Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...
You rang...
If you want to direct a new player to a nearly exact copy of the 3.5 PHB, you can already direct them to d20srd.org. If you want it in print, print out the SRD on your computer. Make as many copies as you want. Throw in a few extra bucks and you can even upload it to an online self-publishing company and get it in hardcover.
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...You rang...
If you want to direct a new player to a nearly exact copy of the 3.5 PHB, you can already direct them to d20srd.org. If you want it in print, print out the SRD on your computer. Make as many copies as you want. Throw in a few extra bucks and you can even upload it to an online self-publishing company and get it in hardcover.
The SRD doesn't have creation rules or advancement rules in it.
It's a great resource, but it's not an effective replacement for the PHB.
Further, it's not an option that keeps 3.5 or 3.75 on the shelf for new players to peruse and purchase.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
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.
So...your players don't even, like, wash stuff before they wear it?
That's pretty hardcore! I want to get in your group!
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.
So...your players don't even, like, wash stuff before they wear it?
That's pretty hardcore! I want to get in your group!
I sincerely hope it's the characters who are wearing unwashed sorcerers' robes, and not the players...
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.
houstonderek, I like and dislike the 3.X rulesystem at once. In general I like it, but I do not like things like the reliance of the characters in the magic items (and hence the appearance of supermarkets of magic, or that magic items that are no longer something special and wanted, only expected and vulgar)
I did not like the 3.5 nerfed magic (We use many 3.0 spells). Changes in fighter classes pleased me (they were needed, in 3.0 ed. these classes were a bit poor), but I felt that stayed short. I think that the feats are wrong designed (they should be a tool for personalization, but instead it seems that the PCs need one feat to find the WC without going to miss. Many feats are so bad that nobody wants them, as well.) Frankly, I hate the way WOTC have turned the prestige classes as something that seems necessary to the character. It should not be!
In my table I use many houserules, and it feels good. Even so, I know that the system needs a thorough review.
So when Paizo released the alpha PFPRG I was happy, thinking than they would solve the problems of 3.5 ed. I really thought. But instead of that, today I feel that PFRPG being away from my style of play and instead are created new problems rather than solving old ones. So I haven’t interest in the PFRPG. My group is not going to switch to the new system. We will continue with 3.X (some 3.0 rules, some 3.5 rules, some PFRPG rules, and many houserules)
I just hope it will really be backward compatibility. Not because I value very much or little the success PFRPG, but because the APs, which I love, would cease to be useful for our group. But we feel that the PFRPG is not suitable for our style of play.
Posdate: PFRPG has some points of interest to us. We like the new mechanical of the skills (but not its excessive merging, but the new skill system is the best thing about PFRPG), we like the cantrips at will (they are big in the roleplaying), we like some changes in the core classes (The new barbarian sound fun, although we are still testing it), we like the core classes are on a par with the prestige classes, we like the changes in the races (although we will modify the gnome, which does not seem appropriate, and halfelf) and the feats every two levels (they are a customization tool for us, and we have been adding extra feats for years)
But the problems of 3.5 edition ... ay, all still there. The dependence of magic items. The feats are still very poorly designed. And then the mania of balancing classes and blurring their differences that make us feel that this is not the D&D that we love.
The SRD doesn't have creation rules or advancement rules in it.
It's a great resource, but it's not an effective replacement for the PHB.
The only part of the 3.5 rules that can be reprinted exactly is part appearing in the SRD. Everything else is product identity belonging to WotC, and cannot be reprinted as written. So anything not in the SRD will have to be replaced with variant rules, even in an 'exact' 3.5 reprint.
Further, it's not an option that keeps 3.5 or 3.75 on the shelf for new players to peruse and purchase.
Younger gamers are more likely to be online playing WoW than walking around in a store that has RPGs on the shelf. That makes an online resource to which they can be referred by gamers they chat with more useful than a book in print.
Also, PFRPG certainly is keeping 3.75 on the shelf. It's one thing to argue that PFRPG isn't a 3.5 reprint (it isn't). It's an entirely different thing to argue that PFRPG isn't 3.75 (it is).
Also, PFRPG certainly is keeping 3.75 on the shelf. It's one thing to argue that PFRPG isn't a 3.5 reprint (it isn't). It's an entirely different thing to argue that PFRPG isn't 3.75 (it is).
Not anymore.
It's Pathfinder RPG, an alternate ruleset comparable to Iron Heroes or Arcana Evolved.
I'm really not trying to be negative here - I *WANT* to buy Pathfinder, and I *WANT* it to succeed.
I don't want it to be a variant book for people who want something different. I want it to be a revision of 3.5, driving more people to the same game I'm playing.
Either one of these will undoubtedly be profitable for Paizo. I happen to think that the latter will be more so, but the current development is geared towards the former.
