|
There have a been a few posts stating that apparently the final version of the Pathfinder RPG may be closer to 3.5 than the Beta playest edition is.
Now, I know this is premature in that we haven't seen the final PF RPG, but I wonder whether a situation may arise wherein some people prefer the Beta edition over the final PFRPG and choose to stick with it.
For those using the Beta edition - if the final PF RPG is not to your liking (for whatever reason) would you stick with Beta, move back to 3.5 or go with PFRPG regardless of your dislike?
Personally, I hope PF RPG doesn't go too much back to being like 3.5 - I would rather it go in the other direction.
I have previously complained a lot about PF RPG straying too far from 3.5 for my liking, but I have decided I will get it as I want to play in the PFS season 1+ and also because my GM will likely use it as well. However, I will treat it as a seperate game and still play 3.5 - with that in mind I want it to be quite a bit different so I feel it has something to offer alongside 3.5 (and D&D 4e which I am also getting into).
So, any thoughts?
If I'm the DM, I'll use whatever I like from 3.5, PF Beta, and PF final rules (not to mention Unearthed Arcana and various other splatbooks).
|
Here are my two coppers. With the transition from 2.0 to 3.0 there were howls of protest. People were worried about the gaming community being split etc. But at the end of the day, 3.0 D&D was what Wotc, which had purchased TSR, was publishing. Nobody had to buy 3rd edition. People if they wanted to could stick with 2.0 D&D. Heck I remember in high school; my DM was my history teacher, Mr. Army. He knew 1st edition backwards and forwards, and I remember trying to convince him how much better 2nd edition was. He thanked me for my efforts but told me that he didn’t have the time to learn a new system. He asked me if I was having fun in the games, to which I replied yes. He then said having fun was what was most important after all. The system didn’t matter too much.
Now I think things are slightly different, but ironically the more things change, they stay the same. Wotc put out the Open Gaming License. Other companies could publish their own materiel, based on the 3.5 D&D rules set, which is what Paizo is currently doing. Last year Wotc has put out 4.0 D&D. There have been howls of protest. It has been called the “edition” wars. I purchased the basic 3 books, read the books, and played the game for 3 months both as a player and as a DM. After that I decided I didn’t like 4.0. I howled in protest. I did not like them Sam I am.
Luckily for me Paizo has decided to go their own path, and has decided to “tune” up 3.5 D&D. For the last year and a half, I have had good quality 3.5 D&D products to buy read and enjoy. I am sure there are plenty of people who think that 4.0 is an improvement over 3.5 and why would anyone want to go back. But I remember Mr. Army’s words “having fun is what is most important after all”. So what edition does it matter anyways.
I think there are probably people in the gaming community playing all editions of D&D. I happen to want to stick to 3.5 because I prefer it, and I like what Paizo is doing. If I like the Pathfinder system, I will most likely go there. If not, I will stick with the Beta.
At the end of the day, we will all make slight modifications to the game to suit our tastes. For example, I like what has been done with the skill system in the Beta edition.
However, I like the concentration skill, and I like the rope use skill. I’m keeping them.
Is that a big deal? No.
Well you got much more of an earful then I intended.
I don't know one single GM who doesn't use houserules.
We all use houserules, from whatever source we want.
The same goes for Pathfinder obviously.
Many rules of Pathfinder were brought during the alpha and beta by gamers, so it seems natural that most of them will continue to customize the game to fit their style.
|
If PFRPG reverts some of the things I like in the Beta back to closer to 3.5, yeah, I'll stick with Beta, I guess, or at least keep the rules from Beta. I've got the pdfs and three hard copies, so that won't be a problem. However, hopefully they'll just revert the things I didn't like in the Beta (like the nerfs to Combat Expertise and Power Attack). However, we shall see; I actually quite like the changes to wizards*, but I can see them going, although I'd hope that stuff like the extra spells stays at lower level.
*I like Hand of the Apprentice, which I don't think is overpowered, for example.
|
If I'm the DM, I'll use whatever I like from 3.5, PF Beta, and PF final rules (not to mention Unearthed Arcana and various other splatbooks).
