He didn't do anything with the first 4th edition books, though, that is for sure.
You do realize that Wayne Reynolds was already working for WotC for several years before Paizo even existed, right?Um, the very first 4e books (PHB, DMG and MM) all had Wayne Reynolds covers! So yeah, I wouldn't be so sure :)
EDIT: Doh! Steve Geddes already said that! That will teach me to respond to posts as I am reading through the thread rather than reading all to the end.
WR was also doing artwork for tons of Magic: The Gathering cards throughout the 2000's. Also owned by WotC.
Adjusting power level is easy. Just have everyone be one or two levels lower.
Not sure about that. Or actually, I highly dispute that. I think the Golarion setting is the weakest line Paizo is producing and the setting itself is bland and generic. And of all the people I know who are playing the Pathfinder RPG, I don't know about a single one who uses the setting or even knows anything about it.
I
Oddly, EVERY PF game I know (and one 3.5 game) is set in Golarion. Well, true- in one game we world hop, but Golarion is one of the bases.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care for Golarion either, personally, but I know a lot of people do. For me, on the surface it's good, but the more in depth, the more I really don't like it. Now, I play the majority of games in a simplistic version of Golarion, (PFS), but for non-PFS games, it depends. Usualy the setting itself is not really important, so it coul dbe in Golarion, Greyhawk, or the DM's personal homebrew world.
Adjusting power level is easy. Just have everyone be one or two levels lower.
Well that is unless you are playing a 1st level module. ;)
What I wonder is the following.
Since Paizo stuck with 3.x compatibility to keep the system going, with changes of course, did they in a way shoot themselves in the foot for the eventual drastic rules updates and rolling up of PF specific additions to that system (such as alternate stealth) under a new edition?
Most signs point to this being an impossibility. Not stepping up (in my opinion) on the above alternate stealth rules is but one example of a possible unwillingness/inability to even try to advance the concepts they introduce due to sticking to that compatibility. Even after the proposed life cycle of this edition of PF, it seems unlikely they could cut the 3.x cord even if they want to.
What I wonder is the following.
Since Paizo stuck with 3.x compatibility to keep the system going, with changes of course, did they in a way shoot themselves in the foot for the eventual drastic rules updates and rolling up of PF specific additions to that system (such as alternate stealth) under a new edition?
Most signs point to this being an impossibility. Not stepping up (in my opinion) on the above alternate stealth rules is but one example of a possible unwillingness/inability to even try to advance the concepts they introduce due to sticking to that compatibility. Even after the proposed life cycle of this edition of PF, it seems unlikely they could cut the 3.x cord even if they want to.
I doubt it.
We already have alternate armor rules, alternate Critical hit rules, alternate words of power rules...
Problem is, not many people LIKE these new things... It doesn't seem to stop Paizo from trying something new if they think it needs work.
Had armor as DR or Words of Power really taken off... They probably would have made the jump to more 'official' products like a 1.5 Core rulebook in the future...
Like the Mythic rules. They are KIND OF optional right now... however, they are going to start rearing their head into the APs when appropriate... so we'll have new 'non-3.x' content coming out...
The thing that bugged me most about the 3.x to PF conversion, was the early books... If they KNEW they were going to change rules and grow the game beyond the 3.5 limitations... I REALLY wish they would have just waited to do the Elves/dwarves/Golarion setting books until they had the kinks ironed out.
Now we've got books that list bonuses that don't make any sense... and they are covering the same ground twice with the inner sea world guide....
I mainly meant in areas that are not optional such as the stealth rules to "fix" what they see as problems in the original rules. Another example would be how some systems that have been added, if redone in the right way, would make certain things obsolete. Factions, archetypes, and roles are just a few systems that could be combined to remove PrC for example. Streamlining all the old 3.x systems and the PF additions would essentially push the game forward but at the same time cut the compatibility ties in many ways. That could be remedied on their own products if they would go through the PF back catalog and update any rules bits to be in line with the new changes. That would make the most sense if it were to happen a few years from now as they would be able to keep the lore/fluff in place. It would also allow them to print updated versions of the original editions supplemental lines (companion/campaign) for a newer generation of gamers.
Responding to Eastern/Asia/Japan in Golarion and Faerun, I've never felt to have this massive gulf of distance. So in my settings, the Japanese islands, or the Chinese river cities, or the Thai court states are not so far from the non-Asians or the central settings for adventure.
In a setting I put a lot of time in, "Asia" was not even a sea away. You had Asian archipelago connected to Castlevania-esque (Japanese imagining of Transylvania is always pretty cool) small mountain and vale region, connected to the monster primordial forest and ranger heavy region--a buffer of barbarian lands and then you are into free towns, theocracies, monster democracies. The central adventuring area. The Thai lizardmen enlightened city states (Buddhist/Socratic) are even closer to the centre, and a powerful cultural force (they invented rhetoric, scholarship and universities).
