Reading your response prompted me to reread my question and it is clear that I misphrased it, which perhaps stems from my thinking that although Jason is the lead designer you are also involved in the design process of the Pathfinder RPG. I did not mean to ask what 'you' personally would like to revert back to the 3.5E way of doing things. By 'you' I sort of meant the 'design team' in general - sorry for not being specific. So the better way to phrase the question would be:
Would it be possible to give us some hints (perhaps just one or two examples not to give too much away) as to what rules are being considered, or perhaps have already been decided upon, for reversion from the Pathfinder RPG Beta back to the 3.5E way of doing things? If you are not familiar with it in person, would it be possible to ask Jason to give us a hint or two?
Yeah; I realized you were talking about the Design Team, which is why I said you outnumber us about 6000 to one. If I were to compare just Jason to the playtesters... they'd outnumber him like 35,000 to one.
Anyway, it's not really possible to give out hints about what rules are gonna be in the final game yet, since we're still many weeks away from the end of the playtest. And even after that, things will be in flux. I'd rather not set false expectations—the Beta itself is already doing enough of that! :-)
In any case, it'll probably not be until February or March before we know for a fact what rules are sticking for GOOD and what ones aren't. We might start doing some previews then, maybe a "Countdown to PF RPG" on our blog or something. But again, that's months away.
The forum monster ate my response! :( :( :(
Oh well, the essence of the response was that I knew that many rules were still in flux, but I thought some rules/reversions must already be set in stone by now and thus an example or two could be given. I guess I understand and respect that rules that are not firm yet are not going to be hinted at - considering the false expectations issue (though if it was explicitly stated that they are only provisional, I think false expectations could be managed). I guess I will have to wait patiently for some previews.
|
Yeah; I realized you were talking about the Design Team, which is why I said you outnumber us about 6000 to one. If I were to compare just Jason to the playtesters... they'd outnumber him like 35,000 to one.Since 6 misses going into 35 but just a hair, I'll assume someone on the design team is missing a body part.
Someone at Paizo is from Odessa, Texas? Wow!
Again... see my recent post. We don't have time to reply to everything. We do when we can, but just because you don't see a reply to a post that doesn't mean no one here sees it and no one here is thinking about it. Remember: what we're asking for is feedback, not asking for opportunities to give feedback to the feedback.James, unfortunately, I think that Paizo's Pathfinder RPG is the victim of something I posted earlier:
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 would 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 open playtest.
It's true. You'll note that very few companies do huge Beta playtests like this. Had we known the mayhem that it would have caused, we might not have done it; we certainly didn't expect 35,000+ playtesters, for example (I was anticipating a number along the lines of 5,000 at the highest myself). And to be totally mercenary, if half of the 35,000 playtesters are disgruntled with the way it's working out, that still leaves us with a LOT more customers than I thought we'd get.
Of course, I hope that the number of customers we retain from the Playtest is as close to 100% as possible... but I know that's not gonna be the case.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I do hope that Paizo will not shy away from open playtests in the future due to this experience. As you point out, you may lose some players due to disgruntlement with it, but the fact that you are willing to do it in the first place, also gives you positive emotional capital among many people, plus enables you to tailor the game closer to the preferences of your target audience and of course the playtest does catch a lot of bugs and problems in the system and can help correct them.
That is not to say that disgruntled playtesters should be ignored and you clearly are not ignoring them (to your credit) - but some will leave regardless of how hard you try to retain them, as their expectations of how closely the game will match their preferences are not going to be met.
In some ways, however, the playtest also works as a form of advertising. I might or might not have found out about the Pathfinder RPG if it weren't for the playtest. I probably would have found out about it, but I would have never even considered buying it if I did not get to see what it was aiming for and if I couldn't sample the rules through the playtest. I was a WotC only customer before that and no third party publisher would have seen my money. Now, thanks to the playest, I could sample Paizo's work and plan to make the Pathfinder RPG my first OGL-related non-WotC purchase. I would imagine that my situation is not unique.
Well sticking with 3.5 was good enough to keep them in business during a 2 year period of time when it was not even being printed and that decision has not only made them survive but to thrive. Why abandon a proven system when you don't have to?I would suggest that a good deal of Paizo's "thriving" during this interim is, in fact, due to the imminence of PfRPG. I, for one, had never visited the Paizo website and had only heard of Paizo in passing in relation to the Dungeon & Dragon debacle. When PfRPG was announced, a mention on another site's forum sent me here. Alpha 1 and the free PDF of "Hollow's Last Hope" kept me here. Our group has never used published adventures, due to some very dissatisfying experiences back in the TSR days. Paizo revealed to me that high-quality pre-generated adventures actually exist. But I never would have come here to find that out if not for PfRPG. The new ruleset generated the excitement that attracted customers.