Here are my two coppers. With the transition from 2.0 to 3.0 there were howls of protest. People were worried about the gaming community being split etc. But at the end of the day, 3.0 D&D was what Wotc, which had purchased TSR, was publishing. Nobody had to buy 3rd edition. People if they wanted to could stick with 2.0 D&D. Heck I remember in high school; my DM was my history teacher, Mr. Army. He knew 1st edition backwards and forwards, and I remember trying to convince him how much better 2nd edition was. He thanked me for my efforts but told me that he didn’t have the time to learn a new system. He asked me if I was having fun in the games, to which I replied yes. He then said having fun was what was most important after all. The system didn’t matter too much.
I think there are probably people in the gaming community playing all editions of D&D. I happen to want to stick to 3.5 because I prefer it, and I like what Paizo is doing. If I like the Pathfinder system, I will most likely go there. If not, I will stick with the Beta.
At the end of the day, we will all make slight modifications to the game to suit our tastes. For example, I like what has been done with the skill system in the Beta edition.
However, I like the concentration skill, and I like the rope use skill. I’m keeping them.
Is that a big deal? No.
Well you got much more of an earful then I intended.
What they said.
I'm a little torn. I like the Pathfinder Beta very much, but generally give my players free reign with 3rd party material and the WotC splatbooks. I do reserve some veto power for obviously broken bits, but rarely excercize it. In any event, having the rules closer to 3.5 allows me to utilize more rules with less chance of overlapping rules. On the other hand I like that Pathfinder beta feels like it really doesn't NEED much of that to remain interesting at higher levels. I will definitely be getting it as soon as it is available but I always have a wait an see attitude as far as using any ruleset wholecloth. If it doesn't address my particular issues well enough I may continue my everproject of making a d20 system variant specific for my style of gaming and campaign.
I'm going to try to play at least a couple of games with the final release before I make any decisions, but in the long run I'll probably be running my own version of Dungeons and Dragons. I'll look at the material I have and will fashion a system that I like. At the very least I'll probably be rewriting the classes to match my vision of what archetypes I want in my world and rewriting the races to match my vision of what they should be like.
If the BETA and the official RAW are really quite the same, then there's no problem.
If the offical RAW is really different, there are three possibilites:
1. I will like the RAW much better than BETA, in which case I will definitely make the switch.
2. I will like the RAW about as much as the BETA, despite the defferences, in which case I will make the switch so I can be compatible with upcoming modules/APs released for the new RAW.
3. I will not like the RAW enough to make the swtich, in which case I will simply plunder the BETA and RAW for houserules and then just stick to 3.5 since I have all those books.
QED
Pretty likely to switch to Final. May grandfather in certain things already in effect for characters, through the end of the adventure paths.
Nice to meet you, I am a GM that does not use House Rules :-).I don't know one single GM who doesn't use houserules.
We all use houserules, from whatever source we want.
So you allow every possible source book, including Unearthed Arcana? ;-)
|
|
So you allow every possible source book, including Unearthed Arcana? ;-)Nice to meet you, I am a GM that does not use House Rules :-).I don't know one single GM who doesn't use houserules.
We all use houserules, from whatever source we want.
Hog, I know we have this conversation...You know I hate that book.
I see Unearthed Arcana as a book of house rules. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it... Is that enough Hate?....
In my past games I allowed all WotC Splat books as long as they don't change the rules of the PhB or DMG.
That said...
I am Moving to Pathfinder RPG as a GM, so I will be more picky on splats because of possibilities of not working well with the RPG.
Reason I don't use house rules is because I move around a lot, and keeping to the rules as written keeps the players aware what they are getting.
Also I have a bad taste on house rules because of GMs who improperly abused them .
I go Third Edition . And by Third Edition, I mean 3.5, Beta, PF final, McWod, AE, True20, and whatever houserules I like.
It's a big, nice toolbox.
|
|
I may stick with Rage Points for Barbarians, AKA Psychic Warriors with Anger Issues, but yeah, seriously, name me ANY DM, GM, or Storyteller who doesn't have at least one or two house rules. If there are things about the Beta I like better, that's the beautiful thing: I can change them for my game. Simple as that.
|
I GM Pathfinder Society scenarios at gamedays and conventions, so I'll be using the final Pathfinder RPG rules as written, also for Adventure Paths with my home group, so we don't confuse variations of the rules between home play and Society scenarios.
I'm hoping the final Pathfinder RPG rules will be closer to 3.5 than Beta, so I can continue to use WotC and other 3.5 sourcebooks with Pathfinder RPG without much fuss. My players enjoy exploring classes/races/feats/spells etc from WotC and other 3.5 sources.
