Paradigm Shift or Not? Pathfinder and D&D Traditions


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 356 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Heavily Armored Cleric wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
I would love to see an end to all the non-heavy armored cleric play style I fear runs rampant out there.
Soon, all threads everywhere shall be about me, the cleric in heavy armor. Victory is mine!

You look delicious!


Abraham spalding wrote:
Heavily Armored Cleric wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
I would love to see an end to all the non-heavy armored cleric play style I fear runs rampant out there.
Soon, all threads everywhere shall be about me, the cleric in heavy armor. Victory is mine!
::Casts rushing Grasp:: "Here cleric cleric cleric..."

Hah! Even if I weren't wearing golden dragonhide, your puny rusting grasp would be no use. Nerf my armor, and a hundred redundant posts will appear to defend me in its stead. The pontification of the cleric in heavy armor cannot be stopped!

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Rusty the Poodle wrote:
Heavily Armored Cleric wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
I would love to see an end to all the non-heavy armored cleric play style I fear runs rampant out there.
Soon, all threads everywhere shall be about me, the cleric in heavy armor. Victory is mine!
You look delicious!

Taste dragonhide plate mail, Rusty Boy!

My heavy armor is so powerful, the Paizo designers themselves feared its use!

EDIT: And even if my armor had been metal before, glassteel was cast on it by a poster in this thread.


If you take your feat, then you deserve it!


Heavily Armored Cleric wrote:
The pontification of the cleric in heavy armor cannot be stopped!

HUZZAH!

Ask yourself, does he have heavy armor on under those robes?


AdAstraGames wrote:

(Cue a Troll looking opportunistic on a party that's banged up from a fight. Cue the Halfing Barbarian who's in the best shape of anyone in the party - good AC and high hit points.)

Halfling steps up to face the troll, bastard sword and buckler at the ready. Looks up - all 3'4" of him and 40 lbs of barely checked Berserker fury.

"I intend to Intimidate the Troll."

"Uh. OK. What are you doing?"

"Oh, I'm making eye contact, growling low in my throat, letting the foam dribble out of my mouth. Let him see the blood on my sword."

"Roll for it."

"21 after mods."

*laugh* "OK. Good enough. The troll looks down at you. I mean, it really looks."

"I step forward. I give it my biggest "I'm going to eat your liver" smile."

"It's pretty sure it could eat you in two bites. On the other hand, it's also not used to food acting this aggressively at it. It backs off."

(Under the new rules, that 21 after mods would have been about a 17, and might not have been as good an iconic moment...)

Old or new rules that shouldn't have worked - from the D20SRD

"Trolls have no fear of death: They launch themselves into combat without hesitation, flailing wildly at the closest opponent."

On the other hand the it was cool :)


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Hydro wrote:

Aragorn in my mind will always be a fighter/ranger with Numenorian racial levels. Even the legendary and reviled Drizzt, who was consciously based off the Aragornian D&D ranger, strikes me more as a "cunning hunter" who only happens to use two weapons.

I mean, it's not like his DEX isn't high enough to take TWF on his own.

<cough>

In 1st Ed AD&D, drow had the racial ability to fight with two weapons without penalty (per Unearthed Arcana). This was one of the big changes to rangers from 1st to 2nd Ed (along with bards, specialist wizards, and increased variation between clerics/priests of different deities).

Aragorn, no matter the system, isn't a "typical" example to use as a basis for a character, IMO; divine and high elven heritage, royal lineage, fated hero, etc. I didn't really agree with the rangers in plate mail from 1st Ed, but the dual-class/multi-class rules of 1st and 2nd Ed (and the way many things that are 3.x skills were class abilities) made it difficult sometimes to model PCs on literary characters. The shift from a fighter/druid/wizard giant-killer and tracker to a more general divinely-blessed/nature-oriented hunter actually made it a bit easier.

Liberty's Edge

Dragonchess Player wrote:
The shift from a fighter/druid/wizard giant-killer and tracker to a more general divinely-blessed/nature-oriented hunter actually made it a bit easier.

I've always resented that the transition from 1st to 2nd Edition changed the ranger class from "army rangers" to "park rangers." XD

Thank goodness Pathfinder has given the ranger back some of his teeth. Now if only rangers weren't spellcasters...

Jeremy Puckett


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
hida_jiremi wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
The shift from a fighter/druid/wizard giant-killer and tracker to a more general divinely-blessed/nature-oriented hunter actually made it a bit easier.
I've always resented that the transition from 1st to 2nd Edition changed the ranger class from "army rangers" to "park rangers." XD

<cough>

1st Ed rangers had no Hide in Shadows or Move Silently (unless they were wearing cloaks and boots of elvenkind). The 2nd Ed rangers are closer to "army rangers" (as in combat capable recon forces) than 1st Ed ones.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
hida_jiremi wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
The shift from a fighter/druid/wizard giant-killer and tracker to a more general divinely-blessed/nature-oriented hunter actually made it a bit easier.
I've always resented that the transition from 1st to 2nd Edition changed the ranger class from "army rangers" to "park rangers." XD

<cough>

1st Ed rangers had no Hide in Shadows or Move Silently (unless they were wearing cloaks and boots of elvenkind). The 2nd Ed rangers are closer to "army rangers" (as in combat capable recon forces) than 1st Ed ones.

