they chained their new RPG to their organised play format - remember how the press release announced them both at once? I find that telling. Now, I don't think organised play format is a bad thing - I think it's a brilliant thing, especially since I envisage Paizo to be a quite different animal from the RPGA approach to that - BUT. But, it means that even if we get options, we will have to have a fixed set of rules which applies within convention standards. To me, it's not that easy to see how a ruleset can do that - offer options for home groups to tweak with AND offer standardized rules for the convention format. 4E is perfect evidence for that - being the "RPGA edition" - where 3.5 was (unsuccessfully, I think) trying to cater for both audiences.
I have absolutely no problem with an "Organised Play" set of rules (either the RaW plus some rulings, or with some options, whatever) and then a basket of options that DMs can use if they want to. That would be absolutely fine with me (hardly any of us play tournaments, after all).
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.
I agree, the new way skills works is great. Easier, faster to make the npcs/pcs (you lose something in personalization, but it is fine). But there is too much merging of skills :(
|
|
Ah.... provided sales have remained consistent or look promising, perhaps someone might consider staying 3.5 for Pathfinder and making the Pathfinder role-playing game an advanced tool one can jump to.
Look, the main idea is that PRPG was developed at a time when the grievous waters were troubled by a fourth edition that negated previous edition use. The traditions and history of our 30+ years of community and coherency were threatened. Pathfinder soothes the threat of 4e ripping the carpet from under us.
That said, whatever Pathfinder becomes, in its own right is a great game to play. Pathfinder materials, in my opinion can shift forward to the new PRPG ruleset, or quite frankly, remain 3.5 (the same as it ever was). The point is 3.5 is pretty much the engine beneath it all. Players should be able to play PRPG modules and adventure paths using 3.5 or the new PRPG when final rules are published in August '09.
I am greatly excited about PRPG. To my credit, I've brought along 12 other players who now play PRPG rules rather than 3.5., but seriously, both flow nicely into one another at this point with no major breaking points imho (as long as all players at the table are aligned in choosing one ruleset or the other).
In every case, I encourage everyone to STAY with Pathfinder, no matter which ruleset you actually use. Support for PAIZO is a way to show support as a community for: continuity and 30+ years of tradition and coherency. Stay the course, good sirs, because game design companies need to know that "our" game really belongs to us, the players, and should not be continually evolved for the sake of profit, or for the sake of providing "new" designers with a fresh, less cumbersome pallate to draw from. Obviously, the PAIZO community does believe in change, but for the sake of improvement and refinement, not just for the sake of change.
IMHO the comforting thought is that whether you seek to stay and play 3.5 ad infinitum, or wish to move to PRPG rule improvements, PAIZO is the place to continue to get the highest quality, authentic materials for the game formerly known as d&d.
|
|
The traditions and history of our 30+ years of community and coherency were threatened.
You see, maybe I am in the minority, but I got into D&D with v3.5 and I have only bought one issue of Dungeon magazine for the free minis map, so for me there was no tradition or community that was being threatened.
I see 4e as just as 'correct' a way to evolve as PF.
To my credit, I've brought along 12 other players who now play PRPG rules rather than 3.5.
I have to ask, would those 12 players now still be willing to play in a 3.5 campaign?
Also if at a convention and they had a choice between a 3.5 or a PF game, would they ever choose the 3.5 game? If not then PF is doing as I feared & fracturing the player base even more :(
IMHO the comforting thought is that whether you seek to stay and play 3.5 ad infinitum, or wish to move to PRPG rule improvements, PAIZO is the place to continue...
For some people then yes, but for others like me, if I want to continue with 3.5 Paizo will not be the place to continue, instead I will look to the WotC back catalogue of 3.5 stuff and maybe those 3pp who are still supporting 3.5.
|
|
Also if at a convention and they had a choice between a 3.5 or a PF game, would they ever choose the 3.5 game? If not then PF is doing as I feared & fracturing the player base even more :(
There's no ongoing production of the 3.5 books, so they will get that option less and less. If PFRPG is viable, though, they will at least have the option to play a living game that's close to 3.5.
