|
DigitalMage, seems some people stuck to what I said a bit more than I did. I was just curious about those statements which were spread across 2 or 3 posts I think. I can understand and respect not changing to a system if few of your proud nails weren't fixed or if the learning curve is 40% more effort for only 10% or 15% gain :)
|
|
DigitalMage, seems some people stuck to what I said a bit more than I did. I was just curious about those statements which were spread across 2 or 3 posts I think. I can understand and respect not changing to a system if few of your proud nails weren't fixed or if the learning curve is 40% more effort for only 10% or 15% gain :)
No worries, I am always happy to clarify things as I know sometimes the signal can get lost in the noise :) I am actually quite surprised the discussion that came out of my original comment about looking forward to seeing what a 2nd Ed of Pathfinder might look like (and how it might be less tied in with Golarion and provide more significant changes).
I think it is wise for Paizo to have one setting for them to concentrate on. As the "what settings do people play in thread" illustrates, far more players play in other settings and homebrew games than straight Golarion. On the other hand, it is much easier to write a book on elves in the context of a world. Even if you write a book on 'generic' elves you are still implying certain things about elves and how they relate to a world. In fact, usually it means your writing about Tolkien elves (or someone else's expansion of them).
I would much rather have one book that is Elves of Golarion containing all the crunch I need plus ideas on how to use them in a world. The alternative is having either bland and boring flavor text or having 5+ books to detail "Elves of Eberron", "Elves of Athas", "Elves of Toril", etc. That way lies madness and the death of TSR.
I'm guessing the "Not far enough" changes are the main reason Digital Mage doesn't bother to switch. "Too tied to Golarion" is likely just a little thing on the side. Even if you are sticking with 3.5, I suggest you check out the Advanced Player's Guide. It's got a lot of great new ideas that could easily be ported back without trouble. Sure, not everything will work seamlessly, but enough will.
|
I think its getting there, from a player perspective there are only two books in the core line at the moment (Core Rulebook and Advanced Players Guide), for the GM there are 3 more (Bestiary, Bonus Bestiary & GameMastery Guide). With time I am sure that will grow, but for now the setting-free stuff is only a small number of the books with the Pathfinder label on them.
Well, you should consider the fact that the Pathfinder RPG has only been in existence for a year now. I think the fact that they have given us four very high quality setting-neutral books in that time while maintaining such a huge output of the Golarion products as well is amazing. You seem to want to compare the 1-year old Pathfinder RPG published by a fairly small company equally across the board to 3.X D&D, which existed for 8 years and had a MUCH larger staff.
I'm also puzzled by the fact that you seem so offended that crunch is being included in the Golarion-specific books. This goes back to the beginnings of the game. Almost all setting-specific publications have had a certain degree of crunch...with most of it not really being so setting-specific that it couldn't be imported into another setting, either published or homebrew.
And I personally am glad that Paizo isn't pumping out a new Pathfinder RPG hardcover every couple of moths that's mostly full of prestige classes that have such a narrow appeal that that you will never see anyone play them, prestige classes that are nothing more than Uber [insert base class here], and other filler. Speaking as both a GM and a player; outside of the PHB, DMG, and various monster books; I could have condensed most of the dozens of generic 3.X material that had any interest to me into maybe 3 or 4 books.
|
|
You seem to want to compare the 1-year old Pathfinder RPG published by a fairly small company equally across the board to 3.X D&D, which existed for 8 years and had a MUCH larger staff.
No, I don't expect PF to be there yet, I have simply stated it isn't there yet ("there" being having an extensive line of non-setting books that make the RPG line seem more setting neutral) and that because of that, some people may not interested in the line. I also stated that I think PF probably will be "there" when it gets to 2nd Edition.
I'm also puzzled by the fact that you seem so offended that crunch is being included in the Golarion-specific books. This goes back to the beginnings of the game.
Again, no, I am not "offended" that Golarion-specific books have crunch in them - in fact I suggested some crunch that would be perfectly fitting for Golarion Specific books.
I was pointing out that putting rules that would obviously be useful in other genres (such as the rules of Orcs as a PC race) in Golarion specific books, is one of the reasons the Pathfinder RPG line is perceived as being tied into the Golarion Setting more intimately than say D&D was tied to Eberron. I also suggested that perhaps Paizo may wish to at a later date collate such setting neutral crunch into a PF RPG line book, devoid of any setting info.