In another setting the hobgoblin Japanese are very close to the Italian/Swiss cities of the Rhodoks, but there are some small but dangerous natural/monster barriers preventing a meeting. These barriers are recently being tamed and explored, which is where the players come in. Hmm, on barriers and Asia.
Lol, I don't feel the urge to make the Asians stand off in their own corner of the room, far away from anyone else. I think that betrays an attitude that some think Asian fantasy is cool, some hate it, but no matter what, it always has to be so far away to be acceptable. On Arabs, Indians and the mid-east, it always has to be south or east. Anyone notice that as well? Tolkien's influences and Earth-world geography still stick to the hobby and hold sway.
Oddly, EVERY PF game I know (and one 3.5 game) is set in Golarion. Well, true- in one game we world hop, but Golarion is one of the bases.Not sure about that. Or actually, I highly dispute that. I think the Golarion setting is the weakest line Paizo is producing and the setting itself is bland and generic. And of all the people I know who are playing the Pathfinder RPG, I don't know about a single one who uses the setting or even knows anything about it.
I
Mine is set in Faerun, aka Forgotten Realms. This is why I don't want most of the campaign setting books, just the racial ones. Having a dickens of a time getting gnomes, elves, and dwarves at a reasonable price!
Loyalist, you DO know that there are many historical facts that cite China and Japan developed in a virtual cultural vacuum, separate from everyone else, right? Very little came to them from outside their borders. And that's one of the many reasons why technologically and even culturally to some extent they became stultified.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bwahaahahhahahaha! That is inaccurate.
Japan developed from Korean, Chinese and Indigenous Ainu influences. Zen Buddhism is the Japanese form of a belief from India.
On China, there were all manner of ethnicities, languages and cultures in this territory simplified by the term "China" and the "Chinese". The Han have control now, it was not always so. There is also the contact and trade with south east asia, Korea, India and Mongolia to consider. Asian homogenisation and isolationism is an assumed western inaccuracy.
We can talk Tokugawa Japan and the post-European influences and after the extermination of the Christian faith in Japan. That "very little came to them from outside their borders" is false. I have done my units in Asian Studies to come to these conclusions.
Bwahaahahhahahaha! That is inaccurate.
Japan developed from Korean, Chinese and Indigenous Ainu influences. Zen Buddhism is the Japanese form of a belief from India.
On China, there were all manner of ethnicities, languages and cultures in this territory simplified by the term "China" and the "Chinese". The Han have control now, it was not always so. There is also the contact and trade with south east asia, Korea, India and Mongolia to consider. Asian homogenisation and isolationism is an assumed western inaccuracy.
We can talk Tokugawa Japan and the post-European influences and after the extermination of the Christian faith in Japan. That "very little came to them from outside their borders" is false. I have done my units in Asian Studies to come to these conclusions.
Dunno about that. I've done some classes on that subject myself.
Isolationism isn't much of an exaggeration, if it is one. China basically dismissed everyone but themselves as being barbarians for centuries. Yes there was trade, but it was highly limited, and confined to the cities. Since the majority of the population were NOT urban, and the scholarly elite maintained strict control over politics and education, the culture stagnified. A combination of geography (mountains, desert, ocean and the natural influence of a early centralized govt to make for a decent irrigation system) and government basically paralyzed China's culture. Granted, they didn't see themselves as composed of a homogenized group, but that's what they effectively became as a result of their own policies.
The radical change that kicked in after the West basically kicked down the door in both China and Japan testifies to their deliberate isolationism.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Loyalist, you DO know that there are many historical facts that cite China and Japan developed in a virtual cultural vacuum, separate from everyone else, right? Very little came to them from outside their borders. And that's one of the many reasons why technologically and even culturally to some extent they became stultified.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The Silk Road never existed! The Portuguese never came to Japan and brought gun technology to the islands! It all never actually happened!
China was probably THE most technologicially advanced civilization for the majority of time between late BCE up to until the mid 1400's, at least. And they mostly just fell behind on military technology - specifically guns (after being the civ that invented gun powder and spread it west...wait, that never happened, I forgot) - partly due to isolation policies. But also due to not being in a constant state of war like Europe was with itself.
Since Paizo stuck with 3.x compatibility to keep the system going, with changes of course, did they in a way shoot themselves in the foot for the eventual drastic rules updates and rolling up of PF specific additions to that system (such as alternate stealth) under a new edition?
Most signs point to this being an impossibility. Not stepping up (in my opinion) on the above alternate stealth rules is but one example of a possible unwillingness/inability to even try to advance the concepts they introduce due to sticking to that compatibility. Even after the proposed life cycle of this edition of PF, it seems unlikely they could cut the 3.x cord even if they want to.