Paizo have definitely missed the boat on that one, as soon as they chained their new RPG to their organised play format - remember how the press release announced them both at once?
There isn't anything chained to anything else. Of course, organised play will have a fixed set of rules all participants will have to use, but that doesn't mean that everyone else cannot have options.
After all, 3e had organised play, too, and there was a whole book of variant rules for 3e...
But, it means that even if we get options, we will have to have a fixed set of rules which applies within convention standards.
I'd say we'd have that even without convention standards.
There's one set of standard rules, adventures don't use dozens of different rules in dozens of different variations and leaves a mess.
My knowledge of RPG rules isn't encyclopaedic, but those games I have run tend to have a standard rule for almost everything. Some don't even have pbulished options.
To me, it's not that easy to see how a ruleset can do that - offer options for home groups to tweak with AND offer standardized rules for the convention format.
It's actually quite obvious: Present a set of standard rules, and then offer variant rules. The 3e core rules do that.
You see, maybe I am in the minority, but I got into D&D with v3.5 and I have only bought one issue of Dungeon magazine for the free minis map, so for me there was no tradition or community that was being threatened.
I don't know about minority. But it's a fact that there are people who know more about D&D than just the most recent edition, and want to recognise those older editions in the new one.
wizards and their 4e ignore them - no, let me rephrase that: They go out of their way to invalidate the game's history.
Paizo, on the other hand, likes the game's history, and strives to make their version of the game reflect that history, so those who don't think that the older stories should be forgotten have found a home here.
I have to ask, would those 12 players now still be willing to play in a 3.5 campaign?
I must say: If someone asks me whether I prefer the game to be run in 3e or Pathfinder, I'll say Pathfinder, every time.
I won't refuse to play 3e, but I'd rather play PF. Because I like it better.
Also if at a convention and they had a choice between a 3.5 or a PF game, would they ever choose the 3.5 game? If not then PF is doing as I feared & fracturing the player base even more :(
Tell me how they could have avoided that?
That's right: They coudln't. With change, there comes fraction.
For some people then yes, but for others like me, if I want to continue with 3.5 Paizo will not be the place to continue, instead I will look to the WotC back catalogue of 3.5 stuff and maybe those 3pp who are still supporting 3.5.
You're free to do so.
And don't forget everyone else's back catalogue (except those who switched product lines over to GSL, because they'll have to stop publishing those product lines under the OGL), you'll find a lot of stuff that's better than wotc's.
You might want to hurry up, though, as many of those books (including everything wotc) are no longer printed, and some shops are already holding clearance sales (I myself managed to get 4 3e books for the price of 1 book last weekend).
|
|
There's no ongoing production of the 3.5 books, so they will get that option less and less. If PFRPG is viable, though, they will at least have the option to play a living game that's close to 3.5.
Also if at a convention and they had a choice between a 3.5 or a PF game, would they ever choose the 3.5 game? If not then PF is doing as I feared & fracturing the player base even more :(
I wasn't necessarily talking about organised play / living games but the con scenarios that the 3.5 fans run at cons.
I wrote and ran my first 3.5 scenario after the announcement of 4e - and I am writing more and intend to run more at conventions (3.5 Eberron). Now I already expected 4e would cause a number of potential players from wanting to play my games, but thought 3.5 is so popular that the player base woudl still be sufficient.
However, now with Pathfinder on the scene I see a further reduction on potential players where alternative PF and 4e scenarios are being touted. Because of this, rather than stepping up to Pathfinder I am considering going 4e as that game will have the biggest share of players and will actively be supporting the setting I enjoy.
wizards and their 4e ignore them - no, let me rephrase that: They go out of their way to invalidate the game's history.
I can understand this in terms of a setting, and how Forgotten Realms has been handled in 4e. But for a rules system is there really that much of a change between 3.5 and 4e compared to changes between original D&D, AD&D, AD&D2 etc?
I guess Vancian magic could be a big sacred cow to get rid of, but I hate that anyway. But 4e still seems to have the familiar classes, levels, races etc. From what I have seen of it, it is no worse than the difference between Shadowrun 4th edition and the previous 3 editions - it was the biggest change but it was still recognisably Shadowrun and I liked the changes.