I must say the biggest change as far as my PLAYERS are concerned is the no "rangers can only have 10 magic items" and have "only the wealth they could carry" rule. I'm kinda glad because I no longer have steam comming out of my ears with a certain player having 20,000 gps of gems stating that he can carry that so it makes it okay and forgeting the intent of the statment of implying that your typical 1ed ranger was a woodsman type who kept the big bad humanoids out of the woods.


I'm going to make a number of assertions that I don't care to argue about or justify -- they're my opinions. Pathfinder is heavily melee-oriented and hates spellcasters. That is a huge departure from the feel of first edition, which I understand happened over several editions. I used to love the thrill of fearing spellcasters and taking them down or playing one and surviving. Now I have only condescension for clerics, wizards or sorcerers anymore, between evasion, the nerfing of spells and making successful spellcasting difficult. Low level spells have been nerfed so much that they are almost not worth using. Higher level ones do much less damage relative to hit points, are saved against or are easily evaded, and have been nerfed as well -- *yawn*. They still make acceptable villains because they can go all out for one encounter and they make OK strawmen (take that, evil wizard!), but as player classes they stink. Clerics have become wimps with AoE sneak attacks. Fighters are seriously underpowered compared to others, so Pathfinder failed with regards to that design goal (although IMO that's because the other melee classes have been boosted too much). Making feats fighter-only simply underscores that and is a poor design gimmick because feat pre-reqs should stand on their own. I don't like Pathfinder, I'm only playing it to do something with my friends and because I like LSJ (Legends of the Shining Jewel).


addy grete wrote:
I don't like Pathfinder, I'm only playing it to do something with my friends and because I like LSJ (Legends of the Shining Jewel).

And posting in the Pathfinder forums for some reason.

It's your right, but man, I wish I had enough hours in the day to post in the forums for games I don't even like.


toyrobots wrote:
addy grete wrote:
I don't like Pathfinder, I'm only playing it to do something with my friends and because I like LSJ (Legends of the Shining Jewel).

And posting in the Pathfinder forums for some reason.

It's your right, but man, I wish I had enough hours in the day to post in the forums for games I don't even like.

yet you have time to make a reply like that one... Sigh

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

I don't think magic's been 'nerfed' so much as other classes have been brought up to speed.

I mean, look at it this way. a 12th level mage can wipe out a cluster of town guardsmen (fireball) suck the life out of the seargent at arms (Vampiric touch, maybe empowered) and vaporize the captain of the guard (disintigrate)

(assuming Warrior 3s for the town guard, Fighter 6 for the seargent and a fighter 9 for the captain).

He can then make the crowd love him for another 6th level spell (assuming a mass charm person is 5th level, using charm monster as the guideline. Widen to get a bigger group).

So the wizard has more than mortal power at midlevel, we can estimate a 18-19 int before stat boosting items, so he also has DCs of 14+. 90% of humanoids/monstrous humanoids can't stand up to him.

But now the fighter can do the 'Conan the Barbarain' bit of being two against many, fighting off the evil cleric. and maybe shrugging off those spells that would slay a lesser man. Think of Storm and Mirage w/o their powers. Or Swordsman and Hawkeye, or Robin, or Huntress, or Wildcat. Or Deathstroke for that matter

The Barbarian is now back to being the 'bear-shirt'. Rage incarnate, Sabertooth/Wolverine.

The Ranger is back to being 'Jack the Giant Killer' or on a less powerful level, Benton Frazier. Able to reach a rapport with nature no normal man can dream of and downing massive foes in a single salvo. If the fighter is Quantity, the ranger is Quality. Deadshot, Bullseye, Red Arrow.

The Rogue now is back to being the Grey Mouser, able to dodge those disintigration rays, having a wide arsenal of tricks up his sleeve. He is Batman, the Riddler, the Cluemaster, the Prowler again.

To steal a quote from GI Joe, when the bad guys are looking around the blasted ruins of their base "It must have been the Americans [fighters]. If it had been the SAS [rogues] we'd still not know they'd been here and if it was Mossad [rangers] we'd all be dead."

That's the 'paradigm shift' the spell tossers aren't hiding behind the fighter's skirts anymore at 1st level, and the fighters aren't 'just' meat shields at 20th.

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

addy grete wrote:
Pathfinder is heavily melee-oriented and hates spellcasters.

I know this will unfortunately come off as dog-piling, but I really disagree with your assertion here. Yes, fighters et al were given a boost. Yes, some spells were reduced in effectiveness. But from where I'm sitting, spellcasters still have the ability to dominate a game. At low levels, spells like sleep can still decimate a group of foes. At high levels, spellcasters still have the ability to dominate foes, teleport across the planet, polymorph into dragons, summon demons, and do a number of other extremely powerful things that fighting classes simply can't do.