You seem to want to compare the 1-year old Pathfinder RPG published by a fairly small company equally across the board to 3.X D&D, which existed for 8 years and had a MUCH larger staff.
Actually if anyone has or knows the location of a product time line of 3.X it might be an interesting idea to compare them. I suspect that if you look at what had been published for 3.0 and 3.5 after 1 year you'll find that a Pathfinder exceeds them in quantity and quality.
|
|
I have said it before but Pathfinder is probably the better game than 3.5, and so if I was coming into the hobby now and choosing between the two (ignoring the issue of availability of 3.5) I would likely choose 3.5.
Doh! Just reading through my posts again and noticed a major error in what I said in the quote above. I meant to say I would likely choose Pathfinder!!!!
I.e.
I have said it before but Pathfinder is probably the better game than 3.5, and so if I was coming into the hobby now and choosing between the two (ignoring the issue of availability of 3.5) I would likely choose Pathfinder.
|
|
I think all of your issues could easily be overcome DM if you wanted to. I play with a number of very one time die hard 3.5 players as well as some new players. At first it was a challenge to get a handle on some of the changes but now everyone loves Pathfinder. Almost every session we find something new that makes us say 'oh cool!"
Plus our DM also has tons of 3.5 material and we pick and choose from it all the time
To me, I think your biggest hurtle is the Eberon setting itself. Because it's got some pretty 'wonky' non traditional elements (note I did not say bad, just wonky ;) it might be more challenging to convert.
My advice would be to really give Pathfinder a real chance before you decide to stick with 3.5.
My advice would be to really give Pathfinder a real chance before you decide to stick with 3.5.
I believe he has already stated that he gave PF a chance. Maybe not what some would perceive as a "real chance", though.
My stance is inflexible I guess, but that has come after much trying out of Pathfinder the RPG and the setting of Golarion (buying the Pathfinder Gazateer, buying PF core book in PDF and hardcopy, playing in a Rise of the Runelords PF RPG campaign using Beta and the final version, playing in a FR campaign that converted from 3.5 to PF, and running PFS sceanrios in season zero).
|
|
My advice would be to really give Pathfinder a real chance before you decide to stick with 3.5.I believe he has already stated that he gave PF a chance. Maybe not what some would perceive as a "real chance", though.
My stance is inflexible I guess, but that has come after much trying out of Pathfinder the RPG and the setting of Golarion (buying the Pathfinder Gazateer, buying PF core book in PDF and hardcopy, playing in a Rise of the Runelords PF RPG campaign using Beta and the final version, playing in a FR campaign that converted from 3.5 to PF, and running PFS sceanrios in season zero).
Good point
|
|
I think I should hire Pres Man as my PR spokesperson :)
But yes, I feel I did give PF a chance, but admittedly I didn't start well with it when after really wanting to play a Fighter with Improved Trip and Disarm the GM suggested Pathfinder Beta and those feats were nerfed (no second attack on a successful trip and both only providing a +2 bonus, not +4).
Still I played through 2 books of the Rise of the Runelords AP (some in Beta, some in Final PF) and also a good chunk of a FR game using PF final.
I also tried to get into the setting of Golarion, running Pathfinder Society games at IndieCon, Conception and for my local Meetup group. I also attended the first PaizoCon UK. But if I am honest during Season Zero I was doing all that because it was 3.5, not because of the setting.
When PFS went to Season One and PF RPG, I really couldn't find any enthusiasm to pursue it, and if I had it would only have been as a player as I wouldn't have felt I had the knowledge of the PF rules to GM.
|
|
To me, I think your biggest hurtle is the Eberon setting itself. Because it's got some pretty 'wonky' non traditional elements (note I did not say bad, just wonky ;) it might be more challenging to convert.
Oh definately, as I said in my second post on this thread "if Pathfinder had been produced by WotC and thus would have got an Eberron setting for it, I may have gone PF. Setting has chosen which game I pursue, and while PF is still so close to 3.5 I can still use 3.5 to play Eberron."
|
|
To me, I think your biggest hurtle is the Eberon setting itself. Because it's got some pretty 'wonky' non traditional elements (note I did not say bad, just wonky ;) it might be more challenging to convert.Oh definately, as I said in my second post on this thread "if Pathfinder had been produced by WotC and thus would have got an Eberron setting for it, I may have gone PF. Setting has chosen which game I pursue, and while PF is still so close to 3.5 I can still use 3.5 to play Eberron."
