Pathfinder 1E What Direction is Pathfinder Headed In?

[ShinHakkaider]

It's not necessary on the user's side (then again, buying a rulebook isn't about necessity or logic for most gamers, but passion and drive). If you're not using Pathfinder's tweaks, you can still run any of the modules, adventure paths etc with very limited conversion work (taking a feat or ability here and there off a stat block, basically). If you use Pathfinder rules, you can still use all your 3.5 material with little to no conversion work necessary (which is part of the point on the user's end).

Paizo needs to have the rules in print, as Erik Mona and others have stated time and time again on these boards and others. Period. That part of the equation on the publisher's side couldn't be more clearly stated. Let's not forget that.

As for splitting the 3.X crowd into "Pathfinder" or "no Pathfinder" camps, I don't see that happening at all. Look at DaveMage above: he still plays 3.5, but does he see Pathfinder as a bad thing? Nope. Me? I'm playing with the Pathfinder rules. I still use my 3.5 materials with them.

What he said.

I'm looking at alot of these posts crapping all over Pathfinder and I'm wondering if any of these people are actually using / or have used to tweaked ruleset? Before I decided not to support 4E (and I was someone who wasnt thrilled about 4E from the outset) I bought and read the rules and more importantly I USED THE RULES TO RUN A GAME before I decided that 4E was not for me. There are things that I liked about it but it wasnt for me.

I'm running a monthly game using Rise of the Runelords as the adventure and Pathfinder as the rules set and I'm having fun with the tweaked ruleset.
The option of having MaxHP + CON at first level are making my players a little bolder in thier approach to encounters. It's also encouraging me NOT to molly codddle my players (even with the higher HP, I almost took the sorcerer PC down near 0 hp with a series of thrown alchemist fire bombs...) The spellcasters are loving the 0 level at will spells, because it means that theyre not running out of spells any time soon. There are things that work
well with this ruleset, there are other things that I've not used (I kept the altered skill list, but used the skill points from standard 3.5. Which works since I'm running a 3.5 adventure and the adventure itself required very little in the way of modification compared to if I had to change it for 4E). But over all it works for me.

Basically if you didnt like 3.5 to begin with (which is the case for A LOT of people here at EnWorld) then pathfinder aint for you. If you liked 3.5 EXACLY the way that it is (and there's nothing wrong with that.) then Pathfinder probably aint for you. There are like a metric assload of 3.5 product out there that can be used for years and years and years so either way you're not at a loss.

For the rest of us who are actually using the ruleset I think that some of us are gonna have problems and some of us are going to love it. The opinions I value are from people who have similar play styles to mine and who are actually using the ruleset. Everyone else's opinion is valid, but ALOT lower on the totem pole.

 

[Allister]

I think 3.5 and Pathfinder are fine games myself and I'm a 4E fanboy.

I have no problem jumping right in and playing any PAthfinderized class. I just won't DM it.....

 

[thecasualoblivion]

What he said.

I'm looking at alot of these posts crapping all over Pathfinder and I'm wondering if any of these people are actually using / or have used to tweaked ruleset? Before I decided not to support 4E (and I was someone who wasnt thrilled about 4E from the outset) I bought and read the rules and more importantly I USED THE RULES TO RUN A GAME before I decided that 4E was not for me. There are things that I liked about it but it wasnt for me.

I'm running a monthly game using Rise of the Runelords as the adventure and Pathfinder as the rules set and I'm having fun with the tweaked ruleset.
The option of having MaxHP + CON at first level are making my players a little bolder in thier approach to encounters. It's also encouraging me NOT to molly codddle my players (even with the higher HP, I almost took the sorcerer PC down near 0 hp with a series of thrown alchemist fire bombs...) The spellcasters are loving the 0 level at will spells, because it means that theyre not running out of spells any time soon. There are things that work
well with this ruleset, there are other things that I've not used (I kept the altered skill list, but used the skill points from standard 3.5. Which works since I'm running a 3.5 adventure and the adventure itself required very little in the way of modification compared to if I had to change it for 4E). But over all it works for me.

Basically if you didnt like 3.5 to begin with (which is the case for A LOT of people here at EnWorld) then pathfinder aint for you. If you liked 3.5 EXACLY the way that it is (and there's nothing wrong with that.) then Pathfinder probably aint for you. There are like a metric assload of 3.5 product out there that can be used for years and years and years so either way you're not at a loss.