One of the #1 complaints from 3rd edition was that warrior classes were too often overshadowed by spellcasters. Pathfinder sought to fix that and did a pretty decent job of bumping up those melee classes. Still, spellcasters have unparalleled might at higher levels. The only major difference I see is that now spellcasters have a harder time stepping on others' toes and out-fighting the fighter or the like.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Dragonchess Player wrote:


1st Ed rangers had no Hide in Shadows or Move Silently (unless they were wearing cloaks and boots of elvenkind). The 2nd Ed rangers are closer to "army rangers" (as in combat capable recon forces) than 1st Ed ones.

1e rangers didn't need specific values for hiding in shadows and moving silently, the implication was already there with their ability to surprise opponents on 3 in 6 instead of 2 in 6. To get that in 2e, they actually had to succeed a their move silently or hide checks. Not an easy feat at the lower levels.

And they were only surprised 1 in 6 as well. I don't believe there was any analog to that in 2e.

The revision of the ranger in 2e was always one of that edition's greatest botches.


addy grete wrote:
I'm going to make a number of assertions that I don't care to argue about or justify. Pathfinder is heavily melee-oriented and hates spellcasters. That is a huge departure from the feel of first edition, which I understand happened over several editions.

Don't "care" do justify? Or straight-out cannot, because they're factually inaccurate? 1st edition was tilted infinitely farther towards the melee characters than Pathfinder will ever dream of being. 1e had no casting defensively, with auto-disruption on any hit; no movement while casting; wizards with d4 HD and no Con bonuses; fighters whose saves in all categories, against any spell, became impossible except on a 1-2.

3e is what changed high-level gaming to the caster-dominated some people seem to know and love so well.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:


1st Ed rangers had no Hide in Shadows or Move Silently (unless they were wearing cloaks and boots of elvenkind). The 2nd Ed rangers are closer to "army rangers" (as in combat capable recon forces) than 1st Ed ones.

1e rangers didn't need specific values for hiding in shadows and moving silently, the implication was already there with their ability to surprise opponents on 3 in 6 instead of 2 in 6. To get that in 2e, they actually had to succeed a their move silently or hide checks. Not an easy feat at the lower levels.

And they were only surprised 1 in 6 as well. I don't believe there was any analog to that in 2e.

The revision of the ranger in 2e was always one of that edition's greatest botches.

Could not agree more.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
addy grete wrote:
I'm going to make a number of assertions that I don't care to argue about or justify. Pathfinder is heavily melee-oriented and hates spellcasters. That is a huge departure from the feel of first edition, which I understand happened over several editions.

Don't "care" do justify, or straight-out cannot, because they're factually inaccurate? 1st edition was tilted infinitely farther towards the melee characters than Pathfinder will ever dream of being. 1e had no casting defensively, with auto-disruption on any hit; no movement while casting; wizards with d4 HD and no Con bonuses; fighters whose saves in all categories, against any spell, became impossible except on a 1-2.

3e is what changed high-level gaming to the caster-dominated some people seem to know and love so well.

Mostly right, but mages could get a con bonus just not for any con over 16, like all non-fighter classes. Only fighters, rangers, and paladins got full con bonus (cavaliers did and barbarians got double the bonus). So at best a mage could have d4 + 2 hit points per level.

The damage output of fighters in 1st ed was also nothing to laugh at. I could easily do about 60 points a round at level 9 with a fighter more reliably then the mage could.


Thurgon wrote:
Mostly right, but mages could get a con bonus just not for any con over 16, like all non-fighter classes. Only fighters, rangers, and paladins got full con bonus (cavaliers did and barbarians got double the bonus). So at best a mage could have d4 + 2 hit points per level.

Until 11th, after which he got one (1) hp per level and no Con bonus at all!

Ooh, and I forgot about paladins getting 50% magic resistance with a holy avenger...


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
Mostly right, but mages could get a con bonus just not for any con over 16, like all non-fighter classes. Only fighters, rangers, and paladins got full con bonus (cavaliers did and barbarians got double the bonus). So at best a mage could have d4 + 2 hit points per level.
Until 11th, after which he got one (1) hp per level and no Con bonus at all!

Technically better then a fighter, who stopped his hit die growth at 9th after which he got 3 per level with no con bonus. Rangers were able to get 11 hitdie total at level 10 (they started with 2d8 hit die at level 1) monks were I guess the best getting 17 levels of hit die, though d4s with 2d4 at level 1.


Thurgon wrote:
Technically better then a fighter, who stopped his hit die growth at 9th after which he got 3 per level with no con bonus.

Ah, but after 9th the fighter started gained levels much faster than the wizard... and was spending that time amassing huge armies while the wizard was trying to figure out how to make potions in his tower.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
Mostly right, but mages could get a con bonus just not for any con over 16, like all non-fighter classes. Only fighters, rangers, and paladins got full con bonus (cavaliers did and barbarians got double the bonus). So at best a mage could have d4 + 2 hit points per level.

Until 11th, after which he got one (1) hp per level and no Con bonus at all!

Ooh, and I forgot about paladins getting 50% magic resistance with a holy avenger...