We also play Living Arcanis, which we may continue for a long while yet. While we'll probably continue using 3.5 for our Arcanis campaigns, over time new players come and go, some of which may not have access to original 3.5 rulebooks. I'm guessing if Pathfinder RPG becomes the defacto 3.5 core, we may consider dovetailing Pathfinder RPG into our Arcanis or other campaigns if it comes to that. Another reason to keep Pathfinder RPG close to 3.5.
Other campaigns settings could benefit from the enhancements offered by Pathfinder RPG, just as our Pathfinder Adventure Paths have benefited from Races of the Wild, Complete class series, and other 3.5 sourcebooks, if the rules base is compatible enough to work together, which I'm confident it will be.
|
|
So you allow every possible source book, including Unearthed Arcana? ;-)Nice to meet you, I am a GM that does not use House Rules :-).I don't know one single GM who doesn't use houserules.
We all use houserules, from whatever source we want.
I don't use housrules either. Though not using all books is not IMHO a house rule (I simply don't own all sourcebooks). Ever since I started running games at conventions I started to run RAW - even at home games so I didn't get confused.
With Pathfinder RPG I will run it with PFRPG sourcebooks only - I doubt I will mix and match with 3.5.
If PFRPG reverts some of the things I like in the Beta back to closer to 3.5, yeah, I'll stick with Beta, I guess, or at least keep the rules from Beta. I've got the pdfs and three hard copies, so that won't be a problem. However, hopefully they'll just revert the things I didn't like in the Beta (like the nerfs to Combat Expertise and Power Attack). However, we shall see; I actually quite like the changes to wizards*, but I can see them going, although I'd hope that stuff like the extra spells stays at lower level.
*I like Hand of the Apprentice, which I don't think is overpowered, for example.
I'm fairly sure hand of the apprentice will stay! Joshua Frost's Ezren had it in the Jason Bulmahn playtest game, and I'm fairly sure that was the final or close to final incarnation of the rules. Classes with changes from beta will be barbarian and paladin, and all animal companions, and those changes are on the boards her already.
Otherwise, I don't see the classes chapter being that different, nor the races to be honest. I've gotten over my dislike of both halflings and gnomes having +2 Cha, and I get the feeling that like with all things paizo, I'll love or grow to love most of the final rules.
Can't wait for august.
|
|
I go Third Edition . And by Third Edition, I mean 3.5, Beta, PF final, McWod, AE, True20, and whatever houserules I like.
It's a big, nice toolbox.
Whoa. That means you'd end up in a single world with an Awakened holding a pair of Berettas (MCWoD) with his Ninja Spy (Oriental Adventures) sidekick being healed by a Radiant Servant of Pelor and obtaining information from a Pathfinder Chronicler?
If so, that'd be nucking futs. And incredibly cool. I want to play with you.
I don't use housrules either. Though not using all books is not IMHO a house rule (I simply don't own all sourcebooks).
I guess it's a matter of semantics. I consider statements like "I only allow rules from books X, Y, & Z" to fall under the category of house rules. Especially considering the special case where book "Z" was written by me on a cocktail napkin. :-)
For me its always been economics. I had a huge investment in 2.0 books and was very late in the switch to 3e - about 2.5 years ago, I finally jumped in. It really wasn't a matter of loyalty, but my pocketbook.
One of our players runs a Pizza Place and traded pizzas for 3e books, overtime he got most of them. Slowly I've picked up PH, DMG, MM, MM2, Lords of Madness, and Book of Vile Darkness. So now I'm committed to 3e.
On an aside, I began a side career as a Pro fantasy cartographer including several published commissions. I've even been pulled into the publication world with goals of creating 3e/Pathfinder adventure modules, game settins and rulebooks.
In this regard, I've have concerns over the GSL license and for that reason alone, I won't involve myself with 4e. Paizo created an escape from the new road I didn't want to travel with Pathfinder. It was the best solution for D&D gaming and publishing, so I'm committed to Pathfinder.
Rules, schmools - if Paizo continues to create and support a gaming system that is still D&D (even though its called Pathfinder) and not GSL, I will support it.
GP
Whoa. That means you'd end up in a single world with an Awakened holding a pair of Berettas (MCWoD) with his Ninja Spy (Oriental Adventures) sidekick being healed by a Radiant Servant of Pelor and obtaining information from a Pathfinder Chronicler?
What? No way in Hell!
That would definetly be a Dervish of Serenrae doing the healing :D
If so, that'd be nucking futs. And incredibly cool. I want to play with you.
