I'll start by saying that I love Golarion and have no plans altogether to quit using neither Pathfinder Chronicles, Companions, or APs. However, I'm seriously concerned regarding Pathfinder's current plans for re-releasing book after book of previously existing d20/SRD material.
Yes, I understand that Paizo is a business, a business which has the bottomline of selling books, no sales, no books, no Paizo, easy as that. But as an aftermath of Paizo's success and Pathfinder's subsequent growth, 3E's coffin is hit with yet another nail with each new book of rehashed 3E material. Paizo people used to talk in the begining about backwards compatibility and the ability to use your old books, yet said talk about -working with- 3.5 is now being replaced with what I can only see as an intention to -replace- 3.5: DMG (now aka Gamemaster Guide), PHB2 (now aka Tome of Secrets), Psionics (from Dreamscarred), and I heard about an "Advanced players handbook" of sorts too. Ironically, it seems it won't be 4E the one to succeed in finally burying 3E, it's gonna be Pathfinder.
Pathfinder may be many things, but it isn't 3.5, it's not even a Variant Players Handbook because it's not the same system (it doesn't even share 3E's mission or vision). If sales numbers don't lie, in the near future we're going to see plenty more PF gaming tables, which is great for Paizo, then again, those tables won't be 3.5 tables, they're gonna be PF tables, with PF rules, PF classes, and PF stuff. Yes, those few who still stand by 3.5 can always still grab PF stuff and adapt it to their games with little fuzz, but as 3.5 -tables- go, they're likely to keep getting fewer and fewer until eventually following the steps of 2E in the fabled Dragons' Graveyard, a museum piece only played by a handful of grognards few and far between (Points-of-Light landscape... ooh the irony!). Not that I mind -that much- to play a dead system though, I've been GMing an Alternity game for almost 2 years now, but it's still sad to aknowledge 3E is finally dead.
The edition wars are over... and we have one casualty.
Insert Flames after the dotted line.
..........................................................
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I completely understand what you're saying. However, there's a reality we have to face: Wizards isn't printing 3.5 anymore. All the 3.5 core books that will ever exist are already in circulation. In order to keep the game alive, people have to be able to acquire the books to play! And of course Paizo couldn't just start printing new copies of the 3.5 core books (they belong to WotC).
So yes, it's not exactly 3.5. But, I believe it's in the same spirit as 3.5 and, as you said, existing 3.5 material is very easy to adapt for PFRPG, making it perfect for those of us who want to keep moving on down the same road.
I am in complete agreement with dogbert however we are faced with the realization of "what are you gonna do". There is nothing we can do. I have multiple copies of all my 3/3.5 stuff and am an ebay addict for getting new stuff but other than that we have no choice in what the big companies decide to do.
I firmly believe the instant D&D slows or loses money Hasbro WILL shut the entire thing down. The history,the culture none of it seems to matter to the corps and their bottom line. The fact that Pazio is trying to save what it can is laudable.
Maybe I am being overly doom and gloom but I can see within the next 15-20 years NO D&D as we know it in any incarnation. The young people simply arnt intrested in using their imagination to create. They want to take the lazy way out and play in the world created by others,yes it's an overly broad generalization but it sums up my fear for the future.
I think the best we can do is hope for the future and put our support where we feel it is deserved and as far as right now it's pazio. I do not plan on playing in goloran because my group and I love ebberon and one guy still brings out the tired old greyhawk stuff so we dont need new worlds just new adventures.
|
Pathfinder is the spiritual successor of all the previous versions of D&D. Paizo has a whole slew of "D&D people" on board - Monte, Jeff, Wolf, Colin, Ed ... Erik and James - the "Greyhawk guys". For me, PFRPG channels everything I fondly remember about D&D, from Gygaxian naturalism to 2ed baroque splendor.
The funniest thing is that Lisa helped launch Magic: the Gathering, which was the "RPG killer" and one of the factors behind TSR's downfall (all those abortive attempts to compete - Dragon Dice, Blood War, sheesh), and now she carries on the "classic D&D" torch after WotC, the M:TG company, dropped it. I hope she gets to giggle at the irony. :)
However, I'm seriously concerned regarding Pathfinder's current plans for re-releasing book after book of previously existing d20/SRD material.
I'd be concerned, too, if that were the case.
