Any news if Paizo would consider releasing a second (or third, fourth, etc) Handbook with additional classes, feats, equipment, and other goodies? I did a search to see if this topic was covered but found nothing (sorry if it has). I think with the success of the print Beta it might have niche market. Currently my Sunday night group is playing with Pathfinder Beta Rules and having a great time.
There will be more bestiaries, but I don't think they will do 4e-type PHBs every year.
I'd be interested to know if whenever Paizo gets around to considering a 2nd (or 3rd) re-print of the Core Rulebook, if they would consider separating it back out, into a Player's Handbook and DM's Handbook? (or equivalent Pathfinder terminology)
I understand the logic for combining them NOW, but it just seems less "imposing" for new/casual Players to get a "Player's Guide" that doesn't include ALL the background rules that DM's need, which can lead to "information overload" or simply un-necessary worrying over every detail. I could see such a "Player's Guide" including a few extra things like "generic" Traits and 'alternate Class Features', and the "DM's Guide" including stuff like optional rules, & Unearthed Arcana type stuff in general ...????
There was a thread on non-Vancian casting systems at one point,
and it came up that if you compare Spellpoints to the XPH, the specific design choices behind Spellpoints come off as slightly odd, especially since it was based off of XPH's point system to begin with. For one, 20th level Sorcerors have practically no difference in total Spell Points to Wizards... Not to mention the questionable treatment of "damage dice" spells (requiring heavy Point penalty to scale), which seems to be part & parcel of 3.x's irrational fear of Evocation... Even accepting that basic premise, treating Targeted & AOE damage identically seems odd - that's my take at least :-).
In any case, there are plenty of areas where UA could be tweaked/updated to "3.75" (really, 4.0, but WotC took that number for their marginally related new system). Another example being the "Barbarian Totems" (alternate Class abilities), many of which I love and seem funner than the 'passive' bonuses Barbarians normally gain, but are HORRIBLY unbalanced amongst themselves in UA. (Lion Totem/Pounce, Dragon Totem/Fear are ones that seem very powerful, while others are entirely underwhelming.) All the new Class Mechanics (& Core Mechanics like for Maneuvers) could be more directly referenced in UA-style derivatives/alternate features. (More types/applications of Maneuvers would be interesting... Or: CMB with opposed rolls. Etc).
In any case, the rationale for Paizo publishing their own Unearthed Arcane would seem to be the same as for the Core Rules - it isn't in print any more, and they might as well tweak any deficiences and make it consistent with the new Core Rules... Simple republishing of OGL material doesn't add any value, so to speak. They can also use it to compile different Traits, Feats, Equipment, Races, Spells, etc from their APs into a centralized source. It doesn't have to map 1:1 with the 3.5 UA, it could include other "optional/advanced rules & resources", with the caveat "This is not Core".
I understand the logic for combining them NOW, but it just seems less "imposing" for new/casual Players to get a "Player's Guide" that doesn't include ALL the background rules that DM's need, which can lead to "information overload" or simply un-necessary worrying over every detail.
The trouble is that players need most of the rules anyway. They might not need the NPC wealth tables or the Town rules. But they do need magic items, the special abilities/conditions summaries, the wealth-by-level guidelines, and the like. Heck, PCs who cast Summon Monster on a regular basis need the Monster Manual.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I understand the logic for combining them NOW, but it just seems less "imposing" for new/casual Players to get a "Player's Guide" that doesn't include ALL the background rules that DM's need, which can lead to "information overload" or simply un-necessary worrying over every detail.The trouble is that players need most of the rules anyway. They might not need the NPC wealth tables or the Town rules. But they do need magic items, the special abilities/conditions summaries, the wealth-by-level guidelines, and the like. Heck, PCs who cast Summon Monster on a regular basis need the Monster Manual.
I wonder if players will be more tempted to try their hand at DMing (and possibly bring more players into the game) if they have all the rules on hand to do so.