Creative Director
|
It's worth noting that not every gamer has access to the internet. And not every gamer who has access to the internet wants to use PDF or online rules. Asking our customers to depend on out of print books or internet resources only in order to play the games we produce is self-defeating. Much better to add to that pool of resources by producing a new book, so that going forward, people can use old 3.5 books, the d20 SRD online, or the Pathfinder RPG to play a Paizo adventure path.
In releated news, I just picked up a copy of the Upper Works for Castle Zagyg. It uses the Castles & Crusades rules, which are more different than 3.5 than the Pathfinder RPG will be, but glancing through it, I don't anticipate having any real problems at all using Castle Zagyg in my upcoming office campaign that'll be using the Beta rules. If Castles & Crusades material works fine in a 3.5 game, the PF RPG rules should be fine as well. In either direction (using PF RPG rules to run a 3.5 adventure, or using 3.5 rules to run a PF RPG adventure). Sure, some times the GM will need to make substitutions, but that's the GM's job.
|
It's worth noting that not every gamer has access to the internet. And not every gamer who has access to the internet wants to use PDF or online rules. Asking our customers to depend on out of print books or internet resources only in order to play the games we produce is self-defeating. Much better to add to that pool of resources by producing a new book, so that going forward, people can use old 3.5 books, the d20 SRD online, or the Pathfinder RPG to play a Paizo adventure path.
In releated news, I just picked up a copy of the Upper Works for Castle Zagyg. It uses the Castles & Crusades rules, which are more different than 3.5 than the Pathfinder RPG will be, but glancing through it, I don't anticipate having any real problems at all using Castle Zagyg in my upcoming office campaign that'll be using the Beta rules. If Castles & Crusades material works fine in a 3.5 game, the PF RPG rules should be fine as well. In either direction (using PF RPG rules to run a 3.5 adventure, or using 3.5 rules to run a PF RPG adventure). Sure, some times the GM will need to make substitutions, but that's the GM's job.
agreed
I imagine the staff is reasonable and has read the cogent arguments on both sides of this thread.
I've said what I need to say about it, and I hope I was fair. I'm going to bow out. I really hope things stay civil in this thread, I think these points need to be made.
No matter what the die-hard fans or rabble-rowsers say, it is always wise for a company to listen to their customers (even an internet cross-section) and do a head check once in a while. Even if they decide to stay the course, it's a smart move.
Thanks everyone for being so smart and polite.
I don't anticipate having any real problems at all using Castle Zagyg in my upcoming office campaign that'll be using the Beta rules. If Castles & Crusades material works fine in a 3.5 game, the PF RPG rules should be fine as well. In either direction (using PF RPG rules to run a 3.5 adventure, or using 3.5 rules to run a PF RPG adventure). Sure, some times the GM will need to make substitutions, but that's the GM's job.
James: I agree, if we're all using PF RPG rules, things should be just fine.
How well would things work, however, if one guy at the table was using 3E rules, another 3.5, and another PF RPG?
|
It's Pathfinder RPG, an alternate ruleset comparable to Iron Heroes or Arcana Evolved.
...
I want it to be a revision of 3.5, driving more people to the same game I'm playing.
Aren't these two statements contradictory? How can Pathfinder be a revision of 3.5 OGL without being an alternate ruleset?
The more I think about this debate, the more I come back to the fact that I have enjoyed Paizo's products immensely and they haven't let me down yet. I think Paizo, at least with me, has earned enough credit for me to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are professionals, know what they're doing, and will provide me with a nice set of rules to use, or not use, with their future AP's.
-Skeld
|
|
James: I agree, if we're all using PF RPG rules, things should be just fine.
How well would things work, however, if one guy at the table was using 3E rules, another 3.5, and another PF RPG?
then soemthing is wrong with the DM
its like trying to play vampire the masquerdade, vampire the dark age and vamprie the requiem at the same timethe DM needs to chose what is the core they use, other modifications can be worked
in our table we use Pathfinder Beta as core, but the magic we use mostly 3.0, anything from 3.5 still in the beta is being use, and a couple of rules from Dragon Magazine 289... specifically about growing magic items
sometimes we found something we disagree, stop, check rules, dm decides what runs, we keep playing... if we can't agree its decided what happens THAT moment... then in the week we talk check rules and decide what is going to happen...
edit: Skeld i agree 100% with your post
|
|
How well would things work, however, if one guy at the table was using 3E rules, another 3.5, and another PF RPG?
If the GM can't lay out the ruleset he wants to use for a game and/or all the players don't agree to that ruleset, your game is will tank before it starts.
Stated another way, if the GM shows up with Pathdiner, then half the players show up with 3.0-compatible characters/spells/feats/etc., and the other half wants to use 3.5-compatible characters, the game is in trouble.
-Skeld
... If Castles & Crusades material works fine in a 3.5 game, the PF RPG rules should be fine as well. In either direction (using PF RPG rules to run a 3.5 adventure, or using 3.5 rules to run a PF RPG adventure). Sure, some times the GM will need to make substitutions, but that's the GM's job.
