3e / OGL Pathfinder page count change

[lrsach01]

Originally Posted by Duskblade

James, I'd be curious to know if Paizo might put out a quick conversion guide to update Creatures & Adventures from 3e/OGL to the Pathfinder system.

Our group has been using the Beta rules with the first pathfinder Adventure Path with VERY little adjustment to creatures. The only thing you really need to worry about is the Combat Maneuver Bonus.

[James Jacobs]

Originally Posted by The Little Raven

Well, that was always one of my pet peeves with White Wolf games: if I have no intention of running the game, only playing it, then at least 30% of the book's page count is useless to me. Since the majority of buyers are players, not DMs, they might look at the huge page count and cost as offputting, as much of that content may be useless to them (like myself, as I might have been interested in seeing what it played like, but I have no intentions of running it and that would preclude me from buying it). I've skipped numerous books because of that issue.

Well... the vast majority of the PF RPG book WILL be of use to players. The bulk of the book's additional content over the PHB is mostly magic items—content that should probably be made available to PCs anyway, since the game's moved away from magic items being strange discoveries you find and toward things that PCs can make for themselves. Likewise, the prestige class rules should be available to the PCs. The parts of the book that won't be as interesting to the PCs will be the sections that cover rules for the environment, hazards, traps, calculating experience and treasure to give out, poisons and diseases and other afflictions, NPC classes, and the like—all of this is going to probably be only about 100 pages of the 500+ pages, so more like 20% of the book you won't really need as a player.

Material like "How to build a campaign" or "here's how to be a GM" and the like WON'T be in the PF RPG; that material is mostly system-independent, and any of the D&D DMGs work quite well for that already. Doesn't mean we won't do a similarly-themed book for the PF RPG eventually, but it won't be content in the core rulebook.

[Roman]

Originally Posted by James Jacobs

magic items—content that should probably be made available to PCs anyway,

Although I am generally the DM/GM and like the idea of having all rules in one book, I cannot agree that magic items should be made available to PCs.

since the game's moved away from magic items being strange discoveries you find and toward things that PCs can make for themselves.

Well yes, but 'Industrial Magic' (TM) is not something I am partial towards at all. Magic creation is fine, but I hate the idea of PCs churning out magic items practically at will - I would like to see it be a mystical process perhaps requiring quests to obtain components to complete.

[catsclaw227]

Originally Posted by Roman

Well yes, but 'Industrial Magic' (TM) is not something I am partial towards at all. Magic creation is fine, but I hate the idea of PCs churning out magic items practically at will - I would like to see it be a mystical process perhaps requiring quests to obtain components to complete.

Unfortunately, since Pathfinder is based around 3.5 D&D, it's going to retain the magic shop feel to it as a core assumption.

EDIT: Not that this is bad, it's just a major assumption in the 3.5 rules.

[James Jacobs]

Originally Posted by catsclaw227

Unfortunately, since Pathfinder is based around 3.5 D&D, it's going to retain the magic shop feel to it as a core assumption.

EDIT: Not that this is bad, it's just a major assumption in the 3.5 rules.

Not necessarily. Jason and I just had a really interesting discussion about the "magic shop problem" yesterday. While 3.5 assumes one XP progression track, we give 3 options (low, middle, high) for PF RPG, for example. We're working on something similar to that for the magic shop option, which might basically boil down to: "It's okay to have less magic shop syndrome in your game if you want; here are several options."

[catsclaw227]

Originally Posted by James Jacobs

Not necessarily. Jason and I just had a really interesting discussion about the "magic shop problem" yesterday. While 3.5 assumes one XP progression track, we give 3 options (low, middle, high) for PF RPG, for example. We're working on something similar to that for the magic shop option, which might basically boil down to: "It's okay to have less magic shop syndrome in your game if you want; here are several options."

That's refreshing to hear.

Are these going to be predefined "modes" for magic level that reflects the style of the campaign (like high magic/low magic)?

And will you support this with an adjusted set of bonuses that offset the stat/hit/damage boosters or resistances that are assumed to exist at different level thresholds?

The "magic shop" or assumed high availability of magic items to get PC stats to the appropriate level was something that I REALLY didn't like about 3.x. Note that high availability could mean lots of magic items laying around in loot as well, it doesn't mean magic shops everywhere.

How will you adjust the magic item creation rules to support this?

[rounser]

Originally Posted by Jack99

Isn't the Pathfinder book like 80-90% copy-pasted from the d20 srd?

Nice attempt at trying to spread some FUD.

[catsclaw227]

Originally Posted by rounser

Nice attempt at FUD. Pity it's so transparent, given a little knowledge of the author's strong predeliction for 4E.

How does liking 4e make a comment about Pathfinder any more or less valid? I like 4e.

Also, he has stated numerous times in other threads that he like 3.x as well, it's just that he is prefers 4e.

Also, asking if Pathfinder is mostly derived from the SRD is totally valid.

EDIT: I see you edited your initial post. That's better. (not.)

[James Jacobs]

Originally Posted by catsclaw227

That's refreshing to hear.

Are these going to be predefined "modes" for magic level that reflects the style of the campaign (like high magic/low magic)?

And will you support this with an adjusted set of bonuses that offset the stat/hit/damage boosters or resistances that are assumed to exist at different level thresholds?

The "magic shop" or assumed high availability of magic items to get PC stats to the appropriate level was something that I REALLY didn't like about 3.x. Note that high availability could mean lots of magic items laying around in loot as well, it doesn't mean magic shops everywhere.

How will you adjust the magic item creation rules to support this?

We're still working it out, so no real details to reveal yet. I suspect that we'll end up working with the assumption of the "middle" route, though, and provide advice on how the game changes if you go low or high. We WILL be balancing monsters and the like so that the NEED for the big 6 isn't a requirement, though. Having the big 6 should be an advantage, not the expected baseline.

Magic item creation rules probably won't be impacted at all. The assumption will likely be that if you have a high "magic shop" there's just more magic item crafters in the world, whereas if there's a low "magic shop" there aren't. Neither option impacts PC crafters, really.

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by rounser

Nice attempt at trying to spread some FUD.

As in fear, uncertainty and doubt? If that was my intention, I would probably have made a statement instead of asking a question. Also I probably wouldn't have said a few post further in that the numbers I asked about were based on some posts and a quick read of the beta and acknowledged that they could very well be lower.

Maybe you should have read the thread instead of spewing off baseless accusations.

[rounser]

Maybe you should have read the thread instead of spewing off baseless accusations.

I did. I just consider it a suspicious coincidence that the biggest 4E proponents in the thread also seem to be the only ones casting aspersions.

[RefinedBean]

I haven't followed Pathfinder at all, but I can see myself picking up this book. For $50, I can stay current with one of the most tried and true systems in the world. Very useful if I have to find a new gaming group after moving or what-have-you. Not everyone's going to play 4E, and honestly, I've had awesome times with both systems.

[billd91]

Originally Posted by Jack99

As in fear, uncertainty and doubt? If that was my intention, I would probably have made a statement instead of asking a question. Also I probably wouldn't have said a few post further in that the numbers I asked about were based on some posts and a quick read of the beta and acknowledged that they could very well be lower.

Your initial question did lend itself to rounser's interpretation. It struck me as a pretty loaded question too. It looked a lot like a question intended to sow the impression that little work is going into PF or that the Paizo guys are just cribbing WotC's content.
Maybe you didn't mean that, but that's what it looked like.

[RefinedBean]

Originally Posted by rounser

I did. I just consider it a suspicious coincidence that the biggest 4E proponents in the thread also seem to be the only ones casting aspersions.

Calling attention to it in such a manner doesn't fix anything, and just serves to derail the thread further. If there was a problem, a moderator would handle it.

On topic: With that page count, I'm hoping there's a metric ton of new magic items. Also, what's the word on prestige classes? Are they being handled differently?

[Jack99]

Originally Posted by rounser

I did. I just consider it a suspicious coincidence that the biggest 4E proponents in the thread also seem to be the only ones casting aspersions.

LOL.

Sorry but you really made me laugh.

I see now how in a twisted paranoid world, my question could have been taken as something negative about Pathfinder.

I can only assure you, that despite that I <3 4e, I have absolutely nothing against Paizo, and I honestly hope (and think for that matter) that they will make their customers very happy and keep 3.X alive for many years to come, while continuing to make great products for that system.

Cheers

[James Jacobs]

Originally Posted by RefinedBean

On topic: With that page count, I'm hoping there's a metric ton of new magic items. Also, what's the word on prestige classes? Are they being handled differently?

There won't be many new magic items; mostly just the items currently in the SRD. Same goes for spells. Remember, the page count is greater than the 3.5 PHB, but not as great as the 3.5 PHB and DMG put together. It's a combo deal. But without the fries.

As for prestige classes, you can check several of them out here to see where they're currently at in the beta rules (they're one of the web enhancements for the Beta... we didn't have time or room to get them into the print Beta, alas... and yes, the final book will have color art for them).

[RefinedBean]

Originally Posted by James Jacobs

There won't be many new magic items

As for prestige classes, you can check several of them out here to see where they're currently at in the beta rules (they're one of the web enhancements for the Beta... we didn't have time or room to get them into the print Beta, alas... and yes, the final book will have color art for them).

Those look really good, and quite balanced. I had a chuckle over the artwork for the Assassin...some huge orc with a weapon already drawn, casually walking down the street. "I'm gonna get some coffee, and then maybe I'll kill someone for money."

I'll have to check out the beta. Thanks for the response, James!

[Matthew L. Martin]

Originally Posted by DaveMage

Sweet - and what a great price!

Pathfinder All-In-One = $49.99 for 560 pages
3.5 edition PHB + DMG = $59.90 for 640 pages
4th edition PHB + DMG = $69.90 for 544 pages

HERO System Fifth Edition Revised = $49.99 for 592 pages.

[DaveMage]

Originally Posted by Matthew L. Martin

HERO System Fifth Edition Revised = $49.99 for 592 pages.

Impressive!

Is that one full color?

[Matthew L. Martin]

Originally Posted by DaveMage

Impressive!

Is that one full color?

There are many great and admirable things about the HERO System.

It's interior art, alas, has rarely been one of them.