| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a quick question to all the people using the, "If I can't keep using my PF books, then I'm not interested in a Revamp/2nd Edition/Whatever."
If that's true, why are you playing PF right now instead of 3.5?
Because Pathfinder is still putting out new material?
Nothing says that you can't use 3.5 material with Pathfinder, anyway - in fact a large swath of the fanbase does, in fact, use 3.5 material with PF specifically BECAUSE PF was meant to be backwards-compatible.
The only thing that people have done, in large parts, is to throw away the PHB, DMG, and MMI-V in place of the Core Rulebook and Bestiaries of Pathfinder.
People have, as a whole, slowly dropped more and more 3.5 material, however, because Pathfinder is a much-more balanced version of 3rd Edition than 3.5, and the overall quality of Pathfinder material is by-and-large superior to 3.5 things.
3.5 non-Core material was suspect at best - the vast, VAST majority of "Supplement" things were just painfully awful compared to the PHB, while a smaller portion of options were just hilariously broken and broke the game completely. Only a small handful of non-Core options were actually balanced in 3.5, and over time those options have generally received a "Pathfinder Makeover" treatment.
Most of the most-popular non-Core classes have been ported over in either mechanically or thematically almost in their entirety to PF either through new classes or Archetypes of classes.
Similar strategies and Feats have been brought aboard PF, as well.
So while you still CAN play a 3.5 Warlock, there's little reason to when you can just play a Kineticist; You liked the Duskblade, right - well then you're gonna LOVE the Magus; Hexblade was your baby, so Hexcrafter Magus is your new baby; Binder was your cup of tea, then the Medium is right up your alley; Marshal was your thing, but now Cavalier is; you loved the Scout, but now you're gonna go gaga over the Skirmisher Ranger, the Guide Ranger, or maybe COMBINE the two to make a Super-Scout; etc., etc.
However, there's STILL material from 3.5 that people like and prefer that hasn't been covered by Pathfinder yet - Skill Tricks are still pretty much a no-show, there are lots of special materials and even Races that don't have a PF equivalent, the entire Magic Item Compendium is just as good (maybe better) than Ultimate Equipment, so who would WANT to give up all that good stuff...
---
In short, Paizo's let players decide whether to stop using 3.5 material or not - they've INSENTIVISED players to switch entirely to Pathfinder by making superior versions of their old favorites, however, and DMs in kind more and more say "Pathfinder Only" because the material has proven vastly more-balanced and manageable than 3.5
But all of this is a natural transition on the consumers' part entirely, because people have found Pathfinder's material to be better than 3.5's, even IF the 3.5 material is still entirely applicable to Pathfinder. Insentivising is not, after all, forcing - the consumers ultimately decide whether to drop 3.5 altogether or not.
However, if a 2nd Edition came out with a radical redesign of the system, creating gigantic snarls with existing material & rules as a result, that wouldn't be natural; that'd be an artificial transition that wouldn't regard whether the consumer felt that the new material was superior or not - that's something people lost their taste for way back in 2008, and I can't imagine they'd want to revisit that scenario ever again.
---
So, basically, THAT'S why people play PF over 3.5, if they use PF solely at all.
|
Because PF is backwards compatible allowing me to use my 3.5e content + PF content. If I can't keep using my existent books, I'll keep playing and homebrewing for 3.P since I cannot afford to render that collection of books worthless. There is a reason why some PF advertising says "3.5 Thrives in Pathfinder".Just a quick question to all the people using the, "If I can't keep using my PF books, then I'm not interested in a Revamp/2nd Edition/Whatever."
If that's true, why are you playing PF right now instead of 3.5?
Wait, I can play a Favored Soul in PFS?!?!?!
|
|
Just a quick question to all the people using the, "If I can't keep using my PF books, then I'm not interested in a Revamp/2nd Edition/Whatever."
If that's true, why are you playing PF right now instead of 3.5?
Because Pathfinder is still putting out new material?
There was more material published for 3.5 than anyone could ever possibly use.
I'm totally looking forward to playing an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil in the next PFS game I can find.
Backwards compatibility for the win!
Honest question: How easily useable is the Warmage from 3.5 in Pathfinder?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm totally looking forward to playing an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil in the next PFS game I can find.
Backwards compatibility for the win!
I'm not really sure why you are mentioning PFS in regards to backwards compatibility. PFS is a set of houserules that don't even let you use the Summoner class from APG, it has no connection to backwards compatibility.
I'm not really sure why you are mentioning PFS in regards to backwards compatibility. PFS is a set of houserules that don't even let you use the Summoner class from APG, it has no connection to backwards compatibility.I'm totally looking forward to playing an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil in the next PFS game I can find.
Backwards compatibility for the win!
Just to point out that "sanctioned play" doesn't allow for any non-Paizo material (at least none that I can find looking through the PFS Guild Guide or the "PFS Additional Resources" link on paizo.com).
Probably because, as most people have figured out, the balance between 3.5 and PF is wildly different. If it were truly a backwards compatible game, that wouldn't be true.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really sure why you are mentioning PFS in regards to backwards compatibility. PFS is a set of houserules that don't even let you use the Summoner class from APG, it has no connection to backwards compatibility.I'm totally looking forward to playing an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil in the next PFS game I can find.
Backwards compatibility for the win!
Just to point out that "sanctioned play" doesn't allow for any non-Paizo material (at least none that I can find looking through the PFS Guild Guide or the "PFS Additional Resources" link on paizo.com).
Probably because, as most people have figured out, the balance between 3.5 and PF is wildly different. If it were truly a backwards compatible game, that wouldn't be true.
I think it's much more likely that the reason is that Paizo only want to allow material in their organised play program over which they have control. Both for playability reasons but also for sales/promotion reasons.
Also, I reject the idea that "backwards compatibility" equals "the same power level". That's manifestly false - isn't there a PF Compatible product called "Stupidly Overpowered Feats" or somesuch?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably because, as most people have figured out, the balance between 3.5 and PF is wildly different. If it were truly a backwards compatible game, that wouldn't be true.
d20 isn't even balanced equally between its individual supplements. Despite being totally compatible with everything else.
|
While I like to see a new edition. i know i'm in the minority on that end. I also think they can get more mileage out of the current edition for a few more years imo.
That being said another edition has to have a minimum of 50% new material for myself and my gaming group to even open the core. We have no interest in another rehash with better production values. Not just with PF any new version of rpg. It's why I passed on Earthdawn 4E. I see no reason to reinvest in the same material a second time.
As for backwards compitability unless their market research shows a significant amount of the fanbase use 3.5 materials at their tables. Then it should be. If not I see no reason too. More often than not at most tables I played in it's "No 3.5. Only PF core and no 3pp". Do some of the fanbase use 3.5. materials. Yes. I don't think it's that big a segment of the fanbase.
With 5E fixing some of the flaws of 3.5. I can't see a mostly unchanged edition doing as well. Again Paizo needs a reason to attract people to a the next version of the rpg. Same flaws no changes and some will question the need to switch let alone buy such a core book. If the caster/martial disparity still exists I might as well keep playing PF 1E. I think gamers need to look at the hobby as a whole and not just their own bookshelves.
So.... Is Pathfinder losing money or something? Or are we getting a bunch of threads about a second edition for yucks?
Maybe the grumbling about FAQs and Errata has made the dissatisfied appear more numerous?
It doesn't seem any more prevalent to me than previously though, to be honest. My impression is that there's a fairly fluid population on the boards made up of people who arrive, post like mad for a year or two and then drift off.
Maybe the grumbling about FAQs and Errata has made the dissatisfied appear more numerous?
Yeah, errata becoming a platform for balance/content changes plus one or two comments by members of the design and developer team about "mistakes" in their earlier products or things they'd do differently with the benefit of hindsight seems to have stirred up the idea that Paizo wouldn't mind operating with a clean slate.
Maybe the grumbling about FAQs and Errata has made the dissatisfied appear more numerous?Yeah, errata becoming a platform for balance/content changes plus one or two comments by members of the design and developer team about "mistakes" in their earlier products or things they'd do differently with the benefit of hindsight seems to have stirred up the idea that Paizo wouldn't mind operating with a clean slate.
I also think Unchained itself might have contributed to the feel that things are about to change.
Having said that, I don't personally see any difference between the current batch of PF2 threads and the previous incarnations - it's just the names have changed (and possibly the trigger).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So.... Is Pathfinder losing money or something? Or are we getting a bunch of threads about a second edition for yucks?
Nope, just the same folks sayin the same stuff over and over.
Just to point out that "sanctioned play" doesn't allow for any non-Paizo material (at least none that I can find looking through the PFS Guild Guide or the "PFS Additional Resources" link on paizo.com).Probably because, as most people have figured out, the balance between 3.5 and PF is wildly different. If it were truly a backwards compatible game, that wouldn't be true.
Except Sanction Play doesn't allow all paizo material. Them not allowing non-paizo material is simply ensuring they have complete control and understanding over the material allowed in, and if you do allow non-paizo material then it opens to door for 3rd party and then it becomes a situation were 3rd party groups are requesting to be used in PFS.
Also, you do realize the balance between PF CRB and the PF CRB is wildly different right?
I'd kind of wish that people who don't play PFS would stop using the "bbbbut PFS!" in arguments about what they can do in their home games.
Except rules don't matter at all in home games, so there's no point in discussing what effects errata/faq/whatever has on the game in terms of what you do at your own table.
Except rules don't matter at all in home games, so there's no point in discussing what effects errata/faq/whatever has on the game in terms of what you do at your own table.
:o
Really? I mean, I understand you can make changes with impunity, but surely the rules of the game you're playing matter to some degree? (For our part, we tend to go by the forum consensus, just as an objective way to resolve disputes). What if everyone at the table doesn't agree about what the rules say?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simply put, the fact that Unchained is happening at all is proof that there is plenty of room for "Pathfinder: Revised" or whatever.
It's just also proof that Paizo is fully aware that people are fickle and will be scared away by "branding A" but feel totally safe with the same product using "branding B."
"A new edition? NO THANK YOU! Definitely not interested in change! I've invested too much already!"
vs...
"A ton of revisions, but still the same old PFRPG? I'm okay with that, even though there's functionally no difference between this option and the other one that I totally shot down earlier, other than this option will take multiple releases to get to the same point that a single new edition release would offer."
:eyeroll smiley here:
Personally, I don't care which route Paizo thinks is best. All I know is that there is a TON of stuff cluttering up the rules (much of it relics from 3.5, but some of it born from trying to convert from 3.5 and falling short of the mark) that needs to be cleaned up.
Unchained is a great start. But that's all it is - a start.
I definitely think Unchained is a great way to expand the system for those who find problems with the Core. I thought Ultimate Campaign was a similar kind of expansion (and have high hopes for Ultimate Intrigue). There's lots of rules subsystems you can add in and lots you can just ignore to create the kind of game which suits you.
That is the strength of the d20 system. You can add and subtract pieces fairly easily to make whatever kind of campaign you want.
That's an interesting take. In my view, the d20 system is worse than most for that sort of thing (since there's already so many other bits and pieces which can get in the way).
I ran a Swords and Wizardry Kingmaker campaign and could basically just add in the kingdom building rules with one minor tweak. All I was doing was adding stuff and there was very little chance it would 'clash' with S&W mechanics, since there's so few of them.
In contrast, I'd be leery about adding subsystems from another game into Pathfinder since chances are there'd already be some rules-system addressing whatever I was inserting.
Granted that probably says more about how I think about rules than anything objectively different between the systems.
Oddly enough I see less system problems in PFS than anywhere. I don't know if it's the adventure design, the range of levels I see or the people but I see a lot of 'useless' classes running around.
