|
I think Mongoose made a phb out of the SRD.Yes, the 3.0 Player's Guide. Nice format-size, like the Arcane and Divine spell books. Too bad it is out of date; doesn't have the GM stuff; and doesn't have the basics of monsterdom. :)
I imagine if anyone believes there to be a market for another one, they'll print it (no reason not to, after all, other than commercial concerns).
|
|
And when it come right down to it, I like to game, and if I have to, and its the only way I can get new players, I may have to convert over to running 4E, because I'd rather continue to participate in the hobby using a ruleset I'm not thrilled with than abandoned hobby that I love to make a point.
And here is where you're in much more of a jam than most of us. The game is something that is taught; the DM's game is his to run and own and master. Play and run whatever game you wish (assuming you are the DM), tell the players what rolls they need and adjudicate accordingly. IMHO, the GM win players over with compelling story, roleplay, drama, action, combat, whatever. They'll eat and enjoy whatever you cook, as long as it is tasty! Unfortunately, 4e is geared much to the LCD you spoke of earlier, and fails to be as robust as 3e. Good luck to you, whatever you choose, but the 10 players I game with regularly in two different groups just say no to 4e.
And here is where you're in much more of a jam than most of us. The game is something that is taught; the DM's game is his to run and own and master. Play and run whatever game you wish (assuming you are the DM), tell the players what rolls they need and adjudicate accordingly. IMHO, the GM win players over with compelling story, roleplay, drama, action, combat, whatever. They'll eat and enjoy whatever you cook, as long as it is tasty! Unfortunately, 4e is geared much to the LCD you spoke of earlier, and fails to be as robust as 3e. Good luck to you, whatever you choose, but the 10 players I game with regularly in two different groups just say no to 4e.
Without turning this into any kind of pro or con argument, my preference is for 3.5, and if I can still garner players who are interested in playing using PFRPG rules, that would be great, but at the same time, if I start to have a hard time fielding a table of at least four, then I know what my option is, and I'm going to have a hard time justifying keeping up with two game systems (as it stands, I only own the PH for 4E because I play in a game, and I'm not planning on picking up any books I don't absolutely need).
|
I respect your opinion, and understand some of your concerns. In my opinion, Pathfinder has deviated from the core concept of "fixing 3.5 problems" (grapple, I'm looking at you!), and the "add but not subtract" ideal.
Some of this is unavoidable; to "fix" some problems, changes had to be made. I happen to like most of the changes, including opening up both Critical and Sneak Attack to more. I once had a player abandon his Rogue character since he percieved that the campaign had an abundance of undead and constructs as encounters. Adding Fortification as an ability to some monsters might help smooth that away, as would better defining what can be Criticaled/Sneak Attacked.
I agree that Domains lost backwards compatibility a long time ago. But changing School Powers and adding Bloodlines insured that a balance point would need to be made with Domains. Just adding the Domain abilities at 1st and 8th would have sufficed, I think, with guidelines on how to create them for non-SRD Domains. And maybe changing the bonus spells to "once/day" for more balance.
Some of the changes I like (alternate Barbarian Rage abilities - no points to count!), some I don't (over-complicating Perception), and some haven't impacted my game yet (Magic Item creation).
Overall though, I have faith that Paizo will produce a great product. I'm just not sure how 3.5 SRD compatible it will be.
|
Honestly, my least concern is backwards compatibility. If I can take an adventure made for Basic D&D and flip it on the fly for 3.5, how difficult can it be to make changes from Pathfinder to 3.5? Heck you can run adventures writen for Shadowrun, GURPS or Vampire even.
If the adventure calls for a Fighter, just use the current system Fighter. If the adventure calls for the Fighter to use a power he no longer has, use a power he has now.
As a GM, you don't really need a statted out character to run the game. The PCs are fighting three 4th level fighters. I know they get about +4-7 to hit, so if it is close they hit, if not they miss. I know they should have an AC about 20ish, or just enough to be a challenge to the PCs; if they can all hot a 20 with no problem then these guys all have 25. The fighters have enough HP to last 2-5 rounds depending upon how important they are to the game. They use enough special feats and abilities to be interesting.
If a staff called for in the game is overpowered, and I realize it later, then its charges run out, it is Sundered and destroyed, it is stolen or must be sacrificed in order to accomplish some other goal. The GM giveth, the GM taketh away.
My biggest concern is everyone is trying to make mid-level play so much cooler, that high-level play will be even more broken. In fact I am afraid that some of the causes of broken play will shift to even lower levels, resulting in a game playable only 1st to 10th levels.
All this is a mountain out of a molehill. I just got back from our ongoing Pathfinder Beta campaign, where play is proceeding 90% like any 3e game. We're even using an adventure path written purely for 3.5e (CoCT), and our DM is not one to bother with spending lots of his time on careful stat conversions, but problems are few and far between.
Maybe it's because I've played 1e and 2e, but it's hard for me to say "dear Lord the 3.5e SRD is the perfect ubergame and must never be changed in any respect!" To anyone not fascinated by minutiae, the differences between PathfinderRPG in play and 3.5e in play are less than about anything else you could think of.
Seriously, the game is not so fragile that minor tweaks to generalist vs specialist or pally vs ranger or whatnot make all that much of a difference - again, to real play, not the highly theoretical meanderings that people seem to substitute for play on these boards.
