| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
pathfinder eberron, good s#&@
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
pathfinder eberron, good s~%*
OOhh was there one updated for it or do you just pull from the 3.5 books?
pathfinder eberron, good s~%*OOhh was there one updated for it or do you just pull from the 3.5 books?
sadly i just convert most everything over, sorry if i got your hopes up there
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference between 3.5 and PF is not enough to need an update, per se.
I just imagined if they did there would be cool archetypes and updated class and race stuff.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A continuation of the first 30 years of Dungeons and Dragons, once Wizards lost the plot and created an entirely different game with that name.
The best iteration of the d20 system.
A complex game of intricate character design, context specific subsystems, and millions of options, used to support the best fantasy RPG stories on the market.
From what I've seen of the playtest I am hopeful that Paizo will at least continue to tell the 'best fantasy RPG stories on the market'. The rest of what I love, not so much. :(
Dire Ursus I like how you say that the character creation has been limited because core rulebook, when in the PF1 CRB, I can Multiclass between classes and still get more of my Feats & Rogue Talents, or just feats for my Fighter, than I can from the Playtest CRB.
I also get more out of my Sorcerer Bloodline(not to mention more Bloodline Options), than I do in PF2. Most might not be Multiclassing (unless going with the Prestige Class Dragon Disciple which is very much an option In the CRB) for chance of losing Spells, but I know I would, because I honestly don't care about spells, those powers though... Some of them I might Love to have for a build.
Also a number of the options from the Playtest are from Non PF1 CRB, so comparing CRB to CRB is a bad idea. The Barbarian's Totems & Class Feats are based off of Rage Powers which came in the APG, same as the entire Alchemist Class (Which I personally want more of the Thematic Odd Bodyshaping options of the Alchemist's Discoveries). Hell some of the things in the Playtest are based on Class Features from the ACG's Hybrid Classes, like the Ranger's new Hunt Target is based off the Slayer, or the Fighter's Combat Flexibility being based off the Brawler. So yeah, it's much better to compare the Playtest to more than just the 1E CRB, its not an equivalency because they learned from years of making PF1... Now if they just could have kept the Customizability of 1E instead of throwing so many options into one kettle, and bare boning the Races (Dwarves get it the worst, who thought untying their Slow Speed [20 ft when smaller races are 25, really?!?] from their Unburdened was a good idea).
I didn't say "because" core rulebook. I'm just comparing CRB to CRB and I see a lot more viable builds in the playtest. For instance, every single bowman build is going to be the exact same. Fighter, Ranger, Rogue all take the exact same feats and the only differences are their class abilities. Meanwhile Ranger in the playtest has a one action two attack bow ability. Fighter has point blank shot stance, and Rogue has demoralize abilities that activate her sneak attack from range. These are completely different builds using the bow. I don't classify Fighter, Ranger bow builds as really that different. Especially in just the CRB because they play the exact same.
Also the biggest reason that I say the playtest rulebook has more builds is specifically because of the multiclassing system. You can actually multiclass into spellcasting classes without being absolute s**@ and unviable. That opens up a crap ton of builds.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can actually multiclass into spellcasting classes without being absolute s#~% and unviable.
And yet I have somehow managed to do that in the current version of Pathfinder without having an "unviable" character. Someone else in our group has also managed that amazing feat.
We have nearly finished Rise of the Runelords and both characters are currently 18th level (having started at first). We could certainly have made more effective characters, if that was what we wanted to do, but they are perfectly viable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can actually multiclass into spellcasting classes without being absolute s#~% and unviable.And yet I have somehow managed to do that in the current version of Pathfinder without having an "unviable" character. Someone else in our group has also managed that amazing feat.
We have nearly finished Rise of the Runelords and both characters are currently 18th level (having started at first). We could certainly have made more effective characters, if that was what we wanted to do, but they are perfectly viable.
Are you using only the core rulebook. What do these spellcasting multiclasses give you? My first character was a Rogue sniper. I tried multiclassing into wizard because I wanted to give myself some cool necromancy abilities. I literally had to retire that character because I did absolutely nothing in combat. I couldn't hit anything. All of my spells sucked because they were like 4 levels behind the current monsters we were fighting.
Meanwhile in the playtest I'm running a game with a Rogue that multiclassed into Sorcerer. His use of the spell shield has been ridiculously helpful for him and he didn't actually lose any attack bonus or health or anything for making this decision.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder has been the continuation of a Dungeons & Dragons game that I have played with my friends since 1990, and it has allowed us to remain friends and keep in contact for nigh 30 years across 3 states,6 marriages, and 10 children.