Saying it's the GM's job doesn't cut it with me James. You're in the business to make adventures for lazy DMs and DMs who just don't have the time to prepare and/or convert material. This describes me, one of your customers and that's why I pay you guys to write great adventures using the rules I DM for.
I was interested in Castle Zagyg, but didn't buy it. While I did buy Castle Whiterock from Goodman games (which uses 3.5 rules, go figure). It remains to be seen, but if Pathfinder Adventures (under Pathfinder RPG rules) are too much work for me to run under 3.5 then I won't be using them.
Aren't these two statements contradictory? How can Pathfinder be a revision of 3.5 OGL without being an alternate ruleset?
Nope.
A revision is along the lines of a patch or fix.
An alternate ruleset is essentially a new version.
4E wasn't a revision.
The more I think about this debate, the more I come back to the fact that I have enjoyed Paizo's products immensely and they haven't let me down yet. I think Paizo, at least with me, has earned enough credit for me to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are professionals, know what they're doing, and will provide me with a nice set of rules to use, or not use, with their future AP's.
I'm quite sure that the final product will be a great product, in it's own right. Let it never be said that I thought the product would be anything but that.
It's just not turning out to be the product that I was originally offered, nor one I'm going to be able to sell my entire group on any longer.
If the GM can't lay out the ruleset he wants to use for a game and/or all the players don't agree to that ruleset, your game is will tank before it starts.
Perhaps throwing 3 disparate rulesets in there was a mistake.
That said, the original billing was one that a player with PF RPG could bring his book to the table, sit down with a group playing 3.5, and have little to no issue playing. No hugely differing mechanics, that kind of thing.
That said, the original billing was one that a player with PF RPG could bring his book to the table, sit down with a group playing 3.5, and have little to no issue playing. No hugely differing mechanics, that kind of thing.
I don't remember that kind of 'original billing' at all. It is also a wholly unrealistic expectation - after all, the ruleset would have to avoid any changes whatsoever to have that kind of backwards compatibility.
See quotes on Page 3.
I'm not seeing the quote you mean. You mean page 3 of this thread or of the PRPG Beta?
This thread, where I quoted Erik Mona from the pre-announcement.
I've been using PRPG with a 3.5 module and it's been fine. Conversion on the fly has only required figuring out CMBs.
BAB+STR+Size+Feat=CMB done.
Understood.
The game does work quite well in that respect. 3.5 Module with PF RPG, or I'm sure, when produced, a PF RPG module with 3.5 rules.
|
|
A revision is along the lines of a patch or fix.
An alternate ruleset is essentially a new version.
4E wasn't a revision.
Based on your definitions there, Pathfinder is a revision in my opinion. As a matter of fact, I'd would judge the scope of changes in the Beta to be just slightly beyond what WotC did with the move from 3e to 3.5e.
But then that's really the rub isn't it? It's my opinion on the level of changes versus yours versus Jason's versus James, etc. Too far to one of us isn't far enough to another.
-Skeld
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
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.
I see. So, you feel it is no longer a 3.75. Paizo has said that you should be able to use 3.5 splatbooks and adventures with it with minimal conversion. You want it to be a book that can be used by players who don't have the 3.5 PHB. I'm fine with the idea that all the players will need to have the same book.
I think Brian and I were making more the point that some of the developement of PFRPG is pulling a George Lucas and fixing things that weren't broken.
The number of posters who have decried the simply awful revisions to Power Attack and Combat Expertise are an example.
And all to often we are now getting very brief brush off posts from Paizo staffers. This is not how things started and it shouldn't continue.
This time in the gaming world is the "Save or Die" for the industry. How many people can any game company afford to lose?
But more importantly...more important by leaps or bounds...how many DMs can the company afford to lose? DMs influence the buying of their players immensely.
I let my group know that I do not like 4E and won't be buying it. I didn't lose any players and none of them have bought into 4E.
They are listening to me now when I discuss what I like and don't like about Pathfinder and whether or not I'm going to buy it.
All to often, if you lose the DM you lose his/her whole group. That can really add up.
I still really want to buy into Pathfinder. I just don't like how far it's strayed.
[
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 PBeta sorcerer it does not largely matter, because PBeta sorcerer is still made of fail, and some stylish-but-worthless powers do not increase his combat efficiency at all against a reasonably competent party (increased hit points do, but not by that much). However, I imagine my players would be mightily pissed, when PBeta wizard hadokens them into oblivion. Or, if run straight as it is in the module, with the usual ton of worthless feats, uses free metamagic without a lootable rod. This cannot really be compared with a template, because template imposes LA and is used on spellcasters only to make them weaker and more defeatable for their CR.