I don't see this at all.
I'm sure that there are some that are completely adverse to any kind of change, but I think, by and large, the majority of folks are fine with a certain level of change/evolution of the system. Otherwise, how would we have gotten to where we are today?
Certainly, given the heated emotions surrounding events that lead to the creation of Pathfinder, it very clearly was not the time (for a large number of people) for the level of change at the heart of said events.
Pathfinder made some changes, with even some of those being contentious. I know that I certainly was not enamored of some of the changes to the core rules.
Thing is, it's not that some of us are change adverse - it's all about the timing and the level of the change.
When the time comes for an edition change, Paizo has earned my trust that the next version/edition will maintain a certain level of compatibility with the previous, but have less restrictions on some more significant change in areas.
Edition change doesn't have to mean an up-ended overhaul, and traditionally HASN'T meant such in this industry.
Loyalist, you DO know that there are many historical facts that cite China and Japan developed in a virtual cultural vacuum, separate from everyone else, right? Very little came to them from outside their borders. And that's one of the many reasons why technologically and even culturally to some extent they became stultified.HAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The Silk Road never existed! The Portuguese never came to Japan and brought gun technology to the islands! It all never actually happened!
China was probably THE most technologicially advanced civilization for the majority of time between late BCE up to until the mid 1400's, at least. And they mostly just fell behind on military technology - specifically guns (after being the civ that invented gun powder and spread it west...wait, that never happened, I forgot) - partly due to isolation policies. But also due to not being in a constant state of war like Europe was with itself.
The cultural impact of the Silk Road (which was maintained by the Mongols for a goodly period) was minimal on the East. All they wanted was silver.
Yes, it WAS technologically advanced, up until they managed to create an almost perfect govt, which resulted in a near total lack of any sort of cultural development outside of ethics (at least until Legalism, that %*&%^*&%%!!!).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All they need is a conversion guide, even if the conversion doesn't really work. It is about emotional comfort. Most PFers don't use 3.5 or older material, thus the backwards compatible isn't really relevant for most people. But the reason that many were willing to go to PF was because of the promise of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All they need is a conversion guide, even if the conversion doesn't really work. It is about emotional comfort. Most PFers don't use 3.5 or older material, thus the backwards compatible isn't really relevant for most people. But the reason that many were willing to go to PF was because of the promise of it.
How do you know that? Taken a survey?
I use 3.5 material all the time, because it's cheap, and because Pathfinder adventures don't have enough traps or puzzles. Or even enough humor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That awkward feeling when BOTH StreamoftheSky and 3.5 Futurologist are accurate in one thread...
Who the hell is 3.5 Futurologist? Haven't seen this one in the thread, or did you get 3.5 Loyalist's name mixed up?
All they need is a conversion guide, even if the conversion doesn't really work. It is about emotional comfort. Most PFers don't use 3.5 or older material, thus the backwards compatible isn't really relevant for most people. But the reason that many were willing to go to PF was because of the promise of it.How do you know that? Taken a survey?
I use 3.5 material all the time, because it's cheap, and because Pathfinder adventures don't have enough traps or puzzles. Or even enough humor.
Yup, I said most not all, the fact that you don't doesn't prove me wrong (doesn't prove me right either). Just something I have noticed with all of the "official PF material only" comments over the years on various boards.
|
|
I think that that was more of a thing of the past, when the PF system was newer and people where both less sure about how 3E material would balance out with the new system and also wanting to see how the PF system stood up on it's own. I don't think that is as true anymore, (though certainly still there), and may have shifted back the other way as peope miss old classes, prestige classes feats, or other settings.
I say this because I hear people taking about it a lot, and because I see threads about converting this or that to Pathfinder pretty often. That's not possible in PFS, which I mostly play these days, and I have no idea what people's home games look like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo stopped publishing Pathfinder tomorrow, I'd probably wear a black armband and listen to nothing but Solitude Aeturnus for at least a year. But I'd keep playing. The same goes for the prior editions I own. I hope 3.x and the OGL and what they helped create is around for a long, long time, but if not, my friends and I have always said we'd just keep on truckin' because the imagination is limitless, regardless of the game's mechanics. In fact, we've made a group wide decision that this is probably the last game we'll ever really buy into and spend money on. We like it the way it is, we tweak what we don't, and we're too old and cranky to change anymore.
Dunno hombre, I don't mind changing, but then again I always was an outlier. If it works better, great, if not, screw it. I'm a pragmatist at heart. If the game enables me to do what I want to do, then I will play and run it. Each game does a few things wonderfully in terms of genre. I wouldn't try to run anything ethically/morally shady in Pathfinder, or get into serious politics, but I would with DA Vampire.