Paizo people used to talk in the begining about backwards compatibility and the ability to use your old books, yet said talk about -working with- 3.5 is now being replaced with what I can only see as an intention to -replace- 3.5:
The most devious part is that Paizo's gninja minions sneak into your house and steal your old books, so you must buy the new ones. That, and intentionally changing the rules so the old stuff doesn't work at all.
Well, that would be devious if it happened.
DMG (now aka Gamemaster Guide)
Not the same.
And this doesn't even make sense. Yes, the DMG was replaced. By the core rulebook. That was part of the plan from the beginning: Create a set of core rulebooks to succeed 3e core rulebooks.
Sure, The Gamemastery Guide will have information for GMs. But it's by no means necessary to play the game. Have all the information you need? Don't buy the new book. Don't need NPC stat blocks or sample treasures or whatever? Don't buy the new book. Got the 3.5e DMG2 and want to use that? Don't buy the new book.
No one is holding a gun to your head to buy the Gamemastery Guide. I doubt any of the material will ever be referenced in Adventure Paths, and if they are, the information will probably be right ther ein the book (like "ingenious rabid squirrel pit trap from GMG, effects as follows:).
If you don't have DMG2 or any of the other books out there offering additional advice to gamemasters but don't want Paizo's take, go buy the other books (if you can find them).
PHB2 (now aka Tome of Secrets), Psionics (from Dreamscarred)
Yeah! Curse you Paizo for not dispatching your Assassin Death Squad to kill those filthy greedmongers who dared to create these books! How could you allow other companies you have no control over to do stuff you couldn't change, anyway?
, and I heard about an "Advanced players handbook" of sorts too.
Yeah. Advanced Players' Guide. Will have 6 new classes, and extra options for every one. Sounds like PHB2? Or Compolete....? Or Any other book with classes, feats, and so on? Definetely. Is it those? Hell no. The classes we know about sound new. Something I haven't seen in that form yet.
And again: If you don't want that stuff, don't get it. Nothing's being buried. If you'd rather use PHB2 and the Complete Series, use that. Or get the new book and use everything, the more the merrier.
Pathfinder may be many things, but it isn't 3.5, it's not even a Variant Players Handbook because it's not the same system (it doesn't even share 3E's mission or vision).
I couldn't disagree more.
No, it isn't 3.5, because it's a new revision. It definetly still is 3rd edition, though. It is the same system, it has the same defining concept behind it.
If sales numbers don't lie, in the near future we're going to see plenty more PF gaming tables, which is great for Paizo, then again, those tables won't be 3.5 tables, they're gonna be PF tables, with PF rules, PF classes, and PF stuff.
Your point?
You know, a big reason for the dwindling number of 3.5e players is probably exactly the same as the dwindling number of 3.0 players: The books are no longer made, you cannot just order them off amazon or buy them in a gaming store.
Paizo didn't just reprint those books (couldn't do a 100% reprint, anyway), but they took care to keep it compatible enough.
Yes, those few who still stand by 3.5 can always still grab PF stuff and adapt it to their games with little fuzz, but as 3.5 -tables- go, they're likely to keep getting fewer and fewer until eventually following the steps of 2E in the fabled Dragons' Graveyard
2e and of course 3.0.
Why is no one complaining about the death of 3.0?
Not that I mind -that much- to play a dead system though, I've been GMing an Alternity game for almost 2 years now, but it's still sad to aknowledge 3E is finally dead.
As long as Pathfinder (1.0 - because I guess that in a few years, something between 3 and 6, there will be PF 2.0, and it will be a new edition rather than a revision) is alive, D&D Third Edition is alive. It won't be 3.0, it won't be 3.5 - because their death knell was sounded the moment the publisher stopped producing and selling those books, but it's still the same basic game as its two predecessors.
You can still use the old books (if you have them, or can find them) with PF (heck, you could use stuff from sword and fist!), or use the new stuff Paizo (and other companies) releases with 3.5 or 3.0, but of course, there won't be no new books that are explicitly 3.0 or 3.5. Why should there be?
The edition wars are over... and we have one casualty.
Whatever it is, it's not 3e. 3e Thrives.
I mean, the very fact that you yourself stated that you'll keep using Pathfinder Adventure Paths and Chronicles and all that should clue you in on the fact that the system is still a strong contender. If PF really were a new system as you claim, you couldn't do that.