Also if at a convention and they had a choice between a 3.5 or a PF game, would they ever choose the 3.5 game? If not then PF is doing as I feared & fracturing the player base even more :(Tell me how they could have avoided that?
That's right: They coudln't. With change, there comes fraction.
From the original suggestion of what Pathfinder was going to be it seemed to be a direct replacement for the D&D3.5 core books - without little change. However the size of the change has IMHO made Pathfinder a different RPG system, as much as Conan d20, Everquest, D20 Modern and even Mutants & Masterminds are different RPGs.
The fact that people will choose to play a Pathfinder RPG game over a D&D 3.5 game shows to me that the change is significant enough to affect the attitude of players and their choice of games.
You might want to hurry up, though, as many of those books (including everything wotc) are no longer printed, and some shops are already holding clearance sales (I myself managed to get 4 3e books for the price of 1 book last weekend).
Well, I have already got the entire Eberron back catalogue cheap in hardcopy format. But as my bookshelf is so full now, I am happy going PDF only for some things - and the PDFs (at least WOTC's) are here to stay for a very long time to come.
I guess Vancian magic could be a big sacred cow to get rid of, but I hate that anyway.
But for a rules system is there really that much of a change between 3.5 and 4e compared to changes between original D&D, AD&D, AD&D2 etc?
Good for you. Bad for all of us who like D&D.
But 4e still seems to have the familiar classes, levels, races etc.
Have you seen the 4e rules?
Where the hell are gnomes or half-orcs? Not in the PHB!
And what are Dragonborn? Eladrin are a player race now? What's the matter with Elves? What are Tieflings doing in the player races section, and where are the Aasimar to balance them out (dispelling the rumors that D&D is a game for satanists)?
And that's just races. Classes are worse: Bard, Barbarian, Druid and Sorcerer are nowhere to be found, but there's Warlock and Warlord now.
From what I have seen of it, it is no worse than the difference between Shadowrun 4th edition and the previous 3 editions - it was the biggest change but it was still recognisably Shadowrun and I liked the changes.
I don't know anything about Shadowrun. Don't care, either.
I do know that almost nothing in 4e reminds me of D&D - sure, there are some things, but that's because they're both games.
From the original suggestion of what Pathfinder was going to be it seemed to be a direct replacement for the D&D3.5 core books - without little change. However the size of the change has IMHO made Pathfinder a different RPG system, as much as Conan d20, Everquest, D20 Modern and even Mutants & Masterminds are different RPGs.
I disagree. Not even a new edition. Just a revision. I've seen different editions, and different games. Pathfinder isn't.
The fact that people will choose to play a Pathfinder RPG game over a D&D 3.5 game shows to me that the change is significant enough to affect the attitude of players and their choice of games.
What?
Well, I have already got the entire Eberron back catalogue cheap in hardcopy format. But as my bookshelf is so full now, I am happy going PDF only for some things - and the PDFs (at least WOTC's) are here to stay for a very long time to come.
Aren't those the PDFs that end up costing more than the print books - and that was before you could get the stuff pretty cheap?
|
|
Good for you. Bad for all of us who like D&D.
Well I liek D&D too! But as I said I guessed that the lack of Vancian magic was probably likely one of the biggest factors in deeming 4e "not D&D", so judging by your reaction that is true.
Have you seen the 4e rules?
Where the hell are gnomes or half-orcs? Not in the PHB!
[...]
And that's just races. Classes are worse: Bard, Barbarian, Druid and Sorcerer are nowhere to be found, but there's Warlock and Warlord now.
True, the organisation is different enough that if you want to be core book only (and not buy the later Player Handbooks which will apparently introduce those races and classes) then the lack of those things as playable would be a pain and a turn off.
Gnomes are in the MM though and so could still appear as NPCs I guess.
As for the lacking classes, yes it is a pain, but then I see classes as building blocks so could probably make the existing classes fit a concept to some degree. For example when considering converting my Eberron con scenarios to 4e I believe I could use Warlord instead of Bard as the concept of the characters was a military leader and war-poet.