That awkward feeling when BOTH StreamoftheSky and 3.5 Futurologist are accurate in one thread...
Sorry man, I blame my ranks. I don't make the rules!
All they need is a conversion guide, even if the conversion doesn't really work. It is about emotional comfort. Most PFers don't use 3.5 or older material, thus the backwards compatible isn't really relevant for most people. But the reason that many were willing to go to PF was because of the promise of it.How do you know that? Taken a survey?
I use 3.5 material all the time, because it's cheap, and because Pathfinder adventures don't have enough traps or puzzles. Or even enough humor.
I didn't notice the lack of humour until you pointed it out. Hmmmmm. Yeah, traps and humour are not in abundance. AD&D had that in spades (or at least what I consider to be funny: run from the dragon, turned into a toad, you fall to your death on spikes. Ahh, good times).
I didn't notice the lack of humour until you pointed it out. Hmmmmm. Yeah, traps and humour are not in abundance. AD&D had that in spades (or at least what I consider to be funny: run from the dragon, turned into a toad, you fall to your death on spikes. Ahh, good times).All they need is a conversion guide, even if the conversion doesn't really work. It is about emotional comfort. Most PFers don't use 3.5 or older material, thus the backwards compatible isn't really relevant for most people. But the reason that many were willing to go to PF was because of the promise of it.How do you know that? Taken a survey?
I use 3.5 material all the time, because it's cheap, and because Pathfinder adventures don't have enough traps or puzzles. Or even enough humor.
Is you British?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My mother was very very British.
Pathfinder needs more jokes and humour!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
aye, that it does. We Be Goblins was very short, and missed many opportunities. Heck, *I* could write a better funny adventure than that! I've pulled more demented stunts than you can shake a stick at in game, just for our current Goblin NPC mascot.
Funny can be just a turn of phrase, the particular way a npc speaks or how they see the world.
Like one redeemed npc the party tools around with, a former genocide committing young man with so many rationalisations for the crimes he has done. His early life was f***ed as a hostage in feudalism and thus he went totally evil. Now the party redeemed him, but he still talks about the old days "that fireball reminds me of when..." and offers advice "you know what we could do". Many laughs, very dark humour. They almost killed him at first, but now he has their backs.
What I don't like seeing from paizo are stuck up npcs (especially another arrogant noble), those that are immovable in their opinions or stances (no matter what the pcs do or say) and dull, serious characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All they need is a conversion guide, even if the conversion doesn't really work. It is about emotional comfort. Most PFers don't use 3.5 or older material, thus the backwards compatible isn't really relevant for most people. But the reason that many were willing to go to PF was because of the promise of it.
Exactly where I'm coming from. When 4e and PF both came out, I went with PF for the promise of still getting to use my 3.5 material. The main reason I didn't go with 4e was because I still had a mountain of 3.5 material I hadn't even had the chance to use yet.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't necessarily blame the PF system for individual gaming groups choosing not to use 3.5 material. But, had the conversion been a bit smoother, compatibility been a little closer(less hacking out entire subsystems, more tweaks and nudges), I feel like this would never have even been an issue.
Converting material back and forth between PF and 3.5 is not impossible by any means(most players around here seem to have no trouble with it), but it's just enough of a pain in the arse that most groups(everyone I've played with, spanning multiple groups) choose not to allow it mostly because they just don't feel like fooling with it. It's just clunky enough that it's easier to just say "No." Yet, every group I played 3.5 with freely used 3.0 material with "on the fly" conversions being a non-issue, and there were some pretty hefty changes between 3.0 and 3.5...
I applaud Paizo for attempting to "fix" 3.5, but that whole process was a double-edged sword; 3.5 was really flawed all the way to it's core. "Fixing" it really necessitated more than just changing a bunch of rules around and a new coat of paint.
I feel like, if you're going to FIX something, fix all of it, or leave it alone. Their fixes wound up causing more problems in the groups I play, than they actually solved(bye bye half-dragons, for one). A "true fix" for 3.5 would really boil down to almost an entirely new game, or so much of a revision that backwards compatibility would never even have been on the table, out of fear of grandfathering in more problems and ruining the process of fixing it entirely... Which now I realize is exactly what WotC were trying to do...
Holy crap; 4e doesn't sound so crazy, in hindsight. I still don't care for it, though. I can now appreciate the mindset that went into 4e, but the actual game is not something I'd want to play.
Okay, that was waaaay wordier than I intended. Woo coffee!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I've run with all manner of houserules, but it was only a few months ago I started thinking, wait, I can do this, I can make the system I want. It is quite rewarding actually, and what came out was nothing like d20, but it was for fantasy.
Last friday in one of my games with the new system, at the end of a good night a player excitedly exclaimed "the system works!"
And there was much rejoicing.