So all in all, I fail to see the problem. I just don't see Paizo starting burning books to push their new system. I don't see anyone forcing you to throw away PHB2, DMG2, Complete (anything), and whatever and buy the new Paizo stuff.
Especially since Paizo won't clone the old books. There will be similarities, but that's because some of that information is really useful and Paizo wants a book that is in print and available to contain that information.
Which rocks. The APG's Cavalier, Alchemist, Oracle and Summoner classes might not be like PHB2's new classes, but if I decide to write a commertial adventure after their release, I will be able to use those classes.
Paizo shares.
Maybe I am being overly doom and gloom but I can see within the next 15-20 years NO D&D as we know it in any incarnation.
You're being overly doom and gloom. Or you're not quite initiated into the Secret Order of True D&D. There will be D&D as we know it in the next 15-20 years. It just will be in disguise. It will call itself Pathfinder.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hi, Kae Yoss. I see, and share, Dogbert's problem.
I run a homebrew campaign, based around 3rd Edition, with a heavy dollop of optional rules from Unearthed Arcana and some other sources. I can take most any d20 product, including a lot of great adventures from Paizo, and drop them into my campaign. Balance is transparent. (That is to say, if they were balanced originally, then they still are, even with all my quirky rules).
But I'm reading through "Crypt of the Everflame", a Pathfinder adventure for first-level characters. And I GMed some Pathfinder Society adventures at GenCon. And they don't work right using baseline 3.5 rules. The villains use spells and supernatural abilities that they don't have in 3.5. The balance between characters is off. "Crypt of the Everflame" kills a party of 1st-Level PCs in 3.5.
Now, can I *adapt* Pathfinder adventures to 3.5? Oh, sure. Heck, Kae Yoss, I can adapt AD&D 2nd Edition adventures to 3.5. (Probably 4th Edition, too, if I set my mind to it.)
Of course there needed to be a ruleset in print. But I think that, when the choice came down to (a) staying conservative on balance issues and power levels, or (b) writing a kick-ass set of rules, Jason and the Pathfinder team have consistently chosen (b).
(Example: Favored Class. The Pathfinder rules simply make everybody a little stronger, with a +1 hp or skill rank. It's fun to give the low-skill characters another skill rank. It gives the players another little choice each level. The only purpose I can see is that it discourages multi-classing and class "dipping": in 3.5, the "favored class" rule encourages a dwarf rogue to take a level in Fighter, to reinforce attitudes about dwarves. In Pathfinder, the same dwarf rogue is *discouraged* from dipping a level in Fighter.)
Dogbert should correct me if I misunderstand him, but I think that's the essence of his concern:
|
I have to agree with those that don't appreciate an announcement for new core material in the same week that the brand new Core Rulebook is released. I know it's going to have a year of playtesting, but that's neither here nor there. It was the thought of having a complete game in one volume that attracted me to PF. I know, I don't have to buy the upcoming book, and I probably won't, though it will be difficult not too if Blackguard is included. The other side of that coin is the distasteful sensation of having to buy an entire book for one character class that should have been included in the Core Rulebook in the first place (I'm not going into all the reasons why it was not included since that seems to have exploded one thread already).
Core is not the same as base. These are base classes, i.e. 20 level classes as opposed to prestige classes. They are NOT core classes.
If they are used in future Paizo publications, as far as I understand, they'd be referenced in exactly the same way that other OCL material in referenced, i.e. any new rules or new abilities will be included in the stat block.
The advanced player's book is no more a required core book that Complete Arcane was.
|
|
Since you seem to know so much about this, can you tell me whether the upcoming book will be included as part of the core subscription?I have to agree with those that don't appreciate an announcement for new core material in the same week that the brand new Core Rulebook is released. I know it's going to have a year of playtesting, but that's neither here nor there. It was the thought of having a complete game in one volume that attracted me to PF. I know, I don't have to buy the upcoming book, and I probably won't, though it will be difficult not too if Blackguard is included. The other side of that coin is the distasteful sensation of having to buy an entire book for one character class that should have been included in the Core Rulebook in the first place (I'm not going into all the reasons why it was not included since that seems to have exploded one thread already).Core is not the same as base. These are base classes, i.e. 20 level classes as opposed to prestige classes. They are NOT core classes.
