3.5 high level woes and Paizo's hand in it.

[Primal]

Wrong on two counts I believe. There was a print edition of the beta rules for sale, only the pdf was free. I believe they have said the final rules would also be released as a free srd in addition to the full color deluxe for pay hardcover. At least last I heard they were discussing that for the final rules and leaning that way.

Think about the precedent from WotC with 3e D&D. Did you go entirely off of the free srd or did you buy the books?

How does that make my first statement wrong? Naturally, if you wanted the book, you had to pay for it -- I took that as a given. You yourself admit that SRD (in electronic format) equals "free rules", and so does a .PDF (also in electronic format), right? And, both are equally hard to use, in my opinion, unless you print them.

Yes, I bought the Beta rules (just as I did with 3.0 books), and also printed the .PDF for my players. As for 3.5 campaigns, I've only used the SRD, because in my opinion the scope of changes was too little to justify buying the books. Now, if the final PF rules would be just an "updated" Beta with minor changes, would I buy them -- especially if I can simply print the updates for free? Nah, I probably wouldn't... maybe out of support, but I think I would rather wait for PF 2.0. However, I believe there will be enough changes that I will want the book.

 

[humble minion]

I think when the beta was put out they really hadn't solved those issues. It was still on the to-do list.

That's my other concern. The to-do list was backwards. The high level issues are so severe and so deeply entwined with the basic structure, assumptions, and maths of the d20 system that addressing them should have been the first thing Paizo looked at when designing the PF ruleset. Putting them on hold while fiddling around with minutae of class balance and rage points etc is putting the cart before the horse. Fixes to the high-level problems are likely to echo though the entire system in ways that might not be immediately obvious, and which might not mesh well with the smaller stuff that they've already changed.

I'm just a little concerned that Paizo's PF design process is trying to hang the wallpaper before the foundations have been laid.

 

[Erik Mona]

I think when the beta was put out they really hadn't solved those issues. It was still on the to-do list.

This.

--Erik

 

[Erik Mona]

I'm just a little concerned that Paizo's PF design process is trying to hang the wallpaper before the foundations have been laid.

I guess we'll see.

--Erik

 

[Spatula]

That's my other concern. The to-do list was backwards. The high level issues are so severe and so deeply entwined with the basic structure, assumptions, and maths of the d20 system that addressing them should have been the first thing Paizo looked at when designing the PF ruleset. Putting them on hold while fiddling around with minutae of class balance and rage points etc is putting the cart before the horse. Fixes to the high-level problems are likely to echo though the entire system in ways that might not be immediately obvious, and which might not mesh well with the smaller stuff that they've already changed.

I'm just a little concerned that Paizo's PF design process is trying to hang the wallpaper before the foundations have been laid.

This was my thought as well. But then my first impulse, given the task of "fixing" 3e, would not have been to make the game even more complex, so clearly I'm not the intended audience.

 

[dante58701]

No offense to anyone, but I wouldn't blame Paizo for this...I'd blame the DM's. As a DM you have to know what your players can handle, and what constitutes a balanced or tough encounter for them. (and when to recognize an impossible encounter).

Those over the top, very maximized, near impossible end battles can be easily toned down to a more appropriate level of difficulty.

Should they be tough? Sure. Should they have the potential for character deaths? Sure.

Should they be TPK with little chance of survival? No.

I'd have to completely agree with you. I've DM'd for 15 years and it's entirely up to the DM to select encounters that are suitable for their group.

More often than not, the players are to blame for their character's own demise. Usually due to goofing off and not taking the dangers seriously.

I've gamed with many different groups of people. Some more mature than others, but the majority of gamers I encounter are either immature or inexperienced.

 

[Voadam]

I thought of another 3.5 1-20 adventure series, the Dragonlance age of mortals one. So I updated my list from here.

 

[Voadam]

How does that make my first statement wrong? Naturally, if you wanted the book, you had to pay for it -- I took that as a given. You yourself admit that SRD (in electronic format) equals "free rules", and so does a .PDF (also in electronic format), right? And, both are equally hard to use, in my opinion, unless you print them.

You had said

Also, let's remember that it's a free preview of the rules, and if I was in their boots, I wouldn't put all my best ideas into a free preview. After all, if everyone already got them for free, why would they pay for the actual product?

It is not a situation of the beta being free and the final product being for sale. The beta edition was free in pdf and for sale in print. The final product will also supposedly be free in pdf/srd and for sale in print.

If you were just saying the beta pdf was free and not implying that the final rules won't be then I don't understand your point about not putting your best ideas in the preview beta. People will still get the best final PF ideas for free from the final srd/PDF.

I see no reason to not put the best existing ideas in the beta. At worst some people will have bought the beta hardcover and not buy the final pathfinder book. Even in this worst case scenario Paizo has made a sale (and gotten the payment earlier).

 

[Primal]

You had said

It is not a situation of the beta being free and the final product being for sale. The beta edition was free in pdf and for sale in print. The final product will also supposedly be free in pdf/srd and for sale in print.

If you were just saying the beta pdf was free and not implying that the final rules won't be then I don't understand your point about not putting your best ideas in the preview beta. People will still get the best final PF ideas for free from the final srd/PDF.

No, the final product is *not* free -- you have to pay both for the PDF and the book. Beta, on the other hand, was a free preview, because anyone could download the rules -- you only needed to pay if you wanted the book (which is only natural). Now, you *could* use the SRD, but then again so you could with 3.5, too, and I wouldn't exactly call 3E a "free" rules set.

I see no reason to not put the best existing ideas in the beta. At worst some people will have bought the beta hardcover and not buy the final pathfinder book. Even in this worst case scenario Paizo has made a sale (and gotten the payment earlier).

As Erik said, some of the issues were not yet dealt with when Beta came out, and they also used it to test the "boundaries" of the rules and how they work in play, e.g. how the changes affect high-level play, if at all. If they had released the Beta as an "almost finished" rule set with all their best ideas included, what would be the point of public playtesting or "brainstorming"? I wouldn't be interested in posting daily if I knew the rules are already pretty much set in stone, and my opinions and suggestions, at most, would result in polishing up the wording in a feat or spell.

And what would be the point of buying the end product, if you could just get a free errata for those 5% of the rule changes? In the worst case scenario, you could lose all sales for the final rules, because people wouldn't pay for minor changes. Yes, they would have sold X number of the Beta rules for those who wanted the printed book, but since Beta was sold for a nominal price, the real cash comes from PF RPG books. And if they had released all the good stuff in Beta, I think it would have been equal to shooting themselves in the foot.