You are missing my point. I'm not saying that 3.5 is perfect, nor am I saying that changes are bad. I'm saying that part of the draw of Pathfinder RPG was that it would be backwards compatible.
I agree that I've been running Rise of the Runelords with little problem (but not with no problems), but I have run into a few more issues (not game breaking ones, but more definite ones) in my higher level Savage Tide campaign.
The problem is when I have a player that was sold on playing the game because it was backwards compatible, but I have to tell them that their favorite feat/spell/PrC isn't available in the campaign because of rule X, Y or Z in Pathfinder that invalidates it, or I have to come up with a "fix" to get said feat/spell/PrC to work, and said player doesn't like my unofficial compromise.
As KEJr has said.
Why should I need to adjust on the fly is PF is BC?
Why were the changes made?
Why would I use PF to run games of on the fly conversions when I can use 3.x?
Why?
Ernest Mueller,
Try not to be condescending in your greatness, sir.
It makes us lowlies disheartened.
I can't understand the fuss. I just ran 2 different adventures this past week using 3.5e adventures with PFRPG rules. The ONLY thing I had to look at was CMB, which is close to how I ran it anyway before PF. If you want combat moves to go more akin to 3.5e, then make them opposed CMB rolls.
As for BC, there were going to be differences to begin with. The only glaring change I absolutely HATE is the Fly skill. I just ignore it & go about my business.
The only classes that seem to be totally incompatible are those that were created before the powercreep got in to heavy in WotC's own products. An example would be the Psionics classes. I have never been that big a fan of them anyway, so I wont miss them. I always converted the Psi stuff in my old Eberron campaign to magic anyway. Was considering making a Dream Bloodline for the sorcerer as a replacement, but my players aren't big into playing Eberron anymore.
I guess the main reason I have few, if any concerns, is that I always ran my games with quite a few house rules anyway. What I dont like, I will just house rule.
I guess the main reason I have few, if any concerns, is that I always ran my games with quite a few house rules anyway. What I dont like, I will just house rule.
But, that isn't the same as a solid rules-set, let alone the touted claims of BC.
For every person who simply house-rules something in PF, there are those who seem to understand that this simply isn't what was promised.
Whatever, ...I give up.
For the exact same reason I some times need to adjust on the fly 3.0 or earlier editions to 3.5. Backwards compatible does not mean exact same.
In fact being able to adjust on the fly is proof that it is backwards compatible.
lol. Hardly.
I CAN run Vault of the Drow using the Character Rules for CAR WARS published in the old Autoduel mag, but that doesn't in any way mean that they are compatible.
|
For the exact same reason I some times need to adjust on the fly 3.0 or earlier editions to 3.5. Backwards compatible does not mean exact same.
In fact being able to adjust on the fly is proof that it is backwards compatible.lol. Hardly.
Ironic you tell someone else off for being condescending then laugh at someone else's opinion.
If pathfinder weren't backwards compatible you wouldn't be able to adjust on the fly.
|
|
The problem is when I have a player that was sold on playing the game because it was backwards compatible, but I have to tell them that their favorite feat/spell/PrC isn't available in the campaign because of rule X, Y or Z in Pathfinder that invalidates it, or I have to come up with a "fix" to get said feat/spell/PrC to work, and said player doesn't like my unofficial compromise.
Sounds more to me a DM/player/campaign problem than a rule compatibility issue. I've seen arguments between DMs playing in the same game over the same "official" 3.x cover rules. BOTH apparently thought WotC was wrong in the errata.
Ironic you tell someone else off for being condescending then laugh at someone else's opinion.
If pathfinder weren't backwards compatible you wouldn't be able to adjust on the fly.
If my lol offended you, I most sincerely apologise. Where I come from, we've thicker skins, and apparently, harder hearts.
I read somewhere here in this thread that Basic D&D and AD&D are convert on the fly BC, too. Which should I gauge my ability to convert based upon?
Again, why ought I need to?
Some really great thoughts here - well done on keeping it civil too. I have to say, though, I'd be interested in hearing the argument from the other side of the fence. I mean, there would probably be a lot of pi$$ed off people if the final hard back comes out and it's basically 3.5 with the improved channeling and CMB rules. Paizo'd have to explain themselves to that half of the fan base then. I can kinda see it, (joke)
"Well, there was a lot of cracked out stuff going on during the playtest. We just never thought that people would like it all as much as they did. It was better to stick with what we know works." (/joke)
I, for one, think that the Beta stage is *too* late to be cooking up new feats and giving things as large an overhaul as somethings are getting. One of my first thoughts at the playtest schedule was that there wasn't enough time.
Why were the changes made?
I think if there was a little more discussion on this point, people feeling like me and a lot of the posters on this thread who agree with KEjr, would be a bit calmer and happier. Perhaps. The way some of the changes are announced (or discovered by the diligent readers, missed by most!), give the impression that some of these changes are cooked up "stuck in traffic" as one poster above put it.
I know a bit more detail on why things were changed would certainly help me understand *how* I'm supposed to playtest it. What angle am I supposed to approach this rule from? Also, it would influence feed back and help make sure that the comments were more helpful.
I know that it was said there's not enough time to provide a "why we made this change" commentary for every change. But to me, that says that too many changes are being made! For marketing reasons, I know, the PRPG has to be out by GenCon, but I think that scope of the change has (almost accidentally) become too great to meet that deadline.
