If the designers were going to axe any 1 new rule, which would you be glad to see go?
Hit dice size increases!
Although... I can do that myself relatively easily through house-rules... maybe I should chose something more complex that is more difficult to house-rule.
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.
For me, the changes also have not crossed the threshold of incompatibility (though some changes were not necessary) and I also like many of the changes introduced.
To some extent, although I think the open playtest is helping Paizo make a better game, the playtest may harm the popularity of the game for some users. Ihe open playtest, I think, created an unrealistic expectations among playtesters regarding the degree to which they can shape the outcome of the final product. When their individual preferences were not met to the degree they expected, some people have inevitably reacted with disappointment that leads, in some cases, to the wholesale rejection of the game.
I hope that the lesson learned for Paizo is not that it should avoid open playtests in the future. An outcome like that would be something that really disappoint me. Although Paizo may lose some people because of this factor, the ultimate quality of the game will be higher due to the playtest.
Contributor
|
I'm going full on PathfinderRPG rules.
I have more books than I can use at this point, and quite frankly I probably haven't used most of what's on the shelf.
Mostly I'm into having fun and telling a good story and keeping things exciting and dramatic. So unless I'm running an Organized Play session- I'll usually GM with dice and a notepad (and possibly the fiend folio.)
So when I'm using the PathfinderRPG, I'll probably be using product already written for its rules set. In which case, there's nothing to convert. However, if I decide to throw in a twist at the last minute I'm pretty sure it won't be that tough. After all, if I can't come up with a quick conversion on the fly after playing D&D for 30 years, I should quit playing altogether, melt down my dice, move into the basement and play World of Warcrack by myself.
Likewise, I think most folks on this thread should be able to wing a conversion if they need to. If that's too tough, somebody will design a spreadsheet or funky slide rule or something to do quick conversion estimates for the CMBs.
For me, the changes also have not crossed the threshold of incompatibility (though some changes were not necessary) and I also like many of the changes introduced.
To some extent, although I think the open playtest is helping Paizo make a better game, the playtest may harm the popularity of the game for some users. Ihe open playtest, I think, created an unrealistic expectations among playtesters regarding the degree to which they can shape the outcome of the final product. When their individual preferences were not met to the degree they expected, some people have inevitably reacted with disappointment that leads, in some cases, to the wholesale rejection of the game.
I agree with your expectation comments and is my greatest fear for PfRPG. I feel the PfRPG will improve 3.5 but some people will reject it since PfRPG is not exactly as they envisioned it.
|
|
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.
have you thought in putting mental quest instead of just combat?
or use tactics instead of direct confrontation?
i don't know how you DM, i myself try to use my NPCs as intelligent as my players, suing tactics... a goblin in direct combat is no good, a goblin in the night using bow&arrow froma top a bridge its 2 or 3 times more dangerous
yes
Pathfinders characters are less vulenrable, die less, and actually can kill more enemies... i prefer to give my players more risk besides just combat
also i give experience from things different than combat
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.
Unfortunately, due to issues like this:
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.
People are left with the perception that it IS a final product, and further input is being ignored.
I've seen far too many statements from Jason in the context that Gurubabaramalamaswami pointed out that reinforces the belief that, at least in certain areas, the development has ceased.
Comments to the effect of "Sorry, but I'm pretty much set on this." chills any hope of change.
Put me in the camp of those who wanted to Pathfinder RPG to be a slightly tweaked and rebadged 3.5, so that we could continue to bring people into the same game, and not a different one.
I'll probably pick up the core book and the Bestiary when they come out in 2009, but, sadly, they'll likely take up residence on the same shelf that contains stuff like Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and some of the Swords & Sorcery books - occasional reference or idea mining, but no regular use.
In some ways I wish that Paizo was sticking to APs and world-building instead of rules developement. Revamping the SRD monsters into a bestiary with new outlooks is one thing but changing entire classes and combat mechanics is another.
Pathfinder APs are totally awesome. Golarion rocks. Hellknights are cool.
Why mess up a good thing by making us learn a new way of doing it? Could Paizo inadvertantly push players towards 4E? By which I mean, won't some players and DMs think to themselves "If I've got to start changing and adapting things to use this new system why shouldn't I go with this other slickly-packaged, heavily-promoted, larger-market share game system?" Besides, all the other kids are doing it.
3.5 was far from perfect. But I contend that it was good enough.
Well the thing is the rules are out of print. They need a book in print, thats gonna cost them money. They need sales of that book to offset the cost of printing that book. They can not use some parts of the old book.
Now they need to sale as many as they can. They must print new books. Why would you not mess with it some?
I prob would not buy a reprinted 3.5 PHB. I will buy an tweaked and upgraded one. I have a feeling I am not alone really.
|
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.People are left with the perception that it IS a final product, and further input is being ignored.
I've seen far too many statements from Jason in the context that Gurubabaramalamaswami pointed out that reinforces the belief that, at least in certain areas, the development has ceased.
Comments to the effect of "Sorry, but I'm pretty much set on this." chills any hope of change.
I'm not sure what you expect - this isn't a democracy. And development has to stop sometime. Some people will never be satisfied with what comes out - does Jason keep on going until everyone is satisfied, whish is the same as never releasing the game. There are only so many hours in the day and the line has to be drawn in the end, so other topics can be considered.
Put me in the camp of those who wanted to Pathfinder RPG to be a slightly tweaked and rebadged 3.5, so that we could continue to bring people into the same game, and not a different one.