@Ross: I don't think Players actually need access to Magic Items or Wealth-by-Level. Those can both be revealed/implemented by DMs as they see fit. I'm coming at this from how I was introduced to the game, and we didn't approach it from Players assuming they're entitled to so much wealth, or able to pick magic items out of the book - that was more mediated by the DM (of course, that's not dictated by the books' organization , but it worked out well that way when I learned the game).
...Anyhow, I was just mooting it as a possibility for whenever Paizo might do a minor revision for a future print run. I'm not sure of the specifics, but I would think more D&D Players Guides were sold than DM's Guides, for example, and I don't see why Paizo wouldn't eventually want to take advantage of/ cater to that specific market, once they're in a position to consider it - If it was such a bad idea, why has it persisted with TSR/WotC? Having a smaller & less expensive product that requires less "investment" (money/time/strength to transport ;-)) doesn't seem like the worst marketing strategy to me. Much commercial Software follows this model (easy to "get in the door", obvious upgrade path as interest/involvement increases)
Not such a pressing issue, though.
@Ross: I don't think Players actually need access to Magic Items or Wealth-by-Level.
They don't necessarily need them as a shopping list. I understand that lots of DMs restrict access to magic. What I mean is that the player might occasionally need to look up what the loot they have does.
Tarren has a good point too.
|
I'm not saying make it a priority. It's something I want to see along the line. At the same time they can't keep relying on 3.5. books to suppplement what missing in their PF line. I can understand making PF backward compaitiable. It also needs to be balanced out with them focusing interest on their own product. Otherwise a fan of 3.5. is going to say "why would I need to buy supplement xyz when my 3.5 books can do the job. A good example is the bestirary. If the 3.5. MM does the trick why buy it?
I have a multi page PHB ammendment document for our groups preferred house rules I had been using for about 3 years in 3.5. After playing for a while I simply went through the PHB page by page, all the spells and amended the rules to fit our groups interpretation of fun. We tinker with it regularly.
When the playtest started I threw some ideas out there but the different styles, premises of power, and beliefs made the discussion tiring (ie the fighters are lame threads).
For mine I am over the transition phase and just want to get on with playing accepted (not experimental) rules. I am awaiting the Pathfinder rule set to sit down, go through it and prepare my own house rule document- just like before.
As for PHB2 unearthed arcana etc- keep these at an absolute minimum, unless it is a real change proposal dont do it, I can tinker round the edges myself- less is more.
sorry turned into a bit of an off topic ramble
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
@Ross: I don't think Players actually need access to Magic Items or Wealth-by-Level.They don't necessarily need them as a shopping list. I understand that lots of DMs restrict access to magic. What I mean is that the player might occasionally need to look up what the loot they have does.
Tarren has a good point too.
Crafters (not just for casters anymore either), will need the magic item section to have the rules for crafting items also.
|
I liked to see a PDF made of the core book. That way if I introduce the Game to new players I can give them a Handout that's just what they need to make character. This way they won't get overwhelmed with info and it only cost me a few Buck at the print store.
A Psionics book would be fine as long the Psions don't over shadow the base classes.
Also with all the SPAT books that WotC put out (IMO) people won't need to have a ton of Paizo SPAT books. They won't be able to use it in "Pathfinder Society Organized Play" but in our home games we can use what ever we want as we see fit.
I was just hopeful that some other classes that I loved from 3X could make the Pathfinder jump. Samurai, Knights, Scout, Favored Soul, etc.
|
Contributor
|
I was just hopeful that some other classes that I loved from 3X could make the Pathfinder jump. Samurai, Knights, Scout, Favored Soul, etc.
Half the point of the retooling of the core 11 classes was to make the base classes on-paar with the increased power level of the splat-book classes. You should be able to use Samurai, Knight, or anything else you want from the 3.5 books with only a little tweaking to the class skills and any class abilities that relate to grappling, tripping, ect.
|
I was just hopeful that some other classes that I loved from 3X could make the Pathfinder jump. Samurai, Knights, Scout, Favored Soul, etc.
Imora makes a good point, I just wanted to add that if Paizo did make Samurai, Knight, Scout, et all, they could not be recognizable to the 3.x versions, as those are not open content. They would have to totally rework the class from the ground up. Thats not to say that ti won't happen at some point, they are talking about a Tan Xia guidebook (the Asia analog) but if your asking about these classes because you like their abilities, you are mostly out of luck. Classes that do not have a historical background are less likly, as even their names may be closed content.
|
|
Any news if Paizo would consider releasing a second (or third, fourth, etc) Handbook with additional classes, feats, equipment, and other goodies? I did a search to see if this topic was covered but found nothing (sorry if it has). I think with the success of the print Beta it might have niche market. Currently my Sunday night group is playing with Pathfinder Beta Rules and having a great time.
please... don't
get new manuals of magic, classes,options, etc... but a full new handbook?
I have always hated the WotC ones :S
|
|
What I would like to see is a retooling of all the other companies who've done 3.x material then relaunch under either PF or even Green Ronin's 3rd Era OGL. There were a lot of classes done by other companies which would replace WotC books that are no longer in print. Quite a few that were done better than WotC for that matter.
I would like to see a book similiar to Unearthed Arcana. With new options on how to cast magic and a substitute to the Vacain magic system which I really dislike.God I hope not... This is my most hated book...
Don't need 'optional rule glut'
But that's why Unearthed Arcana is such a great book. You can happily ignore it, safe in the knowledge that none of its whacky alternate systems will pollute official D&D products, and other folks can happily use it. It's win-win!
What I wouldn't like to see would be if Paizo published the "core" Complete Guide to Fooblemancy and all of a sudden their adventure paths are full of fooblemancers instead of wizards or clerics.
|
|
But that's why Unearthed Arcana is such a great book. You can happily ignore it, safe in the knowledge that none of its whacky alternate systems will pollute official D&D products, and other folks can happily use it. It's win-win!I would like to see a book similiar to Unearthed Arcana. With new options on how to cast magic and a substitute to the Vacain magic system which I really dislike.God I hope not... This is my most hated book...
Don't need 'optional rule glut'
Problem is..I constantly got this from players..
But why Can't I use this rule from Unearthed Arcana?... And then an argument started when I would not let them...
All I get from optional rules are arguments from players.
But that's why Unearthed Arcana is such a great book. You can happily ignore it, safe in the knowledge that none of its whacky alternate systems will pollute official D&D products, and other folks can happily use it. It's win-win!I would like to see a book similiar to Unearthed Arcana. With new options on how to cast magic and a substitute to the Vacain magic system which I really dislike.God I hope not... This is my most hated book...
Don't need 'optional rule glut'
Problem is..I constantly got this from players..
But why Can't I use this rule from Unearthed Arcana?... And then an argument started when I would not let them...
All I get from optional rules are arguments from players.
I don't see how that's any worse than players pestering you about "official" rules that you don't like; in fact I would have thought it would be easier to reject an optional rule than an official rule. C'est la vie!
|
|
I don't see how that's any worse than players pestering you about "official" rules that you don't like; in fact I would have thought it would be easier to reject an optional rule than an official rule. C'est la vie!
I don't do house rules..So there are no 'official' rules I don't like.
I hate House rules, There are many reasons for that, that i will not go into because it will take awhile to explain... I see optional rules as just a bunch of house rules. And not needed in print because they cause confusion and arguments. In my experience.
There will be more bestiaries, but I don't think they will do 4e-type PHBs every year.Or the 3.x PHB II*. Probably a 3.x Complete series, though. And definitely Psionics and Epic HBs.
*Surprise you forgot about this book, KaeYoss.
I didn't forget that book, joela. It's not a 4e-type annual PHB, so I didn't mention it.
And it's not as if 4e doesn't have splat books, so the Complete series doesn't really count, either.
I don't see how that's any worse than players pestering you about "official" rules that you don't like; in fact I would have thought it would be easier to reject an optional rule than an official rule. C'est la vie!I don't do house rules..So there are no 'official' rules I don't like.
I hate House rules, There are many reasons for that, that i will not go into because it will take awhile to explain... I see optional rules as just a bunch of house rules. And not needed in print because they cause confusion and arguments. In my experience.