Still, I guess that yes, if you want only the mechanics to change between editions and not the choices of races then I could see this being a fairly big problem and one that would make PF much more attractive if you feel tired or frustrated with 3.5.
And what are Dragonborn? Eladrin are a player race now? What's the matter with Elves? What are Tieflings doing in the player races section, and where are the Aasimar to balance them out (dispelling the rumors that D&D is a game for satanists)?
Well, whereas I can understand being frustrated at losing some classes and races to the new stuff, the existence of new stuff by itself shouldn't be a problem - just don't use it!
I don't know anything about Shadowrun. Don't care, either.
Fair enough, I was just trying to draw a parallel for those who are familiar with the game, that 4th ed of Shadowrun changed some quite fundamental rules mechanics of Shadowrun to the point that some could have considered it "not Shadowrun anymore" (splitting out of some attributes, making it an attribute + skill system, removing the damage categories, allowing mages to conjure Elementals in an instant and Shamen to bind multiple nature spirits at once etc). However those changes didn't cause half as much uproar amongst the Shadowrun fanboys (me included).
I guess it maybe comes down to the fact that with Shadowrun - the setting is the constant, the things that defines it as Shadowrun. However with D&D there is no integral setting and so the rules become the constant. Therefore mucking about with the rules is more likely to change the feel of D&D than it would for something like Shadowrun (or Deadlands, or Fading Suns etc).
What?
The fact that people will choose to play a Pathfinder RPG game over a D&D 3.5 game shows to me that the change is significant enough to affect the attitude of players and their choice of games.
What I meant was (though I admit I made a mess of explaining it :)) was that if people will actively choose one game system over the other, then there must have been significant changes made. If changes were trivial then people wouldn't be as bothered which system they played.
Aren't those the PDFs that end up costing more than the print books - and that was before you could get the stuff pretty cheap?
True. Which is why I am reluctant to purchase too many. However as I normally buy hardcopy & PDF versions of a book, buying just a PDF albeit at full RRP wouldn't actually work out any more expensive.
However WOTC do seem to have their pricing right for the 4e PDFs (and they have actually released the PHB, DMG & MM in pdf for 4e!) which is another factor that is making me think that is a better choice for me*.
*Most of my 3.5 books are setting based (i.e. Eberron) and so as I am not prepared to mix & match 3.5 and PF rules I feel I would get more use out of my 3.5 books with D&D4e - a couple of 4e books will provide the Eberron specific crunch, and I can continue to use my 3.5 Eberron books for background and setting info.
|
OK Let's look at some of the Monumental changes made by Pathfinder.
Races- essentially the same. Major change was in the allocation of bonuses and penalties to ability scores in an effort to balance the races. This is a minor change at best.
Classes- A complete and total overhaul of most classes to bring a new feel to them. Again a minor change at best. Why is it minor? Because if the class was called Witch instead of Sorcerer, no one would have complained one bit. You can switch and interchange any class from any 3.x product you want.
Skills & Feats- some moderate changes. Some for the better some not so. But then again, the same happened from 3.0 to 3.5 so no real complaints.
Equipment & Description- amazingly minor changes.
Combat- The most significant change was the addition of the CMB. This change is an attempt to improve one of the universally broken mechanics of 3.x
Magic- Spells get a more focused overhaul. The changes are comparative to the changes made from 3.0 to 3.5. So I would say a minor change.
So, essentially there are a bunch of minor changes and a few moderate changes to the core mechanics of 3.x
Absolutely no product from previous editions is rendered obsolete. Any and every previously published setting can still operate with the Pathfinder System, in fact can do so easier than the 4E system which required major changes to settings.
The 3.x rules were never what defined D&D. If you look back over the editions 3.x is a major departure from all previous editions. In fact each edition made major changes to the mechanics. One of the reasons I was late to make the change to the 3.x system was because it lacked THACO and weapon speeds- 3.x was obviously NOT D&D anymore .
The fact is, the 3.x mechanics are sound, but not perfect. They allow for an amazing amount of customization, but not as much as other game systems.
Now, if I had my way, Pathfinder would do away with d20 all together and go to a 3d6 system- a far better system in my opinion. But other than that keep the 3.x mechanics. It is a simple swap to make. One can even do it on the fly if needed.
