IS there some kind of "high level" overview of what it changes?

[Starbuck_II]

Changes I saw in Beta (didn't read Alpha):

Glitterdust nerfed to 3.5's Hold Person mechanic. They to resave every round (for Blindness I think).

Polymorph split up into Giant Form, Etc spells.

AlterSelf gives same benefit based on size of creature changing into. (All Meduim get Str, All Small give Dex)

So a Human who alterselfs into a Elf gets +2 Str. (kinda weird here).

Monk gets Ki Points, Barb gets Rage Points, Druid gets Altered Wild Shape (acts as Animal Form or Plant Form spells, ala new Polymorph changes)

Some feats changes.

Turning changes.

Specializing bonuses for Wizard are kinda cool (each seems to give a Ray attack)

 

[JeffB]

I dl'ed the beta several days ago and decided PF is def not for me. I appreciate all your responses, thank you

 

[Dragon Claw]

You do realize that they are selling a hard copy of the beta version for $25. It works out to cost for them but still cheaper than if you printed it at Staples. The only problem might be finding one. They sold out at GenCon and Paizo's stock is dwindling. Check your FLAGS to see if they have it.

 

[Dragon Claw]

You do realize that they are sell a hard copy of the beta version for $25. It works out to cost for them but still cheaper than if you printed it at Staples. The only problem might be finding one. They sold out at GenCon and Paizo's stock is dwindling. Check your FLAGS to see if they have it.

 

[CapnZapp]

Consider me a sceptic. I am worried Pathfinder is changing too much just for change's sake, and doesn't solve the real problem of 3.xE: that the game gets horrendously complicated at high level.

Races: why any changes at all? While I am sure it's easy to bring up complaints about this race being too strong here and that race being too weak here, were the 3.xE races truly broken? No, they weren't. And I believe the benefit of staying 100% compatible with 3.xE would outweigh any benefit from changing them around, forcing us to learn a new ruleset.

Classes: "Cleaning up" isn't what a fix should be about. If there were any broken features (and there were) those should be fixed, and that's it. Saying "Our Pathfinder Fighter is better than the 3.xE Fighter" is just introducing power-creep right then and there. Not all games use the full plethora of splat-books. Fixing Druid's Wild Shape, on the other hand, is a real need.

Spells: Both fixing individual spells and getting rid of Save-or-Die sound good! Assuming the changes are fully integrated into the text, this is the kind of change we're looking for!

Regarding spells: one of the major headaches of high-level 3E play is the multitudes of spell effects, all with different durations. Is this (possibly the most crucial) aspect of the game changed (so you don't have to count rounds for a dozen spells simultaneously)?

Combat: If I understand you correctly, Pathfinder will attempt to unify certain maneuvers. Correct? If so, great. As long as the game only changes for aspects that caused trouble, that is. Changing grapple would be wonderful; messing with BAB or iterative attacks would be disastrous.

Magic Items: okay, so I'll wait on this one. Of course, unless the change really trims the Christmas tree, it should not be made at all.

No XP costs. Again, I'm not sure I understand what was broken to such an extent, a "fundamental" change was needed. Are you sure this isn't just designers wanting to put their mark on the fix, thus breaking compatibility...?

Skills: I read that other thread, but came away confused. Not a good sign the change is really worth it. I must say, the 4E skill approach is sufficiently effective at reducing clutter to be worth it. I sincerely hope Pathfinder isn't just a conservative messing about that only accomplishes incompatibility while still not making things so much more easy it's worth the switch...



In summary, I fear Pathfinder will be as compatible to 3.5E as 3.5E was to 3.0E. Which is to say, not very compatible at all.

I fear that when Pathfinder finally becomes available, the moment has passed. Everyone will by then be playing some other game. And those still running 3.xE campaigns? Well, one thing they won't be interested in, is having to make yet another conversion where everything changed but still all remained as before.

But I could be wrong.

Regards, Zapp

 

[Kerrick]

Races: why any changes at all? While I am sure it's easy to bring up complaints about this race being too strong here and that race being too weak here, were the 3.xE races truly broken? No, they weren't.

I think a lot of the changes they made were to make the races more compatible with their world of Golarion. As for "broken", well... there are many complaints that half-orcs are overpowered and half-elves are nearly (or completely) useless. They've certainly got a serious case of identity disorder (the fluff says they're social outcasts, but they get a Diplomacy bonus? WTF?). *shrug*

And I believe the benefit of staying 100% compatible with 3.xE would outweigh any benefit from changing them around, forcing us to learn a new ruleset.

Being "100% compatible" was never one of their stated goals. They want to be compatible and minimize conversion work, in a nutshell.

Classes: "Cleaning up" isn't what a fix should be about. If there were any broken features (and there were) those should be fixed, and that's it. Saying "Our Pathfinder Fighter is better than the 3.xE Fighter" is just introducing power-creep right then and there. Not all games use the full plethora of splat-books. Fixing Druid's Wild Shape, on the other hand, is a real need.