Why not just use Unearthed Arcana's options? It's all OGL. Why reinvent the wheel?
Because this one's not round enough?
Beyond the fact that UA is basically off the shelves, I'd love to see what sort of optional rules Paizo will come up with.
I hope not. I want Paizo to keep core PRPG was slim as possible, otherwise the cynics will just see it as another edition they don't need to play/collect.
Cynics will be cynics.
And that logic is weird: You want them to buy less books, or otherwise there will be too many books and people won't buy as much?
If it's all the same to the snotty boys and they won't buy many books, why not make the books so those who want them can have them?
God I hope not... This is my most hated book...Don't need 'optional rule glut'
Again this "I don't like it so I don't want anyone to have it" mentality that doesn't make sense to me.
Now I'm bored. I know! That Mona Lisa picture - I never liked it. I'll go and burn it so no one else can have it.
I liked to see a PDF made of the core book.
And you will.
Also with all the SPAT books
Splat! Like the sound a wizard makes when he's hit by a rune giant's*.
*Well, anything.
I was just hopeful that some other classes that I loved from 3X could make the Pathfinder jump. Samurai, Knights, Scout, Favored Soul, etc.
Samurai: I hope you mean the Oriental Adventure version, not the ridiculous Complete Warrior one. There was talk about an Oriental Adventures book, Paizo style.
Knights: Never needed that one. There's paladins and fighters to be knights.
Scout: We have the ranger. The concepts are too close to have room for both, and I don't like skirmish enough to choose scout. Plus, skirmish takes care of an issue that is better solved systemically.
Favoured Soul: Take the cleric, pick the right domains, and use the spontaneous spellcasting variant.
What I wouldn't like to see would be if Paizo published the "core" Complete Guide to Fooblemancy and all of a sudden their adventure paths are full of fooblemancers instead of wizards or clerics.
Not full of, but they should use them. After all, we'll get all the stats there. And all their stuff is open content.
God I hope not... This is my most hated book...Don't need 'optional rule glut'
Don't need, don't buy. Just don't deny.
Problem is..I constantly got this from players..
I can see more clearly now why you are that way. You really do like it to deny people things :P
I don't do house rules..So there are no 'official' rules I don't like.
Huh? You don't like houserules so you must love the official ones? Doesn't quite make sense.
And not needed in print because they cause confusion and arguments. In my experience.
Wow, what an awful experience you had. And still that "I don't want it so no one should have it" attitude. You know what, I hope for twice as many rulebooks as I did before just because it will annoy you ;P
|
|
in my case I would prefer that Paizo devoted their energy into something more satisfying... still tis their option...
I would prefer that they focused their strenght in developing abetter magic system, one that fells like if it was aprtof a fantasy setting... one where you feel like in the last unicorn, legend, etc
and I don't want plot devices... in their opinions about wondrous magical items without price there is the complain from the judges about little work, or just plot devices...
we want thesame threatment from the designers... things that can be created, less plot devices... ok I understand rune magic is a lost science... but it existed... if it existed there should eb a way to learn it... and the villain should be really using it...
if its not a releic from the gods, thre must be someway to backengineerit so you can learn how to do another... even if you destroy the 1st.
during the contestthe judges talked against plot devices... we want the sam from te designer... if there is cafty magical item I want to unravel its sectrets.
|
I understand the logic for combining them NOW, but it just seems less "imposing" for new/casual Players to get a "Player's Guide" that doesn't include ALL the background rules that DM's need, which can lead to "information overload" or simply un-necessary worrying over every detail.The trouble is that players need most of the rules anyway. They might not need the NPC wealth tables or the Town rules. But they do need magic items, the special abilities/conditions summaries, the wealth-by-level guidelines, and the like. Heck, PCs who cast Summon Monster on a regular basis need the Monster Manual.
Wait, What?
Players most certainly DO NOT need the magic items, in fact the best games you can play involve magic being mysterious, having players have instant access to the magic items is not needed, not in the least.
