|
the players i have using wizards love the change
i myself love the cleric domains,Ironically the only [member of my gaming group] that doesn't [approve of the changes in Pathfinder] is the DM of Burnt Offering, but he wants to run Crimson Crown with Arcana Evolved rules...
I will pass; I like my cleric or the rogue too much, thank you.
Of course each individual player likes the increase in power Pathfinder provides. 1st-Level clerics love healing everybody in the party 1d6 hit points, several times a day. People love it when their beginning PC's have 20 hit points. Arcane casters love casting detect magic at will. Rogues love being able to sneak attack skeletons and shadows. Everybody loves getting a +2 Attribute bonus.
Everybody would like characters with frikkin' laser beams on their foreheads, too.
"Stronger characters" does nothing to convince me that Pathfinder is a better system.
Seriously, have you ever seen a thread where people agreed that a particular race or class needed to be reduced in power from 3.5? (There are threads that argue that a particular empowerment in Pathfinder has gone too far; that's different.)
no sorry idon't go into WotC forums that is where the discussions about splat books and sourcebooks for differet races and classes go, but when a player cames to me "hey i want to be a warlock,, because he does this this and this other!" or the only thing my players want to play are races using level adjustment... hey i don't like... whis is thereason why the classes and races in Pathfinder were "boosted"... so they were optimal choices for players, and not bad choices instead of dozens of races and classes in splatbooks and sourcebooks
and for the note chris... have you read Arcana Evolved? both races and classes are lot more powerful than 3.5 classes and races... they begin with 2 feats, more skills, and more abilities... magic is better, more flexible and more interesting
i just like my cleric... if we play AE i will play a Verrik Runechildren Champion of Death... or a Totem Warrior... but if he tries to run Crimson Crown... it just don't work...
fact to be told Pathfinder returned me to the normal DnD... i abandoned it when 3.5 left Ravenloft die... i never changed rules from 3.0, nor do i have 3.5 rules... after reading it from a friend's copy i saw it 1) unecessary considering the changes (i have always liked more the Monte Cook's Ranger) and 2) i hate 3.5 magic...
i myself DM 1 of 4 different campaigns...
i have been giving for years 1 extra feat & 2 extra skills to all characters, i just give max hps;
and i DM thinking not in relying in magic items... giving them after interesting encoutners for the benefit of the roleplaying and character development... not just as an extra trinket that might or might not be useful... that is how the 3.5... alas Pathfinder works in that regard.
and considering all the optional rules out there using inhuman races, overpowerful classes... more than power boost it brings the game to day.All races except one are inhuman.
sorry i am old school
for my the other race are DEMI-human|
|
I agree about messed up wizards though.
Bonus spells which are replacable or exchangeable? Check.
Messy bonus spells rules? Check.
Power-up via bonded items? Check. (I liked it though)
Unbelievable power-up in certain schools (Universalist, I am looking at you) while some are actually unplayable (Necromancer for good or neutral wizards)? Check.
we have a True Neutral Necromancer, i don't see the problem with the school
Power-up with no Xp cost? Check. It's ok with me, but there should be some other limitation than increased gold cost. Like unremovable Intelligence penalty for extended period of time.
check new feat "Master Crafter" now also non-spellcaster would be able to create magic items
while i agree that i prefer a dwarven master blacksmith be the one who makes magic swords... i also think that the system is abousing of over indulgence about magic weapons
the systems suposes that without a certain item at certain level... your character is just useless or obsolete... that where come the number chrunching powergamers that create models of characters around maxing stats and having certain items (my complain when mathematically they said in the forums not so long ago that a character wasuselles vs awizard with bla intelligence and bla magic item)
i am almost sure this is what is killing great part of the fun in high levels
not just that rounds are longer.... also that the same system is infecting itself with a feature that in long range (i myself feel) makes the game a lot less fun...
again that is only my humble opinion about the "magic items planned obsolescense"
I imagine that stuff like the current craziness in PhB 3.5 prices -- over cover price! -- would be good for PFRPG...
Really? I see at least one copy every time I go to Half-Price Books. Where is this? Ebay? I had stopped watching.
|
My error was in looking at the DMG. Most sincere apologies.
lol.
There were two PHB 3.5s on eBay for 20-ish, but since I've written that, one has vaped.
I remember right after 4e was announced, I picked up a TON of splatbooks for like $10 a pop. That was probably my favorite thing about the whole ordeal. Now all of my friends think I'm loaded, when in actuality I just got them at the right time.
The thing that bothers me most about Pathfinder is the initial sales pitch that it was for those of us who're sticking with 3.5 instead of 4E. But it's not. It's a new system in enough respects to call it a new system period.
Plus, I'm starting to see a trend from some developers, when faced by an outcry about changing 3.5 mechanics of just saying they're going ahead with their vision and they think it will all work out.