I'll probably pick up the core book and the Bestiary when they come out in 2009, but, sadly, they'll likely take up residence on the same shelf that contains stuff like Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and some of the Swords & Sorcery books - occasional reference or idea mining, but no regular use.
Well, the Pathfinder modules will be converted to PFGPG, so using the new game will be much easier if you intend to play those. I tend to agree that PFRPG is a bit more radical so far than I would have liked, but there is a big spread of views on this. And it is still in development, and will be for another six months, probably. I'm still ambivalent myself, but for me it is slightly moot as my players want to play 4e anyway. As for it being a different game - well, that's a slightly fruitless argument that has been had, with little conclusive achieved, re 4e.
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
I have to disagree.
If I make a robot to work in a farm, I don't think many people will find this evil. But if I use dead people animated by a scientific formula, to work as farmers, I think at least the families will come for me, and certainly many more people who will be against this repulsive treatment of the dead.|
|
But a lifetime of gaming needs players. Players need books, including new books.
Unfortunately those new players buying Pathfinder RPG won't find it of any use to join in all the existing groups who are using 3.5.
Pathfinder doesn't work to help new players join the existing hobby unless the existing players all go out and buy the core books again (this time entitled Pathfinder rather than D&D).
Personally, I don't want to spend money buying books that are similar enough to what I already own to not give me anything inspiring, but different enough that I woudl have to read them and learn the new rules tweaks. I am however prepared to buy the new D&D4e core rule books because they are different enough from 3.5 that I feel I am getting something for my money.
Basically, Pathfinder RPG will not help me gain new players for my 3.5 games anymore than Conan, Mutants & Masterminds, or another other d20 based game will.
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.
Again, I am unsure how you are defining "hobby".
If you mean the 3.5 hobby, then Pathfinder isn't helping me as it isn't 3.5. If anything Pathfinder is hastening the time in which the 3.5 hobby will dry up.
If you are talking about a 3.5ish hobby then yes it might prevent it drying up prematurely but then there are many other games out there that can help a play become familiar with a 3.5ish system and therefore become part of the 3.5ish hobby (e.g. Conan, M&M, Spycraft etc).
If you are defining "hobby" as teh roleplaying game hobby, then I dn't see Pathfinder being the flagship - it is too derivative of D&D without bringing anything new to make it stand out. The Doctor Who RPG might be more likely to help bring in new players to the RPG hobby than Pathfinder!
To me, D&D4e isn't too far from 3.5 that it would be completely alien to any 3.5 players, there are still the core abilities, skills, feats, levels, classes and the core mechanic. It isn't that much different than M&M is. So if we are talking even slightly broader than strict 3.5 as the hobby, then I still see D&D4e as the flagship.
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.
I am not sure how 4e will fair, but WOTC is a business, and I think the existing player base was becoming stagnant in terms of sales and they needed to create a new revenue stream. WOTC obviously felt that a new edition that could be marketed at both existing players and new players, would bring in more revenue than a marketing effort trying to attract new players to the existing game.
They have also been clever in tying it in to DDI - another constant revenue stream.
I hope 4e is a success to be honest now, as if I want to continue running Eberron games I will be doing it with wither 3.5 or 4e, and unfortunately Pathfinder may actually hinder my ability to find players for it using 3.5.
I hate to say it but I am actually gaining some comfort by hearing about people who are rejecting Pathfinder RPG, or who are saying it will just be another sourcebook to use in their 3.5 games, as it gives me more hope that my chances of finding players for 3.5 games will not be as dimished by the release of Pathfinder as I perhaps feared.
|
|
Why mess up a good thing by making us learn a new way of doing it? Could Paizo inadvertantly push players towards 4E? By which I mean, won't some players and DMs think to themselves "If I've got to start changing and adapting things to use this new system why shouldn't I go with this other slickly-packaged, heavily-promoted, larger-market share game system?" Besides, all the other kids are doing it.
That is exactly what has happened with me. As I have come to realise that in order to use Pathfinder materials and gain the benefit of Pathfinder players I would need to purchase and read the Pathfinder RPG (and possibly bestiary), I thought... well if I am going to spend the time and effort learning a new system I may as well buy D&D4e.
4e will support my favoured setting (Eberron) so I will have rules that support the system, and be able to use the fluff from my 3.5 books. It also opens up a much wider player network than I think Pathfinder will manage.
At IndieCon - a con admittedly focused on Indie games - there was no D&D3.5 offered, nor Pathfinder but there were several tables of 4e (albeit Living Forgotten Realms) running. Actually I lie...there was a D&D3.5 game and it actually used the Golarion setting - it was a Pathfinder Society Game run by myself (and it got 4 players out of a possible 6 places).
The real test will be my next convention, Conception in January, where I will be keen to see the amount of 3.5, Pathfinder and 4e on offer (there will at least be some 3.5 there, again run by me :))
That's exactly it, the playtesters are expressing a range of opinions. I'm glad that the dissenting voice has become not only more common, but more polite and reasonable. It is surely a sign that we are approaching a point where, on balance, the rules have been altered about as much as they should be, even if that is more than I would like.
If the day comes where the forum is overwhelmingly divided once more, only this time between camps with polite, reasonable demands, then perhaps we can say that things have gone too far.
|
|
Well the thing is the rules are out of print. They need a book in print, thats gonna cost them money.
Yep, I agree to keep the game of 3.5 alive we need core books to still be available.
