| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder Classic - Pathfinder as it existed during the days of D&D 3/3.5.
Pathfinder, First Edition - Once the greatest roleplaying game in the world.
Pathfinder, Second Edition - Paizo's new golden goose of today (the new greatest).
The more you know. :D
Unchained would be 1.5?
Unchained would be 1.5?
Sure, why not? (But we're still going to call it Pathfinder Unchained, not Pathfinder 1.5; it sounds cooler.)
Why is "Classic" an edition? It's just a campaign setting for 3.5 at that point.
Why is "Classic" an edition? It's just a campaign setting for 3.5 at that point.
The lawyers won't let us use D&D terminology. ;P
What's more, calling it Pathfinder 3.0 or Pathfinder 3.5 could confuse it with future editions.
But really, it needed a name. Been a long time coming. You cant just call it the Pathinder campaign setting. That's what we have now.
Why is "Classic" an edition? It's just a campaign setting for 3.5 at that point.
And with the backward compatibility, it just worked with PF1: in fact, you'll find material from that time along side Pf1 material in the archives of nethys. For instance, look up Ring of the Clean Hands and you'll see it noted as 3.5 and sits right next to all the other PF1 stuff.
So I wouldn't call pre-PF1 material a different edition but a simple extension of it.
Why is "Classic" an edition? It's just a campaign setting for 3.5 at that point.And with the backward compatibility, it just worked with PF1: in fact, you'll find material from that time along side Pf1 material in the archives of nethys. For instance, look up Ring of the Clean Hands and you'll see it noted as 3.5 and sits right next to all the other PF1 stuff.
So I wouldn't call pre-PF1 material a different edition but a simple extension of it.
The thread title is really just click bait meant to lure curious forumgoers into a thread in which I promote my idea of calling it "Pathfinder Classic." It needn't be referred to inaccurately as it's own edition. Simply calling it "Pathfinder Classic" or "Classic Pathfinder" would suffice.
What else would we call it? Nothing else seems distinct enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
P0
Pathfinder Zero can unintentionally imply some sort of negative connotation.
I still think Pathfinder Classic has a nice ring to it. Its implications are also more definite: something of real quality, that was revered, and is no longer at the forefront of modern media.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
3.5 wasn't Pathfinder. It was 3.5.
Nah, conflating Pathfinder the publication with the RPG.
If we're speaking of the RPG, the Pathfinder RPG didn't exist before August 2009 -- "Pathfinder" meant a series of Adventure Paths for D&D 3rd edition...
There was also a campaign guide.
I don’t know if the 3.5 Pathfinder Supplements were “revered”.
Good, yes. But I wouldn’t say revered.
You youngins have no respect for the classics anymore. Harrumph!
XD
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's simply "Paizo has printed Pathfinder content for three different rulesets."
I think it's simply "Paizo has printed Pathfinder content for three different rulesets."
Technically correct, yes. I still feel each should have proper, established, agreed-upon names that help differentiate them from one another. I think this would be a good way to do that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
THERE ARE ONLY TWO EDITIONS: THE ONE THAT SAVED 3.5 AND MADE IT THRIVE AND THE ONE WHO BETRAYED EVERYTHING THAT WAS BEAUTIFUL, BROKE ALL THE PROMISES AND KICKED MY PUPPYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
^^
I didn't know it was Gorbacz but I knew it was Gorbacz...
There are established, agreed upon names.
3.5
Pathfinder 1st ed (or Pathfinder Classic)
Pathfinder 2nd ed.
Let's not all get too caught up on the fact that Pathfinder Classic is not an Edition. That was just a ploy to get you here, not my making a case to call it its own edition.
Dungeon and Dragons 3.5 Edition
Pathfinder 1st Edition
Pathfinder 2nd Edition
Except if you call it Dungeons and Dragons 3.5, everyone thinks you're talking about D&D 3.5, not Pathfinder. It needs to be distinctly named (even if informally), so as to avoid confusion.
Pathfinder Classic Vanilla
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
didn't most of the stuff from the 3.5 era have the title pathfinder chronicles?
didn't most of the stuff from the 3.5 era have the title pathfinder chronicles?
I dont recall seeing it on any of my books. If so that might be a decent name.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except if you call it Dungeons and Dragons 3.5, everyone thinks you're talking about D&D 3.5, not Pathfinder.
Everyone would be correct because you are talking about D&D 3.5. Just as if you were talking about 3.5 Ravenloft, 3.5 Forgotten Realms or 3.5 Eberron you would be still talking about D&D 3.5
It needs to be distinctly named (even if informally), so as to avoid confusion.