In regards to using other systems stuff in pathfinder, third party has rendered doing such a thing not appealing. There's enough third party material that just handles about any situation and imbalance.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's the opposite. Those who don't use PFS for their games actually play the game the way it's supposed to be played. If I was a rpg designer I rather hear feedback from those who use all the rules. Rather than from those who are more restricted in the rules they can use. It's hard to see what broken in a rpg if it never gets used. As well as what works.
Paizo could also do what Wotc did with 5E. Include elements of 4E. Yet repackage it in such s way as to be more acceptable to the fanbase. Which they kind of did with Pathfinder Unchained.
I think it's interesting how very progressive this company and much of its fanbase can be, while at the same time being so conservative when it comes to game rules.
I suppose it just goes to show how compartmentalized we humans can be.Well, part of it comes from years of getting burned by massive rules overhauls.
...
So when the idea of a "2nd Edition" pops up, a large amount of the fanbase starts getting PTSD flashbacks to the 2nd-3rd, 3.5/4E changeover nightmares and worry that they're going to relive it all over again, having to shell out lots of money just to buy the same basic material they had before all over again JUST to keep up-to-date with the basic game rules.
Thanks for your insight, chbgraphicarts. I'm not sure what a war vet would say about 'edition changeover PTSD,' but it does explain some of the reactions we see in these threads. And why so many 'game conservatives' feel the need to chime into these threads to say the same things that they said last time -- to avoid more PTSD, they have to make sure that Paizo knows they don't want a new edition!
And now 4E-lovers are feeling the same sting with 5th Edition, since 5th Ed has much more in common with 3rd Edition than it does with 4E, leaving those mountains and mountains of hardbound 4E books basically orphaned.
I don't think that the 4e fan reaction is coming from where you think it is though. Well, there probably are a couple of fans whose first ttrpg game was 4e whose reaction to 5e matches your description. But those of us who came to 4e from earlier editions are either able to convert whatever they want, or they don't care much about backwards compatibility. After all, we made the jump from 3.5 to 4e!
Like thejeff mentioned, for some of us it's about the rules themselves. For example, converting older stuff to whatever edition I'm playing is almost a non-issue for me. I've never carried a campaign over to a new edition, never felt the desire to port a character over to a new edition, and Planescape is the only setting setting from prior editions that I feel really strongly about. So I don't much care that my 2e and 3.x books are 'obsoleted' -- because hey, I can still mine them for ideas.
What I want is to play with the rules which best match my sensibilities and make it easiest for me to DM my game. Currently, those rules are contained in the 4e books rather than the 5e books, which is why I'm still playing 4e. If 6e is a better game by my standards, I'll happily buy into it. If PF ever changes enough to become a better game by my standards, I'll happily buy into it -- though that's probably never going to happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't get what all the hoopla is about. Seriously, people are complaining that PF needs a second edition just so they can complain about that edition when it comes out and whine about how much better first edition was!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't get what all the hoopla is about. Seriously, people are complaining that PF needs a second edition just so they can complain about that edition when it comes out and whine about how much better first edition was!
Personally I think it's a heritage thing. Pathfinder inherited D&D 3.5 and it feels like the natural order of any D&D is to eventually have a new edition that is very different from the one before. Either way a second edition is not really fair or going to happen unless Paizo is losing sales left and right or Pathfinder stops being as profitable. Given that they aren't owned by a juggernaut like Hasbro I think the customer base they have now is more profitable than it would D&D whether it competes well with 5th ed or not so the range of how far Pathfinder sales have to drop to matter is probably lower than we'd think so I imagine Paizo is sitting pretty happy not trying to reinvent things when there are competitors all around picking up niches. For them it ain't broken so there's no need to try to fix it and potentially crash and burn for their troubles. Besides anything bad kind of fixes itself with releases like Unchained and the digital ton of third party material and really Paizo and third party adventures have really sold me on pre-published adventures and settings unlike a lot of other games.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main reason to go to a 2nd edition would be to break some sacred cows and clean up some of the inherent problems within 3rd edition D&D that never can be "fixed" with the current line.