A player's guide would be a basic character creation guide, it would have races/classes skills, equipment, magic and combat rules. You might include scroll and potion creation rules.
it would help character creation for groups sharing one or 2 books...
Giving the players too much freedom tends to take power away from the DM.
I DO hope they bring out SMALL splat books (Companion sized), that don't ONE-UP the existing classes, but just give variations... Give 1-4 new options, for example, an Osirian Rogue variant, start with Conversions from the existing APs, to the PfRPG.
|
|
I don't see how that's any worse than players pestering you about "official" rules that you don't like; in fact I would have thought it would be easier to reject an optional rule than an official rule. C'est la vie!I don't do house rules..So there are no 'official' rules I don't like.
I hate House rules, There are many reasons for that, that i will not go into because it will take awhile to explain... I see optional rules as just a bunch of house rules. And not needed in print because they cause confusion and arguments. In my experience.
I love house-rules, that's what makes it MY game, I just amke sure I communicate with my group, sometimes I come up with a rule that doesn't work, after a few sessions, I will usually eliminate that rule.
NOW, 2e I had SOOOOOO many house-rules that I had to quit, I had a book of house-rules. So I stoppped playing AD&D and played other games.
This is what comes with having an extremely creative mind, when I get an idea I like to try to expand on it, sometimes it works (some of my Action point uses) sometimes it doesn't (weapons speed system.--still working on a good system. I'll be trying to implement my speed system v2.0 later this year. )
|
|
i agree Xaaon of Xen'Drik
the idea that character NEED Magic Itemsmakes me think that then the Magic Items aremoreimprotant than the actual characters, and that makes me sad...
that is my constrain with the actual magic system... it is weak and nerfed and focused in the need of PCs of Magic Items to do things that true magic should let them do... something it always did since 1e, even in 3.0... but 3.5 began crippling it... I know some people complain about polymorph and SoD spells... still they compelled the msyticism of magic as powerful, dangerous, terrible thing...
not just "i summon a creature fort he next 3 rounds" or "ok now i am stronger for the next couple of rounds"
The 3.5 Pathfinder line currently sees many feats, prestige classes, magic items and monsters introduced in most every publication. (Chronicles, Adventure Paths, etc).
I suspect this trend will continue into the PFRPG supplement products.
I would be curious to know if Paizo's current business model is more geared towards adding additional content via these types of supplements (Chronicles, Adventure Paths, etc), or if they do plan to also release "rules supplements" such as a "Player's Handbook 2". Should they release rules supplements, then I hope they introduce "new material" to the game, and not just solely be a compilation of all the material from their other supplements.
Creative Director
|
The 3.5 Pathfinder line currently sees many feats, prestige classes, magic items and monsters introduced in most every publication. (Chronicles, Adventure Paths, etc).
I suspect this trend will continue into the PFRPG supplement products.
I would be curious to know if Paizo's current business model is more geared towards adding additional content via these types of supplements (Chronicles, Adventure Paths, etc), or if they do plan to also release "rules supplements" such as a "Player's Handbook 2". Should they release rules supplements, then I hope they introduce "new material" to the game, and not just solely be a compilation of all the material from their other supplements.
We'll be releasing a few big hardcover rules supplements a year, but the majority of our new "rules crunch" will continue to come along in the same way, as part of Pathfinder or the Chronicles lines, etc.
the idea that character NEED Magic Itemsmakes me think that then the Magic Items aremoreimprotant than the actual characters, and that makes me sad...
That can't really be changed in PF, as it would wreck backwards compatibility - we can always hope for PF2.0, and if you're willing to play it quick and dirty, you can house rule them away - it works quite well.
in my case I would prefer that Paizo devoted their energy into something more satisfying... still tis their option...
I would prefer that they focused their strenght in developing abetter magic system,
You know that a different magic system would be a house rule, right?
Plus, Vancian Magic will always remain. If it goes, it's no longer D&D.
|
|
That can't really be changed in PF, as it would wreck backwards compatibility - we can always hope for PF2.0, and if you're willing to play it quick and dirty, you can house rule them away - it works quite well.
for that I need to give the players options so they can survive, the game supposes they have this items :S, for that I need a stronger magic system
You know that a different magic system would be a house rule, right?