So, I am curious, what makes Pathfinder such a deal breaker? What changes specifically make it impossible to use with other settings or other books?
For me it's all the extra work. As a DM I just don't look forward to all the conversions. Don't get me wrong...it's the experience of doing just that (BoXM anyone?) that makes me leary of doing it more or again.
As a consumer I don't like the invalidation of all that I've already spent my money on. I love the Pathfinder campaign setting but not so much so the PFRPG.
Ultimately, I think I'm going to be in the minority: the group who is more or less satisfied with an entire shelf of books. Anything I add at this point will be for the purpose of cherry picking.
My final realisation was: I don't need Pathfinder. I just like it. So I can afford to go without it.
|
|
For me it's all the extra work. As a DM I just don't look forward to all the conversions. Don't get me wrong...it's the experience of doing just that (BoXM anyone?) that makes me leary of doing it more or again.
As a consumer I don't like the invalidation of all that I've already spent my money on. I love the Pathfinder campaign setting but not so much so the PFRPG.
Ultimately, I think I'm going to be in the minority: the group who is more or less satisfied with an entire shelf of books. Anything I add at this point will be for the purpose of cherry picking.
My final realisation was: I don't need Pathfinder. I just like it. So I can afford to go without it.
You know, this is my favorite response so far! I assume most of the negative posts from people regarding "backwards compatibility" are from people that own all the 3.5 stuff anyway. So, my question is, if you just want to play 3.5, why not use the 3.5 rules?
What I don't want from pathfinder is what i ALREADY OWN in a pretty new package. I have the 3.5 rules. I think there are a lot of things that could be done much better. If Pathfinder addresses even some of these concerns, i'm happy. If Pathfinder is simply a reworded rehash of what i already have, it's a waste of $50.
A note about "backward compatibility": Pathfinder is mean to replace the DMG and PHB, to be the core book for the continuation of 3.5. It will be, at least from a "balance" concept, "compatible" with the splats. Yes, they changed the skills, no, that doesn't make any NPc blocks invalid. It doesn't matter if the stat block says "stealth" or "move silently", the number more than likely would be the same either way, and it's still an opposed roll. no biggie.
(as a side note, i've already houseruled that "perception" checks specifically used to find something hidden (i.e. "search" for it) use the Int modifier. I think it was silly to change that function to a Wis check. but that's just me, and i've been houseruling for thirty years, so eh.)
We've been playtesting Pathfinder built characters with 3.5 published scenarios and...wow, it makes NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever.
|
|
Classes- A complete and total overhaul of most classes to bring a new feel to them. Again a minor change at best. Why is it minor? Because if the class was called Witch instead of Sorcerer, no one would have complained one bit.
I admit that I haven't read the Pathfinder Beta rules in depth (just enough to create a character) and so can't comment on how much change they have undergone, but if you say that they have had a compleye and total overhaul I can't see that as being minor.
I don't understand your explanation that the change is minor because you could have re-labeled the class to be something else. Some people complain about 4e because it dropped the Bard class in the PHB - could that be considered a minor change if they had relabeled Warlord Bard instead?
Skills & Feats- some moderate changes. Some for the better some not so. But then again, the same happened from 3.0 to 3.5 so no real complaints.
This is where I find the biggest change IMHO, one which has several knock-on effects as well. I never played 3.0 so I cannot comment on that change, but I have steered clear of buying any 3.0 products.
Combat- The most significant change was the addition of the CMB. This change is an attempt to improve one of the universally broken mechanics of 3.x[/qu. ote]
CMB isn't a bad idea, and generally won't cause too many problems for conversion (The Grapple stat for a medium creature is basically CMB). However it means no 3.5 classes will be tricked out with certain feats that they logically would be in PF, e.g. Agile Maneuvers. Also for Grappling, the CMB is broken IMHO and I have posted as such - you can more easily grab a small agile opponent than a large lumbering but strong one.I never had too much of an issue with the manuevers in 3.5 and with SORD it is much easier. I had someone goes to the effort of creating a SORD equivalent for PF.