They need sales of that book to offset the cost of printing that book.
Yes, they need sales to make some contribution to offset the cost of development and printing (the former being a fixed cost no matter how many books sold, the latter being a variable cost) but do they actually need to actually make a profit from the core book?
Paizo seems historically to have made money from supplements and adventures - the core book could have potentially been a loss leader to get people into that range of books - and it coudl be there that the money is made.
If Paizo hadn't changed the rules so much the development costs woudl actually have been reduced (mind you they have managaed to sell a Beta version and a year later plan to sell the final version, so that would have helped offset that).
They can not use some parts of the old book.
Yep, and that is where I expected some substitutions - but then what do I care if the Gods have changed if I run Eberron as the gods are different anyway? And those who retained their 3.5 books would have that original info - only the new players would lose out.
Now they need to sale as many as they can. They must print new books. Why would you not mess with it some?
Because they could alienate some of the customers they might be hoping would buy all the supplements and adventures that would follow the core book.
I prob would not buy a reprinted 3.5 PHB. I will buy an tweaked and upgraded one. I have a feeling I am not alone really.
No, I wouldn't either - but I might have bought new supplements, adventure paths etc, and if I recruited new players I might have encouraged them to buy the Pathfinder RPG if they coudln't get the 3.5 PHB.
And there would always be some who would buy a simply reprinted PHB for those substitutions (i.e. gods and some prestige classes) or simply for completeness.
I'm not sure what you expect - this isn't a democracy.
Not a democracy, but certainly not a monarchy (at least not the way things were announced).
What I expect is this:
This opens the option of producing an improved "3.75" somewhere down the road to address a few commonly acknowledged problems with the rules without throwing out the three decades of tradition that have kept D&D, fundamentally, the same game since the very beginnig. At that point, it seems, Paizo would be producing a "Pathfinder" RPG that would be wholly independent of Dungeons & Dragons and Hasbro's plans.
Pathfinder RPG has long since passed being an improved "3.75" that addresses a few commonly acknowledged problems. I'm not going to inject any hyperbole and say that it's gone the 4E route descrived above ("throwing out the three decades of tradition that have kept D&D, fundementally, the same game"), but it certainly has gone past the initial scope of the project. Things that weren't broken are now being changed to be more in line with the developer's preferences of how things should be done, rather than keeping in line with the STATED design goal of a "patched" version of 3.5.
And development has to stop sometime. Some people will never be satisfied with what comes out - does Jason keep on going until everyone is satisfied, whish is the same as never releasing the game. There are only so many hours in the day and the line has to be drawn in the end, so other topics can be considered.
Understood. But we're not talking bits that were even debated. We're talking bits that were changed in Alpha, and when people debated, we got the "I'm set on this, not going to change" posts. That's not "going until everyone is satisfied". That's ignoring everyone.
Well, the Pathfinder modules will be converted to PFGPG, so using the new game will be much easier if you intend to play those. I tend to agree that PFRPG is a bit more radical so far than I would have liked, but there is a big spread of views on this. And it is still in development, and will be for another six months, probably. I'm still ambivalent myself, but for me it is slightly moot as my players want to play 4e anyway. As for it being a different game - well, that's a slightly fruitless argument that has been had, with little conclusive achieved, re 4e.
I don't play modules, nor do I buy very many of them. They don't interest me. What interests me is having a set of core books in print that we can direct new gamers to, so that they can join into 3.5 campaigns already in progress. What interests me is being able to pick up the PFRPG book because I can't find my 3.5 PHB, and not having any major issues. Conversely, what interests me is a virtually seamless conversion from 3.5 to PFRPG, so that my group can go out and buy the PFRPG core book and use it in game - then, when we get a new gamer in the group, he's able to make a 99.9% compatible character with our old copies of the 3.5 PHB until he can buy his own PFRPG book.
The argument shouldn't be fruitless - in fact, the argument shouldn't exist, given the statements that were made prior to commencing development on the game.
Besides myself, there's 5 other regulars in our group. Back in October of 2007, when Erik posted about the possibility of a Paizo "3.75", there were 6 people here who had made up their minds, product completely non-existant, to purchase Paizo's "3.75" core books upon release (Something completely unprecedented with this group. When Arcana Unearthed/Evolved or other "alternate" rulebooks came out, I couldn't get anyone in the group to buy them - mainly because they didn't want a new or alternate game. They wanted 3E/3.5).
There's 7 copies of the printed Beta in this group - copies that we enthusiastically purchased.
After seeing some of the changes, and seeing posts here, those 6 confirmed buyers are now down to 0. As stated, I'll probably buy it for reference use (and another player/GM probably will, as well), but it's no longer a sure thing.
It's not simply that change killed our enthusiasm - it's the amount of change, beyond the scope of the project.
I hope I don't come off as a complete killjoy, as that's not my intent. I'm just really saddened that 3.5 isn't going to survive as PFRPG.
Well the thing is the rules are out of print. They need a book in print, thats gonna cost them money.Yep, I agree to keep the game of 3.5 alive we need core books to still be available.
I've started addressing that by purchasing copies of the PHB when I can find them cheap. As long as the pages are intact, it's usable as a donor until the recipient can find one in better condition...