And I would suggest that for every person like you, there is at least as many (and I think that is a very conservative estimate) people being directed here because they are being told that if you want to keep with 3.5 than Pathfinder is the way to go. I've seen those exact words on other message boards and they are a disservice to those gamers because Pathfinder is not for people who want to stick with 3.5 it is for people that want some thing new but similar to 3.5.
|
|
The forum monster ate my response! :( :( :(
Oh well, the essence of the response was that I knew that many rules were still in flux, but I thought some rules/reversions must already be set in stone by now and thus an example or two could be given. I guess I understand and respect that rules that are not firm yet are not going to be hinted...
i think those are the ones you DON'T want to hear about :P
i know myself 2 that have been already told me are not in movement... it doesn't matter how much i whine :P and I DO whine about them :P
|
Devlin 'Dusk' Valerian wrote:
I personally don' t care if PF will be more backward compatible or less. For me the reason for welcoming PF-RPG is pretty simple. I Don't like the way the evolution from 3.5 to 4E has been done. Its a totally different style of game that I am playing/ are used to. Pathfinder is closer to my liking.
1st:4E allows me less use of my already bought and owned 3.5 books than Pathfinder does. So by going with the PF Rules, I feel can still use my old books (with a few simple changes in the rules/stats).
You talk as if your choices are 4e or Pathfinder - did you consider just sticking with 3.5? 3.5 gives you 100% compatibility with your 3.5 books and is a system that you obviously know. Is there something about 3.5 that makes it simply not an option at all, but that Pathfinder fixes?
Hi Mage,
The choice for me was not 4E or PFRPG, but between 4E, 3.5 and PFRPG. As I have mentioned, I don`t have enough time on my hands to write my own Adventures, Campaigns or Worlds. I neither have the time, or are willing to invest hours in order to convert material from other publishers who's products don't meet my standart. This is mostly due to the reason of having to spend time to earn enough dough to keep the fridge filled, the rent and gas bills paid etc. (Well, I also need money to give it to my favorite RPG-designers and retailers in exchange for their products). Thus I rather invest the remaining free hours into friends, family and in playing or DMing. Since I am as lazy as I have just described, I heavily depend on published material such as Modules and supplements. Of course, these have to fit into the rules system. with 3.5 not being published any more by WoC, I assume that any supplementing products will sooner or later become less and less available for purchase (please note that I am talking about quality material that does not need much overhaul work; best would be none).
So my dilemma will be/is that my supply of good material will sooner or later be unavailable. Most players and me as DM are addicted to new rule supplements, Campaign books and guides, and if we / I cant purchase them to use with my campaign, we/I will become bored and ....
Well I guess you can see where that leads to. I need a RPG that keeps supplementing my ongoing games. That not going to be 3.5 anymore (I am not really that fond of any of the D20 products out there, except the Sanctuary (Thieves World) Stuff, and I really don't care to start any totally new game system. In my opinion 4E is more a new system than PF, and PF will probably allow me to keep the use of my already owned 3.5 books, whereas that is not the case with 4E or any other new game.
But what really helped me in the decision to go along with PF is that the Golarion Campaign Setting and the AP is just great stuff of almost perfect quality. With that Paizo seems to be THE company that comes closest to my need of material which will be published on a regular basis, thus keeping me happy and further in need to work more hours in order to spent money which will keep other in work which again..... oh, here I drift again.... ;))
In short: by going with the PF RPG I will have my steady supply of NEW addictive material. Material that allows the use of old books and lets me play a game that is closer to 3.5 than others. Without the fear of running out of supplies in the near future. And that the PF Beta seems to be a good game system is of course the cream on my cake.
I have a question that I hope will not poke the bear to much, but I think it is a valid notion. For those of you who are starting to lose enthusiasm for PFRPG, How much do you think being involved in the creative process via this message board has created that situation? You see the impression I am getting is that perhaps the proccess of giving feedback has gotten your hopes up that the finished product will be a nice glossy hardcover of 3.5 with your house rules added in, creating what is to you an ideal product to which the actual result cannot hold up too. Its food for thought. Personally I love the idea of being involved in the process no matter how little of my ideas actually make the cut, but I can see in the tone and popularity of certain threads that some people are trying to create their perfect system, not a system that can be flexible enough to work for everyone with minimal changes to suit different tastes. To be clear this question isnt targeted at those who are upset at the amount of rules conversion that must be done to make the switch. I can see that as a very valid arguement(though I disagree). Its more aimed at the folks who sight things like ( insert my fav class ) is not powerfull enough, or "they need to nerf the chain fighter before I will buy it".