Not that these particular problems are unsolvable (changes in underlying game mechanics, such as CMB, bother me more than any class changes). Point is, why should I bother with solving them, if Pathfinder offers nothing but extra conversion work for my effort. Pick a major problem with 3.5. It is still there, and often is worse, particularly after adding the supplements. Wealth=power? Check. Enormous equipment dependence? Check. Fifty millions buffs at once? Check. Linear melees, quadratic spellcasters? Check. Trap choices? Check. Optimization is god and mandatory to survive against level-appropriate encounters? Check. In addition, does Pathfinder offer anything new? No. Then why bother with it?|
|
Wow ... you could measure the hyperbole and apocalyptic exaggeration in here by the megaton. "An entirely new game" -- come on, people, get real.
People have different opinions, I feel that there are enough changes to the rules that I would have to read the entire Pathfinder rulebook in order to be able to run the game. That to me makes it seem like a new edition of the game (not an entirely new game - it hasn't become Vampire the Masquerade - but a new edition).
If I need to purchase and read a set of core books again then I am no better off than buying 4e and reading those.
The whole point of this thread seems to be -- "if they change one word in 3.5, then they have absolutely ruined D&D and I'm not going to buy it and it's not D&D any more it's a tragic mockery like 4e!!!!1eleven!!!"
No, the point of the thread seems to be expressing people's disappointment with the way Pathfinder has gone and explaining why. This might be of use to Paizo to understand the reasons why some players may not convert and how their product is going to be used (e.g. as optional rules rather than replacement core rules). If not, then at least we got to vent :)
Anyway, I don't think Paizo have ruined D&D but then I don't think 4e ruined it either - but the rules have changed in both cases and require a re-purchasing of the core books and re-learning the rules. It means I don't feel Pathfinder will be the lifeboat for 3.5 I thought it was going to be.
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.
I am not sure there are enough copies out there TBH, there is even a thread on RPG.net where someone is shocked that they cannot buy a copy of the 3.5 PHB at a reasonable price. I had hoped Pathfinder would address this issue.
To ask them to fix things like the brokenness of druids, and yet expect them to somehow magically have it so you can use the 3.5 druids printed in modules without having to do ANYTHING to bring them in line with the fixes that you or people like you have demanded, then you're expecting the impossible. It's like asking someone to be in two places at once -- it simply CANNOT. BE. DONE.
I am not demanding changes to be honest, I haven't played enough 3.5 to notice some of the issues that others have. But even then, as has been noted, you can modify some rules, without breaking compatibility. To use a software analogy - you keep the "interfaces" the same and change the way a component works internally.
I.e. Interfaces are things like skill names and ranks, class names and levels, BAB etc that are used as pre-requisites. So you could change the way Diplomacy worked as long as you kept it named Diplomacy, kept the same scale of ranks, and thus allowed all the feats that say "Gives a +2 Bonus to Diplomacy" to be compatible.
I'm not even sure where this "compatibility" is going to be that useful
It supposed to be useful in that it would allow you to use your 3.5 rules with pathfinder. So a player could choose a feat from a 3.5 sourcebook and know whether his character qualifies for that feat and how it will interface with the core rules. However with the changes that PF has undergone, that isn't possible anymore.
For example, if as a player I like the look of a feat that has a pre-requisite of a skill that is no longer present in Pathfinder I need to ask my GM to adjudicate on whether my PC qualifies.
For example, suppose there is a Combat feat that has Concentration 6 ranks as a pre-requisite. Concentration has now been rolled into Spellcraft in Pathfinder - but it is highly unlikley that a fighter will have Spellcraft as a skill and not at 6 PF ranks (Spellcraft is a cross class skill for Fighters and so rank pre-requisite is [2x(3.5 ranks -3)]. There is a judgement call here.
And who needs absolute precision for a throwaway NPC who's going to show up once, probably, anyway? Just eyeball it!
I agree to some extent, but if all those 3.5 NPCs are now effectively less of a challenge compared to PF PCs then the players may be earning more XP than they really should. I have already seen comments to the effect that GMs send their PF PCs up against opponents designed for a level higher. Also having to adjust HP of monsters to make them more durable.
|
|
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 admit that I haven't tried this, and to be honest I think I probably could run a game on the fly (I could do that with Shadowrun). However is it worth that little bit of extra hassle if I am happy with 3.5? Is it worth worrying that my players are likely to defeat the opposition too easily (but still gain the same XP).
But that isn't the sort of compatibility that worries me most. My fears for incompatibility is regarding getting new players into the game.
For example, say I ran an ongoing 3.5 campaign. I have 4 players who also own the 3.5 PHB and so no time is wasted passing the rule book around. We all know the rules as we have been playing for quite a while.
Then Dave joins our group. He hasn't played D&D before, maybe hasn't even played any RPGs before. He starts playing and enjoys it, but he finds that he would like a copy of the PHB to read up on the rules and level up his character in his own time.
So Dave goes looking for a copy of the 3.5 PHB, but finds it is now out of print and he can't find a copy at a reasonable price.