Besides myself, there's 5 other regulars in our group. Back in October of 2007, when Erik posted about the possibility of a Paizo "3.75", there were 6 people here who had made up their minds, product completely non-existant, to purchase Paizo's "3.75" core books upon release (Something completely unprecedented with this group. When Arcana Unearthed/Evolved or other "alternate" rulebooks came out, I couldn't get anyone in the group to buy them - mainly because they didn't want a new or alternate game. They wanted 3E/3.5).
There's 7 copies of the printed Beta in this group - copies that we enthusiastically purchased.
After seeing some of the changes, and seeing posts here, those 6 confirmed buyers are now down to 0. As stated, I'll probably buy it for reference use (and another player/GM probably will, as well), but it's no longer a sure thing.
This is exactly where my group stands as well. We came to Pathfinder as a 3.5 lifeboat, and once out RotRL playtest is done, we're probably going back to 3.5 and cherry-picking the rules that worked in the playtest. Happily, I discovered the APs are a product I will always be willing to buy, but I'll be less happy if they are written for rules I'm not currently using.
I am vocal here not because I feel I'm being ignored, but because I think Paizo started with a lot of "warm fuzzy 3.5 capital" to spend on new rules, and they're beginning to run out.
The new end product might work for the company, but for many players it is becoming an "optional" rulebook, not a replacement core. How I feel about the product has changed, and Paizo should want to know about that, and why, so that they can sell it. Not that I'm the only customer, but from the looks of it I'm not alone, either.
My real concern is that where the Beta sold in "core upgrade" numbers, the final release will sell in "optional rulebook" numbers. That's a hit I don't think Paizo could recover from. If it's possible, I think they should scale back some of the more esoteric changes into a true (and cheaper) optional rulebook, and save the big fancy hardcover for the product they know everyone is after, a new Core.
Pathfinder RPG has long since passed being an improved "3.75" that addresses a few commonly acknowledged problems. I'm not going to inject any hyperbole and say that it's gone the 4E route descrived above ("throwing out the three decades of tradition that have kept D&D, fundementally, the same game"), but it certainly has gone past the initial scope of the project. Things that weren't broken are now being changed to be more in line with the developer's preferences of how things should be done, rather than keeping in line with the STATED design goal of a "patched" version of 3.5.
It's exactly that. It's gone too far by designing a new game.
My real concern is that where the Beta sold in "core upgrade" numbers, the final release will sell in "optional rulebook" numbers. That's a hit I don't think Paizo could recover from. If it's possible, I think they should scale back some of the more esoteric changes into a true (and cheaper) optional rulebook, and save the big fancy hardcover for the product they know everyone is after, a new Core.
That should be the better way to please everyone. I hope paizo staff has read you here.
Pathfinder RPG has long since passed being an improved "3.75" that addresses a few commonly acknowledged problems. I'm not going to inject any hyperbole and say that it's gone the 4E route descrived above ("throwing out the three decades of tradition that have kept D&D, fundementally, the same game"), but it certainly has gone past the initial scope of the project. Things that weren't broken are now being changed to be more in line with the developer's preferences of how things should be done, rather than keeping in line with the STATED design goal of a "patched" version of 3.5.
Nothing to add to that. Exactly my oppinion.
I'm not interested into the PF core rulebook, but I'll certainly have an eye for any books that might follow. Such books usually work without using any of the rules contained in them as described.
|
I'm running a PFRPG game for 9 months already (alpha, then beta).
My players consider "core" classes to be a sneezing bore and play weird stuff from the splatbooks (Favored Soul, Duskblade, Beguiler, Binder). So no comment on the core classes here.
I consider the changes of PF to be either really long overdue and necessary (CMB, Channeling, SoD spells) or cosmetic (Silence is now 1 round CT instead of 1 SA, boo hoo.) or I really, really like them (Skills. Items. Crafting and healing ailments requires a skill check.)
I need more changes. Low-level Save-or-suck/lose spells (Sleep, Glitterdust, Silence) have to die a fiery, painful death. Spiked chain needs to be buried five feet under. Several monsters need to be reworked. Melee classes need to be brought in line with Codzillas.
If Pathfinder was to be a reprint of the 3.5 with errata and 1-2 minor changes, I wouldn't waste my money on it and pour my time into the playtest. It's a chance to Do Things Right, to fix all the little and big problems d20 has. Paizo has the guts and guns to support, develop and promote such game AND keep it backwards compatible with 50+ d20 books sitting on my shelf.
Oh, and they are the most awesome, customer-friendly and honorable company in the business, and such dedication to running your business with integrity and spine deserves support. Even if it means that my Cloak of Charisma has to become a Headband of Charisma overnight. Small price, if you ask me.
|
|
I think comparing PFRPG to Conan, Arcana Evolved or any other OGL game on the market is not exactly accurate, though I understand the intent in the comparison. Those games went out of their way to change the rules to serve a setting, mission, or rules philosophy. They are distinctly different from the core d20 rules. I don't think Pathfinder has strayed too far in that regard.
In fact, the heart of D&D is still there. We still have the same classes, the same spell casting system, the same alignment system, etc. I am also pretty certain we will see some of these more radical changes stray back towards the 3.x way of doing things before this is all said and done. In the end, even if all the changes remain, I can't agree that the point of entry is somehow higher or more esoteric than what you see with 4e.
But I respect that some people do see it that way and I hope that Pathfinder will eventually satisfy their need to see the heart of 3rd edition remain in print. This is an uncertain time in RPGs and no one wants to see the community fracture anymore significantly than it already has. So I hope Paizo is able to find the happy medium with the final game. Though I understand that will mean some people will still be unhappy. There is no way to avoid that.