If they are used in future Paizo publications, as far as I understand, they'd be referenced in exactly the same way that other OCL material in referenced, i.e. any new rules or new abilities will be included in the stat block.
The advanced player's book is no more a required core book that Complete Arcane was.
There is no such thing as a core subscription, for one. There is a PFRPG subscription which includes material for the PFRPG as opposed to Adventure Paths, Modules or Golarion specific material (covered by Chronicles and Companions), and I would assume this would be covered but that does not mean it is CORE, i.e. the assumption is everyone has it in other Paizo products. As far as I know there are only two core products, the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary.
EDIT: Although I suspect that we are using different definitions of core, which might be the problem.
!
|
I believe we're entering the realm of semantics now. However, I fail to see how the base classes included in the Core Rulebook are more "core" than the base classes that will appear in this upcoming publication. My sense is that this will be part of the PFRPG subscription and that they will be just as "core" as the base classes that appear in the Core Rulebook. I've already been assured by Mr. Jacobs that the hardcover books in this subscription line will be campaign neutral:
"All of the rulebooks in the line, from the Core Rulebook to the Bestiaries to all the other upcoming hardcovers will be campaign neutral. In cases where campaigns are necessary to illustrate a point or provide flavor (such as the case for deities for clerics), we'll draw from Golarion, but that should be relatively rare."
Quote from James Jacobs
I consider "all the rulebooks" in this line to be "core." Apparently, you don't.
Quote from todays blog:
In addition to the expansion of the core classes, this book will also contain six new base classes. They are called base classes because they go from level 1 to level 20, but they are not core classes. Confused? Allow me to explain. We are making an assumption that these new classes will take a role in our world (and possibly yours) that is less common. You will not find them in every adventure, nor will they appear in every product. That means that you can introduce them to your game in a more limited fashion, without having to retcon them into every facet of your campaign.Apparently Paizo at least doesn't consider the new classes core...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Is any game system truly 'dead'? Some people play AD&D just to use an example.
What Pathfinder has done is revitalized the OGL movement. If you look at the evolution of D&D under WotC/Hasbro you see a shift about the time the MMII/Fiend Folio came out.
Books prior to MM II were adding info to the SRD in bits and pieces. Psionics, Stuff from the MotP, Deities and Demigods, etc. The MM II even included two OGL monsters from another publisher.
After the FF, the OGL content dropped off, with the exception of Unearthed Arcana and the XPH. This may be because of the work on 4e, and/or the expectation of the GSL. This didn't stop other 3PP from making their own OGL stuff, but no one (except maybe White Wolf) had the name or the status of a WotC.
Pathfinder (and the smaller market) have shifted this once again. The Society, Paizo's outreach, and yes, the dedication of the fans have exploited a small oportunity. Just as Kobold Quarterly has exploded into a market starved for print, Pathfinder has moved into a market for a RPG using the 3.x engine to tell fantasy stories.
Some folks call Pathfinder 'the real D&D'. I'm not one of them. If I'm playing Mutants and Masterminds, I'm not playing 'D&D' If I play Spycraft, I'm not playing 'D&D'.
Pathfinder is the heir to the concept of OGL. From the PRD, to the amount of open content, Paizo is moving into the OGL niche. As for 3rd party products, people go where the market is. In Open Design that's litteral, since it is the patrons who make the pudding.
At the same time the days of 'slap a logo on it and call it a day' are done. The Tome of Secrets is a good example. It does have some good parts, some of the classes are nice, as are most of the rules given. That said, it does have some signs of being an unfinished work. We already see that the spellblade has a BAB error, the cloistered cler- uh, priest doesn't have all of the 3.5 serial numbers filed off. People are going to point things like that out, and in general be more careful with their gaming dollar. (FYI: I don't regret pre-ordering the Tome, just being honest)
3.5 may well be dead, or just resting. But the OGL will survive, and hopefully thrive.
As to the game I play now... This! Is! PATHFINDER! *chestkick*
I consider "all the rulebooks" in this line to be "core." Apparently, you don't.
I would consider "core" to be all the books one would need to play and/or GM a game. Anything else is extra. In 3.X Core to me was Player's handbook, DM Guide, and Monster Manual. In Pathfinder it is the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary.
Heh-heh. Some game systems were born dead to me.