I wasn't implying all at once, but you gave me ideas.
But berettas? That's so CS. I'd use two Five Sevens. or make it a werewolf with two Desert Eagles - because he can.
|
|
Nice to meet you, I am a GM that does not use House Rules :-).I don't know one single GM who doesn't use houserules.
We all use houserules, from whatever source we want.
I'm also anti house rules, oh and add in splat books also. For as long as I can remember - it's been PHB only for my players. I never considered you couldn't make up any type of character concept you could think of with just the "base" book. I mean hitty type, spelly type, heally type, and sneaky type all seem to be covered already - and multiples of each! What is missing (ok, no one say psionics...)
pfRPG, if they continue to develop the game as presented in the beta then I think definitely will be playing the official release. Having a great time with the beta at the moment however.
S.
Sure - I steal liberally from everything. PF Beta has a passle of good stuff crammed into it. Naturally I'm anxious to see the final. ^_^
|
|
I wasn't implying all at once, but you gave me ideas.
But berettas? That's so CS. I'd use two Five Sevens. or make it a werewolf with two Desert Eagles - because he can.
The awakeneds in our story have this unending passion for Berettas that I thought it was an awakened thing, you know... I am more of a Demon guy, why fill anyone with holes yourself if you can coo someone else to do it for you? But then again, I'm the DM there, not a player.
BTW, I tried a waaay simpler version of what I referred to. In our story, the guys couldn't quite stop most of the Nightmare Wave's effects nor agents, so they're playing in what's left of the world: some kind of homebrewed post-apocalyptic MCWoD setting with fantasy/steampunk sprinkles. Tomb raiding the ruins of gun stores to get ammo and whatnot. But not the holy-beholder-all-the-systems-rolled-into-one thing.
Anyway, if you manage to pull out a carnival of systems for a single story, well, that should provide quite a remarkable roleplaying chronicle.
I'm also anti house rules, oh and add in splat books also. For as long as I can remember - it's been PHB only for my players. I never considered you couldn't make up any type of character concept you could think of with just the "base" book. I mean hitty type, spelly type, heally type, and sneaky type all seem to be covered already - and multiples of each! What is missing (ok, no one say psionics...)
pfRPG, if they continue to develop the game as presented in the beta then I think definitely will be playing the official release. Having a great time with the beta at the moment however.
S.
There are several non-core base classes that do fix problems with the PHB archetypes.
For example, I want to play a character that is effective at hit and run melee tactics. The fighter's pretty much out, because at higher levels he's only really competitive if he full attacks. The rogue needs to be flanking or springing out of cover (something that isn't guaranteed in a dungeon) to do it, and even then his accuracy isn't going to be as good. The ranger still needs full attacks to do it, but he's at least closer. The Scout, on the other hand, is excellent because his whole schtick is moving and attacking. A little Spring Attack and he's doing respectable damage while avoiding attacks and not necessitating full attack actions. The Dervish PrC is also a good option.
If I wanted to play a character who was magic incarnate, but didn't want to deal with Vancian - heck, I just want magic to be my sword, not any special spells really, then the Warlock's really one of the only classes to fit the bill. If I want a warrior who can lead from the front lines, providing aide to his allies and not hiding behind everyone else (like the bard would have to), then the option of Crusader, Warblade, or (though it's not as good) Marshal are all good choices. Fighters can't do it, because they lack social skills as well as ways to boost their allies.
The core 11 cover a decent spread, but there are always much more elegant solutions than trying to shoe-horn them into a role they weren't built for. For example, from the 11, if I wanted to build a "swashbuckler" type character, I'd combine rogue and barbarian, rather than rogue and fighter. The barbarian does better in light armor, has a "rush head long into danger, heedless of opposition" feel with the right reflavoring of rage, and is faster, to boot. He's also got more skill points. The rogue levels would be needed for the appropriate social skills to be available. A better choice in some ways would be just using the swashbuckler class from CW (though it does lack some competitive high level features, the Duelist PrC might be a good way to go eventually), or the Warblade specializing in Diamond Mind maneuvers. They fit the bill without necessarily needing lots of multiclassing and reflavoring.
And that's why I use splat books. Because every time I look through one, I get ideas for characters I could never have created using the core books.
But berettas? That's so CS. I'd use two Five Sevens. or make it a werewolf with two Desert Eagles - because he can.Twink.