For my part, I like many of the Beta changes. I am not so happy about others. Some appear to be made either to fill a perceived problem that doesn't exist or were made "just because." My players generally feel the same way. I plan on buying and running PFRPG when it is finally released. But I likely would have done that even if the changes were minor and the game stayed much closer to the 3.5 ruleset.
My players? They are excited but seem to be balking at the price tag of the final book. I can't fault them. In my group of about 12 gamers I am the only one who GMs on a regular basis. I often run two groups on different days. We are also a group with varied salaries, family sizes, and commitments to roleplaying. There really is no reason they need all of the GM information that makes up an indeterminate amount of the Pathfinder tome. For them, the extra money is a waste now matter how much of the book is devoted to GM information. Most of them would rather get what they need and ignore the rest.
They likely will not buy the books even if we use PFRPG for all our future campaigns. In the end, I will need to buy enough copies for the table or go without, which either means a ton of sharing or a huge financial burden on me. We might be able to reach a compromise, but it will still mean fewer copies of the game are sold to my table. I will say there are two ways this could have been avoided.
First, if PFRPG is closer to 3.5 in design then the old core books can be used in conjunction with the PFRPG books at the table. This presumes that the final game simply "patches" 3.5 and the more extreme changes are reined in.
Second, and my preference at this point, the core book is either split into two books or there is a cheaper, player version available. This would go a long way to insuring everyone at my table buys the rules and sends their money towards Paizo.
Most of my players like 4e as much as 3.5. I suspect some of them like it more. While my opinions about 4e are still a bit divided, the system does appear to be filling out nicely and becoming just as robust as 3.5. It is certainly easier for me to prepare and run. I can easily convert much of what I have seen come out of Paizo to the system with little fuss. But, more than anything, shear economics might determine whether our primary system of choice is PFRPG or 4e. It is simply cheaper to enter that game than Pathfinder. And, despite what others might say, players are not required to buy the splats anymore than they were required to buy them in 3.5.
I have no doubt that the PFRPG will sell like mad. I just wanted to make sure that the voices of my players were heard. Most of them don't hang out here. And what they are telling me is, purchasing this book is not high on their list even if we all decide to go with Pathfinder as our primary system. I can't imagine I am the only one who faces this issue. And, honestly, I can't imagine the PFS won't be hindered by the $50 core book price tag.
You might be surprised the difference $15 can make.
There are 2 choices.
1. Leave 3.5 exactly as it is. In that case, don't even bother printing Pathfinder. There are more than enough copies of 3.5 out there to keep the purists gaming for the next 100 years.
2. Make the changes to 3.5 that were necessary to fix problems that many, many people have consistently identified over a long period of time. In this case, yes, backwards compatibility won't be 100%.
And then there's this option...
3. Fix a few problems to 3.5, leave some problems alone, and make a bunch of other random changes just for the hell of it.
;-)
It's like asking someone to be in two places at once -- it simply CANNOT. BE. DONE.
I used to think the same about Superman, but then he figured out a way to do it in Superman I.
But anyways...
I wouldn't be so certain that it "CANNOT." be done:
-Rewriting a spell, but leaving it at the same spell level, such as the elegant rewrite of Divine Power (it even solves stacking Divine Power with Divine Favor! GENIUS!), is entirely backwards compatible (barring a statblock that comes with a Power-Up Suite).
-Changing how an existing feat works, without changing the prerequisites is entirely backwards compatible.
-Changing what kind of action a certain action requires, like making "open/close a door" into a Swift action, is entirely backwards compatible.
-Changing how a class feature works, like making Sneak Attack work on a greater number of targets, is entirely backwards compatible.
-Rewriting an existing skill, like making Perform do something, is entirely backwards compatible.
If this list of changes were made, I could pick up any existing character sheet or statblock and run it as-is under a new system.
Is Pathfinder currently taking that route? No. Is that a bad thing? Yes and no. Do I wish Pathfinder would have taken this route at least initially, making entirely-backwards-compatible changes, then looking at the result, and only then make not-entirely-backwards compatible tweaks? You bet.
So I propose that yes, it can be done.
*hums Superman theme*
-Matt
|
|
i agree with Carnivorous Bean
one of the reason also is that i don't buy splatterbooks... i concentrate on lines, ok DnDsuffereded with me for many years ebcause i prefered to buy optional rulebooks that gave me the feeling i was looking for... meanign i got all Dragonstar, all Iron Heroes, a few things form Arcana Evolved, almost all Warcraft RPG, ALL Ravenloft from 3.x and still hunting for old 2nd ed books...
when i bought from White Wolf, i got as much as i could from Vampire: the Masquerade, Vampire: The Dark ages, Hunter, a few interesting things of Mage... lots of novels
splater books of 3rd companies to just add a new class, new feats, new races... if they are not in my favorite line i was not getting them... only time i did this was for Path of Shadows (book for rogues) and Oriental Adventures... but those were because a friend needed the money and we were doing an oriental campaign (still don't knwo who kept this ¬¬)
if someone ask to use something from an splatterbook in my campaign the answer is an easy one: NO
why? they are usually unbalanced against core classes, prestigue classes, feats and spells... i need to see it (since we play online is complicated) and read and analize it so see if i approve it... i have been shown again and again than letting such things come in just cause troubles...