As Paizo moves forward, I think it will become clearer that they are establishing this distinction between "base" and "core" and adhering to it, so for us it is a matter of learning these terms and using them with the same precision.
Thanks for trying to clear this up, but using your definition of "core," I'd have to say that should the Blackguard be included in the upcoming publication, it will be much more "core" to my campaign than a class like the bard which appears in the core rulebook. I guess it really depends on the campaign, that's why I'm only interested in "campaign neutral" products that let DMs decide these things for themselves.Quote from todays blog:
In addition to the expansion of the core classes, this book will also contain six new base classes. They are called base classes because they go from level 1 to level 20, but they are not core classes. Confused? Allow me to explain. We are making an assumption that these new classes will take a role in our world (and possibly yours) that is less common. You will not find them in every adventure, nor will they appear in every product. That means that you can introduce them to your game in a more limited fashion, without having to retcon them into every facet of your campaign.Apparently Paizo at least doesn't consider the new classes core...
Emphasis mine, obviously. I'd say this is your problem. I don't mean that in the confrontational way I know it sounds, but I don't know a better way to put it. If your definition of 'core' is not in line with Paizo's that is not Paizo's fault. It's their game and I'm pretty sure that means they get to decide what is 'core' for it.
:D
There was a bit of a brouhaha (with not so many haha's) when the Exalted Mona confused these terms in another thread here a while back. Search is disabled, but if you look back in Bugleyman's posts, you might find it. Caused a bit of excitement, it did. So beyond the nice quote above, I'm not sure you're going to get a lot more about the distinction until the Powers-that-be are completely happy with nailing it down and are sure it's going to stick.
DW & Wu Chi - I don't see how this is really a "problem" for Wu Chi. Paizo puts out the goods, he decides which parts work for his game and how. After all, It's his World Now. (Oh, okay, game, since he doesn't want the world.)
Thanks for trying to clear this up, but using your definition of "core," I'd have to say that should the Blackguard be included in the upcoming publication, it will be much more "core" to my campaign than a class like the bard which appears in the core rulebook. I guess it really depends on the campaign, that's why I'm only interested in "campaign neutral" products that let DMs decide these things for themselves.
Using a class that's not core in the rules as a core class in your campaign is certainly your prerogative. But from Paizo's point of view, it's a good idea to define what's core to the game and can, therefore, be assumed to be available to published adventures.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If this is the case, then it would be nice if someone from Paizo would come on here and explain what this distinction is and why it was made.Heh-heh. Some game systems were born dead to me.
As Paizo moves forward, I think it will become clearer that they are establishing this distinction between "base" and "core" and adhering to it, so for us it is a matter of learning these terms and using them with the same precision.
You mean like this:
Quote from todays blog:
In addition to the expansion of the core classes, this book will also contain six new base classes. They are called base classes because they go from level 1 to level 20, but they are not core classes. Confused? Allow me to explain. We are making an assumption that these new classes will take a role in our world (and possibly yours) that is less common. You will not find them in every adventure, nor will they appear in every product. That means that you can introduce them to your game in a more limited fashion, without having to retcon them into every facet of your campaign.
Well, if you would add the Gamemastery book and APG into one volume with PFRPG you would end up at 1000 pages, not sure if I want to carry something like that around ;)Or pay the $119.95 it would probably retail for.
Or just try to lift. :D
|
|
They didn't spell it out, you did! I'd prefer to wait and see what Paizo has to say regarding this issue.I really don't understand how much simpler they can spell it out.
Core class: A class in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook with 20 levels and no pre-reqs.
Base Class: Any other class with 20 levels and no pre-reqs.
I am confused...They have and we have shown you tons of times...
Read the Blog...That is paizo spelling it out.|
|
They didn't spell it out, you did! I'd prefer to wait and see what Paizo has to say regarding this issue.I really don't understand how much simpler they can spell it out.
Core class: A class in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook with 20 levels and no pre-reqs.
Base Class: Any other class with 20 levels and no pre-reqs.
No. Paizo did. Look in the Paizo blog for today. Which has already been quoted several times in response to your queries.
If your definition of 'core' is not in line with Paizo's that is not Paizo's fault. It's their game and I'm pretty sure that means they get to decide what is 'core' for it.Hmmm, I suppose that's why I'd like a statement from Paizo on exactly what their position is and why they took that position. From what I've seen so far, there is no definitive statement on this yet.
