paizo.com Recent Posts in Paradigm Shift or Not? Pathfinder and D&D Traditionspaizo.com Recent Posts in Paradigm Shift or Not? Pathfinder and D&D Traditions2012-11-15T22:08:16Z2012-11-15T22:08:16ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Paradigm Shift or Not? Pathfinder and D&D Traditionscaithhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jwuk&page=8?Paradigm-Shift-or-Not-Pathfinder-and-DD#3562009-11-02T23:59:16Z2009-11-02T23:59:09Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Spacelard wrote:</div><blockquote><p> To me the biggest change from 1e to what we have now has been driven by the internet.
</p>
1e I played with my mates, we had simple house rules (fighter attack progression was one) and the primary focus of TSR was the production of scenarios. You played a dwarf or an elf and it would take ages to go up levels.</p>
<p>Then the internet arrived and millions of gamers, instead of just the smallish group you played with, started putting their stamp on the game and IMO game production moved away from scenario production to hundreds of add ons to official worlds. FR, I am looking at you!</p>
<p>The internet helped spawn the splatbooks. Stacks of houserules brought together so instead of the DM using his own brain his creativity was stiffled by them. I didn't need an official source to tell me that a cleric of Odin should be able to use a spear it just makes sense. I don't need to spend £10 on a rule book to make it official. </p>
<p>I am intrested to know what impact it would have had on the game if players and companies put the same level of focus on scenario production as they did on the various rule books. If the game stayed static and if game production focused on scenarios and not rules we wouldn't have all the perceived problems with PrC, no issues with min/maxing, etc. however I accept that we may have no game at all. </p>
<p>The big changes came with trying to turn the game from a RPG where combat was simple (roll to hit AC2) to almost to wargaming (roll to hit AC18 to trip and to hit with an AoO when he leaves a threatened square which takes double move cost due to uneven ground). I know D&D has its roots in wargaming and Pathfinder is moving back towards it, which to me is a good thing but rules like whisky is great until you have too much and then your sick! </blockquote><p>We have this issue in our gaming group. Our DM is a well respected reviewer of RPG products and will often bring in new supplements he thought he liked when reviewing them, changing the ruleset every month or so.
<p>Of course on the other hand, I enjoy the "crunchy" aspect and the rping aspect equally, and often try to balance the two. In the end, D&D is a game, with rules and numbers, win conditions, and penalties for losing(you don't get to play this awesome character that you're totally in to anymore). A lack of optimization will often lead to death, depending on your DM.</p>Spacelard wrote:To me the biggest change from 1e to what we have now has been driven by the internet.
1e I played with my mates, we had simple house rules (fighter attack progression was one) and the primary focus of TSR was the production of scenarios. You played a dwarf or an elf and it would take ages to go up levels.Then the internet arrived and millions of gamers, instead of just the smallish group you played with, started putting their stamp on the game and IMO game production moved...caith2009-11-02T23:59:09ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Paradigm Shift or Not? Pathfinder and D&D TraditionsSpacelardhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jwuk&page=8?Paradigm-Shift-or-Not-Pathfinder-and-DD#3552009-11-02T23:59:11Z2009-09-17T10:27:35Z<p>To me the biggest change from 1e to what we have now has been driven by the internet.
<br />
1e I played with my mates, we had simple house rules (fighter attack progression was one) and the primary focus of TSR was the production of scenarios. You played a dwarf or an elf and it would take ages to go up levels.</p>
<p>Then the internet arrived and millions of gamers, instead of just the smallish group you played with, started putting their stamp on the game and IMO game production moved away from scenario production to hundreds of add ons to official worlds. FR, I am looking at you!</p>
<p>The internet helped spawn the splatbooks. Stacks of houserules brought together so instead of the DM using his own brain his creativity was stiffled by them. I didn't need an official source to tell me that a cleric of Odin should be able to use a spear it just makes sense. I don't need to spend £10 on a rule book to make it official. </p>
<p>I am intrested to know what impact it would have had on the game if players and companies put the same level of focus on scenario production as they did on the various rule books. If the game stayed static and if game production focused on scenarios and not rules we wouldn't have all the perceived problems with PrC, no issues with min/maxing, etc. however I accept that we may have no game at all. </p>
<p>The big changes came with trying to turn the game from a RPG where combat was simple (roll to hit AC2) to almost to wargaming (roll to hit AC18 to trip and to hit with an AoO when he leaves a threatened square which takes double move cost due to uneven ground). I know D&D has its roots in wargaming and Pathfinder is moving back towards it, which to me is a good thing but rules like whisky is great until you have too much and then your sick!</p>To me the biggest change from 1e to what we have now has been driven by the internet.
1e I played with my mates, we had simple house rules (fighter attack progression was one) and the primary focus of TSR was the production of scenarios. You played a dwarf or an elf and it would take ages to go up levels.
Then the internet arrived and millions of gamers, instead of just the smallish group you played with, started putting their stamp on the game and IMO game production moved away from...Spacelard2009-09-17T10:27:35ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Paradigm Shift or Not? Pathfinder and D&D TraditionsVelvetlinedboxhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jwuk&page=8?Paradigm-Shift-or-Not-Pathfinder-and-DD#3542009-11-02T23:59:11Z2009-09-16T18:27:12Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Loopy wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">KnightErrantJR wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>Yes, I used "D&D" as an adjective. :) </blockquote><p>I tend to use that allot.
</p>
Have not played much of Pathfinder I must admit. Since reading the rule book I must say it seems like they just made logical changes to things. The next step in the ladder from 3e. Pathfinder reminds me allot of the changes between 1e to 2e. Not a whole lot changed, what little did made sense. Also it was still very much compatible with the last edition. I am happy that there is still new stuff coming out for DnD, even if the name changed.</p>Loopy wrote:KnightErrantJR wrote:Yes, I used "D&D" as an adjective. :)
I tend to use that allot.