Paladins were beasts. Never mind if you treated them as Cavalier-Paladins, then they were obscene. Stat increases in nearly every stat at every level, 2d10 per level rolled for each stat except int when you totally 100 or more you upped the stat at level 1 you rolled and place a straight percentile to start with each one. Level 20 paladins were veritable gods with straight 18s and ogre strength.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
Technically better then a fighter, who stopped his hit die growth at 9th after which he got 3 per level with no con bonus.
Ah, but after 9th the fighter started gained levels much faster than the wizard... and was spending that time amassing huge armies while the wizard was trying to figure out how to make potions in his tower.

Fighters were also killing whole armies of level 0 soldiers, with sweeping ability.....

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
addy grete wrote:
I'm going to make a number of assertions that I don't care to argue about or justify -- they're my opinions. Pathfinder is heavily melee-oriented and hates spellcasters. That is a huge departure from the feel of first edition, which I understand happened over several editions. I used to love the thrill of fearing spellcasters and taking them down or playing one and surviving. Now I have only condescension for clerics, wizards or sorcerers anymore, between evasion, the nerfing of spells and making successful spellcasting difficult. Low level spells have been nerfed so much that they are almost not worth using. Higher level ones do much less damage relative to hit points, are saved against or are easily evaded, and have been nerfed as well -- *yawn*. They still make acceptable villains because they can go all out for one encounter and they make OK strawmen (take that, evil wizard!), but as player classes they stink. Clerics have become wimps with AoE sneak attacks. Fighters are seriously underpowered compared to others, so Pathfinder failed with regards to that design goal (although IMO that's because the other melee classes have been boosted too much). Making feats fighter-only simply underscores that and is a poor design gimmick because feat pre-reqs should stand on their own. I don't like Pathfinder, I'm only playing it to do something with my friends and because I like LSJ (Legends of the Shining Jewel).

Addy get used to this in Pathfinder and LSJ.. the day that the spellcaster sent the melees to sidekick status is if not precisely over, well into it's sunset. 3.x versions of the game were heavily unbalanced in favor of spellcasters a situation which got worse as you got into the upper levels, now while spellcasters have not been completely declawed at the upper levels the balance is shifting as close to the center as you can get without abandoning the 3.x system entirely and shifting to 4.0.

And considering that LSJ should be better off renamed as Living Carebear, I don't think you've got anything to worry about there. There's going to be an adjustment in playstyle as people get used to and learn how to monkey with new tools. But considering how much of an effort you have to make to get yourself killed off in that campaign, you've got a lot of leeway. (Please note: this is not an invitation to get into extended dicussion on LSJ, my irritation with that campaign has nothing to do with what game system we're running)

BTW, making certain feats fighter only makes the same sense that certain arcane spells are wizard only. Among all the melee classes the fighter is the only one devoted solely to the perfection of combat. Rangers, Paladins, Rouges, Monks etc. all have some other item on thier agenda, whether it's nature, some diety, or theft, or a metaphysical "Way". The fighter is the only one who truly focus on the Way of the Weapon to the level of exclusion that Wizards practise with their magic. So it does make sense that these feats be given to them as bonus.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:

e (1) hp per level and no Con bonus at all!

Ooh, and I forgot about paladins getting 50% magic resistance with a holy avenger...

The key of course is getting one. Not every paladin could assume that one was waiting for them in thier destiny, especially if you played a low magic campaign where weapons of that power either did not exist, or were items of fell evil that must be destroyed.


LazarX wrote:
The key of course is getting one. Not every paladin could assume that one was waiting for them in thier destiny, especially if you played a low magic campaign where weapons of that power either did not exist, or were items of fell evil that must be destroyed.

Agreed. It worked the same way across the board, too: the wizard's sole purpose in adventuring was to look for other wizards' spellbooks to loot, because he didn't get any free spells known just for "leveling up."


Kirth Gersen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The key of course is getting one. Not every paladin could assume that one was waiting for them in thier destiny, especially if you played a low magic campaign where weapons of that power either did not exist, or were items of fell evil that must be destroyed.
Agreed. It worked the same way across the board, too: the wizard's sole purpose in adventuring was to look for other wizards' spellbooks to loot, because he didn't get any free spells known just for "leveling up."

If a party found a wizard's spell book for treasure it was jackpot time. Those things were worth a veritable fortune. With enough gold a wizard could research spells, but do you two recall having to pay to train to level? Past level 11 the wizard paid 4k per level (ie to hit level 15 you paid 60k times your rating (1 to 4)) I think the fighter paid 1k.

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The key of course is getting one. Not every paladin could assume that one was waiting for them in thier destiny, especially if you played a low magic campaign where weapons of that power either did not exist, or were items of fell evil that must be destroyed.
Agreed. It worked the same way across the board, too: the wizard's sole purpose in adventuring was to look for other wizards' spellbooks to loot, because he didn't get any free spells known just for "leveling up."

That was my favorite argument to use back in the Alpha phase. The fighter has to spend his wealth on weapons and armor. The wizard not only gets better weapons and armor in the form of spells, but he gets them for free every level and can then spend his wealth on more spells.

My guess is they gave wizards free spells to balance them with sorcerers and divine casters. But it did a disservice to the game as a whole. Unfortunately this problem is still evident (although less so with decent combat feats) in Pathfinder.

Dark Archive

KnightErrantJR wrote:

My personal feeling is that Paizo indeed does want to continue the traditions of previous editions of D&D. They are not the "next" edition of D&D, but they are looking at what was D&D up to the end of 3.5 and making their game something that can logically be said to flow from that.