[Aside] I get a kick out of people who say something confrontational then go on to explain that's not the way they meant it.
Well, when people have the tendency to take casual phrases such as "Dude, chill", and get all spun up about it, I like to err on the side of caution. I'm just a friendly guy like that.
Allow me.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
In addition to the expansion of the core classes, this book will also contain six new base classes. They are called Confused? Allow me to explain. We are making an assumption that these new classes will take a role in our world (and possibly yours) that is less common. You will not find them in every adventure, nor will they appear in every product. That means that you can introduce them to your game in a more limited fashion, without having to retcon them into every facet of your campaign.
The only books designated as core are the core rulebook and the bestiary. They will be assumed in modules and adventure paths. Every other book will not be core.
Maybe the >>Pathfinder Society<< is what your asking for? It's the only place you will likely find Paizo saying what can and can't be used in an 'offical' campaign.
|
|
Having said that, I'd like to know how Paizo reconciles that position with the previously quoted statement from Mr. Jacobs. What Paizo says on the blog flies directly in the face of Mr. Jacobs' quote. Either the PFRPG subscription line is campaign neutral, in which case distinguishing between core classes and base classes is the prerogative of the DM, or it's not campaign neutral in which case Paizo decides the extent to which particular classes appear in a campaign. I know people will be upset by this and say "just do whatever you want to do" but for once I'd like to see a bright neon line drawn between core rules and so-called "official" campaigns.
I don't quite understand your confusion. But let me try my hand at clarifying.
The rulebooks are campaign neutral in that they do not force you to play in a particular world - i.e. they are world neutral.
A base class is any class that goes from levels 1-20.
A core class is a class that is assumed to be common to all games and is more likely to be included in the Adventure Paths and Modules. The adventure paths (which are Paizo's big sellers) are not campaign neutral. Paizo is defining core classes and core monsters in order to let us, the consumers, know that if we want to run their APs or modules, which books we need to buy. Paizo has a policy of fully statting up any creature or NPCs which are not core - so as to not force their consumers to buy every book they reference.
If you don't use their APs or Modules, you are free to determine what is core for your world. Their statements on the matter have nothing to do with what you can determine you want (only with what they will or will not provide stats for in their own adventures). Likewise, what you want to be core has no bearing with what they determine is core in regards to their premade adventures.
|
|
I know this won't stop the resident bomb-throwers and idle posters looking for something to complain about;
WotC killed off 3.5, not PFRPG. PFRPG is a response to wotc decision to stop production of 3.5, to stop selling 3.5 books, and for asking vendors to return 3.5/d20 licensed books so they can be destroyed.
Paizo had to do something and that something was to come out with a new game based off the SRD, while improving on some of the biggest issues with the 3.5 ruleset (polymorph, codzilla, etc).
I read Crypt of the Everflame before the PFRPG rules came out. In no way did I get the impression that it would be "too hard" for a straight 3.5 group of players who would play with caution, rest, etc. If anything it isn't the power base of the PCs, but it could be because wotc's version of D&D has CR's built for 4 players while PFRPG has it built for 5. Scale down the encounters.
Don't blame Paizo for the problem, really - they are making the best out situation. Taking a 5 year old problem ridden (but good) rule set, tweaking some rules and issues - based upon balance, ease of play, usefulness, speed, etc and updating that decent set of rules. They cannot and should not reprint the SRD as a stripped down PHB and DMG.
And why the concern for core - going to run an "official" RPGA Pathfinder game or is it so you can argue with your players if something should or should not be included in your game?
If you can't control that as a DM you have bigger problems than worrying about core. I am seeing other threads where people are asking is something is Golarion specific or not. Really, if it is about creatures or gear does it matter? Should they strip out the campaign flavor so it can remain campaign neutral? Doesn't seem like a sound marketing scheme since they are trying to sell a campaign world and modules and source books relevant to that world.
BTW still trying to run Gamma World 3rd ed - the one with the craptastic rainbow act table.
|
|
I think I can shed some light on the difference between Core and Base Classes.
As an example see the Thaumathurge Base Class that Paizo used for diverse NPCs and Villains throught the APs.
This is a Base Class from Green Ronin's "Book of Fiends". Base Class because it has 20 levels to advance.
Paizo never published the advancement sheme but only used it to stat out the NPCs/Villains.
