|
This is the sort of times when I imagine some people may complain that conversion isn't easy and thus question backwards compatibility. There is no way that a 4e class for a PC would be compatible!
This wouldn't be "backwards" compatibility (which is aimed to 3.X), that would be "forward"!
And in all honesty, the 4e system is one of those I'd consider "vastly different", and thusly not considered compatible right off the bat.
I consider myself a big fan of pathfinder and we play two to three times a month for years and years now but still I haven't explored UM and UC to any degree, let alone UR.
So for me there is material for like years to come already out.
This means if Pathfinder would do it WotC style and announce a new edition any time soon I would have not used about 20% of the rules/possibilities of Pathfinder I already own.
So while it is often a mistake to set oneself as the standrad I think that there are many others there who are in the same position as I am.
This means that I hope Paizo will continue to publish interesting splatbooks for years to come and worry about another edition aka core rules 2.0 after they really covered all their bases for at least 2 years.
|
This is the sort of times when I imagine some people may complain that conversion isn't easy and thus question backwards compatibility. There is no way that a 4e class for a PC would be compatible!This wouldn't be "backwards" compatibility (which is aimed to 3.X), that would be "forward"!
And in all honesty, the 4e system is one of those I'd consider "vastly different", and thusly not considered compatible right off the bat.
I think the point DM was trying to make is that converting PRPG and 4e accurately takes about the same amount of work. I would tend to agree.
@Kthulhu: Your point is valid for monsters, but it breaks down when you start converting NPCs and PCs.
Since DND 4 is not really based on OGC as 3.5 I wonder if in time pathfinder will evolve more and rules and grow apart of DND. Any idea about the possible evolutionary paths that Pathfinder might follow?
I don't think so.
if anything, D&D is moving away from D&D. Like you said, 4th edition is nothing like Pathfinder... but neither is 3.x anything like 2nd edition... and While Golarion is it's own contained world and game... so is Krynn... and Faerun... and everything else TSR put out.
D&D isn't about the system. It isn't about the world. It's a 'concept' more than a specific item... Like Kleenex, or Q-tips...
As long as Pathfinder has a core rules set in a sword and sorcery game... with fighters,rogues, clerics and mages... it will forever be identified with it's Grandpa D&D...
And I think that's a GOOD thing.
|
I think the point DM was trying to make is that converting PRPG and 4e accurately takes about the same amount of work. I would tend to agree.
Sort of.
My point was that when considering conversion of NPCs and monsters skill checks DCs in an adventure, conversion is easy because it doesn't need to have a great deal of rigour - it can be a little unbalanced, or not quite make sense, because that NPC / monster / skill checks instance is only going to be seen in the game for one encounter, and even then can be adjusted on the fly if needed. And because of this lack of a need for such rigour 4e monsters could be converted into a PF game with just a bit more effort than a 3.5 monster could be converted into a PF game.
However, when it comes to player mechanics, they will see in game play on an ongoing basis and so more rigour is required. And because of that conversion of 3.5 material to PF is not as easy. My 4e comment was to illustrate this by saying that just because a 4e monster could be converted easily into PF it doesn't mean 4e in its whole e.g. character classes, paragon paths, feats, weapons, powers etc are as easily converted. And so it is with 3.5 classes, prestige classes, feats, weapons and spells.
|
|
The funny thing is that 4E is hardly compatible with itself. Have fun trying to reconcile first printing 4E core rulebooks, 120 pages of errata/stealth updates, essentials and 17 changes to skill challenges.
For myself I don't tend to use most of the errata (though as I have the deluxe core books some of the first errata is incorporated).
Having said that, I have seen no compatibility issues in play even when someone has used an Essentials style class. For example the pre and post-update Magic Missiles could easily see play side by side in the same game, the change does not cause compatibility issues.
As for Skill Challenges, the suggested DCs have changed over time, but again in play that won't cause any compatibility issues, maybe players will find Skill Challenges a little easier if put together under the original printing core rules than via Essentials, but the mechanics of the Skill Challenge would still work.
So yes, while there have been some rules changes and errata in 4e it is all more compatible with itself than PF and 3.5 material is.
|
|
I think the point DM was trying to make is that converting PRPG and 4e accurately takes about the same amount of work. I would tend to agree.Sort of.
My point was that when considering conversion of NPCs and monsters skill checks DCs in an adventure, conversion is easy because it doesn't need to have a great deal of rigour - it can be a little unbalanced, or not quite make sense, because that NPC / monster / skill checks instance is only going to be seen in the game for one encounter, and even then can be adjusted on the fly if needed. And because of this lack of a need for such rigour 4e monsters could be converted into a PF game with just a bit more effort than a 3.5 monster could be converted into a PF game.
However, when it comes to player mechanics, they will see in game play on an ongoing basis and so more rigour is required. And because of that conversion of 3.5 material to PF is not as easy. My 4e comment was to illustrate this by saying that just because a 4e monster could be converted easily into PF it doesn't mean 4e in its whole e.g. character classes, paragon paths, feats, weapons, powers etc are as easily converted. And so it is with 3.5 classes, prestige classes, feats, weapons and spells.