Have not played much of Pathfinder I must admit. Since reading the rule book I must say it seems like they just made logical changes to things. The next step in the ladder from 3e. Pathfinder reminds me allot of the changes between 1e to 2e. Not a whole lot changed, what little did made sense. Also it was still very much compatible with the last edition. I am happy that there is still new stuff...Velvetlinedbox2009-09-16T18:27:12ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Paradigm Shift or Not? Pathfinder and D&D TraditionsGRU (alias of andreas pihl)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jwuk&page=8?Paradigm-Shift-or-Not-Pathfinder-and-DD#3532009-11-02T23:59:11Z2009-09-16T05:17:54Z<p>It was in one of those histories of D&D. Either Gygax or Anderson essentually based the Ranger clas off of Aragorn, partially because people wante the two weapon fighting... </blockquote><p>Aragorn wasn't a two weapon fighter in the books. He fought with Anduril (his sword) and sometimes a shield. One time he had a torch in one hand and sword in the other, but that wasn't described as a fighting technique (spelled wrong?).
<p>The elf summoning the water, was Glorfindel (in the books).</p>
<p>The books may have been an influence on the game made by Gygax/Arne(s)son- IMO they were, but the movies came too late...</p>
<p>But this has no bearing on the real topic of this discussion, which I think so far has been pretty interesting.</p>
<p>I would suggest that the real shift has been in the way Paizo has developed the Pathfinder game, with a very open playtest that everybody could participate in..?</p>
<p>GRU</p>It was in one of those histories of D&D. Either Gygax or Anderson essentually based the Ranger clas off of Aragorn, partially because people wante the two weapon fighting... Aragorn wasn't a two weapon fighter in the books. He fought with Anduril (his sword) and sometimes a shield. One time he had a torch in one hand and sword in the other, but that wasn't described as a fighting technique (spelled wrong?). The elf summoning the water, was Glorfindel (in the books).
The books may have been...GRU (alias of andreas pihl)2009-09-16T05:17:54ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Paradigm Shift or Not? Pathfinder and D&D TraditionsKorimyr the Rat (alias of CECIL SIMS)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jwuk&page=8?Paradigm-Shift-or-Not-Pathfinder-and-DD#3522009-11-02T23:59:11Z2009-09-13T11:57:10Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Jal Dorak wrote:</div><blockquote>Recalling from long-term memory here, but I believed the 3rd Edition designers equated the value of 18/00 with around Strength of 25 or 26 (not sure of the exact number) in 3.0. In other words, there is no way to start with 18/00 in the core 3rd Edition rules•.</blockquote><p>It's 23— what a 20th level Fighter would have if he started with an 18 and dropped all of his level-based increases into Strength. (Also, what it takes to have a +6 modifier. Nice parallel.) I've seen a lot of other d20 games use 23 as the standard for "maximum human ability" based on this.
<p>Personally, I was never willing to risk a perfectly good 18 on something as risky as a d%. My Fighters were always Half-Ogres or Alaghi.</p>Jal Dorak wrote:Recalling from long-term memory here, but I believed the 3rd Edition designers equated the value of 18/00 with around Strength of 25 or 26 (not sure of the exact number) in 3.0. In other words, there is no way to start with 18/00 in the core 3rd Edition rules*.
It's 23-- what a 20th level Fighter would have if he started with an 18 and dropped all of his level-based increases into Strength. (Also, what it takes to have a +6 modifier. Nice parallel.) I've seen a lot of other...Korimyr the Rat (alias of CECIL SIMS)2009-09-13T11:57:10ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Paradigm Shift or Not? Pathfinder and D&D TraditionsJal Dorakhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jwuk&page=8?Paradigm-Shift-or-Not-Pathfinder-and-DD#3512009-11-02T23:59:11Z2009-09-12T23:54:29Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Bill Dunn wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Spacelard wrote:</div><blockquote>Old school Fighter with 17 STR, 16 CON and 9th level was something to fear. +1 to hit and +1 damage with his longsword. He would be laughed at now!</blockquote><p>He was laughed at then by everyone who had managed to roll an 18 for strength. Anyone worried about stat compression to the higher numbers in 3e is forgetting the number of fighters who "rolled" 18/xx strength and the desireability of gauntlets of ogre power and girdles of giant strength.
<p>I thought the change in stat bonuses, particularly the standardization of them, was one of 3e's strengths. It removed the tyranny of having to lock in a super high stat just to get some bonus out of it that put you above the normal man on the street. A 14 was as good as a 16 or more in previous editions.
<br />
AND the stats could be improved as you leveled (albeit, fairly slowly) without magic. </blockquote><p>Recalling from long-term memory here, but I believed the 3rd Edition designers equated the value of 18/00 with around Strength of 25 or 26 (not sure of the exact number) in 3.0. In other words, there is no way to start with 18/00 in the core 3rd Edition rules•.
<p>•Raging orc barbarian would be an exception...</p>Bill Dunn wrote:Spacelard wrote:Old school Fighter with 17 STR, 16 CON and 9th level was something to fear. +1 to hit and +1 damage with his longsword. He would be laughed at now!
He was laughed at then by everyone who had managed to roll an 18 for strength. Anyone worried about stat compression to the higher numbers in 3e is forgetting the number of fighters who "rolled" 18/xx strength and the desireability of gauntlets of ogre power and girdles of giant strength. I thought the change in...Jal Dorak2009-09-12T23:54:29Z