Pathfinder 1E Opinions on Pathfinder

[Wicht]

I believe it went:
1) WotC pulled the magazine licenses and Paizo had to scramble to reinvent themselves.

2) Paizo started their Pathfinder module APs

3) WotC anounces 4e is coming.

4) Paizo doesn't want to have their business shackled to a revocable license again.

5) no license or pre release 4e rules for 3rd parties like Paizo.

6) Paizo finds making 3e OGL stuff working for them.

7) Paizo concerned about core rules for their modules going out of print.

8) Paizo decides to make their own 3e compatible Pathfinder OGL core rules to have it in print.

9) Paizo starts open playtesting Pathfinder.

10) 2008 4e comes with no GSL, only 3rd parties not using GSL come out with limited 4e stuff (Goodman, Adamant, Kenzer)

11) March 2009(?) revocable and changeable at will GSL comes with OGL poison pill provisions for product lines

12) Gencon 2009 Pathfinder released.

13) Later in 2009 GSL revised to remove poison pill provisions.

I think it was an early decision based on a combination of not wanting to be under a revocable license after getting the magazines yanked combined with expertise and ongoing success with making and selling 3e stuff as well as the inability to count on doing 4e stuff.

# 10 should be moved to just after #7.
and #4 should probably be moved to somewhere around #7 or #8 as well.

The failure of the GSL to be released in a timely fashion occurred before the announcement of the open playtest. Also missing is Paizo asking their fans which way the fans wanted them to go. Paizo was openly trying to decide whether to support the new rules or not. It was never a foregone conclusion with them and they have been pretty forthright in saying that at first they were weighing all their options.

 

[BryonD]

I like most of what PF did with the classes. The PF paladin is an improvement over 3.5's. I like the sorcerer bloodlines and the more flavorful/crunchy wizard specialists. Some of it is a bit clunky, however. The bard's versatile performance class feature is a mess. It should either be scrapped or retooled. Great idea; not so great execution.

On the DM's side of the screen, the combat maneuver system is a big plus. The implementation of encounter XP budgeting is a nice addition as well. Best of all, I think, are the clear, flexible guidelines for monster CRs and the simple templates, which make it possible to convert just about anything on-the-fly by noting a handful of modifiers.

Good stuff there.​

I like that they took 3E and pulled more feel into it.
I've always felt that wizards and sorcerers ended up being too similar in play, and different wizard specialists were virtually identical.
In PF a lot of similarities remain, particularly on the single encounter scale. But an evoker wizard and a fey blooded sorcerer are now distinctly different characters with mechanics to reinforce the nature of who they are.

There are lots of smaller changes like this that make various pieces more clearly distinct and flavorful, with the flavor driving mechanical expression.

I think CMB is a mechanical home run for the system.

Other mechanical changes are less significant, but in general they follow the lessons learned over the life of D20 and benefit from that experience.

I think the skill system was excessively simplfied. But so far I'm just rolling with it. No big deal over all, maybe I'll house rule later on, maybe I won't bother. I understand the theory of "Fly" as a skill, but it seems to be a failure in implementation, imo.

I loathe the PF regeneration rule. Fortunately, that is easy to fix.

 

[Voadam]

# 10 should be moved to just after #7.
and #4 should probably be moved to somewhere around #7 or #8 as well.

The failure of the GSL to be released in a timely fashion occurred before the announcement of the open playtest. Also missing is Paizo asking their fans which way the fans wanted them to go. Paizo was openly trying to decide whether to support the new rules or not. It was never a foregone conclusion with them and they have been pretty forthright in saying that at first they were weighing all their options.

Nope.

10 is the June 2008 release of 4e.

8 and 9 are the decision to make pathfinder and the beginning of open playtesting.

My Pathfinder Alpha pdf is date stamped as March 19, 2008, months before 4e was released.

They were not holding out until after 4e actually came out before deciding whether to do pathfinder core rules or not.

