At What Point Does PF Become Its Own System?

[Kvantum]

Pathfinder isn't 4e to me, it's Service Pack 2 for 3e, if you'll forgive an OS analogy. 3.5e was Service Pack 1. Pathfinder is just another (needed, IMO) collection of fixes, updates, and revisions to ensure the usability and (relative) stability of the core.

It won't truly be its own game until Pathfinder 2.0, but it is possible to run an all-Pathfinder game right now. (Personally, I'm almost to the point of banning all WotC releases, restricting things to Paizo, Malhavoc, and OtherWorld Creations (the Genius Guides group.))

 

[Henry]

In my opinion, does it matter? That's not even the intent of the OGL in the first place. The intent is (after its primary mission that WotC abandoned) to keep good solid rules in circulation and allow innovation on them, without people having to "invent their own game systems" from the ground up. What's the point of having some neat new mechanics if you have to reconcept the action resolution mechanic, the damage-charting mechanic, etc. all over again every time you want to do something new?

So, to screw with a metaphor, if Pathfinder stands on the shoulders of giants, I'm all for it. If they use that perch to construct a brand-new steeple for the temple, making it look twice as good as before, that's what the giants stood there for in the first place instead of knocking Paizo off their shoulders and saying, "make your own."

 

[JoeGKushner]

A sourcebook does not a new system make.

A new edition perhaps but the core pathfinder rules, if they ever were compatible, are still compatible.

I've sat in many a 3.5 game where with all the different options notced up you'd never know that the heart of the engine was the same.

New classes != new edition.

Now if Pathfinder does away with 3-18 stats, lowers the power of the spellcasters more, etc... then yes, we're looking at actual change. Everything else is white wash.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

For my purposes, Pathfinder is D&D 4e.

Heh, all jabs at WotC's 4e aside - real, imagined, desired, said, or unsaid - this sums my feelings up pretty well.

For me 4e is a different game*, not the RPG I cut my gaming teeth on. Pathfinder is much, much closer. To put it nicely, Pathfinder was an evolution, 4e was an innovation. In this case I prefer the small steps of evolution to the blind leap of innovation.

And damn you, Aus Snow, for mentioning the idea of Pathfinder 2... now I'm curious as to what changes might be made to the engine....

The Auld Grump, not eager for it, just wondering....

* Different doesn't necessarily mean worse or better - it just means, well, different. If you like the differences then it's good, if not then there is Pathfinder. Roll the dice as you see fit.

 

[Jhaelen]

A sourcebook does not a new system make.

A new edition perhaps but the core pathfinder rules, if they ever were compatible, are still compatible.

I've sat in many a 3.5 game where with all the different options notced up you'd never know that the heart of the engine was the same.

New classes != new edition.

Now if Pathfinder does away with 3-18 stats, lowers the power of the spellcasters more, etc... then yes, we're looking at actual change. Everything else is white wash.

I disagree. It's definitely more than just white wash.

Consider some of the current discussions, e.g. 'Are Casters 'still' way better than noncasters after level 6.' or 'Why does no one complain about the monk'.

In these threads you see people with 3e backgrounds and Pathfinder players talking at crossed purposes. You'll see 3e players arguing based on things no longer true.

'Monks suck because they don't get full BAB'. Well, they do in Pathfinder (when flurrying).
'Spellcasters are overpowered because of spells like 'x', 'y', and 'z''. Well, all of those spells work differently in Pathfinder.

There's no longer a common basis for discussing the game. My 3e experience gained from playing it for almost 10 years is basically worthless (or at best misleading) when trying to discuss Pathfinder.

Isn't that an indication that it's no longer the same game?

It makes me feel like a computer scientist from the sixties talking about the merits of punch cards vs. tapes. The basics of data storage and programming may still be the same, but just about everything else has changed _a lot_ since then.

Pathfinder is not the same system as 3e because a system consists of more than just the (basic) rules.