Every DM was able to use these NPCs/Villains.
I think that the APHB Classes will work similiar. They will appear here and there statted out in adventures and APs soDMs without the Books can use them.
But if players are interested or if the DM wants to create some NPCs on his own, the Advanced Players Handbook would have to be used.
I see Pathfinder as a continuation of and improvement upon 3.5. I know I will use many of my 3.5 sources with my new Pathfinder rulebook, so I can't consider them old or useless (even if I may need to do a little conversion).
You can't "kill" a gaming system--unless you get everyone to stop playing it. If you want to play 3.5 and not 3.P, keep on truckin'. Last I checked, I know my 3.5 books weren't walking off the shelves. Which isn't to sound snarky--it's to say, "Take heart, nothing's changed, unless you want it to."
As others have pointed out, the only way you MIGHT consider a game system is dead is when the publisher stops publishing it. That would be WotC, stopping publishing the 3.5 core rules a year ago. So if you look at it that way, 3.5 was already dead.
As for the splatbooks--a lot of gamers like to constantly buy shiny new books. It makes their hollow little shiveled souls a little more complete. (PLEASE hear the humor with which I write this.) Paizo is a business, and they know they have a market for supplementary new materials. So they'll make them--nothing wrong with that. I have no problem as long as it's not splat glut... I don't need a book expanding upon every feat tree in the original, or 12 books full of nothing but prestige classes I'll never allow in my campaign. But then--that's the lovely thing about the market. I don't have to buy the ones I don't want.
So far it sounds like the new books are building on what's in core--adding new bloodlines, bardic abilities, etc. So it's new stuff, not all rehashed. Which means old 3.5 books still have a place.
I think in the end I don't think of 3.5 having died; it just had Reincarnation cast on it and became Pathfinder. Same soul, new shiny body.
|
|
Having said that, I'd like to know how Paizo reconciles that position with the previously quoted statement from Mr. Jacobs. What Paizo says on the blog flies directly in the face of Mr. Jacobs' quote. Either the PFRPG subscription line is campaign neutral, in which case distinguishing between core classes and base classes is the prerogative of the DM, or it's not campaign neutral in which case Paizo decides the extent to which particular classes appear in a campaign. I know people will be upset by this and say "just do whatever you want to do" but for once I'd like to see a bright neon line drawn between core rules and so-called "official" campaigns.
All Pathfinder Classes will fit into Golarion.
The Core Class Cleric even uses the Golarion Gods and the related Domains as examples.But all Pathfinder Classes - the Core and most likely the Base from what I have read so far- are and will be generic enough to be used in any campaign.
So, if the hypothetical Blackguard takes a lot of inspiration and flair from Golarion's Hellknights, it can still be used in any campaign if DM and player disregard the Fluff.
Or look at the Pathfinder Chronicler Prestige Class. This is of course Golarion specific flavor. But with a little work it can be transported into Greyhawk or FR.
And lastly, as Greyhawk was the default Setting for 3.5, so will Golarion be the dafault setting for PFRPG.
Creative Director
|
I believe we're entering the realm of semantics now. However, I fail to see how the base classes included in the Core Rulebook are more "core" than the base classes that will appear in this upcoming publication. My sense is that this will be part of the PFRPG subscription and that they will be just as "core" as the base classes that appear in the Core Rulebook. I've already been assured by Mr. Jacobs that the hardcover books in this subscription line will be campaign neutral:
"All of the rulebooks in the line, from the Core Rulebook to the Bestiaries to all the other upcoming hardcovers will be campaign neutral. In cases where campaigns are necessary to illustrate a point or provide flavor (such as the case for deities for clerics), we'll draw from Golarion, but that should be relatively rare."
Quote from James Jacobs
I consider "all the rulebooks" in this line to be "core." Apparently, you don't.
Yeah, the realm of semantics is a pretty huge and convoluted one on the internet, one that no one can really travel through and emerge from the other side unscathed or unwounded.
At this point, the only books in the line I consider to be core are the aptly named "Core Rulebook" that just came out, and the Bestiary that's coming out in a month or so. Those two books are the ones we'll assume everyone who reads a Paizo adventure has access to, and as such we won't reprint how sneak attack or grab or a giant slug or burning hands or a vorpal sword works in adventures. We'll assume you're familiar with the two "core" books.