At this point Dave finds out about Pathfinder and thinks great - I could buy that instead, its supposedly compatible. Dave suggests this at the next game, but I and all the players say "Don't bother, it is a different edition. Keep searching Ebay".
Pathfinder was meant to keep the core rules in print so that new players could pick up a copy. It was meant to keep the 3.5 game alive - but that only works if everyone who already owns the 3.5 core rules, also spends the money to buy the Pathfinder core books as well, as well as spending the time to read up and learn the rule differences. And at that point, it isn't keeping the 3.5 game alive, it is keeping the Pathfinder RPG alive.
This is fundamentally my problem with how Pathfinder is turning out - it isn't 3.5 and has too many changes to make it even close.
I could have coped with a small number of discrete changes to the 3.5 rules, as long as they could be easily summed up and were available as a free PDF download for those who already own the 3.5 core books.
For example "Pathfinder is exactly the same as 3.5 with the following exceptions:"
All Player Character classes have a minimum Hit Die of d6 - those who previously had a d4 Hit Die have it changed to d6.
Grapple rules have changed (see the free downloadable PDF for details) - all feats and classes that have bonuses to grappling continue to give exactly the same bonuses.
Polymorph has changed (see the free downloadable PDF for details)
The Deities are different from the 3.5 PHB for legal reasons, see the free downloadable PDF for the alternative deities used in the Pathfinder core book.
That would allow the new players to buy Pathfinder whilst allowing the existing 3.5 players to continue using their 3.5 PHBs. The GM could decide whether to use the PF changes or not, but the differences could be easily understood by all players.
|
|
3.5 rules CAN'T be keep on Print, for better or worse they were discarded by those who could print them
Exactly what do you mean by this? There are some things of 3.5 that can't be included in a new printing by a non-WOTC company, but not a lot. I believe you could re-print practically all the rules, just leaving out Product Identity. Mongoose did this with their pocket books.
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
And I wouldn't have expected you to have been Paizo's target market (but I am presumably wrong on this).
I saw keeping the rules in print as a means to an end - to keep the game alive so that Paizo could continue producing adventures and supplements - stuff that would be something "new", that will make your game "better" and that would have good "art and quality".
The core rules would have simply been an enabler and a revenue earner only in relation to new players.
But this doesn't seem to be the business model Paizo are following - a pity.
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
I don't think anyone is "threatening" not to buy the book - we are just expressing our likely decision. I am not so egotistical to believe me saying I won't buy the end product will change Paizo's mind. It might do if alot of other people display the same feelings, but I don;t expect it to (especially not at this late stage).
|
|
I shall try to be civil, but people do not seem to understand what backwards compatibility actually means. It means that existing products can be used with the PFRPG rules. That is backwards compatibility. What it is not is saying that everything Paizo will now produce can be run perfectly with 3.5 with no work at all. And it was never advertised as that. The changes to PFRPG are on the same scale as the changes to 3.0 to make it 3.5. Now while I admittedly remember howls of outrage over those changes, I don't recall it leading to cats and dogs becoming friends, or any other sign of the imminent apocalypse.
You can use a new version of Office to read an old Word Document (backwards compatibility) but you can't use the old version to read an Office document produced in Office2007 (Forward compatibility because the new version has added things to the system).
Thus it is with Pathfinder. To be fair, the vast majority of stuff is perfectly usable in 3.5 as is (The Sorcerer bloodlines are mostly in the form of bonus spells or feats and the rest can be ignored if you want to, etc etc). If you don't know what it is, treat it like any other thing in the game that you haven't got the rules for - swap it out for something equivalent or houserule it. This is hardly an earth-shattering or game-breaking thing to suggest.
However, while people have been saying the game has gone too far in terms of changes, I have not seen much in this thread about which changes or why they've gone to far. So it's rather hard to see what people want Paizo to do about their complaints, short of ditching all the changes and publishing the SRD + non-OGL bits.
|
|
If you want to direct a new player to a nearly exact copy of the 3.5 PHB, you can already direct them to d20srd.org. If you want it in print, print out the SRD on your computer. Make as many copies as you want. Throw in a few extra bucks and you can even upload it to an online self-publishing company and get it in hardcover.
Do you know whether someone has converted the SRD into a PDF that can be easily printed? Someone did so for Mongoose RuneQuest's SRD and it is actually better IMHO than the official PDFs (as the free ones are bookmarked!).
If someone did that, then that would indeed become a valid alternative to the 3.5 PHB. If I had the time, motivation, experience and skill I could almost be tempted to do this myself - but I don't, it is easier for me to stick with 3.5, keep searching Ebay for some cheap spare PHBs and buy into 4e for an in-print game.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
For PBeta sorcerer it does not largely matter, because PBeta sorcerer is still made of fail, and some stylish-but-worthless powers do not increase his combat efficiency at all against a reasonably competent party .... Pick a major problem with 3.5. It is still there, and often is worse, particularly after adding the supplements. Wealth=power? Check. Enormous equipment dependence? Check. Fifty millions buffs at once? Check. Linear melees, quadratic spellcasters? Check. Trap choices? Check. Optimization is god and mandatory to survive against level-appropriate encounters? Check. In addition, does Pathfinder offer anything new? No. Then why bother with it?