For the rest of us who are actually using the ruleset I think that some of us are gonna have problems and some of us are going to love it. The opinions I value are from people who have similar play styles to mine and who are actually using the ruleset. Everyone else's opinion is valid, but ALOT lower on the totem pole.

I was dissatisfied with 3.5E prior to the launch of 4E, and I'm a 4E fan. I have read the Pathfinder beta in detail, but I have not played. I base my opinions on the fact that if I was going to play 3.5E again, I'd rather stick with the original and pass on Pathfinder. I look at Pathfinder in those terms. 3.5E, unlike Pathfinder, I have played and am extremely familiar with. I feel Pathfinder is close enough to 3.5E to make a good judgement on comparing the two.

When I "crap" on Pathfinder, I am not criticizing it in comparison to 4E. I am criticizing it in comparison to 3.5E D&D, which I feel is a better version of the game.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I feel Pathfinder is close enough to 3.5E to make a good judgement on comparing the two.

When I "crap" on Pathfinder, I am not criticizing it in comparison to 4E. I am criticizing it in comparison to 3.5E D&D, which I feel is a better version of the game.

That's fine. For you.
For me the map is not the territory. Even as I stated in my prior post, I prefer to actually use the game in actual play before I make a definitive judgement. I understand your point of view a little at least. There are plenty of games that I've perused, glanced at or read that I thought just weren't for me. I dont out and out bash those games though, they were just weren't my cup of tea, so live and let live.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I have no problem jumping right in and playing any PAthfinderized class. I just won't DM it.....

Ditto.

TS

 

[Gothmog]

What he said.

I'm looking at alot of these posts crapping all over Pathfinder and I'm wondering if any of these people are actually using / or have used to tweaked ruleset? Before I decided not to support 4E (and I was someone who wasnt thrilled about 4E from the outset) I bought and read the rules and more importantly I USED THE RULES TO RUN A GAME before I decided that 4E was not for me. There are things that I liked about it but it wasnt for me.

I'm running a monthly game using Rise of the Runelords as the adventure and Pathfinder as the rules set and I'm having fun with the tweaked ruleset.
The option of having MaxHP + CON at first level are making my players a little bolder in thier approach to encounters. It's also encouraging me NOT to molly codddle my players (even with the higher HP, I almost took the sorcerer PC down near 0 hp with a series of thrown alchemist fire bombs...) The spellcasters are loving the 0 level at will spells, because it means that theyre not running out of spells any time soon. There are things that work
well with this ruleset, there are other things that I've not used (I kept the altered skill list, but used the skill points from standard 3.5. Which works since I'm running a 3.5 adventure and the adventure itself required very little in the way of modification compared to if I had to change it for 4E). But over all it works for me.

Basically if you didnt like 3.5 to begin with (which is the case for A LOT of people here at EnWorld) then pathfinder aint for you. If you liked 3.5 EXACLY the way that it is (and there's nothing wrong with that.) then Pathfinder probably aint for you. There are like a metric assload of 3.5 product out there that can be used for years and years and years so either way you're not at a loss.

For the rest of us who are actually using the ruleset I think that some of us are gonna have problems and some of us are going to love it. The opinions I value are from people who have similar play styles to mine and who are actually using the ruleset. Everyone else's opinion is valid, but ALOT lower on the totem pole.

Actually, my group did what you suggest. We played PF Beta from 1st-4th level, then a one-shot 10th level adventure, and another 18th level adventure. They guy who was running the game seemed excited about it, but after a read-through, I was less than impressed- but I decided to give it a shot anyways and see how it went- because you don't really know a game until you've tried playing it.

In general, we found PF had the same inherent problems of 3.5, and magnified quite a few of them (specifically caster dominance, wonky math progression, magic item reliance, difficulty of prep, and rules-opaqueness). New problems also cropped up (the CR/EL guidelines are REALLY wonky in the PF book, the new subsystems are clunky, and the power level has been juiced up past any other version of D&D to date). After our experiences with PF, we decided the game wasn't for us, and was built for a different segment of the gamer population, which is fine, and I have no animosity towards Paizo for it. The Paizo folks seem like decent people who listen to their fans, and I wish them success with it, because more RPG developers and companies is a good thing- their game just isn't for me. I MIGHT play PF if the final release addresses these issues (which isn't likely given what I've seen about the PF team's design principles), but I'd never run it.