It's not just an issue of "cleaning up" or "fixing stuff" - it's an issue of "making the classes more fun to play". Clerics, sorcerers, and wizards get NO class abilities beyond spells, turning, and a few bonus feats (I'm not counting familiar as a class ability, because it's not worth mentioning). Fighters get nothing besides bonus feats. Sure, they can be fun to play... but what prevents players from PrCing out at the first opportunity?

Spells: Both fixing individual spells and getting rid of Save-or-Die sound good! Assuming the changes are fully integrated into the text, this is the kind of change we're looking for!

Regarding spells: one of the major headaches of high-level 3E play is the multitudes of spell effects, all with different durations. Is this (possibly the most crucial) aspect of the game changed (so you don't have to count rounds for a dozen spells simultaneously)?

You could DL the beta and find out yourself.

Combat: If I understand you correctly, Pathfinder will attempt to unify certain maneuvers. Correct? If so, great. As long as the game only changes for aspects that caused trouble, that is. Changing grapple would be wonderful; messing with BAB or iterative attacks would be disastrous.

It has, and it's one of the few changes I actually like. They did a really good job cleaning up that mess.

Magic Items: okay, so I'll wait on this one. Of course, unless the change really trims the Christmas tree, it should not be made at all.

They changed it so that all stat-boosting items can be put into one of two slots - head and belt. The bonus you gain is a "temporary bonus" for 24 hours, then it becomes permanent.

No XP costs. Again, I'm not sure I understand what was broken to such an extent, a "fundamental" change was needed. Are you sure this isn't just designers wanting to put their mark on the fix, thus breaking compatibility...?

I don't see how a lack of XP costs breaks compatibility. It's a fairly common house rule, and definitely needed. XP costs were one of the DUMBEST things ever to appear in D&D, because they screw over spellcasters who might actually want to make stuff for themselves or their friends.

Skills: I read that other thread, but came away confused. Not a good sign the change is really worth it. I must say, the 4E skill approach is sufficiently effective at reducing clutter to be worth it. I sincerely hope Pathfinder isn't just a conservative messing about that only accomplishes incompatibility while still not making things so much more easy it's worth the switch...

PF dropped the ball on this one, IMO. They combined a bunch of skills that needed it, but they also combined some stuff that made people go "WTF?" like Concentration and Spellcraft. Perception now covers all five senses, not just sight and sound. They added Fly. There are some others, but that's what I've got off the top of my head.

In summary, I fear Pathfinder will be as compatible to 3.5E as 3.5E was to 3.0E. Which is to say, not very compatible at all.

You mean 4E and 3E? 3.5 was nearly 100% compatible with 3E - all they did was tweak a few spells, add some stuff to a few classes, and make minor changes to monster statblocks.

 

[Kaisoku]

CapnZapp, I think you need to actually spend the 5 minutes it'll take to get the pdf and check out the introduction.

From the way you speak in your posts, it sounds like you have only read peoples misinformed opinions on threads here and other places and are assuming that what these people are saying and feeling are true.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, there is serious insight into the design goals of what Paizo is doing in their introduction, and could radically change how you look at Pathfinder.


In short, they have three main goals: Improve the Game, Add Options, and Compatibility.

In there, they specifically mention that while they want to "fix" some of the problems people have found or perceived over the years, but just as important they want to add more options for those areas that seem short (no one took fighter beyond 2nd or 4th if they had any access to splatbooks, and often even just in core). Yes, their goal was to actually add more things into the core game, that is a main design goal.

Lastly, they say they want to make sure that the change they made were "adaptable" to the main 3e ruleset. They use the words "any conversion work would be minimal".

Yes, you heard right... they INTEND to REQUIRE conversion work to run Pathfinder. Some people start tossing around the words "100%" or "Backward" in the compatibility, and use that as false ammo that Paizo is failing. More people need to read what Paizo is actually trying to accomplish and stop spreading false information.



Paizo isn't in the business of just remaking the core rules into a new book to sell with a couple minor changes and be done with it. They are setting up their core rules as a springboard for their campaign setting and adventure paths.

Basically, when you saying "Cleaning up isn't what a fix should be about", well.. maybe that's because they aren't just patching the game, they are making a core ruleset, and while that includes fixes, it also includes making the game more fun and all that entails.

Specifically, they broke compatibility when too much "fun" would be lost by trying to remain too compatible.

 

[Starbuck_II]

In short, they have three main goals: Improve the Game, Add Options, and Compatibility.

In there, they specifically mention that while they want to "fix" some of the problems people have found or perceived over the years, but just as important they want to add more options for those areas that seem short (no one took fighter beyond 2nd or 4th if they had any access to splatbooks, and often even just in core). Yes, their goal was to actually add more things into the core game, that is a main

The problem I feel is they seem to be less willingly to change the rules as they should.
Like one designer said he won't make the monk full BAB no matter how much it needs it. The fix that they act as full BAB for combat manuvers is helpful, but feel more like a bandaid than a cure.