|
Inspired by this thread.
If Paizo had so-called evolved the 3.x system to the point of resolving all its "broken issues" (e.g., "lack of balance" between fighters, wizards, AoO, grappling, iterative attacks, etc.); retained recognizable roots to the 3.5 version of the World's Most Popular Fantasy RPG; BUT was as backwards compatible to 3.x material as much as D&D Encyclopedia is to current Dungeons & Dragons, would you still buy it?
|
If I can't use my existing 3.5 materials relatively easily (which I think is excluded by the way you describe the hypothetical PFRPG) then not only will I not play it, I'm going to be pretty bitter at Paizo (because of the money I'll have handed over under false pretences...).
Fortunately, I am confident that Paizo are good to their word and they're doing their best to keep things transferrable with relatively little effort.
|
If such a version of PF offered something unique and attractive then maybe, it would need to distinguish itself just like any other RPG.
Also that distinguishing factor could be its setting. If I found Golarion to be a great setting (I see potential but need to play in it more) then I may buy the rules, whatever they may be, to play in it.
In fact, as I already feel PF Beta has lost compatibility the setting is likely to be the main reason I will buy PF as my GM is using the PF rules to run the setting.
Its the same reasoning that I am considering buying 4e even though I don't like it too much from what I have seen - 4e will be supporting Eberron and that is reason enough for me to play it.
|
|
Between games like the Eldritch RPG, Arcana Unearthed, True20, etc, etc. I think that there are more than enough not-as-compatible d20 systems out there, and that Pathfinder's strength is going to be able to adapt more quickly and painlessly to the enormous library of 3.0/3.5 material already out there, instead of being just one more not-as-compatible d20 variation.
If I can run a 3.5 adventure, use a 3.5 statblock, or add a 3.5 feat to my character with little effort, then the system is 3.5 compatible.
I am running with Pathfinder Beta the Rise of the Runelords AP, a Paizo product and so arguably the best case for Paizo's interest in compatibility. I can do this with very little extra effort. Therefore the product is still compatible.
Those who claim BC should be abandoned must understand that we should still be able to play Pathfinder issues #1-24 in the Pathfinder RPG or it has actually failed to be a Pathfinder RPG.
|
|
Paizo might want to claim this but it is fundamentally wrong. You will not be able to open up a 3e product and use it as is. You will have to examine the characteristics of all the statted encounters and spells and treasure and verify that it will conform to the new balance points. You might find that some 3e material will be usable with little to no adjustment but you will need to examin each and every statblock to make sure that something hasn't changed so that you will need some kind of adjustment to reflect the new paradigm.
Or if it were easy enough to do more-or-less on-the-fly, that would be OK.
Opinions as to how easy it is to produce a tolerable version of PFRPG material from 3.5 material will vary, I would imagine.
Inspired by this thread.
If Paizo had so-called evolved the 3.x system to the point of resolving all its "broken issues" (e.g., "lack of balance" between fighters, wizards, AoO, grappling, iterative attacks, etc.); retained recognizable roots to the 3.5 version of the World's Most Popular Fantasy RPG; BUT was as backwards compatible to 3.x material as much as D&D Encyclopedia is to current Dungeons & Dragons, would you still buy it?
Yes!
But only in a couple of years.
And as Pathfinder Second Edition (First Edition being what amounts to D&D 3e Revised Revised, or 3.75 if you will).
And I'm sure this will happen. I'm also sure that the Pathfinder we will get next year will be a revision, not a new edition.
Paizo is telling us that they want to stick to 3e, merely fixing it. And Paizo tends to keep its word.
Paizo might want to claim this but it is fundamentally wrong. You will not be able to open up a 3e product and use it as is. You will have to examine the characteristics of all the statted encounters and spells and treasure and verify that it will conform to the new balance points. You might find that some 3e material will be usable with little to no adjustment but you will need to examin each and every statblock to make sure that something hasn't changed so that you will need some kind of adjustment to reflect the new paradigm.
Your mileage may vary.
I open 3e products and used them as is.
I have not examined how things conform to balance in any way I don't ordinarily do when GMing (and I am lazy).