It is a mechanical set of rules that we have enjoyed playing. it has also been delivered by a fantastic company that has delivered amazing content, adventure paths, modules, and solid gameplay, mechanics, and stories for 10-plus years.
I have no reason to believe that they will not continue to do so, and I do not believe they are purposely shooting themselves in the foot to destroy a game they love to work on, nor do I feel they are purposely doing this to screw old-time gamers.
We have enjoyed playing more of the story of the Runelords on Golarion than all the rest of the world's environs. However we still mostly play in the Forgotten Realms, as that content we've known best, but would not follow to 4th edition and 5th edition considering what Wotc and Hasbro has done to the setting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dire Ursus, did you Specifically gloss over where I said that it really isn't right to compare the Playtest to Only the CRB of PF1, when they're jamming options from further along in 1E into 2E? I mean that was the biggest paragraph of the post you quoted. I personally think you should at Least include the APG because of how many of the options are from it (like Archetypes, the Alchemist, Barbarbain Class Feats[Rage Powers], Divine Version of the Sorcerer[Oracle], etc.).
My answer:
Pathfinder is a level based fantasy RPG in the DnD tradition that still values rules complexity in both character creation and combat as a source of player engagement. At various points in my life, it has been my favorite tabletop RPG.
Dire Ursus, did you Specifically gloss over where I said that it really isn't right to compare the Playtest to Only the CRB of PF1, when they're jamming options from further along in 1E into 2E? I mean that was the biggest paragraph of the post you quoted. I personally think you should at Least include the APG because of how many of the options are from it (like Archetypes, the Alchemist, Barbarbain Class Feats[Rage Powers], Divine Version of the Sorcerer[Oracle], etc.).
I mean as far as "archetypes" go there is literally 2 in the playtest book. and you can take away all the things you listed there and I still think there are more options in the playtest. It's not just that they took things from prior books. The actual mechanics of the game allow you more choices. The way Multiclassing works specifically opens up a ton of options. And personally I find the new class feat system makes it so that you can never really have the same build if you're different classes. Which I saw a lot of in PF1. Sure a fighter with a two handed weapon and a barb with a two handed weapon would have different abilities in PF1. But until they released Fighter Weapon Training they pretty much had the same feats (fighter had a few more they could spend on like weapon specialization woo flat bonuses so exciting... Kinda like what rage does right?) and they did the exact same thing in combat: Ran in and power attacked.
I think it's a bit ridiculous to even call those two different builds. It's just one guy rages one guy has a few more feats to choose from and a bit heavier armor. You play them the exact same.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, Pathfinder means the ultimate, best version of a game I've been playing for an uninterrupted 30+ years, and, just like Erpa described above, has been key to maintaining a steady link for my group of friends/players even as we live an ocean apart. It is a game that opens an incredible field of options to play pretty much any character concept in a fantasy world. Over the years, it also became a game that requires increasing effort on my side to keep up with: A growing amount of houseruling, increasing complexity, more difficulties absorbing new rules content, to the point that about half of my players require some expert help (often from me, and I need support from online guides and forums to provide it) in order to make sure their characters remain valuable contributors to the group as they level up.
I would draw a possible analogy with a great piece of software that's been around for many years, with a great accumulated history of successful releases. Over time, a great many new features, bug corrections and hacks have been added. So, the cost of usage and maintenance is becoming unreasonable. In such a circumstance, the right step is often to tear everything down, painful as it is, and rebuild a new architecture from the ground up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3.5e but with a high quality 3rd party community that allows me to have a massive level of freedom at the same time as a highly balanced class-based RPG that can play at non-low levels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A houseruled version of 3rd Ed, but the houserules do not go far enough to address the problems in 3rd Ed.
Yeah, this.
And an ongoing source of fairly decent expansion material that's...largely consistent.
That it was bound to an uneven setting (some parts of good, a lot of mere real world expies turn up to 11 on specific topics) generally wasn't a problem.