Is this a thing that people have actually been expressing confusion over? PF1 has been available for over 10 years and this is the first rumbling I've ever heard that someone might feel there is some legitimate confusion between the 3.5 settings materials and the PF1 game line that desperately needs addressing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thread title is really just click bait meant to lure curious forumgoers into a thread in which I promote my idea of calling it "Pathfinder Classic." It needn't be referred to inaccurately as it's own edition.
Let's not all get too caught up on the fact that Pathfinder Classic is not an Edition. That was just a ploy to get you here, not my making a case to call it its own edition.
:-/
~Well now, that's not dishonest at all~
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen it come up a few times. Mostly with setting material tied to D&D rules and later changed in Pathfinder and with some 3.5 era rules (feats and things) included in the early APs and setting books.
Coming up a few times on the forums in the decade the first edition of the game was in print doesn't really make it seem all that urgent. Certainly not illustrative of the demand to define a setting as an extra "edition" with its own unique nomenclature so as to avoid confusing it with the game it was a setting for...
Let's make one thing clear: nobody here is demanding that we define a setting as a third edition.
Regrettably, I erred in my choice of thread title. It was more shorthand speak than anything. It was never really my intent to do what you're describing. I just thought I'd propose a naming convention for the community to agree upon to avoid any possible confusion.
We never really needed it before because there was only ever one option. Now that there is more than one edition though, it makes sense to have the discussion.
How about
Lost Omens (OGL) Campaign Setting
Pathfinder First edition (or I also like classic) Lost Omens Campaign Setting
Pathfinder Second edition Lost Omens Campaign Setting
Actually, it isn't bad to point out that Beginner box is a mini-rule set that has some distinctness enough changes and limitation to potentially be labeled as a different version.
Interesting enough, I'm just now starting to realize how much is different between the beginner box version of starfinder from the normal starfinder version.
It is hard to necessarily see Unchained as a completely new version however, since it is a collection of potential optional rules that have Paizo's blessings, but doesn't really invalidate the old ways of doing things. (other than perhaps in certain people's perceptions due to their overwhelming like of one particular rule set or another)
What I'm trying to figure out is if the differences between the beginner box version of pathfinder, vs. the full first edition was as different as Starfinder, but somehow my greater familiarity with Pathfinder somehow caused me to overlook actual differences between them.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder
2 Path 2 Finder
Pathfinder: Tokyo Drift.
There, I solved it.
Let's make one thing clear: nobody here is demanding that we define a setting as a third edition.
Demand is a word that has multiple meanings and connotations. When I say demand, I do not mean it in the context of an "insistent command" (i.e. I demand you do this) but in the context of "the desire of consumers for a service or commodity" (i.e. supply and demand)
I just thought I'd propose a naming convention for the community to agree upon to avoid any possible confusion.
Has there been a persistent confusion prior to now?
We never really needed it before because there was only ever one option. Now that there is more than one edition though, it makes sense to have the discussion.
This is where you absolutely lose me. There used to be only the one option, but now that there are two we should attempt to avoid confusion by adopting a naming convention that makes it sound like there were actually three options rather than just the two that exist?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There’s not been any confusion though.
I'm more confused after this thread. Who's been asking question about this? Why? It's a conundrum. It's like talking about making sure we can clearly tell New Coke apart from Coke Classic because Coke Zero came out...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i refer to them as
pathfinder 3.5
pathfinder
pathfinder 2nd edition.
Just because there's been no confusion in your circle doesn't mean there isn't any, or that there won't ever be any. Your claims are totally anecdotal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your claims are totally anecdotal.
As are yours. Just because there is confusion in your circle doesn't mean that there is confusion elsewhere.
No one here is actually making any claims though. What I'm doing is asking how inventing a third "version" of Pathfinder whole cloth that exists prior to PF1 leads to less confusion about which edition of Pathfinder one is speaking of.
Currently we have Pathfinder First Edition and we have Pathfinder Second Edition, there isn't a lot of confusion there. If we want to discuss the Pathfinder Settings materials for 3.5 we can do that with relative clarity by calling it Pathfinder Setting materials.
If we were to suddenly add "Pathfinder Classic" to the mix it would be more confusing rather than less. Why is the setting materials worthy of the title "classic" rather than PF1?
It doesn't clear anything up, it just makes it murkier.
That is a valid viewpoint, but as it doesnt further the aims of the thread, it is essentially off-topic.