I'd like to finish though, by saying that I 100% support Paizo and they will continue to get my money. They're a great company made up of great people. But the purchase of the final release Pathfinder RPG hardback has been slipping further down my list, as the changes have got crazier and less necessary. I'm probably going to spend that money on their other books though.
Peace,
tfad
I hope that I have not given the wrong impression, but I'm getting the feeling that I haven't been clear enough, and if that is the case, I would really like to apologize.
It is not my intention to say that PFRPG has already gone too far, and I'm not using it from this point on, nor am I complaining for the sake of complaining. I'm hoping to issue my opinion, of which I know I will only be one, in the hopes of showing anyone that might read this where I'm coming from.
In fact, I think in a few places I've pointed out that if the Beta stopped in its current form, I could live with it. What I'm concerned about is that even spells that just appear "as is" in the Beta are still being mentioned as potentially being changed yet.
In other words, my impression was that we were playtesting the Beta, i.e. the changes that Paizo was looking at making to the 3.5 ruleset. If more things can possibly change that have not yet been changed, what this effectively means is that we aren't playtesting the Beta, we are replaytesting 3.5 and still creating the Beta.
Because we still have rules changing at this stage of the game, and we really don't know what is "set in stone," it makes me a little nervous about what the final rules will look like, and if some fairly drastic changes might make it into the rules at the last minute that no one has much of a chance to troubleshoot or even issue their opinion on.
Or, to sum up, when the Beta came out, my though was that if it made it into print without change, it wasn't really being looked at much as potentially changing. This is apparently not the case. I was still expecting, for example, there might be more to magic item creation or PrCs because they were fully detailed in the Beta, and thus were still in a state of flux, but I had assumed that if a feat or spell, for example, was the same in 3.5 it was in the Beta, that meant that it probably wasn't going to get much of a change.
Please don't get me wrong. I already posted that I did really like some of the changes, and that for the most part my playtests have been going fine. I greatly respect the guys at Paizo and think they are doing a fine job, but I'm trying to speak to trends that I'm seeing and that I am concerned about. That and the fact that despite what was said at the beginning of the playtest about playtests being more important than theory, the theory threads still seem to get more official responses than the playtest threads do.
I am in agreement with the idea that the rules are experiencing a far more extensive overhaul than previously expected. However, I am the kind of gm who houserules my little heart out. I have clarified and altered a number of rules and I have had to put them in a packet for my pcs to have at their disposal.
I'd really hate for the first official notice anyone at Paizo to take of the thread to be some kind of action to cool down any discussion. Let's all take a minute to calm down and try to not get into too many heated exchanges.
Because we still have rules changing at this stage of the game, and we really don't know what is "set in stone," it makes me a little nervous about what the final rules will look like, and if some fairly drastic changes might make it into the rules at the last minute that no one has much of a chance to troubleshoot or even issue their opinion on.
I agree. I got the idea that the Alpha rules deliberately had some stuff that was supposed to be "pushing the limit" in terms of the magnitude of changes and that the Beta would be more conservative. Some of the big Alpha changes I liked (sorcerers who get actual class features!) and some I didn't (extra spells for generalist wizards...), but I told myself that some of these things would be rolled back for the Beta.
But when the Beta came out, almost nothing had been reversed and instead more changes had been added. I'm not saying that all changes are bad; some of them I love! But I was a bit disappointed that there were so many ambitious new ideas introduced, and so few clarifications of existing ambiguous wording (e.g. stuff from the FAQ).
Now I'm hearing again that the final rules could be quite different, and I suspect "different" means "more new rules will be added to move Pathfinder away from 3.5" rather than "some new rules will be reverted to move Pathfinder closer to 3.5".
|
|
Now I'm hearing again that the final rules could be quite different, and I suspect "different" means "more new rules will be added to move Pathfinder away from 3.5" rather than "some new rules will be reverted to move Pathfinder closer to 3.5".
I can see the point of that concern, which I share to some extent myself. However, I suspect that what is in the final version will mostly have been trailed beforehand through Jason's suggested changes and, somewhat harder to follow, through intimations and musings from Jason and James and others, in forum threads.
I also hope, as I've posted before, that there'll be an 'Unearthed Arcana' of optional rules produced for Pathfinder.
The current state of play is, for me, pretty backwards-compatible. Whilst stat blocks in existing material might be 'wrong' under the new rules, I can still pretty much play the adventure with those stat blocks, possibly with some fudging for the fact that the PF base classes are more potent, but I'd have had to do that anyhow because in 3.5, groups made with splat material were also more potent than the canonical classes on which CR and EL were allegedly based (and, in any case, those are both broken in 3.5 themselves...).
Maybe it would help to calm concerns if Paizo released more 'beta updates' to let us know where they are currently working/thinking about changes.
The paladin, rage, companion updates were good, but what I am hearing here is concern for the 'core' rules and where they are going.
I also think if Paizo needs to extend the playtest to make the best game they can, then by all means do it.
The current state of play is, for me, pretty backwards-compatible.
I can't speak for anyone else, but this issue for me (and the groups I play in) is not so much "Is it backwards compatible?" (whatever that means) but rather "Is it worth making a bunch of changes to what we're already using?"