Plus, Vancian Magic will always remain. If it goes, it's no longer D&D.
maybe yes, maybe not
I would prefer a point based system where spellcasters could use the spells they know instead of memorizing them (that I can do), but more importantly... fantastic magic... something that can be used outside magic, and not just expecting it to last less than a minute... which is what most spells do :S|
|
Actually, it can be integrated into the game rather easily, there is even a line of text in the Main book stating, if you're running a low magic game increase the CR of different creatures by 1 or 2 (no books with me so I can't paste the actual line)
With no hard-core magic to throw at a demon, it suddenly becomes extremely tough to take down that demon, dragon or even an ogre.
(ALTERNATE MAGIC in a regular game)
I prefer a skill based casting system, ala Earthdawn. Spellcraft and Knowledge Divine or Arcana (Nature for druids/rangers.)
The magic system isn't D&D the spells themselves are D&D In my most humble opinion. Spell points are toooooo easy to be abused. But a system where you have to use a pair of skills to cast the spells is balanced and it eliminates the 15 minute day.
Players most certainly DO NOT need the magic items, in fact the best games you can play involve magic being mysterious, having players have instant access to the magic items is not needed, not in the least.
Okay, but get ready for the players to borrow your books every time they want to look up what spells are in their Staff of Frost and how in god's name a Cube of Force works again.
|
|
I hope not. I want Paizo to keep core PRPG was slim as possible, otherwise the cynics will just see it as another edition they don't need to play/collect.Cynics will be cynics.
And that logic is weird: You want them to buy less books, or otherwise there will be too many books and people won't buy as much?
If it's all the same to the snotty boys and they won't buy many books, why not make the books so those who want them can have them?
And yet people want backwards compatibility so they can continue to use the books they already own.
What's the point of backward compatibility if EVERYTHING gets rehashed and tweaked for the sake of releasing new books.. and that's what it would be.. the sake of releasing new books. If someone wants Unearthed Arcana.. they should get Unearthed Arcana.. don't ask Paizo for it, it works with PRPG already.
The more "replacement books" come out the more PRPG is it's own edition and not the continuation of 3e. Replacement books, particularly for non-Core mechanics, are simply unnecessary.
If someone wants Unearthed Arcana.. they should get Unearthed Arcana.. don't ask Paizo for it, it works with PRPG already.
Unearthed arcana is out of print, same as the core books for 3.5. Since it is OGL (same as the SRD was) releasing an updated version for people who are still interested isn't necessarily a bad idea.
I don't know if it is a good idea either. But I would love to see the title 'Pathfinder Apocrypha' if it does happen.
I don't know if it is a good idea either. But I would love to see the title 'Pathfinder Apocrypha' if it does happen.
Aye on the 'Pathfinder Apocrypha' title...
I'm not sure if that's too real-world specific of terminology, but I's digs it!
I thought that the Pathfinder Apocrypha was actually part of the setting, the supressed, lost, or simply false versions of the Pathfinder's Journal. But now that I try to find it, I think it may have been purely Nightflier's creation.
Even so, it's a good, evocative name, and does help drive home the 'unofficial rule' part. ("Why can't I use this rule?" "Because it's apocryphal, that's why!")
There will be more bestiaries, but I don't think they will do 4e-type PHBs every year.Or the 3.x PHB II*. Probably a 3.x Complete series, though. And definitely Psionics and Epic HBs.
*Surprise you forgot about this book, KaeYoss.
I didn't forget that book, joela. It's not a 4e-type annual PHB, so I didn't mention it.
And it's not as if 4e doesn't have splat books, so the Complete series doesn't really count, either.
4e doesn't have splat books? Then what are all these martial powers, and dracinom-what-u-call-it, and such that I'm seeing on the shelves? Granted they said they would do the annual... and now I'm seeing other books in between those annuals that are splatbooks.
So much for the people that told me there wouldn't be any (told them so!).
