Pathfinder vs. 3.5?

[Erik Mona]

I know this is slightly off-topic, but check out my revised monk. Some folks say the PF version is still better, but I'm not convinced. At the least, it's not a random mishmash of abilities (I felt the same way you do).

I just got out of a meeting about two hours ago in which Jason laid out his plans for the final version of the monk and bard. I think you'll be pleased to know that a lot of his thinking and subsequent post-playtest development is geared toward addressing the "weakness" of the Beta monk (which is, of course, rooted in the weakness of the 3.5 monk).

I suspect you will like the final version considerably more than the Beta version.

--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing

 

[vansung]

I just got out of a meeting about two hours ago in which Jason laid out his plans for the final version of the monk and bard. I think you'll be pleased to know that a lot of his thinking and subsequent post-playtest development is geared toward addressing the "weakness" of the Beta monk (which is, of course, rooted in the weakness of the 3.5 monk).

I suspect you will like the final version considerably more than the Beta version.

--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing

*Does a jump spin heel kick in celebration!*

 

[azhrei_fje]

I suspect you will like the final version considerably more than the Beta version.

--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing

Is there anything better than a gaming publisher that posts their thoughts in a public forum?

I mean, really? I'm a fan of Paizo (charter PF subscriber) and I love seeing the staff involved with users...

 

[Felon]

Last I looked at Pathfinder (which was a while ago), I recalled looking at the classes and getting a "gee, these are all over the place" feeling. Barbarians had some kind Iron-Heroesish token pool that they could expend to do things like get a free bite attack. It felt eclectic and kind of directionless. Even if we're avoiding 4e's hard-coded role-orientation, I'd still like to have an idea of what a barbarian brings to the table.

Has there been some streamlining since then?

 

[smug]

There are new suggested Barbarian rules that are closer to the old ones (rounds of rage, rather than rage points). Jason suggested them here.

 

[James Jacobs]

Last I looked at Pathfinder (which was a while ago), I recalled looking at the classes and getting a "gee, these are all over the place" feeling. Barbarians had some kind Iron-Heroesish token pool that they could expend to do things like get a free bite attack. It felt eclectic and kind of directionless. Even if we're avoiding 4e's hard-coded role-orientation, I'd still like to have an idea of what a barbarian brings to the table.

Has there been some streamlining since then?

There has been... but we haven't been posting every final change to the Beta to the public. It's important to remember that the PF RPG is still in its Beta playtest, and will be for a couple more weeks. We're deep into the analysis of the playtest feedback, from the messagboards and from our own in-house playtests, and there's been a LOT of feedback to go through. And even though we're still gathering the last bits of data before we nail things down and send the book over to editing in a month or so, I can say this: the final game will be closer to compatibility with 3.5 than the Beta is. Not everything in the Beta works, and in some cases, experimenting with options only showed us how elegant and strong a 3.5 (or even 3.0) design element really was.

In the end, though, all I can ask is that folks check out the final rules when they release this Gen Con. If the game works for you, great! If you still prefer 3.5, also great! As it turns out, we'll still be printing adventures and sourcebooks that are compatible for both systems, so even if you don't switch to Pathfinder RPG, there'll still be options for 3.5 gamers. (We'll be releasing a conversion booklet, in any event, to help folks make the transition from 3.5 to PF RPG, or to help transition PF RPG products to 3.5.)

I suppose that, in the end, the best preview for what kind of game we're hoping to make PF RPG be is to look at the adventures and sourcebooks we've been doing in Pathfinder's Adventure Path and our other products; if we can't keep making products with those sensibilities and design philosophies, then we failed at the PF RPG.

Anyway... like I said above, we're getting close to the end of the playtest. If there's still something about the Beta you'd like to see changed (or would like to NOT see changed), please post on the playtest threads at paizo.com. Or alternatively, shoot me an email at james.jacobs@paizo.com with your concerns. I can't guarantee a response to every email... but I can guarantee they'll all be read and if the concern's something that hasn't been addressed already I'll make sure Jason hears about it.