 

[Voadam]

On-topic: For those who have played Pathfinder, what measures has the Pathfinder team taken towards reducing the phenomenon where high-level combats can often result in a battle of "who wins Initiative?" I don't mean this as a loaded question at all, I'd really like to know. Disclaimer for some: I know this phenomenon might not occur at your table, no need to tell me it doesn't.

Changes in spells mostly IMO. Save or suck type spells are now almost entirely save each round. Save or die types are damage, not death on a failure. Polymorph/Shapechange/wild form changes. Dispel magic not so game changing for power.

Grapple modifiers are toned down, size differences are no longer +4 but only +1 so a lot more large/huge improved grabs are not an auto shutdown.

Easier to access cleric and paladin healing.

HD bumps for a lot of classes giving a little more staying power.

Still going to be swingier than 4e and be over in fewer rounds of combat though IMO.

 

[Wicht]

Nope.

10 is the June 2008 release of 4e.

8 and 9 are the decision to make pathfinder and the beginning of open playtesting.

My Pathfinder Alpha pdf is date stamped as March 19, 2008, months before 4e was released.

They were not holding out until after 4e actually came out before deciding whether to do pathfinder core rules or not.

#10 should be split up then. The GSL was supposed to be out in January of that year as I remember it (and I was following closely trying to make up my own mind as to which way to go with the new edition). Publishers were not given a GSL in a timely fashion nor were they shown the rules early. Though the Pathfinder RPG was announced before 4e was released, January and February of 2008 were some very stressful months for those that were waiting for the new OGL/GSL. It was during this time that Paizo put up a poll to see which way their community wanted them to go with the rules. That is, in January of 2008 Paizo was still undecided about whether they could support 4e or not. NO new OGL/GSL and no peek at the rules meant they had a very hard choice to make. Basically WotC was asking other publishers to jump on board 4e blind.

EDIt: I guess #5 incorporates what I am saying but could be worded more clearly. And #4 should still be bumped ahead to the period of time the decision was actually made.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Never mind.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

For what it's worth, Paizo's offers after the magazines were cancelled by WotC were far, far kinder then pretty much every other magazine or gaming company out there, who would typically just leave you hanging.

 

[BryonD]

#10 should be split up then. The GSL was supposed to be out in January of that year as I remember it (and I was following closely trying to make up my own mind as to which way to go with the new edition). Publishers were not given a GSL in a timely fashion nor were they shown the rules early. Though the Pathfinder RPG was announced before 4e was released, January and February of 2008 were some very stressful months for those that were waiting for the new OGL/GSL. It was during this time that Paizo put up a poll to see which way their community wanted them to go with the rules. That is, in January of 2008 Paizo was still undecided about whether they could support 4e or not. NO new OGL/GSL and no peek at the rules meant they had a very hard choice to make. Basically WotC was asking other publishers to jump on board 4e blind.

EDIt: I guess #5 incorporates what I am saying but could be worded more clearly. And #4 should still be bumped ahead to the period of time the decision was actually made.

You are correct. The list creates the impression that Paizo made their choices and then 4E unexpectedly popped into existence with no GSL. The June date is correct. But the hand writing hand been on the wall for months. The formal release of 4E in June was little more than a technicality in this context.

 

[Lidgar]

Futre PF Goodness

While I really like the PF game so far, I also feel that the GameMastery Guide and Advanced Players Guide look really promising. It seems like the two core books are really just the tip of the iceberg in terms of Good Fun - that they needed to provide the core books to continue the 3e ruleset, but these two books will really move PF beyond "just" an incremental evolution of 3.5e. While I am not a big fan of endless splat books, I am a fan of providing DM's and players new outlets for creativity. The GameMastery Guide in particular looks intriguing, as I still get a kick out of the lists in the back of the 1e DMG when creating campaign/adventures. Here's to hoping that it will include some of those Dungeon Dressings...

 

[Dannager]

So anyone who doesnt follow WOtc is a bad customer? You pretty much confirmed what I said earlier. You pretty much represent that portion of business that really doesnt understand customers or what they really want.

carmachu, I'm not going to take the time to respond to the content of your posts until you take the time to respond to the content of mine. When you're ready to stop putting words in other people's mouths, then we can talk.