And yet people want backwards compatibility so they can continue to use the books they already own.What's the point of backward compatibility if EVERYTHING gets rehashed and tweaked for the sake of releasing new books..
First of all, I'm not saying they should do "Complete Warrior PF" and "Complete Arcane PF" and "Tome of Battle PF" and so on.
I'm saying that they should not be shy with the books. Doesn't have to be old books. If they have a great idea for a new book, they should go for it.
As for books that are "rehashes", like a PF Book Of Optional Rules or a PF Book of Wuxia, two things:
4e doesn't have splat books?
And it's not as if 4e doesn't have splat books, so the Complete series doesn't really count, either.
Read what I wrote again. Read the whole sentence and let the meaning sink in. Then slink away in shame ;-P
maybe yes, maybe not
Plus, Vancian Magic will always remain. If it goes, it's no longer D&D.
Definetly yes! Many fans consider it one of the cornerstones of D&D - and several bigwigs from Paizo are among those.
I would prefer a point based system where spellcasters could use the spells they know instead of memorizing them (that I can do),
No Mana magic for my D&D. Not as the official rule.
but more importantly... fantastic magic... something that can be used outside magic, and not just expecting it to last less than a minute... which is what most spells do :S
That's another thing entirely. Though there's always the question about how long spells should last. What is really fantastic? Something that lasts all day, or a spur of the moment thing? Or does it have nothing to do with that?
By the way: It's not that hard to get rid of magic items, especially the basic stuff like stat boosters, ac boosters and so on:
You can get rid of it, but you'll have to compensate for the suddenly lower stats: increase level-dependant benefits, use higher purchase values, grant more feats and introduce feats that increase stuff like saves (usable more than once).
Finally, deal with that stuff you basically need magic items for, like DR. Either eliminate it or find ways for players to get around it.
As for NPCs: Use them right out of the book, with the very stats they have, but explain the magical bonuses they get as inherent bonuses. It's a quick-and-dirty rule, but it can work.
|
By the way: It's not that hard to get rid of magic items, especially the basic stuff like stat boosters, ac boosters and so on:
You can get rid of it, but you'll have to compensate for the suddenly lower stats: increase level-dependant benefits, use higher purchase values, grant more feats and introduce feats that increase stuff like saves (usable more than once).
Finally, deal with that stuff you basically need magic items for, like DR. Either eliminate it or find ways for players to get around it.
As for NPCs: Use them right out of the book, with the very stats they have, but explain the magical bonuses they get as inherent bonuses. It's a quick-and-dirty rule, but it can work.
You know what I've found from actually playing mid level (13th level) dnd low magic style i.e. regular spellcasting and magic items through crafting or capture, no magic marts and if they find magic items for sale its specific pre-selected items, not whatever they want.
You don't need to make a single dang alteration. The CR system actually works slightly better. DR actually becomes meaningful and the system actually holds together better than when I've let players magic-mart shop and pick their items and the game quickly fell apart because my DM workload to balance encounters to the party quickly doubled because they were cakewalking the CR system.
What's the point of backward compatibility if EVERYTHING gets rehashed and tweaked for the sake of releasing new books.. and that's what it would be.. the sake of releasing new books. If someone wants Unearthed Arcana.. they should get Unearthed Arcana.. don't ask Paizo for it, it works with PRPG already.
The more "replacement books" come out the more PRPG is it's own edition and not the continuation of 3e. Replacement books, particularly for non-Core mechanics, are simply unnecessary.
I'm not totally sure what you mean by "replacement books". Would a Paizo collection of spells be a replacement for the Spell Compendium? Or would a Paizo book of arcane prestige classes, feats, etc. be a replacement for Complete Arcane? Not in my mind, but YMMV.
The only kind of scenario I would prefer not to see is Paizo creating a class called the Battlesword that outclasses the Fighter completely (say) and then use Battleswords instead of Fighters in their future products. That would defeat the point of redesigning the Pathfinder Fighter, in my opinion (since they could have rewritten the Fighter class when they had the chance). I doubt that that's likely to happen in the near future, though.