We've seen how that went with 4E.
I waffle a bit on this issue and I continue to fight for/against some changes. Because I've invested a lot of my time and money on this game and I want to see it continue.
I must say that my interest is fading as well. While I don't agree with all the points of the OP, I think Pathfinder has gone too far from 3.5 and some people forgot its original intent.
There's too much changes to track from 3.5, and a lot of topics talk more about new rules or radical changes. I think some people are just too excited about game design in itself and forget that Pathfinder should stay as close as possible to 3.5.
It's too bad because there are some nice ideas.
As it is, I will not DM Pathfinder, but there is some nice changes I will keep as house rules in my 3.5 campaigns.
But I will certainly still buy Pathfinder APs (at least the ones in 3.5) since I think Paizo are the best actually for adventures, and I will take a better look at Golarion (even if my favorite setting of choice is still Greyhawk).
Ultimately at this point I think saying whether we like Pathfinder RPG or not is a bit premature. The Beta as printed is already considerably out of date with the current rules changes and on top of that there is a considerable amount of things which will go into the final version which we haven't seen.
I'm not going to say "He everyone it's going to be great", instead just... wait until it's released in August. Pick up the book in the local B&N or Borders and pan through it. Likely some of the stuff you have issues with will be resolved. Most likely not all of it. I do know that some of the things the OP was complaining about are out of date.
On the flip side, while I do see some really nice ideas there are some things I don't care for in the beta and as Hogarth says I may wind up using the Beta+3.5 to build my own house rules.
This sort of prejudging a product before it's complete is one of the reasons many companies don't put things out in public. It's perfectly reasonable to say "I don't like the direction this appears to be going" but acting like it is a final product at this point is entirely premature.
|
|
I have decided not to switch Pathfinder. There are main reasons for that:
1)Backwards compatibility or, more accurately, lack of it.
[...]
3)Tons of minor changes, that add nothing to the game, add some fairly insignificant benefits, not worth the effort of relearning the rules
[...]
5)Finally, Pathfinder doesn't seem to offer any major benefits or revolutionary breakthroughs to make itself interesting,
I have to say that I am in complete agreement with the above points, and that is why I won't be buying the Pathfinder RPG when it is released, despite the host of my weekly group running it - when I GM I will run 3.5. Our GM has kindly bought us all Beta hard copies, but unless he does the same for the final product I will not be owning a copy.
Unfortunately for me, playing Pathfinder rules means I am not as familiar with the system, and yet I don't seem to be gaining anything in the process (though from a GM perspective my GM obviously feels he is).
The real question is: do you think you would purchase any stuff from Paizo in the future? E.g. would you buy an adventure path and semi-convert it/mine it for ideas?
Because I think that's Paizo's bread and butter currently, not selling rule books.
I am not really a huge Paizo customer in terms of sourcebooks and adventures - I buy all the Campaign Map Packs and bought the Golarion Gazateer and Crimson Throne Players Guide because my GM starting to run Rise of the Runelords and I will GM some of the PFS Season 0 scenarios at cons.
However, when I first heard the announcement I did think "Great! A continuing line of 3.5 sourcebooks to buy if i want". Now, I won't mix and match and so won't be buying any Paizo Pathfinder supplements as they won't be comaptible with the 3.5 core rules.
This wouldn't be such a bad things as there are plenty of WOTC 3.5 books still out there for me to collect (I had been looking at the Complete series), but then I worried whether Pathfinder would actually supplant 3.5 as the game of choice for those choosing not to go 4e - if that may be the case i wouldn't get as much use out of those 3.5 supplements.
And so I decided to get into 4e - it is a current edition of the game, is very popular (and my be more popular than 3.5 & Pathfinder put together; at least at conventions) and seems to be a radical enough change to give me something I don't already have (e.g. I am not a long term D&D player so have no love of Vancian magic). If Pathfinder hadn't come along I probably would have not gone 4e - ironic really!
I personally don' t care if PF will be more backward compatible or less. For me the reason for welcoming PF-RPG is pretty simple. I Don't like the way the evolution from 3.5 to 4E has been done. Its a totally different style of game that I am playing/ are used to. Pathfinder is closer to my liking.
1st:4E allows me less use of my already bought and owned 3.5 books than Pathfinder does. So by going with the PF Rules, I feel can still use my old books (with a few simple changes in the rules/stats).
You talk as if your choices are 4e or Pathfinder - did you consider just sticking with 3.5? 3.5 gives you 100% compatibility with your 3.5 books and is a system that you obviously know. Is there something about 3.5 that makes it simply not an option at all, but that Pathfinder fixes?
The thing that bothers me most about Pathfinder is the initial sales pitch that it was for those of us who're sticking with 3.5 instead of 4E. But it's not. It's a new system in enough respects to call it a new system period.