However, I'm seeing people stating that Paizo is intentionally shifting away from being the "logical progression" to being their own Sword and Sorcery thing. I'm seeing this expressed by people on both sides of the statement, by people that think that this is a good and a bad thing.

I've seen it stated that Paizo might be moving away from, for example, having clerics to having "white mages," and perhaps just scrapping the differences in magic. I've also seen it stated that Paizo is just using this RPG as a stepping stone to have the customers and capital to do their own thing as an intentional business plan.

This bothers me, not only because I would not agree with this business plan (I really want my 3.5 flavored RPing, and I think I've more or less got it with PRPG, even with some of my problems with it), but because I've not seen one person at Paizo post anything that would make me think that any of this was the case.

I think your last statement sums things up perfectly. No one at Paizo has taken this position, that I know of. Therefore, there is a lot of idle speculation, often by people who don't like what has been done to their sacred cow. In all cases where you read thing like the examples you stated above I would ask myself, is this someone who would know what Paizo is doing or is it someone who is just trying to be the smartest guy in the room. Lots of people are willing to tell you what Paizo is going to do, based on what they have decided is going to happen. A lot of people got burned by 4th edition and somehow have created an illusion in their minds that Paizo is secretly setting them up for the same kind of let down. Paizo has stated publicly that their goal is to see to it that 3.5 not only survives, but thrives. So I would not worry too much about what the naysayers and the ninnying naybobs of negativity are saying. Of course, since I don't work for Paizo I could be completely off base, but something tells me I'm not.

Scarab Sages

David Fryer wrote:
A lot of people got burned by 4th edition and somehow have created an illusion in their minds that Paizo is secretly setting them up for the same kind of let down. Paizo has steted publily that their goal is to see to it that...

Like Kirth, your last point is also your best.

It would be insane for Paizo to base their strategy off of analysis of the fall-out from 4th Edition, and then to turn around and conduct business in the same way as Wizards and expect a different result.

Dark Archive

Jal Dorak wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
A lot of people got burned by 4th edition and somehow have created an illusion in their minds that Paizo is secretly setting them up for the same kind of let down. Paizo has steted publily that their goal is to see to it that...

Like Kirth, your last point is also your best.

It would be insane for Paizo to base their strategy off of analysis of the fall-out from 4th Edition, and then to turn around and conduct business in the same way as Wizards and expect a different result.

Which is wierd because it was just something that popped into my head while I was making the bigger point.


I think Paizo's dedication the D&D traditions is far more evident in their setting and modules than in their rules.

In rules, their loyalties seem to be to 3.5 style play. Mechanically, not very nostalgic for pre-3e versions of the game.

The modules, APs, and setting are definitely more reverent about the old-school style of play.

It's a combination that suits me, personally.


toyrobots wrote:

I think Paizo's dedication the D&D traditions is far more evident in their setting and modules than in their rules.

In rules, their loyalties seem to be to 3.5 style play. Mechanically, not very nostalgic for pre-3e versions of the game.

The modules, APs, and setting are definitely more reverent about the old-school style of play.

It's a combination that suits me, personally.

I think their dedication to D&D traditions has been inconstant as far as the core rule book goes.

Some of the rule book stuck steadfast to 3.5 style, some did not. Some rules were kept to keep faith with the way it was done in the past, other were changed just fit their different view of the class then that of what existed in 3.5.

The monk is a real good example of making things more complicated when all they needed to do was break with tradtion to make it work the way they clearly wanted it to work. But they steadfastly would not change his BAB the normal way instead they changed it a rather different way for a very similar effect.

The AP are altogether a different thing. Mostly so far they seem very well written with very interesting plot lines. Honestly in whole most are better then old school adventures. The way they push the PCs into the role of heroes in no uncertain ways in RotRL I found actually sort interesting. As opposed to the way in Homlet - Temple - Slavers - and beyond you never really got the feeling anyone outside of a select few even knew you existed. Not that that means those were not the best series( the temple series was plain awesome) ever, but it was a very well done plot change that really pushed the PCs into the plot full bore. I have nothing but praises for the APs that I have read which right now is most of two. Running one getting the other ready to be run.

Dark Archive

Thurgon wrote:
toyrobots wrote:

I think Paizo's dedication the D&D traditions is far more evident in their setting and modules than in their rules.

In rules, their loyalties seem to be to 3.5 style play. Mechanically, not very nostalgic for pre-3e versions of the game.

The modules, APs, and setting are definitely more reverent about the old-school style of play.

It's a combination that suits me, personally.

I think their dedication to D&D traditions has been inconstant as far as the core rule book goes.

Some of the rule book stuck steadfast to 3.5 style, some did not. Some rules were kept to keep faith with the way it was done in the past, other were changed just fit their different view of the class then that of what existed in 3.5.