It had worked as a setting-agnostic ruleset, and I'm unfortunately not sure if it will with PF2. Though based on the playtest, it also seems a poor fit for the setting it was supposedly designed for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean as far as "archetypes" go there is literally 2 in the playtest book. and you can take away all the things you listed there and I still think there are more options in the playtest. It's not just that they took things from prior books. The actual mechanics of the game allow you more choices. The way Multi-classing works specifically opens up a ton of options. And personally I find the new class feat system makes it so that you can never really have the same build if you're different classes. Which I saw a lot of in PF1. Sure a fighter with a two handed weapon and a barb with a two handed weapon would have different abilities in PF1. But until they released Fighter Weapon Training they pretty much had the same feats (fighter had a few more they could spend on like weapon specialization woo flat bonuses so exciting... Kinda like what rage does right?) and they did the exact same thing in combat: Ran in and power attacked.
I think it's a bit ridiculous to even call those two different builds. It's just one guy rages one guy has a few more feats to choose from and a bit heavier armor. You play them the exact same.
Ursus, I'm sorry but did you just throw out the Barbarian's & Monk's Class Feats? Because you said to take out the equivalencies right? And without those the Barbarian & Monk don't have Combat Feats, right?
As for Multiclassing in general, I could make a Lot of different Multiclassed Builds from Fighters, Unchained Rogues(the equivalent to 2E's Rogue, because of class features the 2E was based on), Rangers, Cavaliers (currently an Archetype Only, so equivalency), Barbarians, Paladins, Alchemists (if the PF2 one is allowed, so should the original), Bards, Unchained Monks (the equivalent to 2E's Monk), and some Sorcerer levels (and mayhaps Dragon Disciple), to make some really fun Martial Builds.
Now for PF2, you have "FeatClassing" & Class Feats, including what used to be Combat Feat Lines, competing for the same pool of options. In my opinion, this is far too constraining, and not Enough options for my liking (Hopefully they make the new Class Specific Archetype system modular off of the packages within the class, just adding more options to that). I actually made comparisons between PF2's "FeatClassing" and PF1 Style Multiclassing using the Playtest's Alchemist & Rogue, and the subsequent Archetypes. I may not have had as many Formulae, or Skill Feats as the "FeatClassed" version's base class would have, but I had FAR FAR more freedom in my Class Feats.
|
Ursus, I'm sorry but I Call Absolute Bull on that... So we take out Barbarian's Class Feats, just like you just said to because you just threw the equivalency to Rage Powers, which remember came from APG, not the CRB, and you just said to take away those options right? Now without the Class Feats, where exactly is your Barbarian at? just rage right? And no real combat feats to speak of At All, right?As for Multiclassing in general, I could make a Lot of different Multiclassed Builds from Fighters, Unchained Rogues(the equivalent to 2E's Rogue), Rangers, Cavaliers (currently an Archetype Only, so equivalency), Barbarians, Paladins, Alchemists (if the PF2 one is allowed, so should the original), Bards, Unchained Monks (the equivalent to 2E's Monk), and some Sorc levels (and mayhaps Dragon Disciple), to make some really fun Martial Builds.
Now for PF2, you...
Now now, let's calm down a bit, we're getting toward edition warring here, let's just agree to disagree as to which edition has more core customization.
You're right MER-c, I am sorry. I was responding to Ursus's claims, and the whole "FeatClassing" & Bottleneck issue has me upset (rightly so in my opinion)... I shouldn't take that frustration out here though, again I am sorry. x.x
PS: I cleaned up my language a bit, made the post more discussionary (rather than confrontational), and removed the part that could be construed as edition warry. Yet again, my apologies. I do not want this thread locked, and I should act more like it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dire Ursus, please remember that PF1 was not created as a separate system. It was just a renewal of the D&D 3.5 open gaming content from the d20 System, intended initially to be used with the advanced D&D 3.5 material that many players not that enthusiastic about 4e were still using.
This means that you should at least create PF1 builds with ALL the 3.5 material that at the time could be used without any change or adaptation, since that material was already available even during the first Core playtest.
Only after the resounding worldwide success of PF1 Core Rulebook and Bestiary Paizo did start to develop new, unique material, pushing the game slowly away from its intended ancestral twin.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It means choices and options, it means freedom for all the participants in telling the stories we cooperatively want to tell and it means being the true inheritor of the 3.x system that we fell in love with 18 years ago. All of this, paired with quality Adventure Paths as support.
Aside from the APs, PF2 sadly will be nothing of this. It will just be another TTRPG
I get that PF2 isn't a continuation of a system you fell in love with and that's a powerful drug, but my mind boggles with the platitude that PF (and 3x) meant "freedom for all the participants in telling the stories we cooperatively want to tell" and that somehow that doesn't apply to any RPG you put your mind to. They may each have their focus (medieval romance for Pendragon, action-heavy superheroics for Mutants and Masterminds, mind-blowing horror for Call of Cthulhu, etc) but I have yet to encounter an RPG that can't be put to the task of giving all participants freedom to tell the stories they want to tell within their genre. Pathfinder is no different from any other in this regard.
|
|
Seriously guys, chill it. We're not here to flame war. I will get this thread locked if all we're capable off past a certain point is arguing about how useful a Rogue is.