what are my plans? i will get Pathfinder RPG in Agust 2009, i will keep getting the APs, Chronicles and Companion books, ok right now is painful for me beause the cost of the dolar has increased... i live in a country where spending 15 dlls in a book is a luxury... damn books are luxuries in here... what a friend and me do is i buy the books he pays half of them we pass them around, only way to keep it going like this. But we care about the quality of Paizo's products and we want it to keep going so we do what we can to support it.
i would use them all? possibly no... well chronicles and companion yes... i like to create my own stories, i get some society scenarios and modules that go with my story to give me ideas, plans and enemies in an emergency (right now running a heavily modified "Slavespits of Absalom")
PS: ok... i let them use spells from the "Book of Erotic Fantasy" and from there cames my cleric's "Confidence Armor" but that is the ONLY exception.
summary and translation: if it was for me backwards compatibility could be thrown out of the window if it let us play the 4 APs allready running (another friend got them all so we are playing with them AP1 this days... actually today :P)if not... well we would put him to work on doing it... but BC is not priority in our heads, we want, mood we want feeling, we want what Paizo is giving us... except for lame 3.5 magic and 2 skill points +int mod for all the poor skill classes (yes James i am still at it :P and no i don't want to play a Devoted Bard)
|
All of this talk about Pathfinder not being backwards compatible has me thinking about the RotRL game I'm running with Beta PC's and not converting any of the AP material. CMB's and PER checks are the only thing that I have to keep converting on the fly because I don't have time to do it in advance. These are pretty easy to adjust though and the stat blocks are still very similar to each other. In the case of power attack I have just been using the 3.5 version for mobs and that has been very easy because the adjustment is usually included in the stat block(in the AP's at least).
I have noticed the increase in power for the melee types but I think this is a good thing. I have been keeping the group about one level under the suggested range for the modules and it seems to be working out perfect. We have been using feats from the complete series and other splats and everything has been meshing together better than I thought it would.
It sounds like a lot of the complainers haven't even tried to run a game on the fly with no conversions. Give it a whirl, I think you might be surprised at how compatible pathfinder really is.
If I could change any rule it would be the cleave tree of feats. Great cleave would be better if you could move before and after attacks with it(as someone suggested above). Cleave could just revert back to the original form. I would love to see more feats that give melee types the ability to move between attacks. This would make combat "feel" a lot faster than it really is. I hope some of those feats make it into the final cut.
Carniverous Bean,
I think there is a lot more subtlety to this conversation than your characterization implies (you were on the other side once). I am in the camp that feels things have gone too far, but I take umbrage at the notion that I want to leave 3.5 exactly as it was.
There is a real and moderate complaint from some reasonable players: we want core rules for 3.5 to stay in print. I am not claiming that Pathfinder is a radically new game, I just don't want my core rules to be cluttered with unnecessary changes. Those same changes would be much less offensive to me in an optional rule book, in fact I would happily adopt them. But where Pathfinder RPG is aimed right now all but guarantees it will not replace the Core (at the moment d20SRD.org for me) but append it.
It sounds like a lot of the complainers haven't even tried to run a game on the fly with no conversions. Give it a whirl, I think you might be surprised at how compatible pathfinder really is.
I think the issue is not so much "Will I be able to run a 3.5 module with Pathfinder RPG rules?" (which is fairly easy, as you point out) as much as "Will I be able to Pathfinder modules with 3.5 rules?" which might be more difficult if it involves stripping out sorcerer bloodlines, rogue talents, a bunch of extra feats, etc. It's easy enough to add a few extra rules, but subtracting rules is not as easy.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
Carniverous Bean,
I think there is a lot more subtlety to this conversation than your characterization implies (you were on the other side once). I am in the camp that feels things have gone too far, but I take umbrage at the notion that I want to leave 3.5 exactly as it was.
There is a real and moderate complaint from some reasonable players: we want core rules for 3.5 to stay in print. I am not claiming that Pathfinder is a radically new game, I just don't want my core rules to be cluttered with unnecessary changes. Those same changes would be much less offensive to me in an optional rule book, in fact I would happily adopt them. But where Pathfinder RPG is aimed right now all but guarantees it will not replace the Core (at the moment d20SRD.org for me) but append it.
3.5 rules CAN'T be keep on Print, for better or worse they were discarded by those who could print them
if i was to be sold just a book with those same rules with justa couples of patches i won't buying it... why should iif i just need to print the d20srd?
if am going to pay for something i expect 1) something better, with new things that make MY game better; 2) good art and quality
Paizo gives me this, i hope they don't step back just for fear that those who just want the 3.5 rules re-printed threaten to not buy the book just because its just not a patchwork of 3.5
is to much lose of time and talent to do just that
Doubt it. The people who would like that won't buy anyway. I think regarding what they are trying to do now, they are doing great.
Not what many of us expected some months ago or what some of us would most like to see, but I think it's great.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
It sounds like a lot of the complainers haven't even tried to run a game on the fly with no conversions. Give it a whirl, I think you might be surprised at how compatible pathfinder really is.
I think the issue is not so much "Will I be able to run a 3.5 module with Pathfinder RPG rules?" (which is fairly easy, as you point out) as much as "Will I be able to Pathfinder modules with 3.5 rules?" which might be more difficult if it involves stripping out sorcerer bloodlines, rogue talents, a bunch of extra feats, etc. It's easy enough to add a few extra rules, but subtracting rules is not as easy.
Just my 2 cents.