With respect, FatR, I don't believe Pathfinder was ever intended to address things like "linear melee, quadratic spellcasting." Or some character choices being more powerful in some situations than others.
If that's what you were looking for, I would recommend, perhaps, GURPS.
|
|
The only part of the 3.5 rules that can be reprinted exactly is part appearing in the SRD. Everything else is product identity belonging to WotC, and cannot be reprinted as written. So anything not in the SRD will have to be replaced with variant rules, even in an 'exact' 3.5 reprint.
It doesn't have to even be a variant as long as you explain the rule in your own words (please correct me if I am wrong).
For example, it would be ligitimately to have the following:
"In order for a character to attain a new level, the player must spend an extra amount of XP equal to 1000 multiplied by their current level. For example, to attain level 2 a character must spend 1000 XP (1000 multiplied by 1, for being 1st level). To attain level 3 a character must spend a further 2000 XP (1000 multiplied by 2, for being 2nd level), their total XP spend being 3000 XP at this stage."
Totally matches the XP table in terms of values, but expressed in a completely different way and therefore no legal issues I believe.
DIG your missing a key point here. Printing costs and sells.
They need a rule system in print. That costs major cash. To make the cash back they must sell a damned lot of books.
If they just reprint they will sell a few here and there. Not enough to be worth the cash they put out and may never get back.
So they need to get people wanting to buy the new book as well. I will not by a copy of my PHB as I have one, Will you? will any of your players? Will any of the gamers you know buy a copy with a diff cover?
No they would not. It needs to be different it needs to stand on its own and it needs to sell.
Sorry man but a pure reprint can't do that so they cant go that way.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I've been using PRPG with a 3.5 module and it's been fine. Conversion on the fly has only required figuring out CMBs.BAB+STR+Size+Feat=CMB done.
Hi, Tarren. First, I'd like to thank you for maintaining a polite tone. It's great to read your posts.
I remember when the 3.5 Edition came out for D&D. My problem with the new edition of the game wasn't "My gnome illusionist is different now!" but rather "I don't know the rules any more." There were lots of little changes (the name "Command Plants" went from one spell to another, spells changed schools, rhinohide armor changed, some rules for charging changed, ...) and I didn't know which rules were still the same. We had to look everything up.
And, to this very day, I still make mistakes. Just last month, I was using 3.0's rules for firing missile weapons into melee without Precise Shot, because I'd never realized that those rules changed in 3.5.
My character in Pathfinder Society is a spiked-chain wielding fighter. When Season 0 turns to Season 1 under the Pathfinder rules, should I expect him to work the same way?
All of which is, to an extent, besides the point.
I'm not switching over to Pathfinder for exactly the same reasons I didn't switch to 4th Edition. Because 3.5 works for me. (And I've been buying up 3.5 PHBs for the last year...) If Pathfinder-based adventures still work when read under the lens of the 3.5 ruleset, then I'll continue to buy them.
|
While I don't like everything in PFRPG -- I am becoming increasingly convinced that the Power Attack and Combat Expertise nerfs are genuinely terrible decisions* -- but I think that it's simple a better game than 3.5 is and I do like 3.5. The only other question, then, is "if I invest in PFRPG -- pretty cheap compared to my 3.5 investment -- can I still use 3.5 stuff?" To that, the answer seems to me to clearly be a 'yes', even if I have to do a little work (but that was also true for deciding whether to include 3.5 splatbooks in 3.5 anyhow).
*And also convinced by Jess Door and Mattastrophic, who have eloquently pointed out that you need PA to make AC function properly at all and that therefore it should be a standard combat option (maybe up to 1/2 BAB and the feat allowed you up to full BAB, or some other variety of standard to better-from-feat).
I don't understand much of the arguing here.
Some people like the way PRPG is going to be, some don't. It really depends on the taste of everyone.
As someone pointed out, a corebook with rules which don't much change from 3.5 and some optional book with really different options should be the best I think to please the majority.
If someone prefer to eat an apple to a banana, you won't change his mind.
But if you present the choice between the banana and the apple, maybe more people will come to your restaurant.
As for conversion on the fly, it's really not that easy. I'm really confortable with the rules so I didn't bother to make the changes before we play our ST Pathfinder playtest. But I keep noticing many more changes than I thought. Even in this thread I read that there was some changes to a spell or feat I didn't bother to read again. A DM with not much interest in rules will quickly become lost with all the countless changes at each chapter. You could tell that we shouldn't bother with small details, but sometimes it can be a big issue.
|
|
I don't think I am missing that point, but I admit I had no clue as to the amounts involved and so may be underestimating exactly how much it costs.DIG your missing a key point here. Printing costs and sells.