If, 2 years from now, we put an alchemist or a daemon or a sorcerer with some crazy new bloodline from APH into an adventure, we'll reprint all the relevant rules (or at the very least provide alternate rules from the Core rules).
If we do a "Moon Explorer's Compendium" hardcover in 2034, though, and then we do a "Murder on the Moon" adventure, we probably WILL assume that the "Moon Explorer's Compendium" is a core book for that particular adventure.
My goal is to have customers buying Paizo products because they want them, in other words, not because we're trying to trick them into purchasing books just so they can understand all the books that'll get printed thereafter.
|
Creative Director
|
It probably bears repeating here from other threads.
We aren't interested at Paizo in launching a long line of "splatbooks" that constantly increase and bloat rules options. We're going to TRY to get all of that out of our system with next year's Advanced Player's Handbook, after which we'll be turning our attention to more exotic and unusual stuff.
Like rulebooks for regions that don't assume a European background (such as an Asia themed book or a Moon themed book), books that provide new capstone systems (such as psionics or epic rules), or books that do other stuff that isn't really covered well in the core (such as a book about mass combat or a book about sailing ships or something like that).
Note: None of the books I offhandedly mention above are on any schedules yet, so don't hold it against me if we never do a psionics book or a Moon book!
|
Creative Director
|
I'd like to know how Paizo reconciles that position with the previously quoted statement from Mr. Jacobs. What Paizo says on the blog flies directly in the face of Mr. Jacobs' quote. Either the PFRPG subscription line is campaign neutral, in which case distinguishing between core classes and base classes is the prerogative of the DM, or it's not campaign neutral in which case Paizo decides the extent to which particular classes appear in a campaign. I know people will be upset by this and say "just do whatever you want to do" but for once I'd like to see a bright neon line drawn between core rules and so-called "official" campaigns.
The Rulebook line is campaign neutral. Again... as in the case with deities, if we NEED something in there from a campaign setting to make a point or explain a rule, we WILL use Golarion. But just because something shows up in a rulebook doesn't mean it immediately shows up in Golarion. Everything has the POTENTIAL to do so, but not everything will.
When we release the APH, each GM is free to decide if the new core classes are in his game. We'll probably use the core classes in adventures now and then (and will reprint all the rules you need in case you DON'T have the APH), but if, say, we have an alchemist NPC bad guy and you don't want alchemist PCs in your game, you can just treat that NPC as a unique individual or like a unique monster or something. Change the name of his class; refer to him in game as a "Scion of Nethys" or something.
We aren't going to draw any bright neon lines between rule components. Basically... the goal is for us to build everything in our core rulebooks to be balanced and playable and usable in Golarion, and as we continue to produce adventures we'll sometimes USE those elements. It's impossible to say which ones yet, since the flavor of the adventure comes first and which rules elements we pick to support the story and flavor is impossible to know for stories we haven't yet conceived. I'm not interested, really, in producing content for use with the Pathfinder game that we can't use if we want for Golarion.
But that said, I'm also not interested in suddenly plopping a huge city filled with oracles and cavaliers into the middle of Varisia. The content beyond the core books is rare in Golarion. When we DO introduce stuff like cavaliers and alchemists, we'll do so in a way that doesn't disrupt established world lore.
|
|
Reading through the thread, something occurred to me that I thought might be worth adding:
The nice folks at Paizo have given us all the option of cheap, downloadable PDFs. I plan on buying these even for PF books that I don't think are worth paying full price for. I can then reference them between sessions, print out what pages I need at the game table, et cetera.
This option grants cheap and legal access to all of the books, for a fraction of the cost.
I'll use this option if a book has one or two things that I want to use but cannot justify the purchase of the hardcover volume.
Ahhh, and there's the rub! The distinction, in your opinion, comes from application in published adventures (i.e., the Golarion campaign). This seems to fly directly in the face of what Mr. Jacobs said regarding the campaign neutral status of the entire PFRPG subscription line of products.
There is no rub unless you attempt to put the cart in front of the horse. The designation "core" determines what can go in the published adventures without including the rules to the character class or options as mentioned above by Mr. Jacobs. Adventures don't define what is in the core, thus the core is campaign-neutral. Adventures reflect what is in the core or they are forced to include enough information as is necessary to use non-core elements (like stats on new monsters, new magic items, etc).