;)
Doing two FN P90s would be twinking. Or G36s
The awakeneds in our story have this unending passion for Berettas that I thought it was an awakened thing, you know
Tell them to wake up. :D
Anyway, if you manage to pull out a carnival of systems for a single story, well, that should provide quite a remarkable roleplaying chronicle.
+1 Holy speed sniper rifle for the win. Or +1 Human bane collision heavy machine gun.
Grist for the mill. I intentionally designed my Classless Hybrid Pathfinder rules so that just about anything is easy to convert to them and use, and so that everything is optional. To me, there's now no difference between 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder Beta, Final Pathfinder, Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, or even Shadowrun 4.0 for that matter.
Linky?
Kirth Gersen's PF Classless System (Single zipped .doc file 257 KB)
As I catch problems, I keep hitting myself (e.g., "QR" was going to stand for "Quality Results" as in Victory Games, before I decided to axe the term, but it still pops up occasionally). Still, on a lark I decided to convert all of Complete Warrior for the system, which took me a total of about two hours.|
|
Linky?Kirth Gersen's PF Classless System (Single zipped .doc file 257 KB)
i'll check it out. thanks, kirth!
|
|
Tell them to wake up. :D
Maybe, I'll just have to prepare things, as it is, a 9-freak party means a lot of destruction.
+1 Holy speed sniper rifle for the win. Or +1 Human bane collision heavy machine gun.
A +1 True Undeath, Holy L115A3 (Long Range Sniper Rifle) would do just fine, they wouldn't need speed with the horrifying range that monster has... Or a dissecating burst C4.
How'd you manage it? Kind of a Those Who Hunt Elves story? KaeYoss, if for some reason you manage to pull it off, honestly, there's a mexican that would almost... hrm... kill? to see that.
|
Personally as I see it, it is a houserule to allow any splatbook at all. Splatbooks are not part of the core rules. So by not allowing splatbooks or outside sources from the 3 core books, you are not in fact using houserules. Splatbooks are purely optional rules.
However, I will buy and use the final version simply because of Pathfinder Society. In games outside Society I am likely to allow, Beta, 3.5, and heck even stuff from the boards here (there was an AWESOME Paladin version posted once).
Big fan of PDFs in that case since I can copy pages and hash them together as our official book.
And I LOVE Unearthed Arcana. Probably the best darn book added to the 3.5 franchise.
|
|
For those using the Beta edition - if the final PF RPG is not to your liking (for whatever reason) would you stick with Beta, move back to 3.5 or go with PFRPG regardless of your dislike?
That's a really interesting question. Thanks for asking it.
If the final PF RPG reverts more fully to 3.5, I'd consider
a) not purchasing the physical product (what's the point? I already got 3.5) and
b) continuing to purchase other Paizo product (primarily, the modules) since I could then continue playing them in 3.5 with next to no conversion effort. (And yes, I have a very tight idea of what "next to no" means, and has to mean here for me.)
If the final PF RPG is further removed from 3.5 than the Beta, it's the other way round: I will purchase it and mine it for good 3.5 houserules (like I did with Monte's Books of Experimental Might), but give up buying modules designed under that ruleset and instead complete my 3.5 collection.
PS. I'm not sure I'm in your intended group of "people already using the Beta". I use the Beta as a 3.5 DM reference, am using the Beta classes when designing some NPCs (those rogues are just brilliant!), but my players are all using the 3.5 PHB.
|
|
Grist for the mill. I intentionally designed my Classless Hybrid Pathfinder rules so that just about anything is easy to convert to them and use, and so that everything is optional. To me, there's now no difference between 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder Beta, Final Pathfinder, Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, or even Shadowrun 4.0 for that matter.
With a name like Kirth Gersen, I'm sure you are using Vanceian spell casting. Teehe!
Your truly,
Howard Alan Treesong
This strikes me as such an odd thread... given the ease of "house ruling" rules and the using what works for your campaign, why is this a question? The work needed is minimal and the impact, while significant, is not too much... oh well. I like most of the beta, will probably like most of the final, like most of 3.5, and, of course, all my own house rules. I'll use the mix that best suits my campaign and players. I remember the "though must play only the official rules" attitude with AD&D (1st edition) and how much most of us disliked the "from on high" mindset it represented. I can't really imagine sticking strictly to one rules set with so much compatible material to choose from. Like sitting down to a 4 course feast and eating only one thing. Peculiar, but to each their own.