Two comments


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


1. I'm so glad to see that this is NOT the "Pathfinder Role Playing Game Version 1.0". Check out the PFSRD as well--no version numbers in sight. It's great to just have the game without the software-like version numbers. I hope it stays that way. The game can evolve without having new versions. A version number just indicates a lack of compatibility with a predecessor and does not belong in an evolving RPG rule set.

2. To me PFRPG and 3E are the same game. From what I have read to date I can't get over how compatible the two are. I'm shocked really and so pleased to have D&D back. To be honest my gaming group will most likely not be purchasing the PFRPG any time soon since we will stick with the 3E stuff but we will CERTAINLY be using the Pathfinder adventure paths and Pathfinder stand alone modules, no doubt, as soon as we finish Savage Tide (on "Into the Abyss" now).

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

cibet44 wrote:
1. I'm so glad to see that this is NOT the "Pathfinder Role Playing Game Version 1.0". Check out the PFSRD as well--no version numbers in sight. It's great to just have the game without the software-like version numbers. I hope it stays that way. The game can evolve without having new versions. A version number just indicates a lack of compatibility with a predecessor and does not belong in an evolving RPG rule set.

I do hope that Pathfinder is long-lived and successful enough to eventually merit a second edition. I just hope that's not for ten years or so.

Quote:


2. To me PFRPG and 3E are the same game. From what I have read to date I can't get over how compatible the two are. I'm shocked really and so pleased to have D&D back. To be honest my gaming group will most likely not be purchasing the PFRPG any time soon since we will stick with the 3E stuff but we will CERTAINLY be using the Pathfinder adventure paths and Pathfinder stand alone modules, no doubt, as soon as we finish Savage Tide (on "Into the Abyss" now).

The transition from 3rd edition to Pathfinder seems very much like the transition between AD&D 1st and 2nd edition. The difference, of course, is that Paizo didn't deliberately remove half-orcs, demons, devils, and anything else that might be considered offensive.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

There is a silent "1.0" in front of "The Pathfinder RPG". The alpha and beta versions were called out as such, but "alphas" and "betas" are like negative versions, which leaves what we have now as the baseline.

I certainly hope that the rules don't "evolve" silently without version numbers to call them out; that would be incredibly confusing. Though some errata is to be expected, occorse.

I think there is a lot of confusion concerning the term "backwards compatibility". It doesn't actually measure how MUCH you change (as some have suggested), only how well the rules you're writing interface with what already exists. Most terms in PRPG should be MEANINGFUL in 3.5; not only that, but they should mean roughly the same thing.

Ultimately, backwards compatibility is about communication. Removing something completely is awful for backwards compatibility, because that term becomes jibberish to PRPG users. Likewise, adding new terms (including new feats) should be done sparingly, because these terms won't be meaningful to 3.5 users who buy 3.P products, increasing the amount of conversion work.

Conversely, changes like those made to the Power Attack feat are fine. The feat still exists, and it still does roughly the same thing. If an NPC with a greatax has Power Attack, that's still a good feat for him. This change doesn't hurt backwards compatibility even though the mechanics of the feat changed completely.

Somewhere in the middle you have something like Cleave. It's still there, and still grants extra attacks (a magic weapon that grants "+5 to cleave attacks" still works fine), but its roll in combat has changed. Cleave used to be a staple for dragons, but now, a monster with multiple attacks would be foolish to use it.

I don't like the "+2/+2" feats (Athletic, Deft Hands, etc); in my game, there is just one feat that grants a bonus to two related skills of yoru choice. However, if Pathfinder had made that change it would have really hurt backwards compatibility, and I think it's good that they didn't.

Sorry, bit of a side-track there. I'm still digesting the rules, myself.


Hydro wrote:
I don't like the "+2/+2" feats (Athletic, Deft Hands, etc); in my game, there is just one feat that grants a bonus to two related skills of yoru choice. However, if Pathfinder had made that change it would have really hurt backwards compatibility, and I think it's good that they...

I *really* wish they had been 'collapsed' into a "Skillful" Feat, which contained a sub-table listing each and retaining the BW-compatable 3.5-heritage names (so you mark down "Skillful: Athletic" on your character sheet). This would make it easy to look-up, instead of having to remember the specific name to find it in alphabetical order (There isn't a separate Skill Focus for each Skill, is there?)

At the LEAST, they could have been separated out into a separate section on the Feat Table, like Item Creation or Metamagic Feats are, as this would also assist in looking them up (i.e. you know what skills you want a +2/+2 Feat for, but you don't know the name)

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

I find it isn't that hard to scan from the summery column of the big "feats" table, but I agree that that collapse would have improved the game slightly.

However, I think that including a table (such as with skills) is a bit of a mea culpa. It's like saying "we made such an un-3.5-friendly change that you now need a table to keep track, but we felt it was worth it. Here's that table."

And sometimes it IS worth it, don't get me wrong. Like most things I suppose it's just a balancing act.


Sure, but you want to make sure you're "balancing" against distinct benefits, not just inertia.
What BENEFIT exists by scattering them around by their alphabetical names?
(that may not be obvious to someone looking for that Feat giving +2 to Climb and something else)
If Metamagic Feats are separated out on the Feat Table, why not the +2/+2 Skill Feats?

3.5's PHB didn't list Wizard Schools in the class itself, yet PRPG does (along with Domains/Bloodlines), because IT WORKS. It's just an organizational convention. I think it's pretty clear for BW-compatability that "Skillful:Athletic" and 3.5's "Athletic", both granting +2/+2 to same skills, ARE the same Feats.

/shrug

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Two comments All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion