|
I can't see that getting them more sales. I don't want to buy 80-90% rehashed material simply to get 10-20% if it even is that much. Why waste the money when I can simply wait and get it from the SRD. Give me a reason to reinvest in the core book. Or I'm sticking with older version.
One way or the other releasing a core book with mostly new material or rehashed material will split the fanbase imo.
Depends on how massive the change is and how they decide to present the change.
If the revision tackles specific rule elements (much like unchained targeted concerns over certain classes), while leaving the chassis largely the same, than it could probably be done as as something different than the core rulebook.
Also...the core rule book as is is super dense and not very user friendly. If a second version of Pathfinder was released that extensively revised the rules layout and language, a lot of people would pick it up who otherwise might not. Hell there are people who would buy it just if they split the book into the players and GM guide.
Something like redoing the core rulebook as the Strategy Guide.
|
|
I believe that Pathfinder will be around for a long time. The setting is very well done and put together. The eventual edition/revision change (5-8 years?) will be the revival of the setting, not an end, and will likely be it's own "system" with Paizo's own OGL like license.
I have another comment on another thread, but to summerize, 3.5 is long in the tooth. The slight fix and awesome improvements to it in the Core book along with the new mechanics of Archtypes and other nice things have prolonged the lifespan of the "edition," but that would not be possible without a good setting to base it on, and a very well written backstory to use as a backdrop for the game itself.
This is one thing that "4venture" failed on, that the base books was so setting neutral that it seemed... generic.
However the editions go, Pathfinder will continue to be a viable setting that will go beyond what rule-set it uses, even if it uses an Open Gaming License for a current edition of another game instead of one being abandoned.
This is one thing that "4venture" failed on, that the base books was so setting neutral that it seemed... generic.
It also didn't help that you needed to buy things like the Player's Handbook 2 just to play with your favorite Was-Once-Core classes - Barbarian, Monk, etc, and that the level of power-creep in that game made options obsolete just about every time a new book saw print.
Also that periphery materials like Powers Cards were practically necessary for players.
Conversely, Pathfinder has had a good track record of not obsoleting options; no, not every option is optimal, but few things that are good are replaced by BETTER options down the line.
And while Pathfinder DOES have peripheral non-book materials like Item Cards etc., they're almost invariably aimed at DMs; Players, instead, get things like Player's Companions marketed towards them instead.
|
i'm not that excited to be honest i already have all those books, don't need the re-mastered greatest hits:-pEverybody is looking forward to the Inner Sea Races book...so we will see coming out in September.
I think this will mostly help newer players especially for PFS where you need to own the material. Buy one bigger book vs several (potentially out of print, low/no errata, or 3.5) paperbacks and open a world of options (It is also probably a better product from a FLGS point of view too).
I think PFS is one of the biggest advantages that Pathfinder has. It helps they have good product, but it serves as an easy "gateway drug" to roleplaying. For me it's no replacement for a home game, but I do get to meet new people with similar hobbies.
By all reports Unchained has had much better copy-editing than the ACG (I'm stuck waiting for the 29th for mine so I can't confirm) so hopefully they can keep that up. I also hope they become a little more explicit in their rules writing, as FAQs, board-published rulings/errata are pretty annoying to have to track down. When you search the site FAQ results don't even come up.
I don't see PF going away any time soon. I think Unchained is Pathfinder 1.5. I'd say that, unless Mt. Raineer erupts, we'll see lots more stuff going forward.
I don't see PF going away any time soon. I think Unchained is Pathfinder 1.5. I'd say that, unless Mt. Raineer erupts, we'll see lots more stuff going forward.
I agree with this.
A lot of the alternate systems that exist allow you to change the rules into a newish edition, but is backward compatible with the old way things are written.
5th Ed is popular, yes, but it also doesn't have an Open Game License, and likely never will.
THAT may be a near death-sentence for 5th Edition, but still likely not; 3rd-Party support is one of the key qualities of both 3rd Ed/3.5 and Pathfinder, and Paizo being even MORE generous with it's Pathfinder Reference Document than WOTC ever was with its SRD has led to multitudes more, and higher-quality, 3rd Party products out there, creating a thriving environment for the whole community.