But 3.5 isn't D&D tradition, it is a rule set. D&D tradition consists of 2nd edition, 1st edition, AD&D, and all the tropes and expectations that comes with it. That is the reason so many people were upset with 4th Edition, not because it was a different ruleset, but because it ignored the joint experience and traditions that most people associated with something titled Dungeons and Dragons. If we were to accept the idea that Paizo's "dedication to D&D traditions has been inconstant" because they changed things from 3.5, then the argument must furthr be extended to say that 3.5 was not D&D because it used different ruleset than Gary wrote back in the 1970's. Please don't confuse Dungeons and Dragons with a rule set. they are not the same thing.


Heavily Armored Cleric wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Heavily Armored Cleric wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
I would love to see an end to all the non-heavy armored cleric play style I fear runs rampant out there.
Soon, all threads everywhere shall be about me, the cleric in heavy armor. Victory is mine!
::Casts rushing Grasp:: "Here cleric cleric cleric..."
Hah! Even if I weren't wearing golden dragonhide, your puny rusting grasp would be no use. Nerf my armor, and a hundred redundant posts will appear to defend me in its stead. The pontification of the cleric in heavy armor cannot be stopped!

Meh Quicken Disintegrate, Widen Sculpted Silence. I don't hear anything.


David Fryer wrote:
But 3.5 isn't D&D tradition, it is a rule set. D&D tradition consists of 2nd edition, 1st edition, AD&D, and all the tropes and expectations that comes with it. That is the reason so many people were upset with 4th Edition, not because it was a different ruleset, but because it ignored the joint experience and traditions that most people associated with something titled Dungeons and Dragons. If we were to accept the idea that Paizo's "dedication to D&D traditions has been inconstant" because they changed things from 3.5, then the argument must furthr be extended to say that 3.5 was not D&D because it used different ruleset than Gary wrote back in the 1970's. Please don't confuse Dungeons and Dragons with a rule set. they are not the same thing.

I wasn't just saying they varried from 3.5, I was saying they varried from all other editions. My lone example I chose because of how they stretch to keep one thing, but casually tossed aside others they could have kept but didn't. By now most posters know what I think they tossed aside so I didn't state it.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Heavily Armored Cleric wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Heavily Armored Cleric wrote:
Thurgon wrote:
I would love to see an end to all the non-heavy armored cleric play style I fear runs rampant out there.
Soon, all threads everywhere shall be about me, the cleric in heavy armor. Victory is mine!
::Casts rushing Grasp:: "Here cleric cleric cleric..."
Hah! Even if I weren't wearing golden dragonhide, your puny rusting grasp would be no use. Nerf my armor, and a hundred redundant posts will appear to defend me in its stead. The pontification of the cleric in heavy armor cannot be stopped!
Meh Quicken Disintegrate, Widen Sculpted Silence. I don't hear anything.

Cleric nerfer! Cleric nerfer!

Dark Archive

Thurgon wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
But 3.5 isn't D&D tradition, it is a rule set. D&D tradition consists of 2nd edition, 1st edition, AD&D, and all the tropes and expectations that comes with it. That is the reason so many people were upset with 4th Edition, not because it was a different ruleset, but because it ignored the joint experience and traditions that most people associated with something titled Dungeons and Dragons. If we were to accept the idea that Paizo's "dedication to D&D traditions has been inconstant" because they changed things from 3.5, then the argument must furthr be extended to say that 3.5 was not D&D because it used different ruleset than Gary wrote back in the 1970's. Please don't confuse Dungeons and Dragons with a rule set. they are not the same thing.
I wasn't just saying they varried from 3.5, I was saying they varried from all other editions. My lone example I chose because of how they stretch to keep one thing, but casually tossed aside others they could have kept but didn't. By now most posters know what I think they tossed aside so I didn't state it.
Ah, but you said that they ignored D&D tradition and then went on to corrolate it to a faliure to stay within the bounds of 3.5 rules. Nowhere in you post did you address a different edition.
Thurgon wrote:

I think their dedication to D&D traditions has been inconstant as far as the core rule book goes.

Some of the rule book stuck steadfast to 3.5 style, some did not. Some rules were kept to keep faith with the way it was done in the past, other were changed just fit their different view of the class then that of what existed in 3.5.

This is your statement and has not been edited in anyway, correct? As any English teacher would tell you, this indicates that you are linking the two ideas. Therefore, to the uninformed observer there was an implied causality there, whether you intended there to be or not. And yes, I am well aware of your beef with Pathfinder's core rules.

Liberty's Edge

addy grete wrote:
I'm going to make a number of assertions that I don't care to argue about or justify -- they're my opinions. Pathfinder is heavily melee-oriented and hates spellcasters. That is a huge departure from the feel of first edition, which I understand happened over several editions. I used to love the thrill of fearing spellcasters and taking them down or playing one and surviving. Now I have only condescension for clerics, wizards or sorcerers anymore, between evasion, the nerfing of spells and making successful spellcasting difficult. Low level spells have been nerfed so much that they are almost not worth using. Higher level ones do much less damage relative to hit points, are saved against or are easily evaded, and have been nerfed as well -- *yawn*. They still make acceptable villains because they can go all out for one encounter and they make OK strawmen (take that, evil wizard!), but as player classes they stink. Clerics have become wimps with AoE sneak attacks. Fighters are seriously underpowered compared to others, so Pathfinder failed with regards to that design goal (although IMO that's because the other melee classes have been boosted too much). Making feats fighter-only simply underscores that and is a poor design gimmick because feat pre-reqs should stand on their own. I don't like Pathfinder, I'm only playing it to do something with my friends and because I like LSJ (Legends of the Shining Jewel).