Personally, I like tinkering around with new stuff for 3.5. But some of the people I play with don't like change very much; if they did like change, they'd probably be playing 4th edition instead of 3.5 (or 3.0, in some cases). So I'm unlikely to be playing much Pathfinder in my play-by-email games unless I DM. Why would a DM start a Pathfinder game (that will appeal to some subset of 3.5 edition players) when he could start a 3.5 game (that will appeal to all 3.5 edition players)?
So far, I found PF-Beta to be about 99% compatible with both my 3.5 games and I go for it with no conversion work. These are both low level games (level 3 and 4) and the only characters that haves changed are the PCs, all NPCs keep going as is in their 3.5 stats.
So far, zero problem, I only have to get the CMB from the Grapple bonus (and take into account the size variant for non-medium creatures), review the channel-energy rules and reconsider some EL for one of the games (the other only has 3 players so it stands as is).
I used some stuff from Eberon, MMII, MMIV, Draconomicon and Savage Species as-is and so far so good. My Players get into Maneuvers more readily than before and they keep going longer without resting with Channel Energy Healing and more H.P. without bowling over all opposition.
I only had to accept that PCs and NPCs would be a little different crunch-wise but the fluff is really seamless so far. Will it break down at higher level? I guess I’ll see then but it doesn’t look so now.
I pretty much entirely agree with the OP's concerns.
AFAIC, if the Pathfinder rules are moving away from "keeping a version of the 3.5 rules in print while fixing the most egregious flaws" and moving closer to "justify a purchase of the Pathfinder rules to people even though they already own a lot of 3.5 stuff", well... then they're doing it wrong. (That's right, I said it!) ;)
For me, the most I'll accept is something equal to the changes between 3.0 to 3.5. Anything more than that (even remotely more), and I will no longer be purchasing any more of Paizo's Pathfinder APs and modules. [As I intend to be running the Pathfinder modules (AP and otherwise) with the 3.5 ruleset.]
|
|
The current state of play is, for me, pretty backwards-compatible.I can't speak for anyone else, but this issue for me (and the groups I play in) is not so much "Is it backwards compatible?" (whatever that means) but rather "Is it worth making a bunch of changes to what we're already using?"
Personally, I like tinkering around with new stuff for 3.5. But some of the people I play with don't like change very much; if they did like change, they'd probably be playing 4th edition instead of 3.5 (or 3.0, in some cases). So I'm unlikely to be playing much Pathfinder in my play-by-email games unless I DM. Why would a DM start a Pathfinder game (that will appeal to some subset of 3.5 edition players) when he could start a 3.5 game (that will appeal to all 3.5 edition players)?
I guess if you're offering an all/many-splats 3.5 game, then PFRPG isn't going to compete for a lot of people because many of the changes are irrelevant (people don't play core classes for long if at all, when they have splats) and then there's the rules change overhead you mention, although to be honest I don't think that the changes are actually that big a deal unless a build was predicated on combat manoeuvres, which are now harder. I think that it's going to be easier to sell a pbem Beta game than a pbem final PFRPG game unless something sweet like d20srd.org appears for the PFRPG SRD and it also includes, for example, chargen and advancement rules, because the beta pdf is free, unless the PFRPG pdf is really pretty cheap (or free, which would obviously rule but probably isn't that likely).
|
|
Eieh! Yeih! Yeih!
What a pickle.
Jason Bulmahn - I request your presence in this thread to shine some clarity on the myriad views of what is going on.
As many already know - I am and will continue to be a champion of all things PAIZO, because IMHO, PAIZO = high quality and PAIZO honors the 30+ years of tradition that I personally care about.
Unfortunately, KEJr., it did sound early on that you were indeed saying that PAIZO has gone too far with Beta+. Although you never came out and explicitly said it, the fact that you created and shared your livejournal and responded to so very many issues with the Pathfinder ruleset did indeed convey a distaste for the volume and degree of changes. Thank you for clarifying that you are a supporter of PRPG and "prefer" 3.5, but the issues you've shared are many, and perhaps you're truly unhappy at this point but wish that that weren't the case?
ALL - The big picture issues IMHO are: 1) Our community needs some more/better communication from Jason (he has been on the boards less, and we are hearing bits of changes from different, sometimes difficult to find threads. 2) PAIZO is developing a new edition of our favorite game, and it is a strong and compelling alternative to 4e, but offers a 3.75 update to the previous ruleset. We should not expect more of the same, but a development of it a) to a degree that is light enough to adjudicate on-the-fly and b) to a volume that feels like fixes and options rather than a different game altogether. On these points, from a big picture perspective, IMHO, PAIZO is still right on track (I have run 26 sessions using Alpha 1, Alpha 2, and Beta 1). The game plays the same - rough spots are smoother, and some enhancements were made.
KEJR. - Does any of this add value to the discussion, or am I still missing something (from a big picture perspective). I leave the minutae up to the professional game designers, Bulmahn and Cook.
I think Mongoose made a phb out of the SRD.Yes, the 3.0 Player's Guide. Nice format-size, like the Arcane and Divine spell books. Too bad it is out of date; doesn't have the GM stuff; and doesn't have the basics of monsterdom. :)
That would be a huge book if it had all that and nobody would believe it was "pocket-sized" LoL
Director of Games
|
Hey there everyone,
Trust me when I say that I hear your concerns. Truth be told, the turn around time between the alpha and the beta was so short we did not have time to adjust all the things we would have liked, so we let some of it roll into the beta, with the full knowledge that some of it was still farther afield than we would have liked.