What I was hoping for from Pathfinder was that real problem issues (making grappling rules more simple, for example) and smoothing them out. I don't dislike 3.5e rules overall, and I don't want to abandon them for something similar but with lots of little changes that add up to a big change.
For me, its not about making things more powerful or less powerful. I know there's still plenty of time before changes are cemented and things can still change further... it just doesn't feel right for me. I'm just not liking it as a whole.
I get frustrated from time to time, in part because some things that I don't think will be a bad idea get nixed before I even get a chance to playtest them in my groups. But when you only have 4-6 people in a group, you will only be able to do so much at a time.
While I was really getting frustrated for a while, I think I'm calming down a bit, especially the more I'm getting to actually run the game. That having been said, I do think there is more power creep than is needed, and that if any aspect of the game needed some of the extra tweaks, its the high level side of things, not the lower levels, which have, none the less, seen a fair share of tinkering.
In some cases, I feel like changes were needed, but because the changes are coming a bit at a time, they feel like they are more complicated than they need to be, since it isn't Overall Fix A being applied, but minor fix B, slight fix C, and minor sub fix B1. Hopefully after the "good idea" phase is over, some of these clunky "lets try this" fixes will get smoothed out. (I'm thinking fighters, paladins, and the individual cleric domain powers in particular in this instance)
In the end, while I'm still concerned and I'll still voice my opinions, there has been an amazing amount of work put in to this thing, and when there is a good idea, it tends to be a great idea (CMB, for example).
On the "Backward Compatibility Hammer" standpoint though, I think people are reading more into this than is intended. I'm running Rise of the Runelords and the Savage Tide, as written, only having to tweak some there here or there from time to time. Most of the feats that will work that I allow are pretty simple to figure out, and if something doesn't apply any more, it just doesn't apply . . . if a feat was introduced to fix something that no longer needs to be fixed, there really isn't much point in trying to still find a purpose for the feat . . . and the same applies to PrCs as well.
My gut feeling at this point is that the difference between 3.5 and PFRPG is similar to the the 1st/2nd edition transition, where you could pretty easily run a 1e adventure using 2e character, with the exception of a few big changes (i.e. dragons, giants, fiends . . . ) Once in a while you had to figure out a morale rating, if you really wanted to, for example.
I will say that in some cases, some of the ideas that people are thrilled with or that they think need to be upgraded are often viewed from the player filter, not the GM point of view or the long view.
Overall, I was a bit more frustrated a few months back, but that was when I was really fixated on a few ideas that seemed to get some play that I really didn't like, but hey, what are you going to do? The trend didn't continue exactly as I had feared, and I know the guys at Paizo are a talented lot.
I lost my interest in PFRPG because of the disrespect that my fellow rogues have been paid.
Why can we not deliver sneak attacks as a free action with a range of 400 yards + 10/yards per level?
Why must we continue to roll to pickpocket?
Where is are +5 Badass bonus to all rolls?
Why are daggers remaining 1d4 damage, when we all know they should deal 8d12?
Shouldn't leather armor offer a +16 bonus to AC? Have you ever hit someone wearing leather armor?
Also where is the Rogue's famed spell resistance?
and our +15 bonus to diplmocay, bluff, and sense motive when dealing with members of the opposite sex?
and lastly, how come we don't have a special ability called B*!@%in' Facial Hair?
In some cases, I feel like changes were needed, but because the changes are coming a bit at a time, they feel like they are more complicated than they need to be, since it isn't Overall Fix A being applied, but minor fix B, slight fix C, and minor sub fix B1. Hopefully after the "good idea" phase is over, some of these clunky "lets try this" fixes will get smoothed out.
That's why I get a bit nervous when I hear "reassuring" comments like: "Don't worry -- the final edition could be completely different from what we're playtesting now!" To me, that sounds like minor changes D1 through Z99 could get added at any moment without warning...
I'm still hopeful, though. :-)
Evolve or Die. Few businesses survive without improvement. I challenge you to find businesses that stay afloat and do not evolve. (Just ignore Legos. Those guys got it right the first time.) The flip side is that when trying to improve, many businesses screw up and fail. Both WotC and Paizo decided to leave 3.5 behind. Actually several others did also (Conan, Trued20, AE). You can say they were all wrong. I think they all had the right idea. I just think Paizo is doing it better.
The funny thing is, I've heard the exact same arguments when 4th edition was announced. Evolving doesn't necessarily mean changing the rule set, it can include all kinds of different aspects. People said that a company couldn't be successful with focusing on adventures and not core books. Were they right because Paizo is now starting to focus on core books, thus proving that you have to focus on core books to be successful in the long run?
|
I will say that in some cases, some of the ideas that people are thrilled with or that they think need to be upgraded are often viewed from the player filter, not the GM point of view or the long view.