It really isn't all that bad to convert. Because max ranks = Character Level, it is very easy to fudge skill ranks for NPCs. Spell changes require looking up the spell, which I would have been doing anyway.
A compatibility issue would have resulting in me trying to run the AP and running into something I just couldn't use or convert very easily. This simply hasn't happened.
Claiming that the disparity between the SRD and Pathfinder Beta is like the change from 2e to 3e is severely overstating the matter. It is more like the difference between 3e and 3.5. Whether you think Paizo has gone too far is a matter of personal taste, but don't tell me it won't work with a 3.5 product when it is working for me right now.
Paizo might want to claim this but it is fundamentally wrong. You will not be able to open up a 3e product and use it as is. You will have to examine the characteristics of all the statted encounters and spells and treasure and verify that it will conform to the new balance points. You might find that some 3e material will be usable with little to no adjustment but you will need to examin each and every statblock to make sure that something hasn't changed so that you will need some kind of adjustment to reflect the new paradigm.
Ummm I am running 3.0 and 3.5 things as is. I do no conversion it works just fine. If you really need to convert something here is 2 simple things 1. CMB=grapple simple 2. Max skill is level or level +3
done.I think it works just fine, sure some things are not the same but if you dont want to change the npc stats then dont.
|
|
Paizo might want to claim this but it is fundamentally wrong. You will not be able to open up a 3e product and use it as is. You will have to examine the characteristics of all the statted encounters and spells and treasure and verify that it will conform to the new balance points. You might find that some 3e material will be usable with little to no adjustment but you will need to examin each and every statblock to make sure that something hasn't changed so that you will need some kind of adjustment to reflect the new paradigm.If I can run a 3.5 adventure, use a 3.5 statblock, or add a 3.5 feat to my character with little effort, then the system is 3.5 compatible.
I am running with Pathfinder Beta the Rise of the Runelords AP, a Paizo product and so arguably the best case for Paizo's interest in compatibility. I can do this with very little extra effort. Therefore the product is still compatible.
Those who claim BC should be abandoned must understand that we should still be able to play Pathfinder issues #1-24 in the Pathfinder RPG or it has actually failed to be a Pathfinder RPG.
Add me to the running things just fine camp. Not long finished running COTCT and had no problem running the encounters or converting things at all. (Mostly I just gave Npc's 3/4 to full hp per dice instead of 1/2 and that worked fine enough)
Backwards compatible is great but to the warlock just say NO!!!
Backwards compatible is great but to the warlock just say NO!!!
Huh? I don't know what you're driving at.
"Sacred cows" and "that's the way we've always done it" mentality is the pattern of reactionaries. If Paizo wants to be visionaries of the Gaming world, they need to go beyond what has been done and look at what is fundamentally best for the system they truly want to achieve.
They'll probably do so in a couple of years, in a game they will announce as the "real 4th edition D&D".
Pathfinder isn't a new edition. It was promised as a revision to 3.5, and it delivers. Already I am using 3.5 material with Pathfinder Beta - adventure paths, Chronicles material, Complete... books.... - and it works without going through anything with a fine-toothed comb. Of course, I don't have a OC that prevents me from playing if the stats aren't 100% correct (i.e. if the guy still has ranks in hide and move silently, I don't sweat it).
Sacred Cows are sacred for a reason. Those who'd just go and butcher them without reason make bad game designers, because they lack the foresight to think things through.
If I had to choose between a solid rules fix that isn't backwards compatable or a bandaid fix doesn't solve the core problem then I'd prefer it to just be fixed right from the start.
I already pretty clearly expressed my oppinion in the other thread, I'd like to see some evolution in the game, rather than just some tweaks. Keep what's great about 3e, chuck what's bad and do it right from scratch.
I find the current result unsatisfying though, since it seems to be trying to strike some middle ground that really isn't gratifying to either party.
Sacred Cows are sacred for a reason. Those who'd just go and butcher them without reason make bad game designers, because they lack the foresight to think things through.
Assuming that massive problems inherent to the system, like, say, Challenge Rating, are filed under "Sacred Cows," then those Sacred Cows can also be what prevents 3.5 from ever being repaired.