5th Edition not allowing 3rd Party support means that there will be fairly limited interest in it from other games manufacturers and even players; meanwhile, Pathfinder making ALL their Base Classes and (non-Golarion-specific) hardbound books Open Content means that publisher pay attention to them, and fans of those publishers in turn pay attention to Pathfinder.
I also think HeroLab plays a very important part, and other software such as http://combatmanager.com/
IIRC, WotC screwed the licence for software vendors - totally shafting the equivalent of HeroLab for 3.5 (forget its name). Total madness, IMVHO.
I think 3pp support is very important.
Richard
I think the Pathfinder rules can be fixed with errata, and re-printing all the hard cover books with the fixed rules.
The main issue is there are so many rules that are broken for min-maxers to take advantage of. There is just so much exploitable stuff.
Also monster CR need to be fixed to take into account power creep in the rules. When a 17th fighter can destroy a CR 20 Balrog every time something is broken. If the CR's for upper level creatures were adjusted down to where they should be then this will get fixed. A Balrog should be around a CR 15. It can be a challenge for 4 15th level characters. 4 x 20th level characters will eliminate it without even breaking a sweat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Pathfinder rules can be fixed with errata, and re-printing all the hard cover books with the fixed rules.
The main issue is there are so many rules that are broken for min-maxers to take advantage of. There is just so much exploitable stuff.
Also monster CR need to be fixed to take into account power creep in the rules. When a 17th fighter can destroy a CR 20 Balrog every time something is broken. If the CR's for upper level creatures were adjusted down to where they should be then this will get fixed. A Balrog should be around a CR 15. It can be a challenge for 4 15th level characters. 4 x 20th level characters will eliminate it without even breaking a sweat.
Do you know that 4x20th level character are equivalent to a CR24 encounter? The balrog is designed to be a regular encounter at level 20 and a "Boss" for the lower levels like 16 or 17. A Boss for a level 20 party was always intended to be in the CR 23-24 range.
|
Do you know that 4x20th level character are equivalent to a CR24 encounter? The balrog is designed to be a regular encounter at level 20 and a "Boss" for the lower levels like 16 or 17. A Boss for a level 20 party was always intended to be in the CR 23-24 range.
And that's for an average party. A well optimized party will push the envelope further. (and is designed to)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty much done with Pathfinder as far as rules go.
I own three APs that I haven't played and there's a good 14 classes no one at my tables has played (20 if you could Ultimate Psionic). So even if every non-Pathfinder RPG on my shelf exploded tomorrow and my players refused to play classes that'd already been seen, I'm good for content for at least three-four years. Even if I kill a couple characters each AP.
Once you add archetypes and homebrew adventures (or updates of 3e stuff) and this jumps to five+ years.
I'd like to be excited about Occult Adventures but the Advanced Class Guide ruined me for new classes. I was unimpressed by the quality of that book, as the amount of content seemed too much to balance in the time allotted, and I worry the same flaw will befall OA.
Had OA come out before the ACG I would have been super excited, but now I just feel burnt out with PF the RPG.
Even without 5th Edition attracting attention the Pathfinder RPG has exhausted much of its content, leaving far less room for new books. There's just less space for three big hardcover books each year. At least not of rules.
And unlike some other RPGs, Pathfinder goes out of its way to keep the books in print. So new players have lots of choices. Other long-running RPGs have lots of out-of-print options and books.
They could continue the "Adventures" sub-series following Mythic and Occult with other adveture variants, but there's only so many campaign changing subsystems people will buy or overlay onto their game. And not all adventure types require heavy new rulesets.
Advice and GMing options and variant rules might be more useful.
However, Pathfinder the world still excites me though. Half the Inner Sea region is still completely unexplored and there are the many, many regions of the world to detail after that. And there's lots of space for return trips to places. There is room for endless APs left.
I see two futures for Pathfinder: a Pathfinder Revised or a renewed focus on the campaign setting and adventures.