4e is made by WotC and has Eberron. Just saying.
4e is made by WotC and has Eberron. Just saying.To me, I think your biggest hurtle is the Eberon setting itself. Because it's got some pretty 'wonky' non traditional elements (note I did not say bad, just wonky ;) it might be more challenging to convert.Oh definately, as I said in my second post on this thread "if Pathfinder had been produced by WotC and thus would have got an Eberron setting for it, I may have gone PF. Setting has chosen which game I pursue, and while PF is still so close to 3.5 I can still use 3.5 to play Eberron."
Amazingly insightful. :D
4e does offer me enough of a step change to make it worth my while reading the rules and learning the differences, plus it actively supports my favoured setting so no need to do conversions, but I stil use my 3.5 books for fluff. However for everything that 4e did right (and I wish PF had done) it is lacking in other areas where 3.5 and PF have strengths (longer duration on spells, no single Save roll that ignores abilities etc).
Truth be told, I still prefer 3.5 to 4e, but prefer 4e to PF (even though I feel PF is a superior system to 3.5!)
Maybe Pathfinder 2nd ed will give me the best of both 3.5 and 4e in a single package (and maybe by then Paizo could licence Eberron like White Wolf did for Ravenloft :D )
|
|
Truth be told, I still prefer 3.5 to 4e, but prefer 4e to PF (even though I feel PF is a superior system to 3.5!)Maybe Pathfinder 2nd ed will give me the best of both 3.5 and 4e in a single package (and maybe by then Paizo could licence Eberron like White Wolf did for Ravenloft :D )
Doh! <insert sounds of me feeling stupid>
Ever wonder what would have happened if the changes in 4e were no more than those presented in Star Wars SAGA rules? I wonder if there would have been such a large outcry?
|
I've only scanned these posts, not read each of them, but I think Digital Mage is on to something with his assertion that Pathfinder is a bit too tied to Golarion.
I just don't see how it can be helped.
Whereas WotC puts out a new crunch book every month (Complete Adventurer, Epic Level Handbook, Spell Compendium, Frostburn, etc.), Paizo puts out a Golarion specific book every month (AP volume, Guide to Absalom, etc).
Who wants to buy just a Core Book and Monster Manual??? We want to purchase additional stuff, yes? For someone who's not really into Golarion, just the Core and Monster books are insufficient.
Of course, one of the big problems of 3.5 was alllllll the splat books that unbalanced the PHB. So Paizo makes world stuff instead of Complete books.
To Digital Mage, maybe check out Classic Monsters Revisited, Dungeon Denizens Revisited and the upcoming Misfit Monsters Revisited.
|
|
Has Trailblazer come out with anything new since then?
It's funny that when this thread first popped up, i had to bite my tongue because I had chosen Trailblazer from Badaxe Games as my "Judge's Pick" for the ENnies this year.
Glad to see peole have been talking about it here and at EW. It's a very handy product for OGL'ers.
-Skeld
|
Has Trailblazer come out with anything new since then?It's funny that when this thread first popped up, i had to bite my tongue because I had chosen Trailblazer from Badaxe Games as my "Judge's Pick" for the ENnies this year.
Glad to see peole have been talking about it here and at EW. It's a very handy product for OGL'ers.
-Skeld
W00t! TB rocks! (As in Trailblazer, not tuberculosis ;-)
You were a judge, Skeld?
|
|
I've only scanned these posts, not read each of them, but I think Digital Mage is on to something with his assertion that Pathfinder is a bit too tied to Golarion.
I just don't see how it can be helped.
Whereas WotC puts out a new crunch book every month (Complete Adventurer, Epic Level Handbook, Spell Compendium, Frostburn, etc.), Paizo puts out a Golarion specific book every month (AP volume, Guide to Absalom, etc).
Yah. Paizo started as the publisher for Dungeon and Dragon magazine, then its own company generating APs and mods for the (now discontinued) D&D 3.x. It continues that focus with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game* APs and mods.
*I don't include the Core Rulebook in this statement; I'm in the camp that it's as generic as the 3.x PH and DMG.
Of course, one of the big problems of 3.5 was alllllll the splat books that unbalanced the PHB.
Yah. Not that folks haven't been asking for such supps. Paizo, in my opinion, though, has wisely kept such stuff restricted to supps like the released released Advanced Player's Guide and upcoming Ultimate books.
|
|
You were a judge, Skeld?