Yeah, I was encouraged at the initial announcement as it seemed that it would keep a version of the 3.5 core books in print. Now however I see it as at best "just another OGL game, like Conan for example" or at worse "another direct competitor, in terms of players, for 3.5 - just like 4e is"
Ultimately at this point I think saying whether we like Pathfinder RPG or not is a bit premature.
For me at least, I would disagree. I wanted Pathfinder RPG to effectively be a repackaging of the 3.5 core rulebooks. Yes, that may not sell well, but the supplements and adventures would; and isn't that where Paizo make all their money currently?
So for me, I find it highly unlikley that the PFRPG developers will say "hold on, all that playtesting stuff is being taken back out, PFRPG will be identical to the 3.5 rules except where Product Identity prevents" - and thus I am pretty confident that the final Pathfinder RPG will not be my cup of tea.
|
|
It's not just about items, it's also about spells which had xp cost.
XP cost and (permanent level loss from raising/resurrecting) was a sucky way to get balance, though. No one really liked it, did they? The problem of the Christmas Tree is now a little worse, but it's an insoluble problem with encounter balancing; I would love for Paizo to release a supplement rebalancing encounter design, including CR, without the assumption of the WBL Christmas Tree (and fix the damn CR nonsense at the same time). However, it'll still be in the APs if they wish to sell them to continuing 3.5 players...
And so I decided to get into 4e - it is a current edition of the game, is very popular (and my be more popular than 3.5 & Pathfinder put together; at least at conventions) and seems to be a radical enough change to give me something I don't already have (e.g. I am not a long term D&D player so have no love of Vancian magic). If Pathfinder hadn't come along I probably would have not gone 4e - ironic really!
That is kind of funny. :-) But on the other hand, you pointed out that the only stuff you've bought so far is not system-specific, so it's possible that you can still benefit from the same type of products (like maps, etc.) regardless of which system you end up playing.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I really dig beta (except for the abjurer class ability. : }). But the issues about beta I don't like so much won't dissuade me from learning the game, buying the game, or evolving into the game.
If you hate 4e, you should be driven to buy up Paizo products. Without 4e there wouldn't be a PFRPG. The decision to strike out on their own is an effort to save their way of playing and publishing for roleplaying. The changes made to the game are based on beliefs about improving the 3.5 model, and based on what has to be done to legally extend the 3.5 system. If Paizo didn't make PFRPG, those of you who would rather play nothing than play 4e would be left with only that option.
I know..some of us have enough 3.5 material to last for a lifetime. But it wouldn't. The wealth of material I have still needs newness added to it. The hobby needs to grow instead of shrink. If someone genuinely doesn't like the game, I don't advocate they send money on it (except to buy PFS#10!), but I think we should realize that with the economy ahead and with 4e doing as much damage to the market as good, it's up to good publishers to keep the hobby alive, and up to us to recruit new players, get past the 'nerd only' schtick, and build a bigger pie.
If that means buying into PFRPG, I am all for it. Not that PFRPG is inferior to 3.5 to me...I really like some of the changes. But even if it were a lesser brand of DnD, if we want the hobby to grow instead of shrink, someone has to carry the flag. No one is more equipped and has better vision for the future of DnD than Paizo.
I've mentioned this several times now, but Pathfinder's backwards compatibility mission statement has always been both its strength (ability to use existing 3.5 books) and its weakness (as an excuse to not fix a system that's busted at its very core.).
Do they succeed in keeping some semblance of the 3.5 core rulebooks in print? Yes, they do.
Could they have done a much better job of remaining backwards compatible while actually fixing the system? Well, of course I'd say yes, as I've attempted to contribute to it!
Everyone has their own unique vision of a repaired 3.5, including the individual designer(s?), so of course Pathfinder is not going to please us, because its the product of none of our visions, it's the product of the designer's!
-Matt
|
|
That is kind of funny. :-) But on the other hand, you pointed out that the only stuff you've bought so far is not system-specific, so it's possible that you can still benefit from the same type of products (like maps, etc.) regardless of which system you end up playing.
Yeah, I will continue to buy Paizo's map packs and maybe even flip mats (I bought the boat one at a con recently), but the money I have to spend on supplements and adventures will now go to 4e rather than Paizo's pathfinder RPG or existing WOTC D&D3.5 material - as that is where I see the most likelihood of getting players for a game (both at cons and at local Meetup group sessions - my regular group loathe 4e, but are willing to play 3.5)
Yeah, I will continue to buy Paizo's map packs and maybe even flip mats (I bought the boat one at a con recently), but the money I have to spend on supplements and adventures will now go to 4e rather than Paizo's pathfinder RPG or existing WOTC D&D3.5 material - as that is where I see the most likelihood of getting players for a game (both at cons and at local Meetup group sessions - my regular group loathe 4e, but are willing to play 3.5)
That raises a good question -- how much is Paizo hoping to make money from Pathfinder RPG supplements (e.g. Pathfinder Guide to Clerics, Pathfinder Guide to Bards, Pathfinder Guide to Commoners, etc.)?
|
|
If Paizo didn't make PFRPG, those of you who would rather play nothing than play 4e would be left with only that option.
