Pathfinder 1E What Direction is Pathfinder Headed In?

[joethelawyer]

I keep reading in other threads that people either like or don't like the direction Pathfinder is headed in. I go to the Paizo site, and all I see are discussions, nothing related to the final changes they are adopting. What are people basing their decisions on to say they either like or don't like the direction Pathfinder is headed in? Please point me to something there I may be missing.

Also, I am one of the probably tens of thousands of people who are very interested in Pathfinder, but for whatever reason are not involved in the Beta testing and discussions. I know they have already had open discussions on many areas of the game system. Is there some sort of high level summary of what they have settled upon for changes thus far?

Lastly, what criteria are they using to determine what gets adopted and what doesn't? Let's say for example that you get 10 different ideas as to wizard familiars. By what process does an idea get adopted internally over at Paizo and make it to the final product? Is it an internal vote after discussion at company HQ? Does one guy make the decision? Does the idea have to be playtested first?

Thx

 

[Jack99]

Have you tried to read the Beta book? Should give a decent indication on the direction Paizo is taking the Pathfinder RPG.

 

[joethelawyer]

Have you tried to read the Beta book? Should give a decent indication on the direction Paizo is taking the Pathfinder RPG.

Yes, I looked through the Beta book. But my understanding is that Beta is a working document, up for review during the Beta test. Hence, no indicator of the final direction the game is headed, since everything is up for debate/discussion/review. Is that true? or are there parts of the Beta book set in stone where no substantive changes will be made?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Yes, I read the Beta book. But my understanding is that Beta is a working document, up for review during the Beta test. Hence, no indicator of the final direction the game is headed, since everything is up for debate/discussion/review. Is that true? or are there parts of the Beta book set in stone where no substantive changes will be made?

I wouldn't expect too much difference. Sticking close to 3.5E D&D is a design goal, so I don't expect truly substantive changes on any front, from the Beta or from 3.5E D&D for that matter.

And no, I don't consider anything in the Beta(I have read it), truly substantive changes.

 

[joethelawyer]

I wouldn't expect too much difference. Sticking close to 3.5E D&D is a design goal, so I don't expect truly substantive changes on any front, from the Beta or from 3.5E D&D for that matter.

And no, I don't consider anything in the Beta(I have read it), truly substantive changes.

If there are truly no substantive changes from 3.5, how is it that people can say they don't like the direction that Pathfinder is headed, in if it's essentially 3.5 with some tweaks? They are really saying they don't like 3.5, or they think the tweaks are so substantive as to be dealbreakers for them, or they wanted other tweaks. Am I missing something in their argument?

 

[Jack99]

Yes, I looked through the Beta book. But my understanding is that Beta is a working document, up for review during the Beta test. Hence, no indicator of the final direction the game is headed, since everything is up for debate/discussion/review. Is that true? or are there parts of the Beta book set in stone where no substantive changes will be made?

I still think it is weird to dismiss so easily. Even if everything is up for review, it is still an indicator of what direction Paizo wants to take their game. Baring a collective outcry against a rule, I doubt much will be changed substantially (unless the designers do not feel a rule works after all).

Remember, there has already been a lot of feedback (Assumption, based on what I hear, since I must admit that I no longer spend any time on Paizo's boards), so I guess Paizo have made sure that their design goals coincide with at least a substantial amount of what their fans want.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

If there are truly no substantive changes from 3.5, how is it that people can say they don't like the direction that Pathfinder is headed, in if it's essentially 3.5 with some tweaks? They are really saying they don't like 3.5, or they think the tweaks are so substantive as to be dealbreakers for them, or they wanted other tweaks. Am I missing something in their argument?

Pathfinder promises to "fix" 3.5 D&D. If it falls short of that, people can say that they don't like the direction that Pathfinder is headed in. There is also the question if the changes don't really amount to much, why should they play Pathfinder instead of just sticking with 3.5E D&D? People forget that Pathfinder has to compete with "why don't we just play 3.5E using 3.5E books".

 

[Jack99]

If there are truly no substantive changes from 3.5, how is it that people can say they don't like the direction that Pathfinder is headed, in if it's essentially 3.5 with some tweaks? They are really saying they don't like 3.5, or they think the tweaks are so substantive as to be dealbreakers for them, or they wanted other tweaks. Am I missing something in their argument?

Pathfinder is essentially 3.75. Some will feel that the changes made are huge, some will feel that they are very small. My guess is that the more you are in love with 3.5, the more you will feel that Paizo is taking it too far. The less you like 3.5, the more you will think that the changes are small and insignificant.

Fits for me and quite a few people I know, at least.

 

[scruffygrognard]

What I don't care for is that Pathfinder is ramping up the power levels of races and classes without, so far, addressing the BIG problems with 3.5 (as I see them):
1] Spellcaster multiclassing
2] Keeping track of/handling DR
3] Stacking rules
4] Reliance upon Stat-boosting magic items.
5] High-level play headaches (these include problems #2,3 & 4)

Related to the power-creep issues is the manner in which Pathfinder is redefining races in ways that are not consistant with previous incarnations of D&D (ie. no CHA penalty for 1/2 orcs and granting new ability score bonuses to races that they never had before).

Finally, I'm not digging the look of the Pathfinder. I'm not a fan of anime elements mixing with my generic fantasy game (I realize that others are and am not being derisive of their preferences).

 

[Oni]

Have you looked at the Beta rules you can download for free from their website? That should give you a good idea where they are heading.

There are some changes I like, some I don't. IMO they've changed enough to make backward compatability awkward but not enough to make it worth while as something new. There seems to be a move toward making the classes more and more complicated. And I just don't understand some of the things they're doing, like the mess they've made out of specialization.