We've already seen the introduction of campaign setting hardcovers. It'd be easy to replace one of the annual hardcovers with a Golarion book.
It'd also be very easy to segue the Pathfinder Campaign into a more system agnostic format, downplaying mechanics and new statblocks in the adventure to make the adventures slightly more system neutral. Focusing on the story, NPCs, and backgrounds, possibly with free PDFs of conversion documents for a few different systems.
Make Pathfinder less about its own RPG and more about its stories. That increases the potential appeal to 5e players (or even fans of Savage Worlds, 13th Age, FATE, AGE, etc.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Pathfinder rules can be fixed with errata, and re-printing all the hard cover books with the fixed rules.
The main issue is there are so many rules that are broken for min-maxers to take advantage of. There is just so much exploitable stuff.
A minor update of the core rulebooks to revise rules isn't that different from a new edition, as both require people to buy new books.
D&D tried this with the change from 3.0 to 3.5, which was not well received. Pathfinder got away with it last time because the alternative was the very different 4e. Now the alternative is the exceptionally well received 5e. Asking fans to buy the same ruleset without real fixes for the fourth time won't go over well.If the changes are so minor that a simple update document is all that is required (like what is currently done) then the changes are likely going to be too small to make effective changes.
The Pathfinder RPG is built on the chassis of a game that is 14 years old with some rules that have not changed much in that time. There are math problems and lots awkward rules elements that can't be fixed with small tweaks.
Things like the assumption of a Christmas Tree of magic items, the gap between good and bad saves, tying saves/BAB to HD and not CR, the caster/martial disparity, etc.
There's also the sheer number of options. Fixing the Core rules only goes so far as it's the combination of myriad options - all balanced on their own - that causes the worst brokenness. Any fix that keeps the thousands of feats and spells in play won't stop disgusting levels of optimization. (Like the level 7 bard in my game that managed to break out a 74 Bluff check.)
It's an unenviable position.
If Paizo stopped releasing products tomorrow, I'd still have enough material from the rule books, modules and APs to play this game for decades at the pace I play.
While there is a limit to rules and rules and modification of rules and reinterpretation of rules, the future is really in the modules and APs and campaign setting.
I love to game, both as player and DM. But I just don't have time to create my own campaign setting and create adventures like I did when I was in my 20s.
As long as there is fresh, new, adventures and expansions on the campaign setting I think Paizo will keep marching on.
That being said, I'd love to see Garund explored more and all the other lands mentioned and referenced but not detailed.
We an AP involving a multi-country war...that'd be exciting. Mass combat rules, etc.
I invested in Pathfinder for the long haul. Continue as is, step on the PF2.0 or a completely new rules set, I will still continue running and playing the game. I will continue to invest in Paizo in whichever direction they go.
And also . . .
At some point, Paizo may simply be ready for something new.
I realize they listen to us and really take care of us; however, there may just come a point where they want to step past what they have so lovingly created for us all and go a different direction.
|
|
Wait... what? Sure - there was grumping - but 3.5 sold very well. Paizo is a company - not a politician. They would only care slightly (if at all) about grumping so long as it sold.
D&D tried this with the change from 3.0 to 3.5, which was not well received.
"Sold well" if you mean crashed the gaming market and caused multiple gaming stores to go under with the weight of unsellable 3.0 merchandize.
Even just looking at its own sales, 3.5e sold far fewer core rulebooks than 3.0 did over twice as many years. It did fine - better than accessories - but it wasn't amazing.
Do you know that 4x20th level character are equivalent to a CR24 encounter? The balrog is designed to be a regular encounter at level 20 and a "Boss" for the lower levels like 16 or 17. A Boss for a level 20 party was always intended to be in the CR 23-24 range.I think the Pathfinder rules can be fixed with errata, and re-printing all the hard cover books with the fixed rules.
The main issue is there are so many rules that are broken for min-maxers to take advantage of. There is just so much exploitable stuff.