Or rather those of us who would rather play nothing than play 4e would actually be left with D&D3.5 along with numerous other games.
I know..some of us have enough 3.5 material to last for a lifetime. But it wouldn't.
For me, it would depend - if I had a regular group who would be happy to play 3.5 forever then I wouldn't need any newness. However if I changed groups frequently, had a high turnover of players, or went to lots of cons then yes a stagnant 3.5 may mean dwindling numbers of players.
if we want the hobby to grow instead of shrink, someone has to carry the flag. No one is more equipped and has better vision for the future of DnD than Paizo.
I agree somewhat. I agree Paizo have a good reputation for 3.5 stuff and I had hoped they would lead a continuance of 3.5 - but they aren't.
Publishers are still putting out material for 3.5 as we speak but when Pathfinder is released in its final version I am not sure those publishers will necessarily follow Paizo and use the PFRPG rules. So being pessimistic I do see a fracturing of the 3.5 market.
I am not sure whether you are using "hobby" to refer to RPGing in general, or more specifically 3.5, but if it is the former, then there are plenty of other games out there that will grow the hobby with or without Paizo.
|
|
That raises a good question -- how much is Paizo hoping to make money from Pathfinder RPG supplements (e.g. Pathfinder Guide to Clerics, Pathfinder Guide to Bards, Pathfinder Guide to Commoners, etc.)?
I imagine that they hope that will be their biggest revenue stream as that is what it has always been; WOTC made the revenue from the core books while Paizo focused on supplements and adventures.
This is why I was originally looking forward to Pathfinder RPG, back when I thought it would simply be 3.5 re-packaged. I wasn't looking forward to the core Pathfinder book (I didn't expect to buy it), instead I looked forward to a continuing source of 3.5 material but more importantly a continuing supply of 3.5 players - people coming into the hobby would be able to buy a copy of the core rules in the form of Pathfidner, whilst existing 3.5 players could continue to use their D&D3.5 core books.
But alas this is not going to be the case. Over on RPG.net someone created a thread shocked at the prices being charged for a 3.5 PHB as they wanted to buy one for a friend. Someone suggested Pathfinder RPG - but that doesn't work if everyone else is using 3.5 books; you might as well buy them a 3.0 PHB!
With Pathfinder RPG the changes are extensive enough that all players would need to get a copy of the Pathfinder core book rather than just those players who didn't already own the 3.5 PHB.
To me, it isn't about backwards compatibility. I agree that the PFRPG is decently backwards compatible. But what I want is an improvement in the 3.5 system. I want a 3.5 system that is simpler and more balanced, and, to me, the PFRPG is more complex and less balanced than straight 3.5.
I think that is what WotC wanted with 4e. They decided to be 'simpler and balanced' but than decided they needed to change the core system and make it non-reverse compatible.
Is there a 'simplified 3.5 book' that anyone is working on? I don't think so and it is probably because no one thinks there is a market for it. (I don't know how to classify things like OSRIC) Also there are SRD documents out there. Just nobody willing to put it into print.
Paizo decided to try and improve the game. They also kind of had to do something to keep their team employed. Paizo is not trying to satisfy everyone. But they have pretty much proven that there is a market for PfRPG. Not for everybody, but enough.
What I give Paizo credit for over WotC is that Paizo is at least trying to make a compromise with the gaming community. WotC said, "This is our system. Take it or Leave it." Paizo is asking questions, "Is this a better system? How can we improve it?"
Declaration of Allegiance: I DM both 4e and PfRPG. If my players allow it, I will probably DM a bastardized version of PfRPG with bits stolen from 4e.
Is there enough of a target audience for Pathfinder? I'm afraid it will end up being a niche product like Arcana Evolved. AE certainly has its adherents but they don't even print the book anymore.
With all these new subsystems (True 20, C&C, etc) fracturing the 3.5 market into little tiny competitors...how wise was it really to depart from 3.5 as far as Pathfinder has gone?
"You can use it with 3.5" they say. But how long will it take DMs to say, "Screw this! I'm tired of 'converting' material".