Yes. Skeld; aka Mark Green. I was a judge for the 2010 ENnies season and I've been re-elected for the 2011 season.
Trailblazer was my pick. Each judge got to high-light one product that otherwise wasn't up for an award, but that we individually thought needed some attention.
-Skeld
|
|
You were a judge, Skeld?Yes. Skeld; aka Mark Green. I was a judge for the 2010 ENnies season and I've been re-elected for the 2011 season.
Trailblazer was my pick. Each judge got to high-light one product that otherwise wasn't up for an award, but that we individually thought needed some attention.
-Skeld
W00t! Good pick. I notified Badaxe via email about the nomination when it was announced in the live streaming.
What caught your eye about TB to make the nomination?
|
|
What caught your eye about TB to make the nomination?
I thought it was a really nicely done analysis of 3.5 OGL and it has a ton of good rule suggestions. Given that 3.5 (and its derivative games like Pathfinder) are still very popular, I thought Trailblazer was a good product to shine some attention on in the hopes that folks that might have otherwise missed it will have a chance to check it out.
-Skeld
|
|
What caught your eye about TB to make the nomination?I thought it was a really nicely done analysis of 3.5 OGL and it has a ton of good rule suggestions. Given that 3.5 (and its derivative games like Pathfinder) are still very popular, I thought Trailblazer was a good product to shine some attention on in the hopes that folks that might have otherwise missed it will have a chance to check it out.
-Skeld
Heart the unified spell progression mechanic. That alone is worth the price of the book.
|
|
Heart the unified spell progression mechanic. That alone is worth the price of the book.
I don't know, for 3.5 the spell acquisition rules seem completely out of whack. You can basically make a wizard with a spell list that includes everything except a few class-specific spells. And you can prepare a selection of them and cast them spontaneously. That's a buff they don't need.
I've only scanned these posts, not read each of them, but I think Digital Mage is on to something with his assertion that Pathfinder is a bit too tied to Golarion.
By what definition? Is your problem the Adventure Paths? Yes I'd see that one might feel it would take a good deal of work to neuterise the proper names of cities, regions and towns. But I think a module that's set in Generic City in Generic Land on the shores of Generic Continent would be a bit lacking in flavor. The upside is that setting the Adventure paths in Golarian does provide a baseline to keep a level of consistency and if you want to set them in YOUR world once you've done one AP, you've got a big leg up in doing the other.
It can't be the rules set. Unlike old D20 there isn't a single spell with a Mage's name on it, not even a magic item. The only thing that ties the ruleset to Golarian is the domain link to dieties and that's a pretty flimsy straw to mark a ruleset as "too tied" to one specific world. Is it really that hard to choose which domains should go to which diety? The LSJ people seemed to have no problem with that, as they've switched thier ruleset form D20 to Pathfinder.
The problem with Digital Mage and much of the similar arguments is that they make an assessement with either no goal posts, or one that's constantly shifting. What's the standard for saying that a ruleset is not generic enough? Or is too tied to one place and world? I can't imagine a reasonable standard which makes Pathfinder unusable outside of the Golarian setting.
Mass? Go to a local store that sells PF material. Now assign a number to each pathfinder product there. Now use a random number generator to pick 10 items at random. How many of those items are tied to the campaign setting? My guess is that you will find 70-90% of the picks will be tied to the campaign setting. So if a person comes in and picks a random PF product, it is most likely that they will see it tied to the official setting. If they do not get excited by the campaign setting, what impression does it leave them if they pick three more items at random and see more campaign tied products?
|
Mass? Go to a local store that sells PF material. Now assign a number to each pathfinder product there. Now use a random number generator to pick 10 items at random. How many of those items are tied to the campaign setting? My guess is that you will find 70-90% of the picks will be tied to the campaign setting. So if a person comes in and picks a random PF product, it is most likely that they will see it...I've only scanned these posts, not read each of them, but I think Digital Mage is on to something with his assertion that Pathfinder is a bit too tied to Golarion.
By what definition? Is your problem the Adventure Paths? Yes I'd see that one might feel it would take a good deal of work to neuterise the proper names of cities, regions and towns. But I think a module that's set in Generic City in Generic Land on the shores of Generic Continent would be a bit lacking in flavor. The upside is that setting the Adventure paths in Golarian does provide a baseline to keep a level of consistency and if you want to set them in YOUR world once you've done one AP, you've got a big leg up in doing the other.