Also monster CR need to be fixed to take into account power creep in the rules. When a 17th fighter can destroy a CR 20 Balrog every time something is broken. If the CR's for upper level creatures were adjusted down to where they should be then this will get fixed. A Balrog should be around a CR 15. It can be a challenge for 4 15th level characters. 4 x 20th level characters will eliminate it without even breaking a sweat.
Are these guidelines written down anywhere? How does a DM know what will, and won't, challenge a well optimised party?
Wait... what? Sure - there was grumping - but 3.5 sold very well. Paizo is a company - not a politician. They would only care slightly (if at all) about grumping so long as it sold.
D&D tried this with the change from 3.0 to 3.5, which was not well received."Sold well" if you mean crashed the gaming market and caused multiple gaming stores to go under with the weight of unsellable 3.0 merchandize.
Even just looking at its own sales, 3.5e sold far fewer core rulebooks than 3.0 did over twice as many years. It did fine - better than accessories - but it wasn't amazing.
Really? I didnt know that.
I wasnt playing D&D during the 2nd or 3rd editions, so was oblivious at the time - I'd always heard (or perhaps just assumed) that 3.0 did well but that 3.5 did amazing.
Are these guidelines written down anywhere? How does a DM know what will, and won't, challenge a well optimised party?
In the CR section of the rulebook it's stated that a character with class levels and equipment worth of a PC of that level has a CR equal to its class level. From there the math is straightforward. A mirror match is a CR+4 encounter in which you have the highest stake with an equal chance to win or lose and the two sides giving everything. Level X party against CR X encounter is designed to take away just 1/4 of the party's resources (HP, spells, X/day abilities and other consumables)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yes paizo is certainly on a decline, just look at the lack of the books for this month alone.[/sarcasm]
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait... what? Sure - there was grumping - but 3.5 sold very well. Paizo is a company - not a politician. They would only care slightly (if at all) about grumping so long as it sold.
D&D tried this with the change from 3.0 to 3.5, which was not well received."Sold well" if you mean crashed the gaming market and caused multiple gaming stores to go under with the weight of unsellable 3.0 merchandize.
Even just looking at its own sales, 3.5e sold far fewer core rulebooks than 3.0 did over twice as many years. It did fine - better than accessories - but it wasn't amazing.
Really? I didnt know that.
I wasnt playing D&D during the 2nd or 3rd editions, so was oblivious at the time - I'd always heard (or perhaps just assumed) that 3.0 did well but that 3.5 did amazing.
3.0 sold in the range of 500k copies while 3.5e sold 350k (according to Erik Mona on a thread on ENWorld some years back).
3.5e was a bit of a disaster for the hobby. It was a boom period and stores were flush with money, much of it from CCGs and Magic. 3e was selling well and 3rd Party Products were being released in droves, so many stores ordered lots.
Then 3.5e came out and all the 3.0 product was worthless. Bargain bin stuff at best. Stores lost a LOT of money. Many closed.
If Paizo was going to do a revised edition they'd have to announce it some time in advance, to let stores know to slow down orders and unload current stuff.
A massive playtest akin to 5e would also help. A couple years of reduced releases and a focus on edition neutral stuff. Let people get use out of their existing content for a few years so they feel it was less wasted. And focus on their PFS mains rather than creating new alts.
|
|
Wait... what? Sure - there was grumping - but 3.5 sold very well. Paizo is a company - not a politician. They would only care slightly (if at all) about grumping so long as it sold.
D&D tried this with the change from 3.0 to 3.5, which was not well received."Sold well" if you mean crashed the gaming market and caused multiple gaming stores to go under with the weight of unsellable 3.0 merchandize.
Even just looking at its own sales, 3.5e sold far fewer core rulebooks than 3.0 did over twice as many years. It did fine - better than accessories - but it wasn't amazing.
I've read that in terms of core rulebooks the estimates are that 3.0 sold a total of 500k or so, 3.5 sold 350k or so. But remember - many of those were to the same people - so most of the 350k was extra sales they wouldn't have otherwise had (not cannibalization). In addition, the 3.5 source-books generally sold better.