That aside, I noticed that a lot of posts here that seem to basically only care about continuing 3.5 so I guess the question I have for you is, why did you not just continue to play 3.5? You had the material to last decades, probably longer. So why did you really put your faith and your wallets in a mid sized publishing company who was taking the single biggest risk they possibly could have taken?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
That aside, I noticed that a lot of posts here that seem to basically only care about continuing 3.5 so I guess the question I have for you is, why did you not just continue to play 3.5? You had the material to last decades, probably longer. So why did you really put your faith and your wallets in a mid sized publishing company who was taking the single biggest risk they possibly could have taken?
Two reasonable ones I can think of off-hand:
Ongoing support.
A current game means easier recruitment of players compared to an out of print game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That aside, I noticed that a lot of posts here that seem to basically only care about continuing 3.5 so I guess the question I have for you is, why did you not just continue to play 3.5? You had the material to last decades, probably longer. So why did you really put your faith and your wallets in a mid sized publishing company who was taking the single biggest risk they possibly could have taken?
Ongoing support. A game without support is dead
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That aside, I noticed that a lot of posts here that seem to basically only care about continuing 3.5 so I guess the question I have for you is, why did you not just continue to play 3.5? You had the material to last decades, probably longer. So why did you really put your faith and your wallets in a mid sized publishing company who was taking the single biggest risk they possibly could have taken?
The answer to this question for me is, that I switched over from 3.5 (the edition I was introduced to D&D with), because Pathfinder allowed me to have the dearth of options I was trying to put into my games with Homebrewed stuff, just from Official Content. That and again, its customizability were strong draws for me. Maybe 2e has an extensive amount of options for styles of play like Ursus says... but I'd at least like it if Archetypes could use General Feat Slots, and not just Class Feat Slots (there's Only 5 of them, and I see that as a much better use than any of the General Feats, or more Skill/Ancestry Feats [Why Why are the races so Bare Boned and Backloaded, It takes away their identity to me, and makes it so later races will Far more Obviously have less options than Core Races... In 1E sure that is also true, BUT its not as apparent, because each Race has a core set of racial features... >.<]).
Ongoing support. A game without support is dead
This also was part of what drew me to Pathfinder, and part of why I've been freaking out about 2e, seeing the death of my favorite iteration of D&D. I wasn't there to see 3.5 end because I got introduced to it during the reign of 4e.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That aside, I noticed that a lot of posts here that seem to basically only care about continuing 3.5 so I guess the question I have for you is, why did you not just continue to play 3.5? You had the material to last decades, probably longer. So why did you really put your faith and your wallets in a mid sized publishing company who was taking the single biggest risk they possibly could have taken?
Well, for one, they weren't taking much of a risk. Paizo already had adventure paths at that point, and had been running the Dungeon and Dragon magazines for years. People knew what to expect from them, and they made a commitment to 'backwards compatibility' (even though in practice PF had issues with that, and in the long run was probably bad, as it kept more problems than solutions). And by the end, people were also aware of what was coming down the 4e track.
Second, it probably wasn't true for everyone, but the end of 3e was littered with trial runs and lots of shovelware that wasn't very good. Getting away from that back into a consolidated system was very enticing. Of course, that's true this time around (eyes the shifter and ultimate wilderness), but PF1 to PF2 is a bigger jump and frankly a bigger risk. And less a consolidated system and more (based solely on the playtest) a muddled mess with no options at all.
It's frustrating, because personally I don't like dumpster diving games, which is what the release model for both 3.5 and PF1 encourages. And PF2 design principles look like its explicitly built for marketing shovelware books of feats. On the other hand, not have enough options (or distinct options) limits a game too heavily, which is a lot of my problem with 5e. I want a comfortable medium.
Finally, a fractured player base is a bad thing. It was ugly (and lots of edition wars ensued) when it was 3.5, PF and 4e. Having 3.5, PF, 5e AND PF2 is going to be worse, by an order of magnitude.
---
I'm happy with the end of PF1- it was just unwieldy, and filled with lots of cruft. It's hard to see PF2 as a replacement however. It's too much of a departure and the character building choices aren't important or interesting.