It can't be the rules set. Unlike old D20 there isn't a single spell with a Mage's name on it, not even a magic item. The only thing that ties the ruleset to Golarian is the domain link to dieties and that's a pretty flimsy straw to mark a ruleset as "too tied" to one specific world. Is it really that hard to choose which domains should go to which diety? The LSJ people seemed to have no problem with that, as they've switched thier ruleset form D20 to Pathfinder.
The problem with Digital Mage and much of the similar arguments is that they make an assessement with either no goal posts, or one that's constantly shifting. What's the standard for saying that a ruleset is not generic enough? Or is too tied to one place and world? I can't imagine a reasonable standard which makes Pathfinder unusable outside of the Golarian setting.
If a person goes into a store and picks up a 'random' book, they are far more likely to choose the bigger books first. Core book, APG, Bestiary, GMG, or Campaign setting. The Core book is obviously the biggest of the lot, and boldly marked "Core Rulebook". The only hardback with absolute ties to Golarion is obviously the Campaign Setting.
Mass? Go to a local store that sells PF material. Now assign a number to each pathfinder product there. Now use a random number generator to pick 10 items at random. How many of those items are tied to the campaign setting? My guess is that you will find 70-90% of the picks will be tied to the campaign setting. So if a person comes in and picks a random PF product, it is most likely that they will see it...I've only scanned these posts, not read each of them, but I think Digital Mage is on to something with his assertion that Pathfinder is a bit too tied to Golarion.
By what definition? Is your problem the Adventure Paths? Yes I'd see that one might feel it would take a good deal of work to neuterise the proper names of cities, regions and towns. But I think a module that's set in Generic City in Generic Land on the shores of Generic Continent would be a bit lacking in flavor. The upside is that setting the Adventure paths in Golarian does provide a baseline to keep a level of consistency and if you want to set them in YOUR world once you've done one AP, you've got a big leg up in doing the other.
It can't be the rules set. Unlike old D20 there isn't a single spell with a Mage's name on it, not even a magic item. The only thing that ties the ruleset to Golarian is the domain link to dieties and that's a pretty flimsy straw to mark a ruleset as "too tied" to one specific world. Is it really that hard to choose which domains should go to which diety? The LSJ people seemed to have no problem with that, as they've switched thier ruleset form D20 to Pathfinder.
The problem with Digital Mage and much of the similar arguments is that they make an assessement with either no goal posts, or one that's constantly shifting. What's the standard for saying that a ruleset is not generic enough? Or is too tied to one place and world? I can't imagine a reasonable standard which makes Pathfinder unusable outside of the Golarian setting.
Hold on a second. There is a difference between PF material in general and PF rule books. Including all the APs is quite frankly silly for this comparison. If you are going to include adventure modules then I'd say the majority of books printed for 3..x and 4e are also heavily weighted towards a specific setting.
It's like going to the grocery store and picking 3 items at random, it's not likely that any of those 3 items will be soup. But if you go to the soup/etc. isle then you have a damn good chance of getting soup just picking at random.
Now I do think that with the elf and orc books then actual rule books (as opposed to all PF material printed) is somewhat more weighted towards Golarian than LazerX does, but not nearly as much as you are implying.
|
|
By what definition? Is your problem the Adventure Paths?
I have no issue with the Adventure Paths - they are scenarios for the Golarion setting, some use D&D3.5 as a ruleset, others PF RPG, but they are all adventures for the Golarions setting. As such I would categorise them as Golarion Adventures as opposed to Pathfinder RPG core line books.
It can't be the rules set.
If by ruleset you just mean the core book, APG and bestiary, then no, but if you are talking about mechanics and stats that may be of use in multiple settings but that appear in Golarion specific books (e.g. orc PC rules in Orcs of Golarion) then yes, there is a link that may be tighter than it could be.
The problem with Digital Mage and much of the similar arguments is that they make an assessement with either no goal posts, or one that's constantly shifting. What's the standard for saying that a ruleset is not generic enough? Or is too tied to one place and world? I can't imagine a reasonable standard which makes Pathfinder unusable outside of the Golarian setting.
I have never said PF is unusable outside of Golarion, I have merely stated that there is often a perception (rightly or wrongly) that the PF RPG is tied in to the Pathfinder setting quite closely.
I have given examples in this thread as to why this can occur, I could give more if you like:
Pathfinder Companion Adventurer's Armoury
Is that a setting neutral book? It sounds like it. But its in the Companion line of books (not the RPG line) and so theoretically is tied to Golarion.