That's been my view for years, through several editions of the game...
I think all players should try their hand at DMing, even if only for a short while. It really focusses the mind on what rules are good and bad for the game as a whole.
Players who only ever play on the outside of the screen have a tendency to view every build option in terms of how OMG!AW3ZOM3! it makes their PC, rather than see the logical consequences on the campaign setting. Hence all the game-cracking proposals, which have to be vetted by irritated DMs.
Lich-Loved had his "Snowflake Fallacy", which helps shoot some of these down. In essence, 'You are not unique. Everything you can think of, has already been thought of by all the NPCs in the world. The fact that the world has not cracked asunder, means this combo obviously does not work as effortlessly as you think it does. Go back to the drawing board, and think again.'
Any rules or options the players use, are fair game for the DM, even if that means redesigning the NPCs in a published encounter, to take advantage of the new goodies on the table.
The PCs are not special; NPCs are not somehow forced to make sub-par choices, so as to be nice to the PCs.
PCs and NPCs do not have status bars above their heads, to let each other know one side should get preferential treatment.
Hence, "Snorter's Stand-in Law";
"An NPC is simply a PC, whose player couldn't make it to the game tonight. As such, he has asked me to stand in for him, and use the same tools the other players are using, to play him to his full, lethal, optimised potential. Now; what was that new splatbook/feat/spell/ruling you were wanting to use?...what's that, never mind?....OK, no problem."
|
|
Hence, "Snorter's Stand-in Law";
"An NPC is simply a PC, whose player couldn't make it to the game tonight. As such, he has asked me to stand in for him, and use the same tools the other players are using, to play him to his full, lethal, optimised potential. Now; what was that new splatbook/feat/spell/ruling you were wanting to use?...what's that, never mind?....OK, no problem."
Lol, nice.. hope you don't mind if some of us DMs copy this 'note' for use at our game tables! :D
|
|
Yeah; I realized you were talking about the Design Team, which is why I said you outnumber us about 6000 to one. If I were to compare just Jason to the playtesters... they'd outnumber him like 35,000 to one.
Since 6 misses going into 35 but just a hair, I'll assume someone on the design team is missing a body part.
Would that be Erik's eyeball?
|
|
Lol, nice.. hope you don't mind if some of us DMs copy this 'note' for use at our game tables! :DHence, "Snorter's Stand-in Law";
"An NPC is simply a PC, whose player couldn't make it to the game tonight. As such, he has asked me to stand in for him, and use the same tools the other players are using, to play him to his full, lethal, optimised potential. Now; what was that new splatbook/feat/spell/ruling you were wanting to use?...what's that, never mind?....OK, no problem."
lol good one
we use something less traumatic for them,but as effective "guys remember just 1 thing... anything you get or can do... an NPC can get and do, so you decide if it goes or not"it has definitively keeping us (me myself as player) from adopting certian rules, or sometimes they disregard it and take it... it hurts when in the other side of the situation :P
that is why i almost don't use splatterbooks
Players who only ever play on the outside of the screen have a tendency to view every build option in terms of how OMG!AW3ZOM3! it makes their PC, rather than see the logical consequences on the campaign setting. Hence all the game-cracking proposals, which have to be vetted by irritated DMs.
I mostly DM. I always practically optimize, and nearly always optimize for combat efficiency (because in almost every case of creating a character that, for whatever reasons, was anything less than extremely competent at making things stop living, I had ample reasons to regret this afterwards - and I usually play PbPs, where combat is relatively rare). "Logical consequences for the campaign setting" do not interest me one tiniest bit. Well, if they are used as a stand-in for "your character should suck and be unimportant", at least. I'm perfectly willing to warn my DM which stuff is good, very good and disgustingly broken (and to abstain from using things from the latter category), if I trust him not to keep my character down.
Lich-Loved had his "Snowflake Fallacy", which helps shoot some of these down. In essence, 'You are not unique. Everything you can think of, has already been thought of by all the NPCs in the world. The fact that the world has not cracked asunder, means this combo obviously does not work as effortlessly as you think it does. Go back to the drawing board, and think again.'
No. First, PCs are unique by virtue of being sentient beings and not mass-produced robots. Lich-Loved seems to think that inventions are impossible, and that is, you know, observably false. Second, the fact that world has not cracked asunder simply means that the world's developers failed to figure out this combo or weren't giving a s~%! about the world's consistency with the rules. Third, this statement boils down to "this doesn't work because I say so", which is as weak DMing tactic as it always was. In summary, Lich-Loved is the one who thinks fallaciously on every possible level of logic, except the logic of a lazy DM.