Vancian casting needs to be done with. The horse is dead and the hole is dug, the preacher is standing by. Having one defining caster mechanic will free some room to design the basics and work within a structure to make each class shine on their own and not be the "Spontaneous" version of the old class still hanging around. The Wizard need to memorize "Known" spells, like the arcanist.
Feats need to be corralled and some need to stay within the class structures instead of being available to anyone. Same thing about Magical Items that copy/replicate class abilities. (If you want Evasion, be a Rogue)
Skills need to be paired up (much like in UNCHAINED!) and the background Craft/Perform/Profession skills need to be a part of a character make up instead of a part of the whole skills tree.
and more...
Yes, there is a reason for a 2nd edition of Pathfinder, and Conversions will most likely be like from 1st (AD&D) to 2nd edition, not 2nd to 3rd.
It just won't be anytime soon. As has been said in other threads, 6th edition will likely be in it's second year before it happens.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm a little bit old-fashioned (strange for me to say having been introduced tabletop rpg a couple years ago) but I don't see what's inherently wrong with Vancian casting? To me it's just What Wizards Do and so forth.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm a little bit old-fashioned (strange for me to say having been introduced tabletop rpg a couple years ago) but I don't see what's inherently wrong with Vancian casting? To me it's just What Wizards Do and so forth.
Personally I have a lot of problems with how it currently works but beyond vancian casting in of itself I'm a bit tired of it being the only casting. maybe if it was just a wizard and a cleric thing I'd live with it but everything with caster levels does it or does it spontaneously. With 36 classes you'd figure there would be more variety than we see now. That said, once again third party broke open new ways to cast spells so I'm not really going to complain about it
Just talking about Vancian casting though; At first start it felt very unituitive. That smoothed over quite a bit as I played but as i got into third party material some cracks formed as detailed in my rant within my review of Spheres of Power.
(*) Its more balanced. Normal magic is way more powerful because it’s in limited resource. Each spell scales on it’s own, there are 9 levels of casting and you get more spells at each level. That is three axis in which spells grow in power. Compared to talent/feat based classes like the Fighter this is too much. With spherecasting the growth is as linear as a fighter by being talent-based so even adding the optional advanced talents to spheres that let you do more worldchanging magic you don’t get into God-tier power and fall more into the power level of an Inquisitor or Bard in terms of raw power and versatility.
(*) Its easy. The list of spheres and talents are about 50 pages, not including traditions and advanced talents but including all the full page images. That itself is as varied and encompassing as normal magic. Compare that to the list of spells in the Core rulebook ALONE which is about 147 pages. Nobody has time to read all that! Especially since most of them are trap options. And it doesn’t come near the versatility that spherecasting has in it’s measly 50 pages. You don’t even have to read all those pages. The names of the spheres are intuitive enough where you can just decide your theme and pick whatever sphere that sounds right and read that.
(*) It makes sense. To cast Fireball you don’t need to know Burning Hands or Produce Flame or have any knowledge of any fire spell to cast it. This has always bothered me to no end. You just grab the spell and you can cast it. With spheres you have a starting point. You want to cast a fireball, take the Destruction sphere and learn the Fire Blast talent first. Want to actually make it an AoE blasts, take the AoE talent from the Destruction sphere. This way anything magical you do is a consequence of other magic you know unless you’re picking up an new sphere.
(*) You always have something to do. Each sphere is has an at-will ability at it’s core. Sure you can run out of spell points and be that much weaker but this means you still have something to do rather than just sitting on your butt, wielding a crossbow or begging for a nap when you run out of useful spells. You can actually adventure for more than for four battles along with your martials.