So a purchaser must inspect the product more closely to see the disclaimer "Although suitable for play in any fantasy world, it is optimized for the Pathfinder Chronicles campaign setting".
How would I interpret that statement if I was a PF RPG fan, but not a Golarion fan - how much content could I expect to be useful and how much not so?
I may find it extremely useful for my non-Golarion game, but may not have even noticed it as it is in the Companion line.
|
|
If you are going to include adventure modules then I'd say the majority of books printed for 3..x and 4e are also heavily weighted towards a specific setting.
The issue is around branding - the big Pathfinder logo is on both PF RPG books and Golarion Setting books, with WotC's 3.5 Forgotten Realms and Eberron books, the D&D logo was actually fairly small, and the complete trade dress was different, you could spot an Eberron book by just the graphics on the cover regardless of logos.
And as I stated its not the APs that are that much of an issue, but more the Companion books that seem to span both setting and rules material.
|
|
Lemme just reiterate what I posted earlier,
most of Paizo's publications have to do with Golarion -- like Pres Man said.
But, like I said, I don't see how it can be avoided.
Mine is not a complaint, just an acknowledgement that Digital Mage is on tho something. Most of Paizo's products are tied to Golarion.
Unfortunately, for a potential customer who loves Greyhawk, this can be off putting. One of my gamer buddies now, for example (find him on the Gamma World Threads), plays Pathfinder rules in Oerth. Except for the Core and Bestiary, he's not likely to buy Paizo products.
And that can't really be helped -- it's not as if Paizo can put out some GH, FR or Ravenloft stuff, you know.
Even for me, as a Charter Subscriber and Modules subscriber, I get lost with the occassional Golarion reference.... There's only a small handful of locales in Golarion I really like and I buy those few products (Cheliax, Absalom, Katapesh) but I know almost nothing of Nex or Nidal or Numeria. Thus, when I start reading Kingmaker I'm completely lost with Brevoy, Rostland, Restov and, um, the "northern half" of Brevoy. Without reading the World Book one can not really understand the references in the AP outline.
|
And what was relevant there got reprinted in APG anyway.That is good to know, and the sort of thing I had suggested previously. So I guess Paizo are maybe trying to make more of a distinction between the setting and rpg lines. Which is a good thing.
Yeah, most of the weapons and majority of non-CS-specific generic items appear in APG. The AA was just a bad dream.
If you are going to include adventure modules then I'd say the majority of books printed for 3..x and 4e are also heavily weighted towards a specific setting.The issue is around branding - the big Pathfinder logo is on both PF RPG books and Golarion Setting books, with WotC's 3.5 Forgotten Realms and Eberron books, the D&D logo was actually fairly small, and the complete trade dress was different, you could spot an Eberron book by just the graphics on the cover regardless of logos.
And as I stated its not the APs that are that much of an issue, but more the Companion books that seem to span both setting and rules material.
I am more than willing to acknowledge your point, I simply disagree with it's importance or extent. That is something we can debate endlessly without getting anywhere.
My comment was aimed more at Pres Man who I felt was making an inaccurate example.
|
|
I am more than willing to acknowledge your point, I simply disagree with it's importance or extent. That is something we can debate endlessly without getting anywhere.
Interestingly I am not sure I did make any suggestion as to the importance of the issue.
I did say....
As it is, for someone not that bothered about the Golarion setting, Pathfinder RPG loses a lot of its appeal
I guess that is possibly the closest I got. Maybe PF RPG doesn't lose "a lot" of its appeal if you're not interested in Golarion, but I guess it loses "some" appeal.
However, hopefully Paizo have also recognised that they are going to make it appear that the RPG line is tied in with the setting, and as such other customers may actually be turned away from the RPG line because they have no interest in the setting
How many those "other customer" will be? I have no clue - hopefully less than the people who are drawn to the PF RPG because of Golarion.
I don't expect PF to be there yet, I have simply stated it isn't there yet ("there" being having an extensive line of non-setting books that make the RPG line seem more setting neutral) and that because of that, some people may not interested in the line.
Again, only a mention of "some people".
Basically I don't think I can make any assessment of the importance of this issue, I can only say that I think it will affect "some people", but whether that is a handful or a significant number I have no clue about.
|
Hi DigitalMage,
As both a Pathfinder and an Eberron fan, I've been reading this thread with some interest. I must admit sadly not having played Eberron since switching from 3.5 to Pathfinder RPG, though I would be interested in doing so, or incorporating Eberron elements into my Pathfinder games. Eg, I've carefully integrated Raptorans (Races of the Wild) into a Rise of the Runelords adventure path, and could see myself doing somethig similar with Races of Eberron.