Oh - and gaming stores are always going under due to stupid business decisions. It's one of those business ideas that people do because they think it'll be fun, not to make money. Therefore they don't plan properly and open under-capitalized, don't put in the hours (to start most business owners need to do 55-60+ hours) etc
Also remember - that was right about the time the Pokemon card sales crashed.
Edit: numbers were ninja'd
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
3e was selling well and 3rd Party Products were being released in droves, so many stores ordered lots.
Then 3.5e came out and all the 3.0 product was worthless. Bargain bin stuff at best. Stores lost a LOT of money.
The problem wasn't that 3.5 made the 3.0 product worthless. It was that the first 3rd-party d20 products to market sold *really well*, and the market responded with overexuberance. A lot of small publishers quickly spun up and pumped out a lot of products that just frankly weren't that good, and a lot of retailers bought way too many copies of way too many of them. This would have been a major problem even if 3.5 hadn't been released.
You learn something new every day. :)
(And by "you" I obviously mean me).
|
Like Southern Garund? What's there? Or Azlant? Or Arcadia? Or Sarusan?Plus Casmaron: it's on the same continent, but we've seen almost nothing for it. There's hope that they're going to cover Vudra once they have Occult Adventures.
I agree. Some people have moved to D&5e, but I think that may be short lived. Paizo does a better campaign world in my opinion and these other continents will help extend the interest.
Some people have moved to D&5e, but I think that may be short lived. Paizo does a better campaign world in my opinion and these other continents will help extend the interest.
Given WotC's approach to settings at the moment, I wouldnt suspect there to be a lot of dropoff in the non-rulebook lines anyhow.
Given they arent releasing any 5E-specific campaign settings (and thus any DM looking around for a published 5E campaign has to adapt a non-5E setting anyhow) WotC's success with 5E will hopefully translate into even more success for Paizo's campaign settings and adventures.
Wait... what? Sure - there was grumping - but 3.5 sold very well. Paizo is a company - not a politician. They would only care slightly (if at all) about grumping so long as it sold.
D&D tried this with the change from 3.0 to 3.5, which was not well received."Sold well" if you mean crashed the gaming market and caused multiple gaming stores to go under with the weight of unsellable 3.0 merchandize.
Even just looking at its own sales, 3.5e sold far fewer core rulebooks than 3.0 did over twice as many years. It did fine - better than accessories - but it wasn't amazing.
Really? I didnt know that.
I wasnt playing D&D during the 2nd or 3rd editions, so was oblivious at the time - I'd always heard (or perhaps just assumed) that 3.0 did well but that 3.5 did amazing.
3.0 sold in the range of 500k copies while 3.5e sold 350k (according to Erik Mona on a thread on ENWorld some years back).
3.5e was a bit of a disaster for the hobby. It was a boom period and stores were flush with money, much of it from CCGs and Magic. 3e was selling well and 3rd Party Products were being released in droves, so many stores ordered lots.
Then 3.5e came out and all the 3.0 product was worthless. Bargain bin stuff at best. Stores lost a LOT of money. Many closed.If Paizo was going to do a revised edition they'd have to announce it some time in advance, to let stores know to slow down orders and unload current stuff.
A massive playtest akin to 5e would also help. A couple years of reduced releases and a focus on edition neutral stuff. Let people get use out of their existing content for a few years so they feel it was less wasted. And focus on their PFS mains rather than creating new alts.
Disaster for the hobby? D&D 3.5e was massively successful. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
It had a huge fan base which crossed over to Paizo's Pathfinder.
3.5e is a robust system, still going strong in Pathfinder all these years later. The Ivory School of Design element of 3.5e was most likely it's undoing, as well as the OGL and too radically rethinking the D&D brand.
The problem wasn't that 3.5 made the 3.0 product worthless. It was that the first 3rd-party d20 products to market sold *really well*, and the market responded with over-exuberance. A lot of small publishers quickly spun up and pumped out a lot of products that just frankly weren't that good, and a lot of retailers bought way too many copies of way too many of them. This would have been a major problem even if 3.5 hadn't been released.3e was selling well and 3rd Party Products were being released in droves, so many stores ordered lots.