The playtest has been of an immense value to us, helping to solve some of the problems we had with the Beta rules as well as pointing out some areas of concern that we did not notice before. We are not changing rules for the sake of change, but out of a mountain of feedback, personal emails, and design meetings.
Its been a rough ride and I have not had the time to communicate all the changes that are going on right now, nor will I for some time. Its either that, or make sure that we get a solid game put together by press time.
I know which one I am going to choose.
That said, I want you fine folks to know that your concerns do not fall upon deaf ears. I cannot promise that everyone will be 100% pleased with the final rules, but we are doing the best we can to make this the game everyone wants to play.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I still don't find comments like "Some unspecified Alpha/Beta rules might not end up in the final rules" very reassuring, but I appreciate the effort it takes to create a great system, especially with dozens of people ready to second-guess whatever choice you make! Thanks for all the hard work, Jason!
Hi there!
Just wanted to say that I share the fears of the thread opener...
I prefer the 3.5 rules tweaked, but as it is now, the deviations are too much - this leads me to utilize mostly the original 3.5 rules, only allowing the improved classes as options. (My group and myself don't have that much playing time, so we tend to stick to rules that feel solid to us, my apologies for not-so-much-participating in the playtest)
I don't want to heat this debate up, it's mostly all said by the community I think, just want to put my voice in.
Hope you will work out a fine product in the end, dear paizo staff!
Greetings, Daniel
As KEJr has said.
Why should I need to adjust on the fly is PF is BC?
Why were the changes made?
Why would I use PF to run games of on the fly conversions when I can use 3.x?Why?
Ernest Mueller,
Try not to be condescending in your greatness, sir.
It makes us lowlies disheartened.
I'm having a hard time figuring out why your in the market for a new game. Your quite happy with 3.x SRD and have all the DCCs your ever going to need and not taken with Golarion as a setting ... what was PFRPG going to do for you? I wish I was as happy with 3e as you are.
I CAN run Vault of the Drow using the Character Rules for CAR WARS published in the old Autoduel mag, but that doesn't in any way mean that they are compatible.
ADQ had an article on running D&D adventures? What issue?! 0.0
Because I'm thinking a Drow biker gang needs to try the MONDOS.
If pathfinder weren't backwards compatible you wouldn't be able to adjust on the fly.
We've been able to convert d20 3.x stuff to C&C on the fly. But I wouldnt call the two systems compatible. Easily convertable more like. =)
As long as I can still run my old modules for a game without having to stop every other time the dice are rolled to make rules adjustments I'll be happy. (and collecting more modules)
KEJR. - Does any of this add value to the discussion, or am I still missing something (from a big picture perspective). I leave the minutae up to the professional game designers, Bulmahn and Cook.
To be fair, I completely understand that the folks at Paizo aren't going to line up and give me an insider's look just to make me feel better about the whole process. That would be pretty silly of me to expect.
I'm also not trying to issue any kind of ultimatum. My main point is to just say that, yes, I'm starting to feel like we're starting to dangle off the "compatible with 3.5 in a way that's meaningful for a lot of players" cliff, and I'm hoping to say all of this while there is still time to pull the wagon back away from the cliff, from my perspective.
Also, I know there are probably those who aren't concerned, or don't mind the rules deviating more than I do, and I don't expect them to see things my way, nor would I expect them to stay silent about their lack of concern. My two reasons for posting were to voice my concern and to see if anyone else shared at least some of my concern.
But to answer your question, yeah, I'm glad you chimed in and what you said certainly has some value to the discussion at hand.
Hey there everyone,
Trust me when I say that I hear your concerns. Truth be told, the turn around time between the alpha and the beta was so short we did not have time to adjust all the things we would have liked, so we let some of it roll into the beta, with the full knowledge that some of it was still farther afield than we would have liked.
The playtest has been of an immense value to us, helping to solve some of the problems we had with the Beta rules as well as pointing out some areas of concern that we did not notice before. We are not changing rules for the sake of change, but out of a mountain of feedback, personal emails, and design meetings.
Its been a rough ride and I have not had the time to communicate all the changes that are going on right now, nor will I for some time. Its either that, or make sure that we get a solid game put together by press time.
I know which one I am going to choose.
That said, I want you fine folks to know that your concerns do not fall upon deaf ears. I cannot promise that everyone will be 100% pleased with the final rules, but we are doing the best we can to make this the game everyone wants to play.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Jason, I'm sorry that we may have cut into your time working on the rules. I realize Paizo is a small company, and the time of its employees is at a premium, but at the same time, I'm also glad that you did take the time to look in on this thread.
I hope that the concerns voiced in this thread are addressed, but that obviously has a better chance of happening when we know that you have looked in on the thread and the concerns enumerated therein.
While I would love to have running updates and designer explanations of various decisions that have been made, I know how much that bogs down the process at a smaller company that has limited resources. On the other hand, I'm still not going to completely abandon my concerns as I've expressed them.
Paizo has done fine quality work in the past, but this project is on a scope they have not attempted in the past, which is why, despite previous experience, I'm still concerned, especially when the project seems to grow larger with each section of the rules that gets opened up.