Advanced Players Guide released this week is the next major setting-neutral rulebook for players after the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. There's an awful lot in the APG that might fit well in an Eberron campaign.
The Alchemist is the first example that comes to mind. Crazed scientists, leather lab-coat goggle-wearing, elixir mixing, bomb-throwing, Jeckyll and Hyde mutagens. Very Eberron film noir.
The only aspect of Eberron I had trouble with was the Kalashtar - I love psionics, but Kalashtar seemed an unnecessarily confusing way to introduce psionics into a setting. A major departure from Eberron cannon, but maybe the Quori could make their presence felt on this world not by co-habiting the minds of their hosts, but by manifesting as summoned eidolons.
There's also the other new classes: cavaliers, inquisitors, oracles, witches, each could play a role in Eberron; and archetypes for core classes which greatly expand character concepts - eg, druid animal shaman archetypes might compliment well with the shifter race. And that's just scratching the surface.
If Pathfinder wasn't the revolution you were hoping for, even though building on the same foundations, the Advanced Players Guide broadens the scope of the Pathfinder Core Rules immensely, and being setting-neutral, might give you pause for a second look.
|
|
I must admit sadly not having played Eberron since switching from 3.5 to Pathfinder RPG
May I enquire why that is? You say you have run Rise of the Runelords - was that out of a desire to play in Golarion, or were you interested in having a published adventure (and had it been set in Eberron you would have played it in Eberron)?
Advanced Players Guide released this week is the next major setting-neutral rulebook for players after the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. There's an awful lot in the APG that might fit well in an Eberron campaign.
Well, I still have shed loads of 3.5 books for Eberron and D&D in general that I still need to read, so a new book isn't what I am looking for. Though its interesting to know whats in it.
Ironically, I have just embarked upon an Eberron campaign using 4e, though I would have preferred running in 3.5, but 4e seemed the best option if I didn't want to go Pathfinder, wanted a ruleset that supports Eberron and also that I could get players for.
If Pathfinder wasn't the revolution you were hoping for, even though building on the same foundations, the Advanced Players Guide broadens the scope of the Pathfinder Core Rules immensely, and being setting-neutral, might give you pause for a second look.
I think I am more likely to check out Pathfinder again when it gets a 2nd Edition. By then I may have had a chance to play out my desires with Eberron and either be willing to do the conversion work, or maybe give Golarion another go.
|
|
I would have preferred running in 3.5, but 4e seemed the best option if I didn't want to go Pathfinder, wanted a ruleset that supports Eberron and also that I could get players for.
I'm curious...
You keep mentioning that you play Eberron using 4e because that's the supported system...
But with 3.5, Eberron had what, 19-20 setting specific books?
And, 4e has what, 2-3 setting specific books (with no plans to publish more)?
I admit, I have not seen, perused, or even read any of the 4e Eberron books, but going with TSR's and now WotC's way of doing things, the 4e setting books have to contain a whole load of reprinted material (all to bring the setting up to 4e standards)...
Seems to me the logical choice (for you at least) would have been to stay with 3.5 and have totally unfiltered access to your Eberron library, and just use the few 4e setting books for additional flavor (because as they are bound to have reprinted material, they are also bound to have new content as well)...
Just my (unasked for) opinion...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I would have preferred running in 3.5, but 4e seemed the best option if I didn't want to go Pathfinder, wanted a ruleset that supports Eberron and also that I could get players for.
I'm curious...
You keep mentioning that you play Eberron using 4e because that's the supported system...
But with 3.5, Eberron had what, 19-20 setting specific books?
And, 4e has what, 2-3 setting specific books (with no plans to publish more)?
I admit, I have not seen, perused, or read the 4e Eberron book, but going with TSR's and WotC's way of doing things, the 4e setting book has to have a whole load of reprinted material (all to bring it up to 4e standards)...
Seems to me the logical choice (for you at least) would have been to stay with 3.5 and have totally unfiltered access to your Eberron library and just use the 4e setting book for additional flavor (because as it is bound to have reprinted material, it is bound to have new content as well)...