I entirely agree with this.
Yeah, actually. Conversion for GM materials is easy to effortless.
Conversion for players is quite involved.
There's a double standard of sorts, then, for "back compatibility".
I think the thing that matters most to Paizo (and to me) is that GM content. I still plan to run other 3.5 APs in the future, and I would not like to do it in a "new" system that invalidated the statblocks to the point where I couldn't "fudge" it.
It seems to me that paizo's main intention was producing a game in which you could use 3.5 material (which they did extremely well, in my view). I don't see why they'd be particularly fussed if their PF rules don't transfer well to any other game.
Their flavor material and adventures can pretty much be used with any, suitably robust, system.
|
|
Can I play my 3.5 Truenamer in Pathfinder? Yeah, with a tweak or two.
Can I play my 3.5 Truenamer in That Other Game? Hell no.
So much for comparing compatibility.
I think you missed my point. I was using 4e as the extreme example to show that just because you can use npcs and monsters with just a few tweaks in PF it doesn't mean that player options will be as compatible - yes, a 3.5 class could be converted to PF so much more easily than a 4e class but it will require conversion and some rigour.
So basically, forget the mention of 4e, the point is compatibility of monster and npcs is the easy stuff as its more forgiving, however backwards compatibility of player options is where the differences between 3.5 and PF become more pronounced.
|
|
Can I play my 3.5 Truenamer in Pathfinder? Yeah, with a tweak or two.
Can I play my 3.5 Truenamer in That Other Game? Hell no.
So much for comparing compatibility.
I think you missed my point. I was using 4e as the extreme example to show that just because you can use npcs and monsters with just a few tweaks in PF it doesn't mean that player options will be as compatible - yes, a 3.5 class could be converted to PF so much more easily than a 4e class but it will require conversion and some rigour.
So basically, forget the mention of 4e, the point is compatibility of monster and npcs is the easy stuff as its more forgiving, however backwards compatibility of player options is where the differences between 3.5 and PF become more pronounced.
There are definitely enough changes that it evokes similarity to 3.5. At least Paizo managed to avoid changing spell levels and class feature levels, but the amount of material added and the minute changes to certain effects (for example, finger of death) mean certain assumptions about the game have changed.
Considering that Pathfinder is derived from D&D3.5 and current (and proposed) D&D isn't, I think it's safe to say that D&D had diverged from Pathfinder, not the other way around.
-Skeld
This.
Despite WotC owning the D&D "brand," Pathfinder is, in my opinion, the real heir to the spirit of Dungeons and Dragons. I started playing with the old Basic & Expert boxed sets, graduated to 1E AD&D, and have played every edition since. Including That Other Game.
I disliked that other game so much that I am now uninterested in WHATEVER WotC produces to replace it.
Paizo would have to REALLY try hard to screw up what they've got going with Pathfinder. I don't doubt there will be evolution (who knew Paizo was a Summoner?) but so far I must say that their productions seem well-done and rather minimalist, as far as game-changing goes.
So I'm willing to sit back and see what comes next: I trust Paizo's standards and enjoy their game.
I was at a game store and spoke with the owner. He obained a copy of the play testing for DND 5.0 and he thought it was more like pathfinder than D&D. That explains it if Monte Cook moved back to WOTC?
It most resembles Castles & Crusades to me: a slimmed-down d20 system.
|
|
I'm not sure they could release a PF 2E with backwards compitable and still have it remain profitable imo. At that point we would have 3.5 and PF 1E. Both are very similair yet one has a few tweaks. I'm not sure the majority would be willing to spend 100$+ on another system without major changes. It seems so posters in this thread forget it's more than just pointing to a wall of 3.5 books. One also has to give players who are happy with 3.5 and PF 1E a reason to buy the books. I know of three players who play in a PF game yet use the PF SRD to play in the game. They see no reason to buy the same material a second time. A perfectly content with 3.5. While I will use some 3.5. materail in my PF games I will probably not run 3.5 again.
A PF 2E is going to take more than just being produced by Paizo and backwards compitability to be a sure sell. IF it offers no fixes, changes little to nothing and is basically an old house with a fresh coat of paint well I expect it to do poorly or not as well as PF 1E. With a 2E the same factors that made 1E sell well will no longer be in place. A fanbase tired of new editions. A fanbase unhappy with the chages to 3.5. Wotc no longer publishing 3.5. Paizo imo cannot count and should not count on that again. Espcially if Wotc can pull of a modular version of 5E. If a player of AD&D amd 3.5 can both use 5E to run the games they want well the bar is going to be set pretty high. As well the issues of high level gameplay, fighters suffering at high level vs caster and the monk need to be addressed imo.
Would I like backwards compitabity of course. I also new material which evolves over time.
Memorax, I think you might be largely right if a new edition was released in a next few years (which it isn't), however 10 years from now is another story entirely. By that point, a good chunk of the player base probably won't have 3.5 books and will have completely switched over to the Pathfinder.