I love Paizo. I do not love PFRPG at all.
|
|
Just wait until you get to [Evil]-only spells. And is your player fine with "more undead than ever" class ability? And how does he feel about being able to control more undead yet without any means of actually control one?
in our book (we are still 3.0) mindless and non sentien undeads like skeleton and zombies are Neutral... and since his character is married with a LG Cleric... he won't (by decision) do create many undeads... like a sword he will create them, and when they finish the combat or the adventure give them to the cleric to lay them to rest... a zombie or a skeleton is not more evil than a Golem... shades, wights and ghouls... that is another matter entirely
one need imagination to use a good wizard so it won't be just another fireball-throwing machine... i know he will do well, he is pretty good using wizards, he will come around without troubles :)
There is a problem of campaign power growth where the time allocated to downtime significantly influences number of magic items crated and, indirectly, character power.
give the players their downtime between in adventuires, give the other opportunities to createabussiness, manage a fortress, train the guard... have fun beyond dungeon crawling and hack & slashing
i have never had trouble with downtime before
Is there enough of a target audience for Pathfinder? I'm afraid it will end up being a niche product like Arcana Evolved. AE certainly has its adherents but they don't even print the book anymore.
I don't think it's quite as different as Arcana Evolved. For instance, if I bought a Pathfinder RPG module with a bard in it, I think it would be much easier to convert it to a 3.0/3.5 bard than it would be to convert an akashic to a 3.0/3.5 bard.
|
|
I really dig beta (except for the abjurer class ability. : }). But the issues about beta I don't like so much won't dissuade me from learning the game, buying the game, or evolving into the game.
If you hate 4e, you should be driven to buy up Paizo products. Without 4e there wouldn't be a PFRPG. The decision to strike out on their own is an effort to save their way of playing and publishing for roleplaying. The changes made to the game are based on beliefs about improving the 3.5 model, and based on what has to be done to legally extend the 3.5 system. If Paizo didn't make PFRPG, those of you who would rather play nothing than play 4e would be left with only that option.
I know..some of us have enough 3.5 material to last for a lifetime. But it wouldn't. The wealth of material I have still needs newness added to it. The hobby needs to grow instead of shrink. If someone genuinely doesn't like the game, I don't advocate they send money on it (except to buy PFS#10!), but I think we should realize that with the economy ahead and with 4e doing as much damage to the market as good, it's up to good publishers to keep the hobby alive, and up to us to recruit new players, get past the 'nerd only' schtick, and build a bigger pie.
If that means buying into PFRPG, I am all for it. Not that PFRPG is inferior to 3.5 to me...I really like some of the changes. But even if it were a lesser brand of DnD, if we want the hobby to grow instead of shrink, someone has to carry the flag. No one is more equipped and has better vision for the future of DnD than Paizo.
i agree... i had been buying bits of many different companies for many years and different settings (Scion, AE, Midnight, DragonStar, A Game of Thrones RPG, Iron Heroes, Warcraft RPG, Ravenloft, even old used books of Alternity),my house has not seen any 3.5 books except those published by Arthaus (from Wizard of the Wolf): Ravenloft, Monte Cook's World of Darkness, Warcraft RPG (at least half of it)... WotC hasn't had me as trall for a long long time...
but right now... Paizo looks like my new Home :D
What I give Paizo credit for over WotC is that Paizo is at least trying to make a compromise with the gaming community. WotC said, "This is our system. Take it or Leave it." Paizo is asking questions, "Is this a better system? How can we improve it?"
I'm trying to stay out of this thread (don't want to make a final decision on Pathfinder until I see the final product), but this part jumped out at me.
I've got mixed feelings about this bit right here. Sure, Paizo is allowing community involvement in the game design process, which is nice, but there's a cooking expression "Too many chefs spoil the soup" that I'm thinking might apply here. With so many people with so many different viewpoints of what needs to be changed and what all things will be affected by this change (whether the person suggesting it is aware of this or not), there exists the risk of Pathfinder becoming an alphabet soup of an RPG (incidentally, the same problem that exists with the Monk's class features). I mean, take a look at late WotC 3.5; with all the supplements out there, how could the writers of the newest book know how his material is going to affect/invalidate/undermine/etc. what's already been in print, partly because there are many books out there, but also because there were many authors writing those books.
|
|
I don't think that the worry should be that they're going to be too responsive to playtester demands; there appears to be more irritation that they aren't responsive enough (which is the more cautious approach and probably what I'd do if I were them, although many may not see that as a recommendation).
However, there's a relatively continuous spectrum on which we all fall somewhere, regarding how much change is wise. Paizo do not appear to be at either extreme of that; I guess I'd like to see some more things changed and some other things changed back, but the amount of change is probably about what I'd have wanted for a 3.P game (not enough for a completely new game related to 3.5, but that's not the aim here).
I would like to say that I really appreciate the civil tone of this thread.
I think a lot of us who really like Pathfinder are agreeing on a basic level. The paizo-lifers on one side and the naysayers (such as the OP) on the other side have also been courteous and constructive. No chance it will last, but I thought I would point it out.
|
|
I would like to say that I really appreciate the civil tone of this thread.