However, let me say that I really do appreciate the work that you are doing, and thank you for taking the time to at least somewhat address the concerns that we've discussed in this thread.
I'm having a hard time figuring out why your in the market for a new game. Your quite happy with 3.x SRD and have all the DCCs your ever going to need and not taken with Golarion as a setting ... what was PFRPG going to do for you? I wish I was as happy with 3e as you are.
I had hoped that Pathfinder was going to keep 3.5 alive. That was the reason for my participation in the Playtest.
I wish you and the ardent supporters of PF much happiness in the months and years ahead.
ADQ had an article on running D&D adventures? What issue?! 0.0
Because I'm thinking a Drow biker gang needs to try the MONDOS.
Perhaps you are poking fun. Regardless, I stated that while I CAN use one game system to play an existing adventure for a different game system, that ability does not mean the two systems are essentially the same.
To further clarify, although others have articulated these very thoughts already (and for some time), if the touted claims of BC were genuine, less would have changed, and what would have changed would have advanced the existent structure of 3.5, rather than creating a new game system which is substantively similar, yet different.
I really don't think these points I, and others, cite need to be explained any further. Some are on-board with PF, others are tentative or marginal, and others are off-line.
I count myself as in the 'marginal' camp in the sense that a handful or two of ideas may find their way into my 3.5 games.
Among them are the execution of a lack of Dead Levels in the core 11 classes, although not all of the measures are quite what I would want. The Skill System insofar as the no Cross-class skills, and the +3 to Trained Class Skills v. the more cumbersome L+3 method. Src Bloodlines, although I found them to be haphazard and uneven. Energy Channelling, although other OGL authors had already done that sort of work years ago. I thought the three Advancement speeds are an interesting idea, but the math seems off to me. Perhaps even the Favoured Class +1 HP/SP rule (divorced from the Racial stereotypes which I abhor), simply because I enjoy players to have characters that feel as though they were as fully realised as possible given the shorthand of game-code.
I think that sums the changes that I will bring into my 3.5 game.
That all said, I intend to purchase the Hardback simply to see how much has changed. Perhaps more will be to my liking than is currently in the Beta.
Thanks for your interest in my motivations. :)
Thanks to all, and to Jason for taking the time to post. This is a good thread, that while it's not going to change anything, it is helping to bring like-minded Paizo fans together and generate some of the best discussion we've had about these parts in a while.
I kinda feel like it's winding down now, so just wanted to get a quick post in to thank everyone and to quote the OP, who once again speaks for a lot of us, in a way none of us seem to be able to manage!
I'm also not trying to issue any kind of ultimatum. My main point is to just say that, yes, I'm starting to feel like we're starting to dangle off the "compatible with 3.5 in a way that's meaningful for a lot of players" cliff, and I'm hoping to say all of this while there is still time to pull the wagon back away from the cliff, from my perspective.
Also, I know there are probably those who aren't concerned, or don't mind the rules deviating more than I do, and I don't expect them to see things my way, nor would I expect them to stay silent about their lack of concern.
Thanks and Peace!
tfad
|
|
... if the touted claims of BC were genuine, less would have changed, and what would have changed would have advanced the existent structure of 3.5, rather than creating a new game system which is substantively similar, yet different.
That's not, it seems to me, a question of 'genuine or not' so much as opinion as to what it all means. Like you, I joined in because PFRPG was supposed to keep 3.5 alive and yet I think that not only does it look set to do that (depending, of course, on what the final result is), it also looks set to be better than 3.5 whilst still being backwards-compatible. That, however, is clearly my opinion; you entered with the same motivations as I and have found things different to the way I did (thus I think that it's not a matter of 'genuine' or otherwise, but just of what we understand by terms such as 'backwards compatible' and how we intepret the changes that appear to be likely to appear in the final version.
That's not, it seems to me, a question of 'genuine or not' so much as opinion as to what it all means. Like you, I joined in because PFRPG was supposed to keep 3.5 alive and yet I think that not only does it look set to do that (depending, of course, on what the final result is), it also looks set to be better than 3.5 whilst still being backwards-compatible. That, however, is clearly my opinion; you entered with the same motivations as I and have found things different to the way I did (thus I think that it's not a matter of 'genuine' or otherwise, but just of what we understand by terms such as 'backwards compatible' and how we intepret the changes that appear to be likely to appear in the final version.
I suppose it is best we leave it at that, then.
Here is to hoping everything turns out better than expected.
Over/out
|
Creative Director
|
I had hoped that Pathfinder was going to keep 3.5 alive. That was the reason for my participation in the Playtest.
I wish you and the ardent supporters of PF much happiness in the months and years ahead.
One thing to keep in perspective: We can't simply reprint 3.5's rules. The two core mechanics; ability score generation and the experience point progressions are not open content. So even if we DID just reprint the 3.5 books, those two areas would have had to change somewhat anyway.
Pathfinder RPG's goal is NOT to keep 3.5 alive, really; it's more to keep the open gaming movement alive, and to keep Pazio products supported by an in-print set of rules that are compatible with the 3.5 rules.