I would also hazard, that as other people have stated already, that any new edition will probably tweak the existing rules. It will be more Pathfinder 1.5 than a jump like 3E to 4E
I would guess that the most likely kind of release is a 'rules update' as opposed to a new edition. Something to consolidate existing rules tweaks into one cover, rather than a truly new edition.
|
I have not read through the thread, but wanted to throw my two coppers pieces into the thoughts. As far as I am concerned, Paizo has managed to replace D&D with Pathfinder. Clearly Paizo owes a lot to D&D for sure. But Paizo has done a far better job of carrying the torch with Pathfinder in recent memory, than WotC has done with their 4th edition. The 3.5 edition of the game is the most solid with Pathfinder's tweaks. IMHO Paizo would be good to just tweak the game from time to time rather than make a wholesale change of Pathfinder. That is not to say that Paizo couldn't come up with another Fantasy RPG, it is just they should call it something else and continue to support Pathfinder from now until whenever. The biggest error WotC made was not continuing to supporting 3.5. Who says a company can't have many versions. After all, Microsoft is still supporting XP!
Later,
Mazra
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would guess that the most likely kind of release is a 'rules update' as opposed to a new edition. Something to consolidate existing rules tweaks into one cover, rather than a truly new edition.
Funny. That's exactly what an "edition" used to mean!
|
|
I still can't see a rules update doing as well as a new edition. If none of the issues that many people have with 3.5./Pathfinder remain in a 2E it's not going to sell or sell as well. The irony is gamers complain when it's a entirely new edition and complain when nothing changes in the rules. Imo a big thing is the fighter/caster at higher levels and high level complexity. If none of those are addressed then imo don't bother with a 2E. Espcially the first one. Bringing up backwards compitability when PF fans have access to both 3.5 and PF 1E is anything imo going to not be considered a good selling point. A new edtion is needed. If it's profitable for Paizo to keep using the same rules we will see little or no change. If not expect big changes in a PF 2E. Why would they invest time, playtesting and resources into a edition that will sell less.
It's not just about the fans. It's alos about the company bottom line. The goodwill of the fanbase is a good thing to have. Unfortunatelty it's not a vaild form of currency at the banks. Take Palladium boosk they have a solid fanbase who is omp pretty much the reason they are still in business. With no changes to the system since the company was founded. They have reached a point where even with such a loyal fanbase they are making less money and moving less product.
My issue on a new edition is this: If Golarion is covered in great detail under the current edition, will they start over with the same world or will they be bold enough to create a new default setting for it. One thing I always disliked was how the world/fluff in most campaign settings stayed static for the most part across editions. On the other hand, bold changes in a setting such as 4e Forgotten Realms did not sit right with a good portion of the fans.
One thing Paizo has going for it no matter what they do with an edition update is that the majority of their content is fluff. The only things that would invalidate the crunch from the majority of the current edition of PFRPG headed into a new edition is an extreme rules system change or Paizo refusing to release compatible crunch updates for all of the original release product lines (excluding Core). With their track record so far on stuff like not releasing errata for all but the Core line reprints, I don't hold much hope that such a thing would happen. If they did such digital updates for old products under a new edition it would even allow them to continue to expand Golarion with more material without falling into the old trend of starting the world over again or making a new one. My vote would be to release new edition crunch updates for old products to allow compatibility, a new setting location, and the continued expansion of Golarion.
I would guess that the most likely kind of release is a 'rules update' as opposed to a new edition. Something to consolidate existing rules tweaks into one cover, rather than a truly new edition.Funny. That's exactly what an "edition" used to mean!
I know. I don't think the idea of releasing such an update is to produce a host of new sales - that model is WotC's mistake. The idea is to make newcomers to the game familiar with the existing set of rules with all updates and tweaks contained within it. Old players are only going to buy new rulebooks when their old ones wear out.
What Memorax Said +1.
New editions that don't address high level breakdown are a waste of time and resources.
It's obvious, from this thread, that the rule junkies would buy a new ruleset next year. When the non-rule junkies are in the same place, it'll be time to start the real development on a new edition.
Keep in mind that there are still quite a few groups that are still playing CORE only games to avoid the headaches of complexity. Complexity isn't always desirable.
Ten years, that's a good benchmark. PFRPG is about 4 so 6 years from now. 2018.
And I'd not be surprised if PFv.2 is an update and cleanup more than a new game. Like how 2nd Ed. was to AD&D.
Fixing levels 15 to 20+, that's an elusive task. One that's eluded designers for 6 iterations of the game.
Paizo's business model is based on producing AP and fluff, not really rulebooks. So I don't think they really need to reinvent the wheel and create a brand new game. If anything, they want to ensure backwards compatibility with Pathfinder 1st edition. any core rules update would probably be free anyway online, for those that didn't want to invest in a new book
I actually could foresee a decade down the line there being a greater need for a new setting than a brand new really novel Pathfinder ruleset