If those problems stand, I'm going to be putting a massive amount of work into running a game anyways, just to work with the system.
If Pathfinder fixes those problems, but yields a non-backwards-compatible system, and if I want to utilize an old 3.5 supplement, then I'll have to do some work to convert it.
But at least with the second method, the community can collaborate and post conversions to existing supplements, thus reducing everyone's workload. If the problems stand, that's not true.
So either I would have work ahead of me to run a game from an unrepaired system, or I would have work ahead of me to convert old supplements to a repaired system.
I'd rather purchase whichever system fixes the problems. Period. I don't care if it's backwards compatible or not; I want a system that works!
-Matt
I can't believe that anyone calls CR a sacred cow. Even if the system stayed, if it was recalculated, I can't see anyone complaining all that much.
I don't think it needs replacement, it needs augmentation. The central concept is fine, it just ignores or mishandles many important factors.
The Running chapter playtest is coming. Let's tell Paizo what we need for Encounter Building Tools.
I want PRPG to maintain its backwards compatibility. Jason seems right on track.
However, someday I would like Paizo to see what could be done to improve the game with only 'partial' reverse compatibility. I don't know what it would be called or when the timing would be appropriate, but I would like something that takes some bolder steps. Maybe it would be an optional rule book. Maybe it would be a new game entirely.
I have been running savage tide on this site using the Pathfinder rules with no conversion. The party is 6 players and have been in one fight.
The fight on the blue nixie. 4 of 6 player went down hard If one player had not been a warforged with an AC of 19 it could have been a TPK
I am finding it just as hard on the pc's under pathfinder as it was in 3.5
|
|
If Paizo had so-called evolved the 3.x system to the point of resolving all its "broken issues" (e.g., "lack of balance" between fighters, wizards, AoO, grappling, iterative attacks, etc.)
Lack of balance isn't an issue for me... it's not a PvP game. Certain classes do certain things, if all the classes do the same things equally well, we might as well play 4e.
If they balance the classes such that a fighter is "balanced" against a Wizard, the deal has broken and I'm not playing Pathfinder RPG. The classes have NEVER been "balanced."
Iterative attacks aren't going away, if they do, every non-core class, every prestige class is now incompatible.
Grappling fixed.
AoO... people still have a problem with this? Sheesh.
Lack of balance isn't an issue for me... it's not a PvP game. Certain classes do certain things, if all the classes do the same things equally well, we might as well play 4e.
Be careful with statements like this.
My understanding of D&D balance is that is isn't adversarial, it is ensuring that each player has something cool to do on their turn. Adversarial balance is a matter of CR/EL and reward systems supporting fights between PCs.
That said, I agree with you. I just want it to be known that "Balance" changes are valid if they preserve equal entertainment for all PCs. Adversarial balance is just designing for immature players, which I don't care for.
...would you still buy it?
In 2009? Not a chance.
My group and I have all snagged copies of the Beta hardcopy, and at present, things are looking pretty acceptable.
For the game that I'm running, I'm not quite ready/convinced to whole-hog convert over, so I find myself picking interesting bits (and there's a lot of those) out and "houseruling" in.
Another group member is going to start a brand new campaign up using the Beta ruleset, while yet another is going over his NPC's and notes for a campaign he's running, and he's going to convert us all to that.
As things sit right this very moment, I have money waiting on the hardcover release - I've purchased two copies of the Beta, and I've got a Benjamin held aside for two copies of the hardcover.
That said, if things get "harder" to convert, or backwards compatibility goes by the wayside, I'll use that hundred smackers on 3.5 PHB's from Noble Knight or someone like that.
Now then, down the road, when things become stagnant, and Paizo (and the collective user base) are in agreement that it's time for a new version, I'm all for it, as long as it stays "the same" - I don't want to have Pathfinder RPG 1st Edition be "Risk" to Pathfinder RPG 2nd Edition's "Mousetrap".
If Paizo had so-called evolved the 3.x system to the point of resolving all its "broken issues" (e.g., "lack of balance" between fighters, wizards, AoO, grappling, iterative attacks, etc.); retained recognizable roots to the 3.5 version of the World's Most Popular Fantasy RPG; BUT was as backwards compatible to 3.x material as much as D&D Encyclopedia is to current Dungeons & Dragons, would you still buy it?