They need a rule system in print. That costs major cash. To make the cash back they must sell a damned lot of books.
If they just reprint they will sell a few here and there. Not enough to be worth the cash they put out and may never get back.
First of all, a reprint would require much less development effort than the creation of a new edition. However paizo have been clever in managing to gain some revenue from selling the Beta edition hardcopies, only to likely sell teh final version to the same people again next year.
Irrespective, I imagine that the fixed cost of putting a book ready to go to print would be significantly more for a new edition versus a re-print.
Now maybe there is also fixed costs for an initial print run that needs to be covered.
Basically if the total contribution that the sale of the books gives can get you close to paying off the fixed costs then great - with less fixed costs, you would need to sell fewer books (assuming you sell the minimum print run and keep the same variable costs and price).
But even if you don't manage to break even on the core books, it still might be worthwhile if you feel you can make up for it on sales of supplements - the core book becomes a loss leader.
You could even have the re-print be softcover like the Beta, and maybe go black and white (though I don't like that), to reduce the variable costs.
Hopefully Paizo will be successful and the extra revenue Paizo make on sales of core books for a new edition will be greater than any lost revenue resulting from non-adopters no longer buying PF supplements and adventure paths.
Sorry man but a pure reprint can't do that so they cant go that way.
Maybe you're right - I wonder if Mongoose made money on their pocket books?
|
|
Maybe you're right - I wonder if Mongoose made money on their pocketbooks
The right question is whether they'd make money issueing another run now...
I suspect not and I guess they do, too (or they'd order up another run).
Whether they made money back then, when 3.x was live and supported by Wizards, is a completely different matter (and I don't think it's very relevant to this discussion, to be honest).
In releated news, I just picked up a copy of the Upper Works for Castle Zagyg. It uses the Castles & Crusades rules, which are more different than 3.5 than the Pathfinder RPG will be, but glancing through it, I don't anticipate having any real problems at all using Castle Zagyg in my upcoming office campaign that'll be using the Beta rules. If Castles & Crusades material works fine in a 3.5 game, the PF RPG rules should be fine as well. In either direction (using PF RPG rules to run a 3.5 adventure, or using 3.5 rules to run a PF RPG adventure). Sure, some times the GM will need to make substitutions, but that's the GM's job.
Well that's because youre not a whiney, lazy sod of a DM like the rest of us eh? :)
I don't think I am missing that point, but I admit I had no clue as to the amounts involved and so may be underestimating exactly how much it costs.First of all, a reprint would require much less development effort than the creation of a new edition. However paizo have been clever in managing to gain some revenue from selling the Beta edition hardcopies, only to likely sell teh final version to the same people again next year.
Print costs will still be the same they must reprint dmg+phb so reprint costs would not change
Irrespective, I imagine that the fixed cost of putting a book ready to go to print would be significantly more for a new edition versus a re-print.
About the same i would guess. As they layout needs changed new pics all new art, a few new rules such as xp chart and creation rules. Your looking at roughly the same cost
Now maybe there is also fixed costs for an initial print run that needs to be covered.Basically if the total contribution that the sale of the books gives can get you close to paying off the fixed costs then great - with less fixed costs, you would need to sell fewer books (assuming you sell the minimum print run and keep the same variable costs and price).
close works for Wotc not for a small compnay if a product can not make back every dime ya got in it and them some its wasted and doomed
But even if you don't manage to break even on the core books, it still might be worthwhile if you feel you can make up for it on sales of supplements - the core book becomes a loss leader.You could even have the re-print be softcover like the Beta, and maybe go black and white (though I don't like that), to reduce the variable costs.
Well if ya dont brake even then it pulls all your profits off. Sales from over items that should be extra now make ya brake even enoff to maybe pay the bills. You need a huge investment for a book this size it must brake even of even good sales would not make up for it.
Hopefully Paizo will be successful and the extra revenue Paizo make on sales of core books for a new edition will be greater than any lost revenue resulting from non-adopters no longer buying PF supplements and adventure paths.
I think it will as the point is to drives sales for the ap's and bring in new players. But we'll see
Maybe you're right - I wonder if Mongoose made money...
Not enough to keep it in print or stake there company on it
|
|
About the same i would guess. As they layout needs changed new pics all new art, a few new rules such as xp chart and creation rules. Your looking at roughly the same cost
Sorry, I was including dev costs in there as well. Sorry fo rnot being clearer.
Well if ya dont brake even then it pulls all your profits off. Sales from over items that should be extra now make ya brake even enoff to maybe pay the bills. You need a huge investment for a book this...
I guess if this is true, then yes, Pathfinder needs to be a new edition. I guess I didn't get that impression from the initial announcements and player talk (I am still trying to find the post on RPG.net where I first heard about it). In which case Pathfinder was never going to be for me, and if it looks like it is going to be successful then 3.5 is likely to die quicker and I am better off with 4e.