Then 3.5e came out and all the 3.0 product was worthless. Bargain bin stuff at best. Stores lost a LOT of money.
For anyone who played D&D during the 2.0 era, 3.5e was a vast improvement in quality.
So many books in the 2.0 era were substandard. TSR were just pumping out books, without a clear creative vision, character class balance was unheard of (Ranger Justifier?), and most adventures were hollowed out.
Are these guidelines written down anywhere? How does a DM know what will, and won't, challenge a well optimised party?In the CR section of the rulebook it's stated that a character with class levels and equipment worth of a PC of that level has a CR equal to its class level. From there the math is straightforward. A mirror match is a CR+4 encounter in which you have the highest stake with an equal chance to win or lose and the two sides giving everything. Level X party against CR X encounter is designed to take away just 1/4 of the party's resources (HP, spells, X/day abilities and other consumables)
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. Also the whole "1/4 of the party's resources" paradigm completely breaks down when you look at a single fighter taking on a single enemy (the example in the post you quoted) when you have a game with UMD and wands of cure light wounds. Fighters have no daily resources, they can fight at full capacity all day long (so long as they have wands of cure light wounds).
|
For anyone who played D&D during the 2.0 era, 3.5e was a vast improvement in quality.
That's an opinion, I suppose.
So many books in the 2.0 era were substandard. TSR were just pumping out books, without a clear creative vision, character class balance was unheard of (Ranger Justifier?), and most adventures were hollowed out.
I'm trying to figure out if this was a typo or what, since you just described the 3.x era.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. Also the whole "1/4 of the party's resources" paradigm completely breaks down when you look at a single fighter taking on a single enemy (the example in the post you quoted) when you have a game with UMD and wands of cure light wounds. Fighters have no daily resources, they can fight at full capacity all day long (so long as they have wands of cure light wounds).Are these guidelines written down anywhere? How does a DM know what will, and won't, challenge a well optimised party?In the CR section of the rulebook it's stated that a character with class levels and equipment worth of a PC of that level has a CR equal to its class level. From there the math is straightforward. A mirror match is a CR+4 encounter in which you have the highest stake with an equal chance to win or lose and the two sides giving everything. Level X party against CR X encounter is designed to take away just 1/4 of the party's resources (HP, spells, X/day abilities and other consumables)
And the wands have finite charges so you're burning consumables.
And the wands have finite charges so you're burning consumables.
How many charges is 1/4 of a "day's worth of charges of cure light wounds wands"?
|
|
The problem wasn't that 3.5 made the 3.0 product worthless. It was that the first 3rd-party d20 products to market sold *really well*, and the market responded with over-exuberance. A lot of small publishers quickly spun up and pumped out a lot of products that just frankly weren't that good, and a lot of retailers bought way too many copies of way too many of them. This would have been a major problem even if 3.5 hadn't been released.3e was selling well and 3rd Party Products were being released in droves, so many stores ordered lots.
Then 3.5e came out and all the 3.0 product was worthless. Bargain bin stuff at best. Stores lost a LOT of money.
Absolutely. Just like 3.5 made 3.0 worthless, but the same could be said about 3e making 2e worthless or 4e making 3e worthless, or the nWoD making the oWoD worthless, or even a theoretical Pathfinder 2 making Pathfinder 1 worthless).
Revisions almost always invalidate the old. (3.5e to PF is anomalous in this regard.)But no one expected a revision in year three and people bought too many books expecting a longer time to sell.
This made it a problem that had to be dealt with over a handful of months rather than spread out over years. It turned a few bad decisions from something that might hurt profits for a while to something that required shuttering the store.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disaster for the hobby? D&D 3.5e was massively successful. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
It was moderately successful. 3.0 was massively successful, 3.5e's sales were 70% that.
And it was successful for WotC, but disastrous for the hobby in general, killing stores and preventing people from buying product.It had a huge fan base which crossed over to Paizo's Pathfinder.