Any rules or options the players use, are fair game for the DM, even if that means redesigning the NPCs in a published encounter, to take advantage of the new goodies on the table.
The PCs are not special; NPCs are not somehow forced to make sub-par choices, so as to be nice to the PCs.
First, PCs are special. It is written right in the rules of DnD. Second, if you think so, do not complain that PCs are using things that actually kick ass.
"An NPC is simply a PC, whose player couldn't make it to the game tonight. As such, he has asked me to stand in for him, and use the same tools the other players are using, to play him to his full, lethal, optimised potential. Now; what was that new splatbook/feat/spell/ruling you were wanting to use?...what's that, never mind?....OK, no problem."
Say, do you give players stat blocks of all their opponents to examine before the session? Otherwise, your premise is blatantly false.
|
|
that is why i almost don't use splatterbooks
Ja, no crap! I know what you mean. Our current DM, an Evil DM, literally never has a Wizard NPC or encounter, in any way. He loves the Sorcerer. The last 3 fights that involved Sorcerers were basically the same: Arcane Fusion, Arcane Spellsurge, metamagic Fireball (or some other blaster spell); next turn, Greater Arcane Fusion, blast, kill, metamagic stuff; next turn, GAF, kill, blast, metamagic junk; you get the point..
Needless to say, I now hate Arcane Fusion and Arcane Spellsurge
|
|
that is why i almost don't use splatterbooksJa, no crap! I know what you mean. Our current DM, an Evil DM, literally never has a Wizard NPC or encounter, in any way. He loves the Sorcerer. The last 3 fights that involved Sorcerers were basically the same: Arcane Fusion, Arcane Spellsurge, metamagic Fireball (or some other blaster spell); next turn, Greater Arcane Fusion, blast, kill, metamagic stuff; next turn, GAF, kill, blast, metamagic junk; you get the point..
Needless to say, I now hate Arcane Fusion and Arcane Spellsurge
also is quite boring after the 2nd time :S
what your party need is someone who makes a sorcerer... that is in charge of dispelling everything your DM sends to them :Pone of the players some years ago did that everytime i used a cleric... he showed me variety
also yeah... such convinations sounds like he just plays to kill the PCs... i hate such DMs
|
|
that is why i almost don't use splatterbooksJa, no crap! I know what you mean. Our current DM, an Evil DM, literally never has a Wizard NPC or encounter, in any way. He loves the Sorcerer. The last 3 fights that involved Sorcerers were basically the same: Arcane Fusion, Arcane Spellsurge, metamagic Fireball (or some other blaster spell); next turn, Greater Arcane Fusion, blast, kill, metamagic stuff; next turn, GAF, kill, blast, metamagic junk; you get the point..
Needless to say, I now hate Arcane Fusion and Arcane Spellsurge
also is quite boring after the 2nd time :S
what your party need is someone who makes a sorcerer... that is in charge of dispelling everything your DM sends to them :Pone of the players some years ago did that everytime i used a cleric... he showed me variety
also yeah... such convinations sounds like he just plays to kill the PCs... i hate such DMs
His personal motto is: "It's the DM's job to kill the PC's."
That's a direct quote, by the way.
that is why i almost don't use splatterbooksJa, no crap! I know what you mean. Our current DM, an Evil DM, literally never has a Wizard NPC or encounter, in any way. He loves the Sorcerer. The last 3 fights that involved Sorcerers were basically the same: Arcane Fusion, Arcane Spellsurge, metamagic Fireball (or some other blaster spell); next turn, Greater Arcane Fusion, blast, kill, metamagic stuff; next turn, GAF, kill, blast, metamagic junk; you get the point..
Needless to say, I now hate Arcane Fusion and Arcane Spellsurge
I don't know about those optimizations, but as a DM I often prefer sorcerers over wizards, just because all you have to pick the spells they know and then you just keep firing them off without having worry about how many of each did you prepare.
|
|
His personal motto is: "It's the DM's job to kill the PC's."
That's a direct quote, by the way.
i thought something about those lines :)
i hate evil DM... specially because most are munkings or whiners as players :P not a rule, don't know if he islike that... but i have seen suchI don't know about those optimizations, but as a DM I often prefer sorcerers over wizards, just because all you have to pick the spells they know and then you just keep firing them off without having worry about how many of each did you prepare.
can't blame you on that
sometimes expediency is what is needed
Get yourself a wand and you have yourself a sorcerer ;P
(teasing! disregard this post ;P)
Get yourself a wand and you have yourself a sorcerer ;P
(teasing! disregard this post ;P)
Hey if you only need one spell why not just go with a rogue or bard and use Use Magic Device in that case?