Oh well.
I guess if this is true, then yes, Pathfinder needs to be a new edition. I guess I didn't get that impression from the initial announcements and player talk (I am still trying to find the post on RPG.net where I first heard about it). In which case Pathfinder was never going to be for me, and if it looks like it is going to be successful then 3.5 is likely to die quicker and I am better off with 4e.Oh well.
If ya wanted no change only a straight reprint[which they never promised] then no it's not for you. 4E might be or like many of us it might not be . thats your call
|
|
If ya wanted no change only a straight reprint[which they never promised] then no it's not for you. 4E might be or like many of us it might not be . thats your call
When I originally heard about 4e I was annoyed as I still hadn't read the 3.5 DMG or MM at that point (I still haven't read the MM!) and I was worried no one would want to play 3.5 anymore.
Initial reports made it sound like 4e wasn't for me (the hit point yo yo, as I call it, seemed even worse). So I thought I would stick with 3.5 and hope I could get players.
I even bought the entire Eberron back catalogue of 3.5 books a while back, along with Unearthed Arcana, Expanded Psionics Handbook and Player Handbook 2 (only the latter of which I have read any of so far!) so that I have a well rounded 3.5 collection for an Eberron game.
But in the end I recognise that I need a game where I am likely to get the most players. I have loads of good games, that don't get played because I can't find the players (I have a weekly group but we are saturated for games at present, and at conventions players can be sparse for less popular games as well).
For this reason I originally thought PF would be great as it would continue 3.5. But now if Pathfinder is a success then 3.5 players may actually diminish further as people switch to Pathfinder.
Now at that point if Pathfinder and 4e both have more players than 3.5 I need to ask myself - as I will need to buy new core books and read them in either case, which gets me the most players PF or 4e - at present 4e I feel wins hands down.
It may seem a weird choice given that I bought a load of 3.5 books - but the Eberron books have a load of fluff in them which I can re-use and there will be 4e books to cover the crunch - so no conversions needed.
So for me player base trumps everything - without players it doesn't matter how much you like a game you don't get to play it. Luckily for me, although my weekly group detests 4e they seem happy enough to continue with 3.5 for the games I run (despite using PF for other games).
So for existing group - stick with 3.5.
For gaining new players - move to 4e
|
|
If ya wanted no change only a straight reprint[which they never promised] then no it's not for you. 4E might be or like many of us it might not be . thats your callWhen I originally heard about 4e I was annoyed as I still hadn't read the 3.5 DMG or MM at that point (I still haven't read the MM!) and I was worried no one would want to play 3.5 anymore.
Initial reports made it sound like 4e wasn't for me (the hit point yo yo, as I call it, seemed even worse). So I thought I would stick with 3.5 and hope I could get players.
I even bought the entire Eberron back catalogue of 3.5 books a while back, along with Unearthed Arcana, Expanded Psionics Handbook and Player Handbook 2 (only the latter of which I have read any of so far!) so that I have a well rounded 3.5 collection for an Eberron game.
But in the end I recognise that I need a game where I am likely to get the most players. I have loads of good games, that don't get played because I can't find the players (I have a weekly group but we are saturated for games at present, and at conventions players can be sparse for less popular games as well).
For this reason I originally thought PF would be great as it would continue 3.5. But now if Pathfinder is a success then 3.5 players may actually diminish further as people switch to Pathfinder.
Now at that point if Pathfinder and 4e both have more players than 3.5 I need to ask myself - as I will need to buy new core books and read them in either case, which gets me the most players PF or 4e - at present 4e I feel wins hands down.
It may seem a weird choice given that I bought a load of 3.5 books - but the Eberron books have a load of fluff in them which I can re-use and there will be 4e books to cover the crunch - so no conversions needed.
So for me player base trumps everything - without players it doesn't matter how much you like a game you don't get to play it. Luckily for me, although my weekly group detests 4e they seem happy enough to continue with...
From personal experience, I found 4E plays quite differently to 3.5. Your points about players is well taken, but depending on how you play, 4E may be more trouble to convert than PFRPG which is closer to 3.5 in both rules and style, even if it's not quite close enough for you at the moment.
On the other hand, many people enjoy 4E and have no problem running the games they want in it, so I could just be biased.
I think that Pathfinder is the last great hope for 3.x players who do not wish to play a different system for some reason.
If you do not like 3.x, you wont like pathfinder.
However, once WotC stopped supporting 3.x, then I felt i needed to find a supported game system just in case. Pathfinder is it.
Don't get me wrong in thinking that I needed to find a new thing, I just like having the backup of a community for a RPG system.
My one great fear of it however is it might take the power level a bit too high to be easily playable with old supplements.
Though, Age of Worms is sort of proving that fear wrong.