Absolutely no product from previous editions is rendered obsolete.I don't think anyone is suggesting PF makes any books obsolete, just requiring some amount of effort to use that some people feel is too much. Its not just about calculaying stats its about making judgements (or having to ask your GM to adjudicate) on some conversion issues.
The 3.x rules were never what defined D&D. If you look back over the editions 3.x is a major departure from all previous editions. In fact each edition made major changes to the mechanics.And yet I get the impression that people feel 4e is not D&D because of some of the rules changes, so I guess either I am mistaken or opinions differ on what defines D&D.
Now, if I had my way, Pathfinder would do away with d20 all together and go to a 3d6 system- a far...Now that I have accepted that PF is too changed to be backwards compatible IMHO, I would like to see more changes to make it worth while. For example in another thread someone suggests getting rid of spell resistance and rolling it into the Saving roll - I agree. Also provide an alternative system for Vancian magic. Give variants for Rangers so that they don't all have to cast spells etc. Basically do an alternative 4th edition or keep it 99% 3.5. At least that is IMHO.
|
|
I assume most of the negative posts from people regarding "backwards compatibility" are from people that own all the 3.5 stuff anyway. So, my question is, if you just want to play 3.5, why not use the 3.5 rules?
And I will as long as I can continue to find players willing to play it! My weekly group seems open to this, but I wonder whether at conventions PF will divert players away from 3.5 games. Also for the Pathfinder Society organised play - for season zero Paizo have a GM in me, but from season 1 onwards, I will likely become a player only (or go Living Forgotten Realms if I am into 4e by then).
|
|
The reason I said the total overhaul on classes is no big deal is because for any already published product you don't actually need to make any changes at all. Just run it as published.
The sorcerer bad guys in adventure XX using 3.5 rules or even 3.0 rules are still sorcerers and still a valid class to use. I would not spend one minute making any changes to them. And for skills, I'd look at the old class and I know they need a perception check- I look on the old sheet and find Search and just roll with that- no change made at all.
Try to think of it this way... your variations available as NPCs just became more expanded. NPCs will start to look more unique with the variety and not so cookie cutter-esque. Does that make any sense????
In our games we already use spells combined from 3.0 and 3.5. When a character learns the spell he must note which version it is. In essence we cherry pick the best spells of each system and I fully expect to do so again with Pathfinder.
You know what though... all this talk has REALLY made me want to go back and play some old AD&D... *sigh* the good old days... :)
And BTW I am not trying to belittle your opinions at all. I just find that sometimes when you look down deep into a negative feeling about something you often find a lack of any real substance. For example, when Alpha came out with the Sorcerer and Bloodlines I HATED it! I examined why I hated it so much and found no reasons that were worth the effort... So now the sorcerer works ok for me. Not a HUGE fan, but I don't HATE it anymore either.
Oh oh oh and something else I just had buzz through my mind... someone was saying we should get rid of the Vancian system of magic... THAT is one of the things, to me, that makes D&D, well D&D. Vancian magic may not be my favorite, but it will always be D&D to me, and I think that is one reason I do not like 4E at all. Not only do they not have THACO and weapon speeds but they did away with Vancian magic! What is left? Get rid of the gnomes as a player class?
What is left? Get rid of the gnomes as a player class?
That's crazy talk. Might as well toss the bard out while you're at it!
|
|
I don't think it should stray farther than it has. Upgrading the Sorcerer, Paladin, and Fighter is great. Upgrading the Wizard and Cleric strikes me as questionable and the Monk, Bard, and Barbarain upgrades are fine and dandy. Fixing the Half-Elf is huge, adjusting the other races is no big deal. The skill list I love (aside from dropping Concentration, I love it as a role-playing skill mechanic for all classes) and the feats are much better.
I have had to dial it back a bit though in my PFRPG test. I can't let all the feats that they are adding as a base function of level advancement go. I also don't like giving the wizard a d6 HD. It is a sacred cow that is just too tasty to change, in my opinion. If you want a sturdy spellcaster, the d6 Sorcerer seems like a much better fit.