I think a lot of us who really like Pathfinder are agreeing on a basic level. The paizo-lifers on one side and the naysayers (such as the OP) on the other side have also been courteous and constructive. No chance it will last, but I thought I would point it out.
lol
damn you toyrobots (lol just joking :P) that is as much as in a movie saying something around the lines "whoa, i can't believe it has been so easy till now"you just called Murphy on us :P
but i agree it has been pretty much constructive
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Yep. My greatest regret as someone who's unlikely to adopt the Pathfinder RPG is decoupling with the PFS organized play when Season One rolls around.
In that environment, I wouldn't be allowed to run 3.5, or "3.5 and cherry-picked parts of the Pathfinder rules." I'd need to keep two very similar-sounding but very different rules editions (my own 3.5 and PFS's {i]Pathfinder{/i]) distinct and seperate.
Director of Sales
|
I would like to say that I really appreciate the civil tone of this thread.
I think a lot of us who really like Pathfinder are agreeing on a basic level. The paizo-lifers on one side and the naysayers (such as the OP) on the other side have also been courteous and constructive. No chance it will last, but I thought I would point it out.
BLAHBLAHBLAHFLAME!BLAHBLAHVITRIOL!BLAHBLAHBLAHBLBLAHINSULT!
I don't think that the worry should be that they're going to be too responsive to playtester demands; there appears to be more irritation that they aren't responsive enough (which is the more cautious approach and probably what I'd do if I were them, although many may not see that as a recommendation).
Don't ever try something like democratic design. Won't be fun for anyone and will make nobody happy.
Listen to peoples oppionion and think "hey, that's true, I didn't think of it myself" or "Nah, I really don't think so. I don't like that idea".But never just put in what someone else would like to see. The most important thing for good design is not having many good things working together, but having things work together well!
The "Complete" line broke 3.5e (I'm back to PHB + House rules)
|
|
That would be a nice solution for power level (and one I'd like), but then all the new stuff would be in the Paizo published adventures and would make it harder for 3.5 players to use...
As an aside, I am not sure that the xp costs really worked in restricting downtime activities all that much (although they weren't entirely useless) because the power you gained as a result was better than the xp you lost, often enough (although that depends on how much money players got, because if they had tons of cash in excess of WBL they could just buy stuff anyhow).
|
|
That would be a nice solution for power level (and one I'd like), but then all the new stuff would be in the Paizo published adventures and would make it harder for 3.5 players to use...
As an aside, I am not sure that the xp costs really worked in restricting downtime activities all that much (although they weren't entirely useless) because the power you gained as a result was better than the xp you lost, often enough (although that depends on how much money players got, because if they had tons of cash in excess of WBL they could just buy stuff anyhow).
consider what the table's wizard tells me about his wizard in another campaign was so full of magic items...
no i don't think XP mattered thar much
that is why i insist on keeping the focus on Magic itself instead of magic items... supporting spellcaster can have other characters boosted for awhile (not a combat, mind you) and keep the magic items for something special
I'm with the OP on this... I like Pathfinder as a concept, and my game group and I like several bits and pieces of Pathfinder Beta that we'll probably adopt as house rules to our D&D 3.5e game. But I don't think we'll be moving forward with Pathfinder and buying it as a rules book... and, as was mentioned by the OP, the reverse compatibility thing seems less and less workable (without extra work on the DM's part --and more work for me = no fun), so if Pathfinder adventures are published to work with the new Pathfinder rules, I'll probably not be interested in buying them.
For me, the compatibility thing is a big issue because I don't run a core 3.5 game. I use lots of third party supplements, netbook and other web created content, and a bunch of house ruled stuff. If I was a core game junkie alone, compatibility wouldn't be as much of an issue since I'd expect Pathfinder to update everything I need... but I don't feel like updating everything else I've purchased in the past to work well with the new game. One thing I hated was constantly having to re-evaluate challenge ratings of monsters compared to the Pathfinder characters, because the player characters were trouncing monsters easily and more frequently.
Then there's the "fun factor" to consider. Part of the fun for my game group is long term campaigns featuring the same characters. Our regular game that started in 2nd edition AD&D and converted to 3e at roughly 8th level. Those characters are now at about level 17 in 3.5e (and currently on break while we tore into the Pathfinder stuff). We've started something like a couple dozen different games since the Pathfinder Alpha testing began. When the beta rules were released, we had one game reach the upper levels (first character to 20 was a human paladin 10/monk 10). We did that in about a month and a half with a party of four characters, and we also had like a half dozen other one-night game sessions interrupting the regular one (advancing to about 5th to 6th level each). We started that main game using the medium XP advancement table, but switched to the slow advancement at about level 12. And we still reached the upper levels in under 2 months. It makes for fun one-night sessions, but that's not the kind of regular gaming we like or want to persue.
|
|
Nerfed2Hell
i have no idea how you handle experience, from my experience it has not changed... and now actually its asked a bit more
i know i give more experience than normal: i give for successful ideas, smart actions, achieving objectives i have on mind, or really good roleplaying... actually i think half the experience i give is in this way
so i don't understand why are your players growing faster, but that is me, i would really like to ehar how you do this.. no sarcasm there.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
A lttle clarification:
I don't intend to demean the great campaigns out there based on 3.5 amterial. Clearly a lot of us could play the game for a life time with no books at all.