It'd be more accurate to say that the Pathfinder Adventure Paths, Companions, Modules, and Chronicles line of supplements are going to try to keep 3.5 alive, to be honest, since these products, while written for the PF RPG come this August, WILL remain compatible with the 3.5 rules. Assuming all goes well and Paizo's still publishing game product in 2012 (which is currently as far out as I have Pathfinder Adventure Path plotlines semi-scheduled), there'll be 3.5 compatible material available to the tune of about 200 pages or so a month.
I have no illusions that there'll remain more 3.5 players than Pathfinder RPG players, so making our entire line of products not compatible with that set of rules is foolish.
|
|
Actually, JJ, that's a point that does get lost, that you're presumably going to be making efforts to ensure that the APs, etc, are all compatible with 3.5 to a larger extent than 3.5 and PFRPG are close together, or at least ensuring that stat blocks can be used easily enough in either (obviously, the stat blocks may not be 'right' for one system, but that they work is a lot more important; I can't believe many people really care that the creatures and NPCs described are 100% compatible with their own ruleset, which probably include houserules in any case).
You are clearly not spending enough time posting and attending Paizo chatnights, instead lollygagging, loafing and 'editing' (whatever that is; I suspect it's a euphemism for something indelicate).
(obviously, the stat blocks may not be 'right' for one system, but that they work is a lot more important; I can't believe many people really care that the creatures and NPCs described are 100% compatible with their own ruleset, which probably include houserules in any case).
We must all be thankful, then, that not one person has even implied, much less said, "100%".
|
|
We must all be thankful, then, that not one person has even implied, much less said, "100%".
Slip of the typing. Let me expand that to "80%". Because so long as it's clear how to use the character/monster in the game, it seems to me that's a lot more important than that it has the stats that would result if you created it in the game.
That's for adventure material, of course (Paizo's bread-and-butter as a publisher). Backwards Compatibility is going to be a bigger issue for crunch/splats, I would agree, at least in that it's going to take more work to bring into PFRPG. I'm happy enough to make the conversions, however, because personally I think that PFRPG's going to be a better game; I can understand that some people aren't, or don't, or aren't and don't.
Slip of the typing. Let me expand that to "80%". Because so long as it's clear how to use the character/monster in the game, it seems to me that's a lot more important than that it has the stats that would result if you created it in the game.
80%? Ah. Well then - believe it.
I certainly expect at least 80% backwards compatibility, if not a whole lot more (preferably closer to 90%+). Anything less than that would certainly make me dump any further purchasing of the APs.
(For the record, I consider 3.0 -> 3.5 to be 95% compatible, so Paizo does have a bit of leeway with me here!)
|
Creative Director
|
My personal goal is this:
Someone who looks at a PF RPG monster stat block but has never heard of PF RPG and uses only the 3.5 rules should be able to use that PF RPG stat block in his game with a minimum of effort. The only things that would likely be a point of confusion would be CMB (which a 3.5 guy can ignore, since all the mechanics to use 3.5 combat moves are still possible to deduce from a PF RPG stat block) and some skill names (although it should be relatively obvious that if you want a monster to make a move silently check you'd use its Stealth skill, etc.).
And vice versa for a PF RPG reader who's never seen a 3.5 rulebook looking at a 3.5 adventure.
I had hoped that Pathfinder was going to keep 3.5 alive. That was the reason for my participation in the Playtest.
I wish you and the ardent supporters of PF much happiness in the months and years ahead.
One thing to keep in perspective: We can't simply reprint 3.5's rules. The two core mechanics; ability score generation and the experience point progressions are not open content. So even if we DID just reprint the 3.5 books, those two areas would have had to change somewhat anyway.Yes, James, I do realise that. However, I do find it ... peculiar that it was deemed necessary to make so many other changes throughout the existent 3.5 platform.
In truth, I've thought it rather possible that Paizo's plan to create their own RPG from about 3-week into the Beta playest, and posted that I dodn't find fault with that, but I did find it *perhaps* disingenuous to suggest that PFRPG was essentially 3.5 simply under a new name. While it can, and no doubt will, be argued that that 'suggestion' was never present in the actual PF promotional language, I have certainly read many others' posts that would make the argument it 'read' that way.
Look, I no doubt have angered or hurt other writers and designers in the field I love, and have worked, through my rather outspoken evaluations of the situation *as I see it*, and that most assuredly was not my intention. It seems I follow the Khanate method of Making Friends and Influencing People, much to my later chagrin. My apologies for that odious personal fault.
Pathfinder RPG's goal is NOT to keep 3.5 alive, really; it's more to keep the open gaming movement alive, and to keep Pazio products supported by an in-print set of rules that are compatible with the 3.5 rules.Would it really have been so difficult to have ensured 100% compatibility through not making any radical changes to the 3.5 platform, of which there are substantially more players than of the PFRPG? Do you see my perspective on this matter? If 3.5, with a new ability-gen write-up (which simply needed new wording, not even a new methodology), and the same with Advancement, had been produced to the outstandingly high Paizo level of quality, and only afterwards, then producing a new set of rules in a stand alone book line to give 3.5 players the options of new interpretations of the Core 11 classes, takes on Races, Spells, Combat Manoeuvres, and so forth, these discussions would be moot; Paizo would still be 100% heroes (okay 99.44%), and still be able to steer large quanta of consumers in the chosen direction.