As for backwards compatibility generally though, I think that they need to stick to tweaking. If it goes beyond that, we will lose some core advantages over D&D 4 (use of pre-existing works, pre-existing game rules, and pre-existing campaigns).
|
|
So, I am curious, what makes Pathfinder such a deal breaker? What changes specifically make it impossible to use with other settings or other books?
Doh! Just realised my post from last night got lost :(
Just to be clear, I don't think any changes make it impossible to use Pathfinder with other settings and books. But then I can use 1st ed Shadowrun adventures with 4th edition if I re-stat the NPCs.
The question is whether the conversion effort becomes too much hassle. This will vary by player and so there is no definitive point at which the amount of change is "too much" - but the further PF strays from 3.5 the more people are likely to consider it too much hassle.
For me specifically the main changes that have made me decide not to mix and match are the dropping and folding in of skills, the change to how skill ranks are assigned, and the knock on effects that has to feats, and feat and prestige class pre-requisites.
Firstly 15 skills have either been dropped or folded into a new skill. For conversion purposes I need to remember the mapping. Whilst some things may be pretty easy to remember (Spot, Search and Listen are now Perception) others may not be so easy to remember.
E.g Concentration is now part of Spellcraft, so if a 3.5 NPC has Spellcraft 4 (+6 with Int of +2) and Concentration 8 (+11 with Con of +3) I should actually use the Concentration skill modifier for Spellcraft checks in Pathfinder rather than Spellcraft! But then should I reduce the modifier by 1 as Con isn't used in PF for Spellcraft, instead it is Int? But then again, should I leave it as is as that NPC needn't have spent skill points on two skills and so could have had a higher rank in Concentration.
Also I have to adjudicate whether the merging of skills may change how that NPC would act. For example, suppose there was an NPC who was an investigator - he however is often so focused on the details that he misses the bigger picture. The 3.5 write up shows this with a high Search skill but no Spot skill - the PCs are meant to be able to easily creep up on him as he examines a crime scene. But in Pathfinder that NPC actually becomes much more perceptive in general and the PCs are unlikely to sneak up on him. These might be small things, but still something to think about.
Secondly, due to the way skill ranks are assigned feats and prestige classes which have a pre-requisite that would be a cross class skill for a character are available 3 levels earlier than in 3.5.
For example, Intimidating Strike (PHB2) has a pre-requisite of Intimidate 4 ranks. My Bard for whom Intimidate is a cross class skill would not be able to qualify for that feat until level 5 in 3.5 (max rank of a cross class skill at level 5 is 4; [5+3]/2). However in Pathfinder my Bard can qualify for that feat at only level 2 (in PF the rank pre-requisite is the 3.5 ranks -3 for a class skill, or double that for a cross class skill).
I don't know whether allowing PrC and Feats 3 levels earlier is a problem or not - but as a GM I need to make that call.
Also, PF characters can effectively get more "points" in skills by putting a single skill point in every class skill - even more effective if each character dips into Rogue for a level to get as many class skills as possible.
E.g in 3.5 a non-human Fighter with Int of 10 at level 3 would effectively have 12 ranks to spread between his class skills, if he wasn't bothered about specialising he could go:
Climb 4, Intimidate 4, Ride 4
In PF that same fighter would have 6 ranks but would get a +3 bonus on all class skills so he could effectively get:
Climb 4, Handle Animal 4, Intimidate 4, Ride 4, Survival 4 and Swim 4
Combine that with the fact that PF PCs have fewer skills to spend points on this means that 3.5 NPCs may be considerably underpowered compared to PF PCs when it comes to skills (and also possibly feats) - significant enough? I am not sure, but as a GM I need to make the call as to whether to change the CR of that NPC or bump up his stats.
Thirdly, the changes to skills causes some issue with Feats, for example the Negotiator feat has been dropped in PF as Alertness now gives a Sense Motive bonus and Persuasive gives the bonus to Diplomacy. Persuasion now no longer gives a bonus to Bluff as that is now done by Deceitful etc.
So if an NPC had been built with Alertness to get a bonus to his Spot and Listen checks and with Negotiator for the Sense Motive bonus, used in a Pathfinder game he has effectively wasted a feat.