Director of Game Design
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cleaned up a handful of posts that were sliding into a flame war. There are a few folks who can't help but create arguments in the threads that they participate in, and this has caused a number of threads to be locked. I appreciate the discussion in this one so I am trying to keep it open, but if folk can't be civil, I will just let moderation handle it.
Be nice to each other.. is that too much to ask?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a DM I enjoy Pathfinder because of the fabulous Adventure Paths, not just by Paizo but there are some great 3rd party ones out there as well. Each session can be run with only a few hours of prep times which is much less than trying to run my own thing.
As a player I like the options and the flexibility. I come up with a character concept and then build out multiple versions at different levels and then decide which one I like best. The flexible classes, archetypes, and feats mean that you could bend classes to be almost unrecognizable. My system mastery is pretty high and I generally build the most effective characters at my table. That's not to say I hog the spotlight, but my characters tend to focus on one or two things and I want them to be highly effective. By mid levels (8+) I expect to almost always be successful. If I'm the party face, I make my everyone love me. If I'm an offensive chaster, the enemies fail their saves. If I'm a damage dealer, I kill things super fast. If I'm a tank, I don't take much damage. I like to optimize.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously guys, chill it. We're not here to flame war. I will get this thread locked if all we're capable off past a certain point is arguing about how useful a Rogue is.
That aside, I noticed that a lot of posts here that seem to basically only care about continuing 3.5 so I guess the question I have for you is, why did you not just continue to play 3.5? You had the material to last decades, probably longer. So why did you really put your faith and your wallets in a mid sized publishing company who was taking the single biggest risk they possibly could have taken?
I wouldn't have said the continuation of d20 was my core reason, but I can tell you why we started pathfinder.
I'd played 3.5 and 4th. Toke a break for a while (got married) was asked by friends to run a (3.5) campaign and wife wanted to play.Campaign was fun. One of us had a hard copy phb. We all had pdfs. My wife and two other players said they hated character creation from the pdfs. So for the next campaign we went with pathfinder as it was in print.
So, What does Pathfinder Mean to You?A collection of rules that I have less attachment to than I do to the people and stories I entertain with it.
Then I guess you are neutral on the edition switch.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Emotionally, I'd like to continue receiving PF1E adventures. Logically, I know I have a crushing press of adventures to get through such that I will still be playing 1E for years.
Not having the final product, I can't say how I will feel about 2E. The playtest does not excite me, but I expect there to be a number of improvements to the system and the references. And HeroLab has made the playtest character creation manageable, so it will certainly make the final product bearable as well. It doesn't feel any different from 1E during play other than the changes in rules, so I expect we will still tell the same stories and have the same dynamics in play. I felt the same way playing D&D5E, but we never got out of 1st level, which tends to always feel the same regardless of edition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Emotionally, I'd like to continue receiving PF1E adventures.
See, this is what I don't get about Paizo's decison to discontinue PF1. Small, 3rd parties manage to publish their adventures simultanously for different systems without problems. You can buy the same adventure in either PF1 or 5Ed and even more obsure systems. And those 3rd party publishers are basically, at least in my mind, one guy who writes those module at weekends in his basement.
Paizo can probably afford at least two guys in their basements to write on their holidays too and yet it is seemingly out of the question to write future APs and modules not only for the 17% who are determined to switch to PF2 as soon as possible but for the 35% who intend to stick with PF1 too.
Everybody would win. Those, who like the playtest, those who found their home in 3.x 18 years ago and all those inbetween who are undecided at the moment
Emotionally, I'd like to continue receiving PF1E adventures.See, this is what I don't get about Paizo's decison to discontinue PF1. Small, 3rd parties manage to publish their adventures simultanously for different systems without problems. You can buy the same adventure in either PF1 or 5Ed and even more obsure systems. And those 3rd party publishers are basically, at least in my mind, one guy who writes those module at weekends in his basement.
Paizo can probably afford at least two guys in their basements to write on their holidays too and yet it is seemingly out of the question to write future APs and modules not only for the 17% who are determined to switch to PF2 as soon as possible but for the 35% who intend to stick with PF1 too.
Everybody would win. Those, who like the playtest, those who found their home in 3.x 18 years ago and all those inbetween who are undecided at the moment
Yeah, as a company that wants to continue to be successful, Paizo would want to check the work of 'two guys in basements.' You're glossing over an awful lot of work, time and resources and pretending it doesn't matter or wouldn't be necessary.