 

[Darrin Drader]

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.

I don't personally like calling it 3.75. I like to think about it as an alternate new edition of D&D. Or better yet, it's a new game that is born from a previous edition of a different game. Sure, it's splitting hairs, but calling it 3.75 implies that the changes between it and 3.5 are relatively minor. They're not. The parts of the game that don't affect overall compatibility with 3.5 adventures are modified heavily, making the differences more along the lines of what you would expect in an edition change.

3.5 was at a point where it was time for an edition change. There were problems with it that had become apparent. Some people want a new edition that fixes 3.5. Other people want a new approach altogether. 4e goes right, Pathfinder goes left. Divergent directions. But they're both valid. Neither one is going to make everybody happy, neither one is the "right" approach, but both seem to have made a lot of people very happy. People aren't going to agree on what the right approach is, but if people are happy with the game they've chosen, who cares?

 

[Rechan]

I don't personally like calling it 3.75. I like to think about it as an alternate new edition of D&D. Or better yet, it's a new game that is born from a previous edition of a different game. Sure, it's splitting hairs, but calling it 3.75 implies that the changes between it and 3.5 are relatively minor. They're not.

That's subject to opinion, which is part of the point: are the changes big enough or not.

And, I think that the OP's point is a fair one: that any changes made to the Beta are going to be small adjustments; smoothing out the dings, rather than replacing whole parts. So to answer the OP, I believe that the Beta is pretty much what you're going to get, with a little polish.

I also liked 3.0 more than 3.5. Some changes were good, some weren't as much.

 

[Betote]

Currently, I'm DMing (playtesting) Pathfinder Beta. By now, I love the CMB, the "free cantrips/orisons" rule, the reworking of the skill rank system and the rearrangement of magic items (belts and headbands above all). The revamped classes... Well, they all have more options, that's for sure. And they're generally more powerful, too. I'll most probably use the Pathfinder versions of the Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Monk, Rogue and Sorcerer. The Bard Druid, Ranger and Wizard... I haven't playtested them enough, so I'm unsure. Paladin is equally boring in 3.5 and in Pathfinder, so who cares

Is Pathfinder the perfect game? No, it isn't. No one is. To say that it's better or worse at "solving 3.5's fundamental problems" is extremely subjective because of one thing: there're many different perceptions of what are 3.5's "fundamental problems".

Pathfinder is for people who generally liked 3.5 and wanted some "tweaking". People who already used things like the Books of Eldritch/Iron/Experimental/whatever Might, rules from AE, maybe the Advanced PHB/DMG/Bestiary series...

4e is for people who thought 3.5 is fundamentally flawed, who thought that DMing 3.5 was painful, that wizards had too many options, everything too many rules... If you didn't like 3.5 at all, you won't like Pathfinder, because it's basically the same thing (it has to be, because it's its reason to exist).

3.5 is, well, for people who like 3.5. Your books aren't going to spontaneously burn (let's hope ) so, why would you feel the obligation of buying a new game? And Paizo isn't trying to sell Pathfinder to you (Paizo just want you to buy their modules and setting stuff). Pathfinder is for the ones who, when 3.5 is not around anymore, will look at the last issue of the Adventure Path and wonder what system is it supposed to be run under.

 

[Darrin Drader]

That's subject to opinion, which is part of the point: are the changes big enough or not.

The question in my mind is whether the scope of the changes Pathfinder makes are comparable in scope to the changes made between 3.0 and 3.5. In my opinion, they much larger. The old 3.5 and 3.0 stuff is still mostly compatible, but the same was true in going from 1E to 2E, so I don't see compatibility as the primary way to measure edition change.

And, I think that the OP's point is a fair one: that any changes made to the Beta are going to be small adjustments; smoothing out the dings, rather than replacing whole parts.

That's probably true, although they still haven't tackled the high-level play conundrum. Fixing that will likely have a ripple effect throughout the game.

I also liked 3.0 more than 3.5. Some changes were good, some weren't as much.

See, I liked 3.0, but when I got ahold of 3.5, I loved it and didn't look back. It's all personal opinion though. There isn't a right answer.