Fourthly, PF PCs have equal or better hit dice than 3.5, get more class skills, get more class special abilities, and get more feats than 3.5 equivalents. All mean 3.5 NPCs will likely be underpowered.
So in summary as a GM I would not be sure whether a 3.5 NPC would be underpowered when facing PF PCs - I would have to either:
Study the NPC stats and either lower the CR or bump up their skills, feats and HP
...or...
Just run with the 3.5 stats and have the PCs potentially have easier challenges than intended whilst still gaining the full XP.
As a GM I would need to adjudicate whether certain feats are too powerful at the earlier level and may unbalance my game, or whether they may break down the niche protection and cause some players frustration at having their spotlight taken away (e.g. the Bard taking Intimidating Strike at level 2 when he sees the Fighter use it at level 1).
Finally as a player I may need to seek out an adjudication from my GM on whether my PC qualifies for a 3.5 feat or PrC where the pre-requisites reference feats and / or skills that no longer exist or that have been rolled into one skill.
So for me, that is too much hassle when I am quite happy to stick with 3.5. Unfortunately sticking with 3.5 means no buying any Paizo supplements and settings and possibly having fewer players willing to play in my 3.5 game.
In my less then humble opinion in some ways its allready gone to far from what it was. Things like CMB for example.. Does it speed up gameplay ? Not in my group.. Not that we find it slower.. But I don't let retards in my games so for us its a case of its just not faster. The new skill list being a bit small.. I *never* see anyone without acrobatics anymore its a super power skill and Rogues being upped to status as a combat class by default rather then by build.
In some ways its found the perfect balance. Feats every other level ? Sweet. Upgrades to the combat classes so dead levels are gone ? Well darn it if i dont need a change of underwear for that one. Opening up the classes so that you can choose from different things at the same level ? I need a cigarette now..
In some ways.. It hasn't gone far enough.. True strike abuse is now better then ever and will the way skills work now UMD with a fighter for wands of it is a viable option.. The fact that 'Pretty' still equals good PCworthy and 'Ugly' equals evil monstery and unplayable pisses me off more then i have words for. Multiclassers that aren't of the 'core four' classes losing to many high level abilities to be as viable in fact with some of the changes unless you have a very specific idea of what your going for in advance its worse. Now granted that's bound to happen with fewer dead levels but the increase in the amount of 'capstone abilities' both still bothers me a bit and means that this one also belongs in the strays to far.
Oh.. Also for reasons I cant quite figure out.. Taking spells away from the assassin prestige class.. A class Ive only played once and almost never used as an NPC bothered me.. Bothered me more then i ever thought such a small change could.. I almost canceled my playtest game in a moment of rage because of it till I managed to calm down.
But the long and short of it is as follows. As a GM i make up my own worlds usually. Greyhawk was lame.. I played in FR for so long I get the in jokes.. Dark Sun never got a 3rd Ed chance <Yes.. Ive seen the homesick abortions that Dragon and the Dark Sun society tried to make unsuck> Ebberon was kinda cool in a FF3 kinda way.. More then kinda on some days.. but so many of the splat books were awful.. Seriously.. Why would i pay 30 bucks for a bunch of monster lairs I could pop a handful of Ritalin and tweaker out myself. Golarion ? Well.. I just kinda find it Lame.. Not to trash Paizo's work on it just aint my cup o' tea. So where does this leave me ? In a rather magical land of inbetweenerness. See I just use the rules info from PF Im never gonna play it pure so if they stray to far for me to work it in I wont buy it. I'm also never gonna play pure 3.5 WoTC i never did before and I'm sure as hell not gonna start now. So if they don't change enough.. I wont buy it. Funny how that works aint it ?
At first I was very worked up about the PFRPG because I thought it was going to be the continuation of 3.5. However, it seems more likely that Paizo wants to go more in its own direction. The game clearly retains its 3.5 legacy and feels like D&D to me. No problem with that.
But I just don't need it for myself. Don't get me wrong; have no doubt that I will take some of the Beta and houserule it into my game. Like DMs all over the world I add a little of this and change a little of that to make my own D&D pie. My pie might look a little different than yours but its still yummy to me.
Damn. I'm hungry.