Besides I thought getting yourself a wand would just make you a 4e wizard, or PfRPG wizard (with respect to Orisons).
|
It's true. You'll note that very few companies do huge Beta playtests like this. Had we known the mayhem that it would have caused, we might not have done it; we certainly didn't expect 35,000+ playtesters, for example (I was anticipating a number along the lines of 5,000 at the highest myself). And to be totally mercenary, if half of the 35,000 playtesters are disgruntled with the way it's working out, that still leaves us with a LOT more customers than I thought we'd get.
Of course, I hope that the number of customers we retain from the Playtest is as close to 100% as possible... but I know that's not gonna be the case.
Well, I think you're doing a bang up job running this show, Jacobs. I wonder where you get the energy (ginko biloba + cafeine + ginseng + maple syrup?)
Please tell us!!! :)
(just watched Wall-E... I think this movie is one of the greatest in this century so far, bar none)
It's true. You'll note that very few companies do huge Beta playtests like this. Had we known the mayhem that it would have caused, we might not have done it; we certainly didn't expect 35,000+ playtesters, for example (I was anticipating a number along the lines of 5,000 at the highest myself). And to be totally mercenary, if half of the 35,000 playtesters are disgruntled with the way it's working out, that still leaves us with a LOT more customers than I thought we'd get.
Of course, I hope that the number of customers we retain from the Playtest is as close to 100% as possible... but I know that's not gonna be the case.
Well, I think you're doing a bang up job running this show, Jacobs. I wonder where you get the energy (ginko biloba + cafeine + ginseng + maple syrup?)
Please tell us!!! :)
Well, I certainly wouldn't criticize the job they're doing. I was only stating my feelings about the direction Pathfinder is going and that I'm not likely to follow through with it in the long run. I prefer less conversion effort on the backward compatibility front. Little things, like adapting to the handful of combined skills, adding one to three feats to old characters (depending on how many levels they have), or using a new mechanic for old features is easy enough... but things like redoing skills for old NPCs and monsters, figuring out conversions for cleric domains that aren't presented in the Pathfinder domain, or recalculating challenge ratings because player characters are more powerful than before and older monsters now give too much XP based on a challenge rating that is too high for the reduced challenge they now present and other stuff like that is too much effort to be considered "easy." Its doable, but time consuming.
I'd much rather be able to just drop old characters into the new rules or new characters into the old rules with little difference in how they play. But from the month and a half playtesting my group has done, the new stuff is overpowered and inappropriate to casually mix and match like that... and considering the thousands of dollars of old books I own, I don't want to spend the time converting the stuff I use in my game (even bit by bit as I need it --especially not that way), and I definitely don't want to just stop using that stuff in favor of the newer, but more limited (for now?) one sourcebook.
Good job doing something and obviously making lots of people happy. Sorry I'm not one of them is all.
|
|
Get yourself a wand and you have yourself a sorcerer ;P
(teasing! disregard this post ;P)
Hey if you only need one spell why not just go with a rogue or bard and use Use Magic Device in that case?
Besides I thought getting yourself a wand would just make you a 4e wizard, or PfRPG wizard (with respect to Orisons).
actually 3.5 wizards always carried one or 3 wands of their favorite damge dealing spell :P
so no, it comes with the system and DnD :S
which is sad :S
I'd much rather be able to just drop old characters into the new rules or new characters into the old rules with little difference in how they play. But from the month and a half playtesting my group has done,...
most unfortunate indeed, but if you and our players are happy with what you already have... well nothing to be done about that, except wish you happy games and lucky dices (and lots of criticals for the players)
There are two problems like this. For one, there's a huge amount of "noise" to a small amount of "signal" -- since they scream bloody murder about EVERYTHING, it's hard to tell from their feedback what really needs to be changed, and what they're complaining about simply because it exists.
This is exactly why I've been trying to get some logical, step by step discussions about what is wrong with Pathfinder at the moment. Rather than just complain and storm off to another system, I try to analyze exactly what phrasing makes the current rules unclear and what aspects of the system are missing as far as fun or accuracy are concerned. I know the Combat playtest boards aren't there yet, but as far as im concerned, discussion can never start too early. Over the past few days I've been thinking out loud in the thread "Is grappling mutual?" along with The Wraith, Robert Brambley, and Adam Olsen (OP) and I think we've made some real progress in discovering just what is confusing and dissatisfying about the current grapple rules. We have found that it is better than we thought, just hidden behind confusing writing, and can be modified to be more realistic without changing the current system too much.
I know this is the opposite of the original post topic, but I hope some people will join me in my position of analyzing what we don't like before abandoning ship. Grapple is just my current project. I plan to move to different aspects of the game I don't like as the previous is resolved. It's not often that we get the opportunity to participate in a BETA for a new rule set, so I think we should take advantage of this opportunity to get rules we do like.