(*) You can actually do things from that anime/book/movie/show/videogame that you wanted to do. Say you want to be Elsa from Frozen, and do ice things. Good luck doing that with normal casting. At best you can be a water elemental sorcerer and cast all kinds of things that have nothing to do with ice after digging through multiple books of spells so that you can get some useful ice spells. Want to be a time mage? Well you’re out of luck, most of that comes as higher level spells. But with spherecasting your icy dreams come true, just pick up the nature sphere with maybe an elemental focus tradition and you’re done. Probably conjuration with the elemental talent for the living snowmen. You can take the Time sphere and be a magical timebender. you can do pretty much anything you want without the baggage of spells outside your theme or abilities that don’t define your concept.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where have all of you been? I have been playtesting the Pathfinder 2E rules for months and they are very interesting. In order to increase profits Paizo will be using Brand placement in 2E so some of the new races will include Keebler Elf and Travelocity Gnome. A whole new set of rules covering Metagaming will be introduced. This will include Knowledge (metagame) that allows you to use OOC knowledge for in-game decisions and feats like Boxed Text Evasion that allows you to take actions in the middle of the GM reading boxed text to everyone. There will also be a new Gestalt class called "Power Gamer" that allows you to take all of the best elements of other classes without any of the disadvantages.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm a little bit old-fashioned (strange for me to say having been introduced tabletop rpg a couple years ago) but I don't see what's inherently wrong with Vancian casting? To me it's just What Wizards Do and so forth.
The problem that I have with Vancian casting is that it doesn't really relate to any magic in fiction outside of D&D-based fiction. It's also not a very intuitive system for any spell-caster besides wizards or other memorization based casters, and maybe clerics or Druids (depending on how arbitrary you think deities/nature should be).
For example: Sorcerers. Does it really make intuitive sense that they aren't able to cast 1st, 2nd or 3rd level (less powerful) spells when they still have the ability cast 4th, 5th, or 6th level spells that day?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm a little bit old-fashioned (strange for me to say having been introduced tabletop rpg a couple years ago) but I don't see what's inherently wrong with Vancian casting? To me it's just What Wizards Do and so forth.The problem that most people have Vancian casting is that it doesn't really relate to any magic in fiction outside of D&D.
Well it certainly relates Jack Vance's "The Dying Earth" series as that is what it was based on. There are other works of fiction out there that use similar systems, like the spell-hanging system from Roger Zelazny's "Amber" series. Albeit, they are not as common as systems that might be more compatible with a Spell Point system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm a little bit old-fashioned (strange for me to say having been introduced tabletop rpg a couple years ago) but I don't see what's inherently wrong with Vancian casting? To me it's just What Wizards Do and so forth.The problem that most people have Vancian casting is that it doesn't really relate to any magic in fiction outside of D&D.
Which is fine. If I wanted magic like in those places I'd go play games for them. . .
I want to play DnD. I don't care that Vancian casting is "only in DnD"-- that's what I want to play. I came to PF when 4th ed stripped out Vancian casting. It no longer felt like DnD and Pathfinder did.
If you strip out Vancian casting, this is no longer the game I want and I'm out.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example: Sorcerers. Does it really make intuitive sense that they aren't able to cast 1st, 2nd or 3rd level (less powerful) spells when they still have the ability cast 4th, 5th, or 6th level spells that day?
You may want to pick a different example, as Sorcerers CAN cast 1st through 3rd spells if they still have 4th through 6th slots available.
Spell Slots: The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower levels.
Well it certainly relates Jack Vance's "The Dying Earth" series as that is what it was based on. There are other works of fiction out there that use similar systems, like the spell-hanging system from Roger Zelazny's "Amber" series. Albeit, they are not as common as systems that might be more compatible with a Spell Point system.Maybe I'm a little bit old-fashioned (strange for me to say having been introduced tabletop rpg a couple years ago) but I don't see what's inherently wrong with Vancian casting? To me it's just What Wizards Do and so forth.The problem that most people have Vancian casting is that it doesn't really relate to any magic in fiction outside of D&D.
Hence the name! According to tvtropes article Gygax was a fan.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see any reason to remove Vancian casting in a future edition. By all means introduce new forms of casting or alternate casting rules, but I don't see a reason to annoy fans of that form of casting.