Me thinks you have 1e confused with some other game. Magic users were soft skinned push overs until they were high enough to cast enough spells in preparation of combat that the fighters couldn't find them. Sure, their magic did magical things (a point 3x seemed to miss), but a fighter staring at them hard could conceivably make them miscast a spell. There was no concentration check in 1e, there was no move and cast in 1e, no casting defensively, just Gygax writing, to paraphrase "if magic users are stupid enough to try and cast in melee, here's the rules".

So, if what you're saying is "CoDzilla and the unbeatable wizard were nerfed in PfRPG", I agree. But even invoking 1e into the discussion is not a good tact to take here...

Edit: Of course, I should have known Kirth would ninja me...


David Fryer wrote:
Thurgon wrote:


Some of the rule book stuck steadfast to 3.5 style, some did not. Some rules were kept to keep faith with the way it was done in the past, other were changed just fit their different view of the class then that of what existed in 3.5.
This is your statement and has not been edited in anyway, correct? As any English teacher would tell you, this indicates that you are linking the two ideas. Therefore, to the uninformed observer there was an implied causality there, whether you intended there to be or not. And yes, I am well aware of your beef with Pathfinder's core rules.

My beef would be a case were they ignored the past the monk's case a siutation were they kept strictly to it. The former a situation were I feel strongly they should have kept the faith, the latter a situation were for the KISS rule they should have broken with it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm going to close my contibutions to this thread by summing up my feelings.

Paizo does continue the traditions of Dungeons and Dragons, but so does Wizards of the Coast, the success of one approach into doing this, i.e. Pathfinder does not preclude the possiblity of other companies, i.e. Wizards, Moongoose et.al from also continuing the tradition in thier own way.

The traditions are obviously not bound by rule set as AD+D was significantly different from Basic and Chainmail, nor are they bound by company as D+D survived the death of TSR. Nor are they even bound by one game. Arguably games such as Amber Diceless, Champions, GURPS, White Wolf Storyteller, or even Paranoia inherit thier own fair share of what was started way back in Lake Geneva by a couple of guys looking to put some flavor into minature wargaming.

The traditions are carried on by two forces... the creators who publish the evolving rule sets.... and the DMs and players who use them as a springboard. And the paradigms will continue to evolve and change as the gaming cultures themselves evolve and change. As long as those happen they will survive the companies, the rulesets, and even the gamers of today.


First my apologies for this response length.

Pathfinder.

Change, indeed is painful; yet ever needful; and if memory have its force and worth, so also has hope.
Thomas Carlyle
1795-1881, Scottish Philosopher, Author

Fourth Edition Dungeons and Dragons.

One must change one's tactics every ten years if one wishes to maintain one's superiority.
Napoleon Bonaparte
(1769 - 1821)French military and political leader.

Some movies really make sense like, "Quote someone, Someone has always put it better than you"

First to I wish full discloser but thats going to take awhile so

Spoiler:
I began playing D&D when I was relatively young, back then it was advanced dungeons and dragons.
Because we were beyond basic.

Anyway due to a variety of things in my life walked away from D&D for awhile and I had come back for the second time the sky had fallen third edition actually it was 3.5
I was like point five?
As in version 3.5127alpha run? pfft whatever...

Were all morons some times.
Anyway I felt the urge to play again but when I read my second ed books they felt clunky and I thought I may as well play the 'new' version after all I don't want to be playing with a book that is out of print where will my players get copies for it?

My first campaign back was fantastic.
It lasted about somewhere between 16 and 20 months.
It call concluded with this fantastic finale where I get one of my greatest D&D moments.
I put on Lou Armstrongs "What a wonderful world" the response "We are all so f~+*ed"

By this time around I had bended and broke rules left right and centre.
Something were just not working other thing I just didn't like.
I heard about fourth edition.
I was over the moon.

No I was not chicken little by any mean.
I was looking forward to this new thing coming out.
The fantastic videos coming out I was really looking forward to next game.
We are going to speed up the game, where going to get rid of the vadicant system.
What the hell was vadicant I didn't know but I looked it up and I said 'ahhhh' and the I said 'thats awesome!'.
All but not all was well.

They kept ragging on 3.5.
Like the first time when they went through the different editions it was funny.
"Heh, they don't have mintures so they have to use stationary as markers, heh"
So I waited with baited breath about the first play test.

"I am not impressed" Internet Troll
"TerF-ckin' Winzors" WotC X-boxlive fan.
"I am not sure this game is as good as they said it will be.
They aimed to fix many problems and to some degree they have, they said they have speed up combat but with the ammonite of hit points you have and the ammount the creatures have it takes about the same length of time.
Also they give people 'at will' powers now, they wizard has magic missile and he attacks the amour class 'reflex.
Which seems mechanically the same as what the problem before was.
Wizards ran out of spells so they fell back to the cross bow where you roll some dice to attack.
In fourth when the wizard runs out of encounters or dailies he picks up the dice and rolls to attack.
It's exactly the same" by someone very insightful and perhaps an amalgam of comments I had seen.