Just my (unasked for) opinion...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I bolded the part of his statement that I think is relevant in this case.
|
|
I would have preferred running in 3.5, but 4e seemed the best option if I didn't want to go Pathfinder, wanted a ruleset that supports Eberron and also that I could get players for.
Seems to me the logical choice (for you at least) would have been to stay with 3.5 and have totally unfiltered access to your Eberron library, and just use the few 4e setting books for additional flavor
I got 4e when I realised PF wasn't going to click with me. I was effectively hedging my bets - if I could get players willing to play Eberron using 3.5, then great, but if not I could hopefully get players for Eberron using 4e.
For the current campaign it was one player pushing for 4e; he was already in a 3.5 game playing through some PF 3.5 scenarios and wanted to make sure his investment in 4e wasn't wasted (he started D&D with 4e and introduced to 3.5 later). Two other players had played some 4e (and lots of 3.5) and one hadn't at all (but a little 3.5 or 3.0).
So we went with 4e, though ironically the first player then pulled out :)
|
|
I must admit sadly not having played Eberron since switching from 3.5 to Pathfinder RPGMay I enquire why that is? You say you have run Rise of the Runelords - was that out of a desire to play in Golarion, or were you interested in having a published adventure (and had it been set in Eberron you would have played it in Eberron)?
Actually, the only games I got to play during the 3.5 era were at conventions. I loved Eberron (Mark of Heroes) the few times I played it, but locally Living Greyhawk and Living Arcanis were much more popular and Eberron sadly neglected. Later I was fortunate enough to play in a friend's home-brew Arcanis campaign.
During 3.5 era, I found Wizards released plenty of sourcebooks, but few adventures of any quality. I had thought Red Hand of Doom, Savage Tide or Shackled City looked rather promising, and was considering which of these to run for my group as the Edition change hit. Being a Dragon/Dungeon magazine collector, I purchased the first Pathfinder Adventure Path, Burnt Offerings, and was immediately hooked by the quality of adventure writing and setting support (town of Sandpoint) making my job as GM both easy and ejoyable. I knew I was onto a winner, and have been a subscriber since.
In the early days of Pathfinder, there wasn't much campaign setting published, initially just the first couple of issues of Rise of the Runelords. Getting my players to try a new setting was a hard sell. They were used to the rich background and character options of Living Arcanis. When I read the Desna (deity) article in RotRL #2, it inspired me to integrate raptorans (Races of the Wild) as the chosen of Desna to draw my players in, and they loved it!
Paizo have been publishing great adventure paths month-after-month ever since. For me, releasing the best adventures in an Edition in which I'm already familiar and have a library of compatible sourcebooks (I'm not afraid to mix/match from 3.5), and can readily find players, there really is no comparison.
Advanced Players Guide released this week is the next major setting-neutral rulebook for players after the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. There's an awful lot in the APG that might fit well in an Eberron campaign.Well, I still have shed loads of 3.5 books for Eberron and D&D in general that I still need to read, so a new book isn't what I am looking for. Though its interesting to know whats in it.
Ironically, I have just embarked upon an Eberron campaign using 4e, though I would have preferred running in 3.5, but 4e seemed the best option if I didn't want to go Pathfinder, wanted a ruleset that supports Eberron and also that I could get players for.
That's kind of funny, as they're precisely the reasons I stuck with 3.5. I could have run Eberron if the setting was as well supported with adventures as Pathfinder is. Alas, that's not the case.
If Pathfinder wasn't the revolution you were hoping for, even though building on the same foundations, the Advanced Players Guide broadens the scope of the Pathfinder Core Rules immensely, and being setting-neutral, might give you pause for a second look.I think I am more likely to check out Pathfinder again when it gets a 2nd Edition. By then I may have had a chance to play out my desires with Eberron and either be willing to do the conversion work, or maybe give Golarion another go.
I've seen you refer to Pathfinder 2nd Edition several times during this thread - I think you're beating a dead horse. You'd be better served spending your efforts playing either 3.5, Pathfinder or 4E, and enjoying that choice, than placing any hopes on an edition change that isn't yet on any horizon. Obviously the APG isn't an edition change, but it is a stack of new options that is available now.
Though I'm truly not trying to convert you. I have friends who play and enjoy 4E, so I know where you're coming from, and respect your choice.
I've actually looked through Eberron 4E books in the store to see whether I could salvage the campaign information for my own 3.5 or Pathfinder games, but decided I'd probably gain little from the effort. I'm probably better served using my 3.5 Eberron books for that purpose.