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment... why does it matter if the enemy NPC uses a slightly different sorcerer build than the guy in the party? If the NPC had a "son of the dragon" template or something he would be different too. The characters will still be able to fight the new sorcerer, kill the new sorcerer, and wear the new sorcerer's bloody robes and amulet of natural armor when he is dead.
|
|
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment... why does it matter if the enemy NPC uses a slightly different sorcerer build than the guy in the party? If the NPC had a "son of the dragon" template or something he would be different too. The characters will still be able to fight the new sorcerer, kill the new sorcerer, and wear the new sorcerer's bloody robes and amulet of natural armor when he is dead.
That assumes that the DM has the rules for the bloodlines, and the feats etc etc
What happens if you try to play that Pathfinder sorcerer just using 3.5 rules? Is he higher level than his CR implies in 3.5?
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment... why does it matter if the enemy NPC uses a slightly different sorcerer build than the guy in the party? If the NPC had a "son of the dragon" template or something he would be different too. The characters will still be able to fight the new sorcerer, kill the new sorcerer, and wear the new sorcerer's bloody robes and amulet of natural armor when he is dead.
My concerns run a little deeper than that.
A lot of people came looking for a replacement of core rules. Some of those people are starting to see something else happening here, including me.
I think the changes have just barely overstepped my tolerance, but like an above poster, I've been my group's 'ambassador' for Pathfinder RPG. When Paizo announced its intentions to publish core rules to sustain the 3.5 bookscape, they had the good will of not only me but all of my players. As the playtest wears on, I think I am the only one who will shell out for the final version. If things go much further, I won't either, I'll just go back to 3.5 and use the Beta as an optional rule manual.
Also— I'm certainly not advocating no changes at all to 3.5! I'm just saying it might need to be reigned in if it's meant to appeal to the conservative half of the audience. My gripes are almost all with class changes, nothing else has been so offensive to my more conservative players.
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment... why does it matter if the enemy NPC uses a slightly different sorcerer build than the guy in the party? If the NPC had a "son of the dragon" template or something he would be different too. The characters will still be able to fight the new sorcerer, kill the new sorcerer, and wear the new sorcerer's bloody robes and amulet of natural armor when he is dead.
For me, the slightly different build I can deal with. What will be annoying is the consolidated skills, new feats, and new class abilities of the Pathfinder RPG NPCs. Unless every one of these Pathfinder RPG abilities is fully listed out in the stat blocks then I may as well be completely winging it as far as NPC stat blocks go.
That assumes that the DM has the rules for the bloodlines, and the feats etc etcJust to play devil's advocate for a moment... why does it matter if the enemy NPC uses a slightly different sorcerer build than the guy in the party? If the NPC had a "son of the dragon" template or something he would be different too. The characters will still be able to fight the new sorcerer, kill the new sorcerer, and wear the new sorcerer's bloody robes and amulet of natural armor when he is dead.
What he said. A Pathfinder rogue with the feat Dazzling Display and the Pathfinder Chronicler PrC is compatible with a 3.5 fighter, but that assumes that you know what Dazzling Display and Pathfinder Chronicler are in the first place. If not, then you have to take out the bits that you don't have the rules for and rebuild the NPC yourself.
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment... why does it matter if the enemy NPC uses a slightly different sorcerer build than the guy in the party? If the NPC had a "son of the dragon" template or something he would be different too. The characters will still be able to fight the new sorcerer, kill the new sorcerer, and wear the new sorcerer's bloody robes and amulet of natural armor when he is dead.
For an NPC? Not a big deal. The GM can handle this on the fly.
The discrepancies become an issue when you have players at the table, some with 3.5 rulebooks, some with PFRPG rulebooks, playing a 3.5 game.
GM: "Make a listen check."
New Player: "Listen? I don't have listen."
Obviously, that's a rather simple example that can be easily overcome, but it points out the problem.
Just because there's similarities and some compatibility between the two systems doesn't mean that they're virtually seamless (which they should be).
Heck, this post here:
I'm 99.43 % certain we'll be creating a conversion guide booklet.
illustrates the issue I (and others) have perfectly. There's not supposed to be the need for a conversion guide. The changes involved are supposed to be minimal, and maybe take up a page or two in the book, not requiring an entire seperate booklet!
As things stand, Pathfinder RPG is not the same product that was being discussed theoretically last year.
I really hope the current product returns to being the product that was originally proposed, because I'd really like to see the members of my group each buy a copy, rather than just myself. As toyrobots mentioned, it's becoming more of an optional/alternate rulesbook, rather than an actual core book.
|
|
What he said. A Pathfinder rogue with the feat Dazzling Display and the Pathfinder Chronicler PrC is compatible with a 3.5 fighter, but that assumes that you know what Dazzling Display and Pathfinder Chronicler are in the first place. If not, then you have to take out the bits that you don't have the rules for and rebuild the NPC yourself.That assumes that the DM has the rules for the bloodlines, and the feats etc etcJust to play devil's advocate for a moment... why does it matter if the enemy NPC uses a slightly different sorcerer build than the guy in the party? If the NPC had a "son of the dragon" template or something he would be different too. The characters will still be able to fight the new sorcerer, kill the new sorcerer, and wear the new sorcerer's bloody robes and amulet of natural armor when he is dead.
same happens if the NPC comes with a PrC from some bogus splatterbook
i was interested in the Variant Fighter they prescented in Society Scenario #1, and many other adventures have npcs with non-core PrCs so anyway you need either to buy the splatterbook or have the abilties written there
it doesn't change how things are doing
again, i prefer a better game than just keeping the "old known devil"
again as someone commented, they can't please everyone... there are a lto of aspects that doesn't work for me... and still i don't go to the point of threathen "if you don't cease and desist i won't be buying naught because i don't like what you are doing"
you are in your right of not doing it, i just think its unfair to threaten people for making things better following the same line D&D already had
i would clearly prefer that this kind of threads just be closed... they stopped bringing constructive things to the game already, just threats and outcries
|
Heck, this post here:
I'm 99.43 % certain we'll be creating a conversion guide booklet.illustrates the issue I (and others) have perfectly. There's not supposed to be the need for a conversion guide. The changes involved are supposed to be minimal, and maybe take up a page or two in the book, not requiring an entire seperate booklet!