The comment from the first promotional video "The game will remain the same"
Seemed like a bit of a stretch for me.
Finally I picked up the book.
It reminded me of a video game book.

It had one thing that pissed me off a DM they players had access to all of the knowledge of magical items.
I know players like to go shopping and they look at magic items more than the average DM does.
But I was very annoyed.
A pet pev.

But it just didn't feel the same fore me.
It felt different.
I was expecting something like the pathfinder book is now.
But more radical.

Like mages had mana pools.
Man that would be so cool or fighters have these trippy combat manurers which make them more deadly.
I don't know what I was expecting but it wasn't this.
I was very disheartened.

I have since moved on and acknowledge the games merits.
It is faster.
It is more balanced.
It's more World of Warcraft.

This is something that haunted and eventually broke up my very long game.
I had started up a new campaign but during the very campaign that I had there was a day where everyone had come along.
It was a big group there was 8 of us at that time.
Anyway we were sitting around waiting for two players.
I as a DM refused to start without them.
"The story won't work if they just disappear"
They finally arrive four hours late.
We did this once a week and this was the only day everyone had off.

"Hey guys whats the hold up?"
"Oh we had to get a card."
"A credit card? a phone card? a petrol card? what?"
"A world of warcraft recharge card"
I blew up.
I remember I said something about people been waiting here for hours just for you and that I backed you or something along those lines and then there is something I do remember.
"If you pull a stunt like this don't bother turning up again"
Also something about 'real' people being here waiting for you.

A little harsh but we were all waiting on them and I had stuck my neck out for them so I felt betrayed.
And this started my hatred of world of warcraft.

That little aside is for you to understand why the D&D book looking like a wow manual made me so mad.

In any event I found Pathfinder and I commented a few times in beta and alpha and louder voices we louder and I felt that I should just stay away.

But now with the finished product here and I am able to hold it in my hands I am happy.
It is not the revolution that wizards said they were going to make and I was expecting.
But I don't know what I was expecting.
And I am enjoying the game again.

Before one can answer this question one must answer the 'other' question first.
How did the fourth edition shift 'away'?
I don't believe that it did in the way most people did.
It evolved.
Perhaps not in a direction that you wanted it but it evolved in the direction that was most fitting to it's survival, a Darwinian game response.

The success of world of warcraft, EVE online and the many many spawns of this type made them realise somethings.
First that the character optimizations was a large part of there crowd.
And they wanted to capitalize on online market.
However they succeeded in making balanced game far more than any previous edition.

Well when you take that response you could see Pathfinder as going in the other direction.
Rather than attempting balance and trying to focus capturing a new audience they sought to captivate the current one.

Well this is just me speaking out loud.
TSR the company where it all really started where everything.
TSR stands for Tactical Studies Rules.
One could say that fourth is going back to it's roots of tactical fighting.
And Pathfinder goes to the amateur thespianism which was born from D&D.

As for the shift.
I would say it makes me want to play D&D more.
I look at the classes and thats where it all is for me the paladin with her mercies and sorcerer with her bloodlines.
The pictures there make me think, these are adventures and I want to do some adventuring.
The only shift it has made for me is that it makes me want to play more.

Shadow Lodge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
. . . 1e had no casting defensively, with auto-disruption on any hit; no movement while casting; wizards with d4 HD and no Con bonuses; fighters whose saves in all categories, against any spell, became impossible except on a 1-2.

Partially true, but also 90% (roughly) of spells didn't have any saves.

Liberty's Edge

Beckett wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
. . . 1e had no casting defensively, with auto-disruption on any hit; no movement while casting; wizards with d4 HD and no Con bonuses; fighters whose saves in all categories, against any spell, became impossible except on a 1-2.
Partially true, but also 90% (roughly) of spells didn't have any saves.

Mostly untrue. I'll get my 1e PHB and get the breakdown, but most spells were either "save negates" or save for reduced effect. Only a handful of spells were "you're screwed, period".

Shadow Lodge

I'm talking about all spells, not really the condition inducers specifically. Almost every damage dealing spell had no save, like fireball.

Anyways, I could be wrong, that's just how I remember it. I know there are a significant amount of more spells that got saves in 3E.

Liberty's Edge

Beckett wrote:

I'm talking about all spells, not really the condition inducers specifically. Almost every damage dealing spell had no save, like fireball.

Anyways, I could be wrong, that's just how I remember it. I know there are a significant amount of more spells that got saves in 3E.

Fireball was no different in 1e than 3x: save for half damage.

Shadow Lodge

Actually, your right 1E(AD&D) Fireball did have a save, 2E didn't, and 3E did again. Odd.

Liberty's Edge

Beckett wrote:
Actually, your right 1E(AD&D) Fireball did have a save, 2E didn't, and 3E did again. Odd.

You got me on 2e, I pretty much skipped that edition (except for some FR stuff). But I played 1e until 2002 or so, when I begrudgingly got with the times ;)

201 to 250 of 356 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Paradigm Shift or Not? Pathfinder and D&D Traditions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.