Pathfinder 1E Monte Cook joins Pathfinder team

[Wisdom Penalty]

And you know, really, I find it so funny and ironic that 4e folks are coming here stirring the pot.

I'm still browsing the thread trying to find just where this happened.

Pushing such juvenile tangents aside, I'd find it hard to believe that any gaming company as been as receptive and open to fans and external sources as Paizo is demonstrating with PFRPG. The Paizo leadership, in addition, is very active and accessible on their forums (or at least was at the time I left during the Time of Troubles).

Wizards could learn a lot from such methods.

Wis

 

[DaveMage]

Great news! Regardless of what you think of Monte's work (I'm not a huge fan), this is very good for PRPG, greatly increasing (I believe) the overall quality of the end result rules-wise.

Yay!

Actually, the 4e folk being told to go away and find another forum/thread is even funnier, really.

Personally, I'd rather the 4E people come here and give their thoughts as many (if not all) of the 4E people were 3E people once (and some will play both).

If the things that they didn't like about 3E get tweaked and that brings them into the Pathfinder fold, so much the better.

 

[Sebastrd]

Do we forget that Monte Cook is the name on the cover of the original 3.0 core rulebooks? I'd also argue that he has a tendency to create overly complicated game elements, too. He's also the writer of the much disliked Book of Vile Darkness.

I admit his stuff has always been interesting, but I've never really enjoyed it from a mechanical perspective. I worry about Monte's influence on a system that is supposed to streamline and fix the 3.x rules.

Honestly if I stick to 3.x rather than convert to 4e, I'll stick to WotC's version with some personal tweaks. I think the Pathfinder RPG might stem a slight bit too far from backwards compatibility. It already starting too look as backwards compatible as 3.5 rules looked to 3.0. Sure there's a couple of nods here and there, but there are already some elements of existing 3.5 materials that won't really fit with Pathfinder RPG.

By the way, it's my opinion that if WotC were releasing a system identical to what Pathfinder RPG is looking like, these forums would be flooded with complaints for at least a year, but because it's Paizo, it's acceptable.

Just checking in to make sure someone said it. Carry on...

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

If the things that they didn't like about 3E get tweaked and that brings them into the Pathfinder fold, so much the better.

I'll say this - PF is going in a direction that I find very, very interesting. At first if 4E didn't work for my group, we were planning to move to a completely different (non-D&D) gaming system. With the recent changes, I think PFRPG is running up the list of possible alternatives and is probably only trumped by C&C at this moment.

Just one gal's opinion.

Wis

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

By the way, it's my opinion that if WotC were releasing a system identical to what Pathfinder RPG is looking like, these forums would be flooded with complaints for at least a year, but because it's Paizo, it's acceptable.

One might conclude that there's a lesson in customer relations to be learned from that.

 

[Sebastrd]

Reading this thread makes me wonder...

How far will Pathfinder have to go before it is a sub-game like Iron Kingdoms and such and not really 3.5 at all.

Personally I think they have crossed that line already.

I am willing to grant that there is the possibility that it might become popular enough to supplement 3.5, but I see that chance as pretty slim.

Honestly, I wonder if PRPG is doomed from the start. They're trying to straddle the fence by making it completely backward compatible while fixing the flaws inherent in the system. I don't know that it's possible to do both at the same time, and I fear they may end up pleasing nobody. If they pull it off, though, they'll have gained a huge amount of respect from me.

 

[DM_Jeff]

Yeah, because people can't possibly be interested in more than one game, right? I mean, I know that 4e lost you at hello (to quote yourself), and that you thus never really approached it with an open mind, but that doesn't mean that other people aren't willing to follow other games with an open mind and judge it by it's merits.

Interested? Of course they should be, that's great. The fact they're drawing ire and being asked to flee is funny because it mirrors the activint of the 4e forums since whenever. But, as has been pointed out we're being juvenile now so consider my comment withdrawn. I'm not laughing now.

-DM Jeff

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Honestly, I wonder if PRPG is doomed from the start. They're trying to straddle the fence by making it completely backward compatible while fixing the flaws inherent in the system. I don't know that it's possible to do both at the same time, and I fear they may end up pleasing nobody.

They're going to lose a small fraction of anal-retentive gamers for whom "backwards compatible" means "identical to 3.5e."

I think the vast majority of gamers have pretty flexible definitions of "backwards compatible."

I can let a skill rank here or there slide; I can get by if my old modules list a Rope Use skill that no longer exists; it's not the end of the world if PC wizards have twice as many hit points as NPC wizards, and it won't break the "power curve," etc.

Granted, I operate under a designer's definition of backwards compatible, but it serves me equally well behind the DM screen.

EDIT: Let's put it another way. If your definition of "backwards compatible" excludes 3.5 from being compatible with 3.0, your definition is too narrow and Pathfinder will probably pass you by.

 

[mmu1]

By the way, it's my opinion that if WotC were releasing a system identical to what Pathfinder RPG is looking like, these forums would be flooded with complaints for at least a year, but because it's Paizo, it's acceptable.

And if a d20 company other than WotC announced something like 4E, a good portion of the same people who are already calling 4E the best D&D ever would probably have called it a piece of crap.

Anyway, while you're likely right about the potential amount of complaining, you're missing a key point - unlike WotC, which is trying to make a new system for everyone, Paizo is pretty much directly marketing its game to the people who still like 3.5 and don't like 4E.

It's small wonder that, under those circumstances, there's a lot less complaining. It should hardly come as a surprise that people like being catered to.

 

[catsclaw227]

One thing to bear in mind is that Pathfinder is intended to fill the role of a PHB when the 3.5 PHB goes out of print, using the SRD as a basis for the rules. Most of the other supplements for 3.5 (like the PHBII, with the Beguiler) are not part of the SRD, and so really aren't the focus of any efforts at backwards compatibility. I'm sure Paizo would love to be able to accommodate all of those additional supplements, but under the circumstances that can't and really shouldn't be their focus.

The rules should be compatible with the "core three" books, though. As to how well it does that, that has been a matter of debate.

This is where I must've misunderstood. I thought that they were trying to be backwards compatible with 3.5 in general, not just BC with the 3.5 SRD. There are a lot of mechanics that came out of supplemental books that are not 3.5 core or SRD, such as reserve feats, divine metamagic, classes with newer "always on" abilities (like Dragon Shaman aura), martial maneuvers, etc... and these are being used (I imagine) quite extensively by many current 3.5 players.

It would be really tough to be totally backwards compatible, and I understand this. But converting a single adventure to make it fit better took a lot more time than I expected.

Now..... this is not to say I am not interested. The new mechanics such as turning and grappling are interesting. I like the new direction, and Monte's involvement is a plus for me since I like the AE rules, CBoXXX series, his adventures, etc. I really like Paizo, and I am still a Pathfinder and Pathfinder Chronicles subscriber. So I am not totally lost.

I am likely going to 4e. Highly likely. But if I ever decide to DM a new 3.5 campaign again, it will be with the Pathfinder rules if they hold up well and I can use my 3.5 adventures with relative ease.