3.5e is a robust system, still going strong in Pathfinder all these years later. The Ivory School of Design element of 3.5e was most likely it's undoing, as well as the OGL and too radically rethinking the D&D brand.
This isn't just 3.5e though, and I can say the exact same things about 3.0. After all, 3.0 is a robust system, still going strong in Pathfinder. And, as mentioned above, 3.0 had a much larger audience than 3.5e.
3e as a whole was a staggering success with an ardent and dedicated fanbase. But 3.5e was problematic and arguably caused more problems then it solved, and might have been better implemented with smaller changes that were more overly backwards compatible.
I actually sold all of mine to buy pathfinder books:-D
Revisions almost always invalidate the old. (3.5e to PF is anomalous in this regard.)Pathfinder did invalidate 3.5. All of my 3.5 books have seen zero use since Pathfinder released.
Indeed, a lot of people have the opinion that 3.5 and PF are totally compatible. Except many tables, mine included, allow PF only (or even Paizo PF only). When it first came out, we continued to use much of 3.5, especially the Spell Compendium, but after awhile it became evident there were too many little changes in PF. It was far easier and more reliable to just go PF once sufficient support books were out.
You had to convert less from 3.0 to 3.5 than 3.5 to PF...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a number of friends that have given up on pathfinder and moved to D&D5 for really one reason...combat simplicity. D&D 5, fights average 30 mins, Pathfinder can get up to 2 hours easy.
That's because 5th edition has reintroduced HP as a daily resource. In 4th ed and Pathfinder we don't have that. We instead have people starting each fight at full HP (thanks to healing surges/wands of cure light wounds). That means every fight has have a danger of getting you to 0 HP or else there's absolutely no danger whatsoever, which means fights have to be harder which means they're longer (I can't say I've seen anything but exceptional fights take anywhere near 2 hours). This means that during a game session there's less combats you can get through which means wizards become more powerful as they have less fights they need to spread their spells across and the 15 minute work day problem becomes exacerbated.
Remove wands of cure light wounds (feel free to replace it with 5th ed's healing hit die, just make sure you require a 1 hour rest to get it back) and you reintroduce HP as a daily resource, help rebalance the classes away from casters and can throw less difficult fights and more of them at the players. Will it be the cureall that fixes all the problems with Pathfinder? Of course not. But it's an easy fix to introduce if you're players are migrating towards 5th edition.
Revisions almost always invalidate the old. (3.5e to PF is anomalous in this regard.)
I believe AD&D 1st ed to AD&D 2nd ed was fairly similar to the 3.5e to Pathfinder upgrade.
|
|
Revisions almost always invalidate the old. (3.5e to PF is anomalous in this regard.In D&D. Perhaps. In most RPGs. No. The degree of compatibility between Runequest 2nd edition and Runequest 6th edition (1978-2012) is very large. Tunnels and Trolls 1st edition from 1976 has module that need little conversion to play with 7e. And that's the case with most RPGs. In that respect D&D is an anomaly.
This comes down to the problematic use of the term "edition", which can mean both "new version" or just "new printing". A reprinting with new art, formatting, and covers is as much a new edition as a complete revision of the rules. It's hard to differentiate these two, but they're very different.
Yes, games that have the variant-printing editions are compatible. This includes stuff like Runequest, Tunnels and Trolls, Palladium, Call of Cthulhu, and many others. And, arguably, D&D Basic.
Games where edition means revision and not reprinting are less likely to be backwards compatible. Sometimes it can be done, with some effort and other times not.
For anyone who played D&D during the 2.0 era, 3.5e was a vast improvement in quality.That's an opinion, I suppose.
So many books in the 2.0 era were substandard. TSR were just pumping out books, without a clear creative vision, character class balance was unheard of (Ranger Justifier?), and most adventures were hollowed out.I'm trying to figure out if this was a typo or what, since you just described the 3.x era.
Ya, no.
Some of the absolute best 3.5 stuff came at the end. Tome of Battle being the big one having some of the best balanced and designed content compared to anything prior (except the Expanded Psionics Handbook of course).