Nope, not a chance.
(Heck, I'm not buying it now. But I'll still stick with the APs, since my plan is to use the 3.5 rules with PFRPG modules/NPCs.)
KaeYoss, I like your thinking.If Paizo had so-called evolved the 3.x system to the point of resolving all its "broken issues" (e.g., "lack of balance" between fighters, wizards, AoO, grappling, iterative attacks, etc.); retained recognizable roots to the 3.5 version of the World's Most Popular Fantasy RPG; BUT was as backwards compatible to 3.x material as much as D&D Encyclopedia is to current Dungeons & Dragons, would you still buy it?Yes!
But only in a couple of years.
And as Pathfinder Second Edition (First Edition being what amounts to D&D 3e Revised Revised, or 3.75 if you will).
I don't think this is so far out there.
In fact, I think work on this has already started: Jason is going over the rules, changes things, leaves some things be, or doesn't go all the way with a change because they would break backward compatibility.
I'm quite sure he makes notes in those cases. And some time after Pathfinder RPG is finished, and he had a chance to recover from it, and from Gen Con, he'll go over his notes, and takes a look at classes and races and all mechanics again and starts thinking how they could be improved in the case of a new edition of the game, as opposed to a revision.
Things will be thought about, written up, tested a bit, written up more, take form, and, say 2011 or so, he'll give us the next Pathfinder Beta - this one from Second Edition, so that in 2012 or 2013, there will be a new edition of the game - call it Real 4e (R4e) if you want, I know I will.
3e still has some life in it, and Pathfinder will give it a second or third spring, but sooner or later, it will retire. You don't want to do that too early, because people want to get a good run for their money with their 3e books, and also because if you do a new edition rather than a revision, and backwards compatibility with the rules isn't required, you should go and take a long hard look at everything.
Pathfinder RPG (1st edition) couldn't be that new game: Beyond the promise to keep backwards compatibility, there isn't enough time to do a real new game, and do it properly (Paizo's too professional to go about this half-assed).
But I think that in a couple of years, the time will be right: 3e will be at the end of its life cycle, and R4e will have had time to mature.
Arnwyn, when you do, could you keep us posted on how easy/difficult it is to use the Pathfinder mods with the 3.x rules? Thanks!
I certainly will! I'm looking forward to the Council of Thieves AP, to see if my hopes are crushed and I turn into a ranting-and-raving internet lunatic (more than I am now! ;) ), or if I end up happily and comfortably running the new AP and barely noticing any changes with all the NPCs...
|
|
Sure in much the same way that it is possible to take 2e material and fit it into 3e at the beginning. Some people just guessed the some numbers and ran with with, others meticulously examined the MM to figure out where the balance was. But anyone thinking that they could run a monster with -2AC in 3e without some adjustment was smoking crack.Paizo has already stated that a new MM is obviously in the works to take into account the changes made by pathfinder. That clearly means that changes are need to monsters to keep them on an even keel with the new pathfinder player rules
Hardly, the reason they need to put out their own Monster Manual is because the 3.5 MM isn't being made any more. New players picking up the RPG will need a new set of core rule books. The PFRPG book is the PHB and DMG, the bestiary is the MM.
Sure, you could use your 3.5 or even your 3.0 MM with PFRPG, but if you like PFRPG you're going to want the monsters to have the same treatment as the PCs. That is, if you're a GM. ;)
Actually, I wouldn't lose any sleep over that.
Of course, I'll still get the bestiary, if alone for the new artwork.
And other than that, it's necessary for those who don't have a 3e monster manual but need one.
Sure, you could use your 3.5 or even your 3.0 MM with PFRPG, but if you like PFRPG you're going to want the monsters to have the same treatment as the PCs. That is, if you're a GM. ;)
Does not bother me in the lest, I am using toh 3.0, MM3.5 and a few other odd and end 3e books
They work just fine, I myself it it has spot, listen or what ever I just use the highest one and make a perception roll, that's like 3 sec.
Really man it works fine