 

[Remathilis]

Here's when.

When Pathfinder 2nd Edition comes out. Not if, when.

Right now, PF is still 3.5 with additions and bug-fixes. its not a huge upgrade, even though its got a lot of good ideas. Most of your 3.5 stuff works just dandy, and that's the point. However, there will come a time (I predict 5 years, that will mark 3.0's 15th birthday) when 3e's inherent design will become outdated, and at that point Paizo will create a 2nd edition that doesn't have "inherent 3e support" in that it will akin to 1e -> 2e; compatible in a vague sense but it will overhaul major systems, simplify areas still complicated, and mix up some of the legacy "D&D" tropes to better resemble where Pathfinder and Golarion are at that point (perhaps adding/dropping races and classes, for example).

It will NOT reach the radicalness of WotC's 4e, but it will be just different enough that you will not be able to directly mix materials any longer.

Then, PF will be its own thing.

 

[Odhanan]

That's a strange question to ask. Pathfinder is its own thing to me. I don't spend any more of my time comparing Pathfinder to 3.5 at this point than I would AD&D or OD&D. These are all games that are part of the D&D tradition to me, and games I use in different circumstances with different types of players, play styles, etc.

My point is, I have ceased comparing Pathfinder to 3.5 quite some time ago. I don't really see the point of such comparisons anymore, since they have become irrelevant to my gaming, PF or otherwise.

 

[Odhanan]

there will come a time (...) when 3e's inherent design will become outdated

There are no expiry dates on game systems, to me. I still play OD&D and AD&D. The notion that a design would become "outdated" is something that really makes me scratch my head in disbelief.

The only incentive I see to have a new edition of a game is to basically re-sell core books to its core audience, since core books are the only real sellers in an RPG line of products. The rest is just marketing speech destined to sell the idea of buying the same stuff all over again, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Anguish]

Pathfinder and all the material out so far are 3.5e system releases. Much like Unearthed Arcana they're a variant on the core PHB/DMG/MM books, but they're still 3.5e

As much as I love the material these are just more 3.5e books, which is exactly what I want. No matter how many books Paizo releases, as long as they still mesh with 3.5e they're not a separate system and more than Eberron books or Necromancer's monster books, or Dreamscarred Press' psionics materials are.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I disagree. It's definitely more than just white wash.

Consider some of the current discussions, e.g. 'Are Casters 'still' way better than noncasters after level 6.' or 'Why does no one complain about the monk'.

In these threads you see people with 3e backgrounds and Pathfinder players talking at crossed purposes. You'll see 3e players arguing based on things no longer true.

'Monks suck because they don't get full BAB'. Well, they do in Pathfinder (when flurrying).
'Spellcasters are overpowered because of spells like 'x', 'y', and 'z''. Well, all of those spells work differently in Pathfinder.

There's no longer a common basis for discussing the game. My 3e experience gained from playing it for almost 10 years is basically worthless (or at best misleading) when trying to discuss Pathfinder.

Isn't that an indication that it's no longer the same game?

It makes me feel like a computer scientist from the sixties talking about the merits of punch cards vs. tapes. The basics of data storage and programming may still be the same, but just about everything else has changed _a lot_ since then.

Pathfinder is not the same system as 3e because a system consists of more than just the (basic) rules.

By that logic, the Black Company and Thieves World are entirelyh different games as well no? Which means the core of the system is irregardless and if Pathfinder changed something as minor as... a feat, that it would be a 'new' system.

As I said, I disagree. A lot of things Pathfinder does people were already doing. Was each and everyone of them running a new sysem? As I noted in my OP, runnig stuff from various sourcebooks like the Advanced Player's Guide and Monte's end trail experiemental stuff along with other material, lead to some very different games than 3e core.

Heck, running 3e core at the tail end compared to running it with Warlocks, Reserve Feats, Psionics, and Nine Swords feels like different game systems.