But a lifetime of gaming needs players. Players need books, including new books. When I talk about RPGs needing a flagship company,I am saying that 4e might be bad for the hobby - I hope not - and stall and already shrinking market.
Since we as players aren't generally good about bringing people into the market, we need companies to keep the game alive, bring in new players, pump in fresh stuff, etc.
So, without trying to be too dramatic, my contention is that if a company like Paizo doesn't create a 3.5ish alternative to 4e, the hobby will dry up even more.
This bugs me. I love DnD, I love the intellectual properties I wanted to write about for my first novel. I love the memories and rooting for them in courts. But instead of spending $10 marketing the same game to new players, they spent $20 million fracturing the market and likely not acheiving lasting growth.
So, I'm all for Paizo, and the authors that carry on the spirit of DnD, publishing their vision for the game. It turns out I like their vision better than anyone else's.
Kuddos to that Steven!
*raises a mug of ale*
Cheers!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Oh, absolutely.
I'm not the target market for the Pathfinder RPG; that's the young fan who picks up a Paizo adventure this summer and is inspired to try to gather some friends and start her first campaign. She needs rules, a bestiary, and other support materials. And I hope that Paizo sells a ton-and-a-half of the new RPG rules and enables a whole new generation of gamers to see what D&D has been about for the last eight years.
I like both 3.5E and the Pathfinder RPG, which I view as its successor. I think backward-compatibility is still there. I guess the exact level of backward compatibility that's acceptable for somebody is very subjective. For me, it is still compatible enough. That said, I do think some of the changes are not entirely necessary and do needlessly raise the bar for backward compatibility to jump over. For example, skill consolidation - I find it to be fine - no huge problems have arisen because of it, but it was not really needed, apart from removing Use Rope, which I think we have all done in our 3.5E houserules (well, I certainly have).
Other changes, however, are very positive. For example, my players refused to create magic items in 3.5E because it would cost them experience points. The elimination of this requirement is a good thing and might induce my players to try some magic item creation in the future (for which I will make them quest for rare components they cannot just buy, muhahaha). Might this introduce other problems? Sure, I guess we will see - that's what the playtest is for after all. A potential problem I can foresee is that gold is a much less 'controlled' resource than experience points. Yes, there is the wealth per level chart, but that is much more lose than the hard and fast XP chart. Personally, I more or less ignore the wealth per level chart altogether and my players acquire wealth as it makes sense to me depending on their actions and not according to some formula - and this cannot be directly used to buy magic items in some shops. I guess we will see the impact the change will have on my campaign if the players decide to try some magic item creation. Maybe creating something like 'essence' that derives from the level of the characters (perhaps essence could even be equal to XP if not spent) and needed to create magic items would be better for those of us not wanting to have a magical economy, but I will see how my players respond to the the Pathfinder changes first.
One area where I am less than enamored with the changes are some of the power boosts:
1) Hit point boosts are possibly the worst offender here and in particular the higher hit dice for some classes (d6 for Wizards, d8 for Rogues, etc) - this was a completely unneccessary change that I will definitely reverse through house-rules if it is not reversed in the final product. It only leeds to hit point creep and does not even address low-level survivability, since most of the bonuses accrue over time (a one time 1st level bonus would be better for the low-level survivability stuff). If standardization of hit dice to BAB is truly necessary, than make it d4/d6/d8, not d6/d8/d10 - combats are not exactly short - there is precisely zero need to lenghten them by adding more hit points.
2) Races should not have +2/+2/-2, but should either revert to +2/-2, where the +2 can be assigned to either of the two ability scores that currently both receive a +2, or at most should be something like +2/+1/-2. In the latter case the +1 probably ought to be the bonus to the mental ability score in order to put a bit of a damper on casters.
3) Boosts to some powerful classes that absolutely didn't need them. The prime example is the Wizard, who got a bigger power boost than the Fighter. What the heck? The Channel Energy feature for the Cleric, while much nicer than the older turning rules, is also overpowered. Some other classes also need a bit of a tone-down - even the non-spellcasting rogue - perhaps sneak attack needs to have limited effects on formerly invulnerable creatures.
In some cases, however, power-creep has been worth it, since some classes were underpowered in the first place (e.g. Fighter) and in other cases power-creep provided such huge amounts of flavor that I am happy to overlook it (e.g. Sorcerer).