I've done all the analysis I need to know I don't want to continue... especially when the issues I bring up are countered with essentially "the new way is better," such as with how skills are dealt with now. If skills were handled this way all along, sure, it might be better... but changing from the old skill ranks of 3.5e means that I have to do math everytime I use an older NPC or monster within the new rules. That's not simplifying skills for me, its making me do more math and I'm not satisfied with it or the reasoning.
I'm not a new Pathfinder player, I'm an old D&D player. Sorry, but its making more work for me --the DM-- in the long run and I'm not interested in that.
|
|
I'm forced to agree with many of FatR's points that mean Pathfinder won't be played as-is at my table if I can convince the players to go along with substantial alterations...
this is my biggest problem i dont like alot of PF but some i do but trying to mesh 3.5 and PF using what i like and adding the others as house rules have my players up in arms, i guess it doesnt help i play with strangers online, i guess i played with friends i may have more luck but i dont have that option and so i am forced to use all or nothing of PF or 3.5, its a shame as meshing the 2 makes for such a good system....
I know this is the opposite of the original post topic, but I hope some people will join me in my position of analyzing what we don't like before abandoning ship. Grapple is just my current project. I plan to move to different aspects of the game I don't like as the previous is resolved. It's not often that we get the opportunity to participate in a BETA for a new rule set, so I think we should take advantage of this opportunity to get rules we do like.
Sadly, this is not the approach that was taken. And thus has turned some of us off. If the approach had been, "why is grapplying confusing/hard?" And then as you point out it is more an issue of how it is describe than the mechanics more people would have supported fixing the text with leaving the mechanics fundamentally unchanged. Instead of this rational approach we get, "Grapplying is hard, so we are going to toss it out and start over from scratch." Sorry, I don't find grapplying that hard or confusing (outside of a very few extreme and rare cases) so dumping it for something new is not my cup of tea. I don't fix a machine by tossing it out and purchasing a new different model one.
|
|
This is true.
Pathfinder has many more changes than I want. At some point they should keep what is working and revert everything else.
The power of all classes has been raised where it should have been just a few. I say this as a playtester (who will continue to playtest): we've crossed the line between bug fixes and feature creep.
I still cling to the hope that the last phase of Beta development will axe a lot of new material. Unless they pare it back some before the final release, I will be unable to convince my players that Pathfinder is "better" than 3.5, and it will just become another book of rules to augment a 3.5 game.
My list for the creme of the crop:
More HP
New skill system (but not the new skill list entirely)
The fighter, barbarian, paladin and rogue fixes
The feats
Polymorphs
Sorcerer bloodlines I can go either way on CMB.
Wizards and Clerics have been woefully mishandled, IMO. I agree with the spirit of the changes, but the Beta solution is worse than the problem. The wizard especially has become even more of a management chore with more obscure rules that come in the form...
i agree with you on these points, i myself am looking at using Monte Cook’s Arcana Evolved, which DOES solve alot of the 3.5 problems nicely, i hoped with the bring on of Monte that he would throw some of this great work into PF but so far i have not seen anything that would say he had any input on PF.
This is true...
You are trying to steal my thunder!This is true...
Steal your thunder... back!
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
First, PCs are unique by virtue of being sentient beings and not mass-produced robots. Lich-Loved seems to think that inventions are impossible, and that is, you know, observably false.
In some campaigns, NPCs aren't mass-produced robots, either. (Your party may be composed of several exceptional people, as compared to the ranks of turnip-farmers and wheel-wrights. But the opponents you face, the patrons you report to, and the entire rank-and-file of the Harpers might be just as exceptional as you.)
Inventions may not be impossible, but important inventions usually take either some genius or a lot of trial-and-error. Oftentimes both.
Lich-loved proposed his theory in light of some odd people who were suggesting ways to combine this spell with that outer plane and this other monster, all of which they insisted were commonplace and easy to access, and generating ricidulous wealth or power from them.
Lich-loved suggested that, if the combo were indeed commonplace and easily-accessible, and if it worked, some clevel NPC would have likely already been doing just that.
The claim that innovation never happens is a simplification, I agree. But innovation comes from either new resources and materials ("ghost rock" in Deadlands) or more inspired ideas than "let's ask genies for huge amounts of gold."
All of this is campaign-dependent. Your NPCs may be "mass-produced robots" who never see obvious, effortless routes to wealth or power.
Brought into the context of this topic, the question is whether giving characters --PC's and NPC's alike-- a quantity of new increases in power unbalances the campaign in favor of the PC's, because players will use them, and stock NPC opponents might not.