 

[Allaric]

I experimented with Pathfinder in the World of Aereth/Castle Whiterock campaign I ran. Some of my players really disliked the skill system. We all recognized that there was major problems with the v3.5 skill system and it needed updating. We tried the Pathfinder alpha/beta system and just couldn't get used to it. By changing the core skills it made the game incompatible with every prestige class and character sheet on the market. What was our solution? We added 2 extra skill points to the formula for every class in the game. The game should have had less skills to begin with but it didn't. It is easier to add more skill points to fix it. Now we can continue to use every character sheet out there and hundreds of d20 products. The more feats thing was great too. We adopted it. Changing PHB feats was not acceptable to us because those hundreds of d20 products out there built on them. Same for official D&D products. If you change toughness to be improved toughness feat then what does improved toughness do? We had already house ruled that casting spells and making magic items didn't cost XP so we beat them to it. Pathfinder is a great idea but for my group to use it you can't invalidate my current game library. I subscribed and am running Second Darkness module path and it is great so I know they do great work. It is a matter of compatibility.
Good Gaming
-Allaric

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

We tried the Pathfinder alpha/beta system and just couldn't get used to it. By changing the core skills it made the game incompatible with every prestige class and character sheet on the market. What was our solution? We added 2 extra skill points to the formula for every class in the game. The game should have had less skills to begin with but it didn't.

First off let me say I am not bashing you or anything . But here is the deal the alpha and the betas had diffent skill systems so I am not sure which one you mean. The beta system is very usabel with 3.5 and I am not sure how it makes PRC's useless. There was a side bare saying count all skill requirements as -3 . Meaning if it took 8 in PF it is now 5. That is 5 ranks...not counting the +3 for trained . For meeting requirements only ranks count...meaning points you put in


I do wish they would kill that gods awful 2 skills per level wotc messed up by not fixing that long ago

Changing PHB feats was not acceptable to us because those hundreds of d20 products out there built on them. Same for official D&D products. If you change toughness to be improved toughness feat then what does improved toughness do? We had already house ruled that casting spells and making magic items didn't cost XP so we beat them to it. Pathfinder is a great idea but for my group to use it you can't invalidate my current game library. I subscribed and am running Second Darkness module path and it is great so I know they do great work. It is a matter of compatibility.
Good Gaming
-Allaric
[/SIZE]

Also this one confuses me? They are not doing a 3.5 reprint things change. Feats changed in 3.0 to 3.5...did that stop you from using a cool 3.0 feat? Improved toughness is gone.. as is a few other feats not every thing will work . I heard but my extra rage feat wont work with rage points alot. Sure it will its 1 extra rage+1 level wroth of rage points

I use many 3.5 books , can I use everything 100%, well no then I would be using 3.5....But I can convert most of it on the fly so it works as it is meant to work

 

[The Highway Man]

Also this one confuses me? They are not doing a 3.5 reprint things change. Feats changed in 3.0 to 3.5...did that stop you from using a cool 3.0 feat? Improved toughness is gone.. as is a few other feats not every thing will work . I heard but my extra rage feat wont work with rage points alot. Sure it will its 1 extra rage+1 level wroth of rage points

I use many 3.5 books , can I use everything 100%, well no then I would be using 3.5....But I can convert most of it on the fly so it works as it is meant to work

I think it goes down to personal inclinations as far as DMing is concerned. Some DMs want all the rules to be right there, in the book, and that's it. Their role is adjudication only. Other DMs love to bring their own vision to life through dozens of side books, houserules, input from the players themselves on the rules.... and the game rules at the game table evolve.

I strongly suspect that 3.5, and Pathfinder through it, will ultimately appeal to this latter sort of DMs.

 

[Burrito Al Pastor]

I've been sufficiently satisfied with 4e that I haven't been watching Pathfinder really closely, but from everything I've seen, they're using a VERY loose definition of "backwards compatability".