I think you may be reading too much into the word 'booklet'.
I think you may be reading too much into the word 'booklet'.
Heck, this post here:
I'm 99.43 % certain we'll be creating a conversion guide booklet.illustrates the issue I (and others) have perfectly. There's not supposed to be the need for a conversion guide. The changes involved are supposed to be minimal, and maybe take up a page or two in the book, not requiring an entire seperate booklet!
I'm not saying the booklet is going to be huge, but the fact that it's being discussed as a booklet implies that it's large enough to warrant seperate publication, rather than taking a couple pages inside the actual book.
A larger guide implies more than a few minor changes (which is supported by the changes we've already seen here on these boards).
same happens if the NPC comes with a PrC from some bogus splatterbook
Yes, but that then relegates PFRPG to the role of splatbook (and why the vitriol towards splatbooks, anyhow?). PFRPG is supposed to be a substitute for the core 3.5 books, not a variant ruleset.
again, i prefer a better game than just keeping the "old known devil"
And that's all well and good, but that's not what the product was presented as.
again as someone commented, they can't please everyone... there are a lto of aspects that doesn't work for me... and still i don't go to the point of threathen "if you don't cease and desist i won't be buying naught because i don't like what you are doing"
you are in your right of not doing it, i just think its unfair to threaten people for making things better following the same line D&D already had
It's not a threat. It's simply a statement, and Paizo needs to know that some people are unhappy with things. Do you really believe they'd like to see only the happy-bunnies-and-sunshine-all-is-well-with-PFRPG posts here?
A lot of people have posted that they're displeased with the progression of development and changes presented in the Beta.
We're told that the Beta sold VERY well. If Paizo only had comments alluding to people's satisfaction with things, and the sales figures of the Beta to go by, but those not satisfied stayed uniformly quiet about it, do you think that's better, somehow? I'd say not - it would lead to an inaccurate forecast of the success of the product.
I *WANT* more people to buy PFRPG when it's released. I truly believe the changes, to date, are discouraging that.
i would clearly prefer that this kind of threads just be closed... they stopped bringing constructive things to the game already, just threats and outcries
Just because someone doesn't share your opinion doesn't mean their thoughts and statements are "threats and outcries". This thread has been quite civil.
(Edited to fix broken tag)
|
|
If you close threads like this summarily, Montalve, dissenters will indeed feel that they're not welcome (with evidence to support it)...
I don't agree with most of the complaints, myself, but I don't have a problem with them being aired (of course, I'm not a Paizo moderator, who may feel differently).
I do not like the idea of balancing the classes. Classes should not be balanced, the classic D&D has always been based on the need for different roles. Balancing classes and blur the barrier between roles is to kill the classic D&D ... and my interest in PFRPG.
Magic. I don’t like 3.5 magic. I hate pathfinder magic!!
And Rogue changes... I don’t like. “That” is not a rogue. Fighter... their changes are not appropriate. The problem with 3.5 Fighter isn’t that he makes little damage (the 3.5 Fighter makes a lot of damage), the problem is that it is too unidirectional and lacks interesting skills outside of combat. The changes of the Fighter in pathfinder RPG are not appropriate. These changes do not solve his problems.
Magic item dependance ... oh, has been increased rather than decreased. Terrible.
And things like that.
No, I do not like the direction that PFRPG has taken.
|
|
I do not like the idea of balancing the classes. Classes should not be balanced, the classic D&D has always been based on the need for different roles. Balancing classes and blur the barrier between roles is to kill the classic D&D ... and my interest in PFRPG.
Magic. I don’t like 3.5 magic. I hate pathfinder magic!!
And Rogue changes... I don’t like. “That” is not a rogue. Fighter... their changes are not appropriate. The problem with 3.5 Fighter isn’t that he makes little damage (the 3.5 Fighter makes a lot of damage), the problem is that it is too unidirectional and lacks interesting skills outside of combat. The changes of the Fighter in pathfinder RPG are not appropriate. These changes do not solve his problems.
Magic item dependance ... oh, has been increased rather than decreased. Terrible.
And things like that.
No, I do not like the direction that PFRPG has taken.
Yeah, I can see that. Doesn't sound like you're much enamored with 3x at all anyway, so it is logical that you'd dislike Pathfinder. (And, to be honest, when I run my homebrew, I houserule a lot of 3x back to 1e methodology...)
As far as balance in D&D goes, 1e AD&D was remarkably "balanced" in a lot of ways, Gygax just went about it a different way. Staggered advancement, different class sub-systems, high requirements for the more powerful classes (balance by scarcity), long casting times (and much easier disruption), full attack roll multi-attack, more practical mobility, etc.