Apart from power-creep, the second area where I am a bit concerned is the 'supernatural-creep', where increasing numbers of supernatural or spell-like powers are making it to formerly non-supernatural/spellcasting classes, such as the Barbarian or the Rogue. But this is easier to houserule out than power-creep, which is much more pervasive.
Overall, I am still pretty happy with the direction of the Pathfinder RPG. A reversal of some changes, however, would indeed be desirable. Skill system deconsolidation/partial reversion would be nice (but not essential), hit dice reversion (or decrease) is essential for me (but doable through my house-rules), power decreases for Channel Energy, Wizards, and so on would be welcome. But because I also like many of the Pathfinder RPG changes, these things are unlikely to be game-breakers for me even if not reversed. Barring something unforeseen, I will get the final Pathfinder RPG product and probably use it as the basis for my campaigns, though I might revert some things back on my own for the changes that I think go too far or are unnecessary.
Montalve, I don't change how experience is given or how much. What makes the difference is that the players are more capable of stomping their way through challenge after challenge faster and longer than they could in the old 3.5e rules. More challenges, more often mean more XP.
A lttle clarification:
I don't intend to demean the great campaigns out there based on 3.5 amterial. Clearly a lot of us could play the game for a life time with no books at all.
But a lifetime of gaming needs players. Players need books, including new books. When I talk about RPGs needing a flagship company,I am saying that 4e might be bad for the hobby - I hope not - and stall and already shrinking market.
Since we as players aren't generally good about bringing people into the market, we need companies to keep the game alive, bring in new players, pump in fresh stuff, etc.
So, without trying to be too dramatic, my contention is that if a company like Paizo doesn't create a 3.5ish alternative to 4e, the hobby will dry up even more.
This bugs me. I love DnD, I love the intellectual properties I wanted to write about for my first novel. I love the memories and rooting for them in courts. But instead of spending $10 marketing the same game to new players, they spent $20 million fracturing the market and likely not acheiving lasting growth.
So, I'm all for Paizo, and the authors that carry on the spirit of DnD, publishing their vision for the game. It turns out I like their vision better than anyone else's.
Steven, I agree with you to a certain extent... but even if I like Pathfinder better than D&D 4e, I'm not going to play it just because its the only other active alternative. Especially not if I can't keep my players interested in it. Personally, I think Pathfinder is trying to change too much creates as many problems of its own as it solves from 3.5e's rules set. While its good to see that someone is continuing with something closely resembling the game I've been playing, I'm not so interested in seeing it become the new thing any more than I am for 4e. They say beggars can't be choosers, but I'm not begging anything. Sure, a game needs new books to keep things fresh. In the case of D&D, I think 3rd party publishers and internet resources are D&D's lifeblood at this point --not redefining the whole set of rules to make all that older stuff harder (but not impossible) to use.
For me, I've got books I've barely even cracked open. I've still got things on a wishlist that I can't afford at the moment, but will eventually. These, while not new, are still new to me. I pretty much gave up on D&D as a dying hobby when details about 4e started getting released. I evaluated what I have and have made my peace with what's still available and the bookshelves worth of material that I own is more than enough to keep my own games fresh for a good long time.
I mourn the passing of D&D into a pen & paper MMO, but I've come to the conclusion that Pathfinder is not the path that's going to save it for my group. If anything, trying to run Pathfinder with the problems I have with it would drive me away from the game altogether as I'm not interested in converting things that are supposed to be compatible so that they fit with the Pathfinder rules. If my players wanted to go ahead with those rules, they'd have to do it without me. Fortunately, we're in agreement that the changes are too much, so we can continue to enjoy our old gamimg stuff.
I find the opinions on compatability expressed here very surprising. Our campaigns has 3.5 splat book classes running along side PFRPG classes with 3.5 monsters, feats and encounters etc. in use with no problems at all. There is a very slight up tick in character strength but in most casses this just balances the base classes with the splat ones. Both DM's have noticed a slight need to strengthen encounters, but nothing more cumbersome than what you would do for a group that has a couple too many magic items for example. All the new rules changes have been met with approval by a group of 7 players with very different skill levels and ideas of what makes a great game. Do we think some fine tuning is needed sure...but the overall opinion is that we are onboard with PFRG replacing the players handbook on release.
|
|
Oh, absolutely.
I'm not the target market for the Pathfinder RPG; that's the young fan who picks up a Paizo adventure this summer and is inspired to try to gather some friends and start her first campaign. She needs rules, a bestiary, and other support materials. And I hope that Paizo sells a ton-and-a-half of the new RPG rules and enables a whole new generation of gamers to see what D&D has been about for the last eight years.
I've been playing since 1980 and I think I'm in Paizo's target market...
If the designers were going to axe any 1 new rule, which would you be glad to see go?