By doing as I suggest above, new players to 3.5 could have been made, Paizo would have reaped the sales benefit, folks could still have used their existing 3.x material, and new material that was fully SRD/3.5 compliant could still be made by 3rd party publishers -- AND, the new Paizo take on things could have been executed. Instead, a gamble was made, and decisive steps were taken to (understand I love the Drow, so what I say next is a compliment) seize control of the industry still reeling from 4e aftershock and 3.5 vacuum, and triumphed without nary a sour grape or derision from 3.5 die-hards.
It was a bold move, but I am not as convinced the Paizo strategy was a sound one. I've read plenty of views to suggest that my analysis may be very close to the mark as regards the fallout, and I'm not prognosticator.It'd be more accurate to say that the Pathfinder Adventure Paths, Companions, Modules, and Chronicles line of supplements are going to try to keep 3.5 alive, to be honest, since these products, while written for the PF RPG come this August, WILL remain compatible with the 3.5 rules. Assuming all goes well and Paizo's still publishing game product in 2012 (which is currently as far out as I have Pathfinder Adventure Path plotlines semi-scheduled), there'll be 3.5 compatible material available to the tune of about 200 pages or so a month.And I honestly praise Paizo staff on their efforts, and the quality of their work, as well as hoping that most 3.x players will purchase what they like of PFAPs for years to come with nothing but smiles on their faces. I just think it could have been handled differently, as I have stated, and it may have ruffled fewer feathers and gone more smoothly. But I'm just a fool who backed the wrong horse, with only Tunnels & Trolls design credits and regrets even about how the 7th edition of that game system turned out once my and my colleague's work was handed over to the final authority on the matter, so don't let my minority opinion trouble anyone any further. Please.
I have no illusions that there'll remain more 3.5 players than Pathfinder RPG players, so making our entire line of products not compatible with that set of rules is foolish.That's great news, James. I'd like to clarify, as well, that my lack of involvement in PFAPs and Golarion in general isn't due to a dislike of the material on any specific grounds, but rather that I have more of my own proprietary background material from my novels and short fiction than I have time or assistance to ever hope to produce. I cannot ever dedicate myself to any of the settings I like, such as Midnight, Iron Kingdoms, and the Scarred Lands.
I love the Pathfinder look; have found the overall PF experience to be no worse, and often, much better than a lot of what else is out there; and, simply don't have the patience or disposable income to purchase adventures designed by others who don't have the same playstyle or thematic interests I hold.
Again, I hope that those among Paizo and affiliated independents and companies understand that I love gaming, and even if I don't think 3.x was the best thing since sliced bread, I have invested a lot of time in the system, and don't feel like buying a whole new slew of products for a new, variant system. I've likely shot myself in the foot as regards garnering any future assistance on projects through my vociferous concerns re: PFRPG, but like so much in my life, I've got to deal with my own messes.
I'm signing out of these discussions, and can be reached privately at
Spoiler:if there are any other outstanding issues, or in the event anyone wants to discuss my work, etc.kynkrea at hotmail dot comWith all sincerity, all blessings upon Paizo, PF, 3.5, and RPGaming.
Goodbye.
My personal goal is this:
Someone who looks at a PF RPG monster stat block but has never heard of PF RPG and uses only the 3.5 rules should be able to use that PF RPG stat block in his game with a minimum of effort. The only things that would likely be a point of confusion would be CMB (which a 3.5 guy can ignore, since all the mechanics to use 3.5 combat moves are still possible to deduce from a PF RPG stat block) and some skill names (although it should be relatively obvious that if you want a monster to make a move silently check you'd use its Stealth skill, etc.).
And vice versa for a PF RPG reader who's never seen a 3.5 rulebook looking at a 3.5 adventure.
That's what I want out of PF RPG. A game that we can play using old modules and new ones that catch our eye.
Someone who looks at a PF RPG monster stat block but has never heard of PF RPG and uses only the 3.5 rules should be able to use that PF RPG stat block in his game with a minimum of effort. The only things that would likely be a point of confusion would be CMB (which a 3.5 guy can ignore, since all the mechanics to use 3.5 combat moves are still possible to deduce from a PF RPG stat block) and some skill names (although it should be relatively obvious that if you want a monster to make a move silently check you'd use its Stealth skill, etc.).
And that's what I'm counting on! While I won't rejoice until I see the first AP with the new rules, it sounds like good news, I think. (CMB isn't an issue for me - the stat blocks just say "CMB" instead of "Grapple"... but it can be used in the same way. And, indeed, same thing as you noted with the skill checks - not an issue there for me, either.)
Like I said - if I can use a Pathfinder adventure statblock with my 3.5 rules, I'm golden.
That's what I want out of PF RPG. A game that we can play using old modules and new ones that catch our eye.My personal goal is this:
Someone who looks at a PF RPG monster stat block but has never heard of PF RPG and uses only the 3.5 rules should be able to use that PF RPG stat block in his game with a minimum of effort. The only things that would likely be a point of confusion would be CMB (which a 3.5 guy can ignore, since all the mechanics to use 3.5 combat moves are still possible to deduce from a PF RPG stat block) and some skill names (although it should be relatively obvious that if you want a monster to make a move silently check you'd use its Stealth skill, etc.).
And vice versa for a PF RPG reader who's never seen a 3.5 rulebook looking at a 3.5 adventure.
Yes, exactly what I want, and exactly what I've been experiencing in playtest. (Haven't been able to check the "run PFRPG in 3.5" yet though).