I think I would see a transition within PF1 as follows:
Classic PF1 (PF1 + D&D 3.5 converted material allowed)
Pure PF1 (We now have so much PF1 material that there is no longer any need to allow conversions of D&D 3.5 material.)
Obviously, different groups made that transition at different times, if they made it at all.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is a valid viewpoint, but as it doesnt further the aims of the thread, it is essentially off-topic.
I don't feel you get to run roughshod over what is on topic and what is off topic on a thread containing the admission:
The thread title is really just click bait meant to lure curious forumgoers into a thread in which I promote my idea of calling it "Pathfinder Classic."
Further, if the topic is adopting the idea of renaming D&D 3.5 Setting Material to "Pathfinder Classic" to "avoid confusion" - then the counterargument that it would create more confusion than it would resolve is absolutely on topic.
The topic is the creation of this third distinction to avoid confusion, my contribution to the topic is that it removes no confusion it in fact confuses things further.
Disagreeing with you does not make my statement off topic.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is a valid viewpoint, but as it doesnt further the aims of the thread, it is essentially off-topic.
I think it's valid to say that people who disagree and don't 'further your aims' can post in discussion of the point and it doesn't make their posts off topic. They are absolutely discussing the point at hand, they simply don't agree that the point you're trying to make is a needed one and makes things less confusing.
Personally I think trying to force some new nomenclature onto books that most people seem to be perfectly satisfactorily calling Pathfinder Campaign Setting material or similar creates more confusion that not.
Ultimately if people even disagreeing in a thread is considered 'off topic' then in this particular case the entire thread itself needs to be moved since it's only barely tangentially related to PF2, as the primary focus is on naming the pre PF1 material.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is a valid viewpoint, but as it doesnt further the aims of the thread, it is essentially off-topic.
To join the conversation, one has to understand the underlying basis of the discussion. Without a common thread, what is there? Trying to partition off 3.5 material from PF1 material isn't of much value as it just became additional material for the PF1 and wasn't really a distinct thing: it was one of the reasons for backwards comparability so people playing their setting could keep right on playing with minimal change. In essence, the 3.5 is just an extension of PF1 more than it's own thing. I see no reason to try to forcefully try to pry them apart as I can see no gain from it.
So my question is, what's IS your thinking on what's gained? What does the PF2 playing person gain by calling 3.5 books something different from PF1 books? The info in them is the same and the mechanics are compatible...
That is a valid viewpoint, but as it doesnt further the aims of the thread, it is essentially off-topic.To join the conversation, one has to understand the underlying basis of the discussion. Without a common thread, what is there? Trying to partition off 3.5 material from PF1 material isn't of much value as it just became additional material for the PF1 and wasn't really a distinct thing: it was one of the reasons for backwards comparability so people playing their setting could keep right on playing with minimal change. In essence, the 3.5 is just an extension of PF1 more than it's own thing. I see no reason to try to forcefully try to pry them apart as I can see no gain from it.
So my question is, what's IS your thinking on what's gained? What does the PF2 playing person gain by calling 3.5 books something different from PF1 books? The info in them is the same and the mechanics are compatible...
I have to disagree because pathfinder 3.5 has some feats and items that are crazy even by 1st edition pathfinder standards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except if you call it Dungeons and Dragons 3.5, everyone thinks you're talking about D&D 3.5, not Pathfinder.
That's because in that scenario you are talking about D&D 3.5.
It needs to be distinctly named (even if informally), so as to avoid confusion.
It is named distinctly and you are the one causing confusion. While "Pathfinder" may have existed prior to Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Roleplaying Game did not exist prior to Pathfinder Roleplaying game. At that time (the era of D&D 3.5) "Pathfinder" as a proper noun referenced a member of the Pathfinder organization within Paizo's homebrew campaign setting.
Material published prior to Pathfinder Roleplaying Game was not "Pathfinder". At best, people referred to it as "Golarion", because that was where the setting was. Greyhawk, Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Golarion. Paizo's setting wasn't referred to as Pathfinder at that time.
But you (should) know all this.
Pathfinder's evolution is simple: Pathfinder, then Pathfinder 2e.
Paizo's campaign setting's evolution is less-so: unofficially referred to by everyone as Golarion, then Lost Omens Campaign Setting.
Two different topics. Two different things. While chocolate and peanut butter complement one another rather well, you will experience great resistance to picking one of the names to refer to both.
If you need a term for Paizo's 3.5e material set in Golarion (as opposed to their non-Golarion 3.5e material) more than a decade after they stopped making it, "3.5e Golarion content" works well. But it's not "Pathfinder <anything>".