And for many DM's, Lich-loved's Law holds: If your character starts causing obscene amounts of damage with this class feature and that feat under the effects of this other spell, then it's fair game in their campaigns for NPC's to be using the same combination.
And for many DM's, Lich-loved's Law holds: If your character starts causing obscene amounts of damage with this class feature and that feat under the effects of this other spell, then it's fair game in their campaigns for NPC's [..]
That's not what Lich-Loved said, though (IIRC). He said that if some combo had the potential to break the game, then it would have been done already; since it hadn't been done, then that combo must not work. Therefore no game-breaking combo needs to be patched in the rules because they already don't work.
Kind of reminds me of a meeting of the Flat Earth Society... :-)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
That's not what Lich-Loved said, though (IIRC). He said that if some combo had the potential to break the game, then it would have been done already; since it hadn't been done, then that combo must not work. Therefore no game-breaking combo needs to be patched in the rules because they already don't work.
You're right, hogarth. I was only quoting the first part: if it had the potential to break the game, then it would have been done already.
But I think that's the important part. The rest of Lich-Loved's Law is just modus tollens:
If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore, not A.
The rest, the justification for why not A, Lich-Loved leaves as an exercise for the reader.
It would be an interesting gedanken-campaign to have a cabal of NPCs who really had, already, found and exploited one of the terrible infinite wealth / massive power engines. One of the things the cabal would probably do is send agents throughout the lands, killing any adventurers of, oh, 6th level or above, to keep their stranglehold on the engine.
|
|
While I'm still getting PF I'm not expecting Paizo to go to much out of their way to support the 3.5 rules. They have their own PF ruleset that they want to promote. Why would they go out of their way to promote 3.5. Same thing with it being backwards compatiable. They don't have to make it easy to convert between 3.5 and PF. They just have to allow you to be able to convert rules between the two.
I'm expecting that after the releaee of the PF Bestiary and the Alpha version of PF core book that you will see less and less 3.5. references in their books and more PF references. After all no need to reference the MM in newer PF products you have the PF Bestiary. No need to reference the 3.5. PHB and DMG because the PF core book is a combination of the two.
They have to put their product and brand identity first. 3.5 second. Same thing with the fanbase imo. Focusing more on those who play PF and less who use the 3.5. rules. The main reason reason I want to get PF as that will I like 4E I don't want to pick the 3.5 books again. I sold off all my collection of 3.5 books as I was made an offer for them that I would have been stupid to refuse. I also fo the most part like what Paizo has done to the 3.5 rules.
|
|
Keep us informed of sites that will continue to support 3.x vanilla.
A number of publishers are still producing 3.5 compatible material - the best place to look for such stuff is DriveThruRpg.com.
Louis Porter Jr Design (www.lpjdesign.com) seem to be doing 3.5 fantasy material and what looks to be a nice range of adventures in the form of Sidetrek Adventure Weekly, and some stuff is available in hardcopy via Lulu.com (e.g. The Undead Chronicles).
0One Games (http://0onegames.com/catalog/) also seem to be producing a series of "The Great City" supplements and adventures that compliment their map based Blueprint products. They also offer hardcopy as well it seems.
This is of course not to mention that the WOTC official D&D3.5 PDFs will likely remain available indefinitely. So unless you already own every D&D3.5 book you could continue to gain support by buying the back catalogue of stuff every so often.
Also Green Ronin (http://greenronin.com/) are keeping their d20 product available using the 3rd Era brand - just released is the 3rd Era Freeport Companion (basically a rebranding of their d20 Freeport Companion).
Another good site to look for new releases is Your Games Now.
|
|
Keep us informed of sites that will continue to support 3.x vanilla.A number of publishers are still producing 3.5 compatible material - the best place to look for such stuff is DriveThruRpg.com.
I get the impression that a bunch of them are waiting to see how PFRPG does (and also for the license to be released; although it's OGL, Vic's said that they are discouraging people from releasing material for it until the SRD-style document is finalised with the eventual ruleset).
I fear that the original 3.5 stuff will die on the vine either way, though, as the 3.5 ruleset is longer and longer out of print (because although people like d20srd.org and so on, they also like bound books and pretty artwork, not to mention the recent spike in 3.5 PHBs making getting into the game less trivial than before). If PFRPG does well, then that's the direction 3.5 goes forward (and also True20, etc), I believe, unless someone steps up and produces a vanilla 3.5 ruleset in hardcopy (adding only character generation and so on) and it doesn't go out of print (even then, the splatbooks won't be reprinted).
From the other side, I think that 3PP stuff will be important for PFRPG. If someone produces a killer setting -- my dream would be a PFRPG version of, say, Iron Kingdoms, but that's not likely to happen -- then it'll drag 3.5 players into PFRPG.