My piazo problmes Forked Thread: Another Cease and Desist Letter: 4E Powercards

[Wicht]

People who were heavily invested (time AND $$$$$) into 3.5 were reluctant to toss that all out and go 4e. Pathfinder doesn't help there because for all their talk of BC, it ISN'T really that backwards compatible.

Of course there are those of us who, having liked 3e and being heavily invested in the system, have no problems with the changes in the PFRPG. I am easily running 3.5 modules (including Pathfinder APs) with the new rules without a hitch. YMMV.

I suspect that those who have trouble understanding the goals of Paizo are simply not the target audience. Which Paizo has been upfront in admitting is just fine with them. They want as many customers as possible but no single choice will please everyone.

 

[Thasmodious]

If Paizo wanted to keep 'core books in print', they could just print their own OGL Player's Handbook...but for all the good will they seem to get, it sure seems to me like the MAIN reason for Pathfinder is NOT to keep 3.5 style rules in print, but to make a product sufficiently different from 3.5 to allow Paizo to own/control it. Not in terms of violating OGL concepts, but still.

Right. That's where I think Paizo is really blowing it. A lot of the people that didn't switch to 4e did so not out of hatred or nerd rage over changes, but because they already had shelves full of 3.5 products, 3PP stuff, and were content to just stick with that. Paizo taking up the "keep 3.5 alive!" banner would have been good. The "we're not 3.5 and we're not 4e" banner is a much tougher sale.

 

[Jason Bulmahn]

Hey there Everybody,

Let me just say that I feel it is fair game to take a look at the Beta and to judge our direction and give feedback. That is what we have been asking playtesters to do for the past 6 months. This is not, by any means, the first time that many of these points have been made. We are listening.

While I cannot promise 100% compatibility with 3.5 (which would in essence be a 3.5 reprint), I can promise a system that is more compatible with 3.5 than the Beta. When we put out the Beta, we intentionally pushed the envelop, making some changes that were a bit beyond what we thought was necessary to fix some of the issues with the system. In some cases, this was done to see what the tolerance was for change in the system. In other places, it was to add more design room to a system that has already been deeply explored. Finally, in some cases, it was because there was a certain elegance to the new design, even if it moved farther away from the 3.5 core.

Over the past 6 months, we have learned a lot about the game and what the playtesters want. There are a host of changes still to be made, but the final game is coming together. Some elements are shifting back toward their 3.5 counterparts, where others are just getting a tweak.

So, while I expect folks to give us feedback based on the Beta, it is my hope that you will not judge the final game based on its earlier incarnations. The final game comes out this August. I would hope that you take a look then and judge it based on its merits alone.

In any case, thanks for the feedback. Every bit helps us make this a better game.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

(If I missed your feedback on these fine boards in the past, I do apologize. Some days it is hard just to keep up with our playtest boards)

 

[Wicht]

A lot of the people that didn't switch to 4e did so not out of hatred or nerd rage over changes, but because they already had shelves full of 3.5 products, 3PP stuff, and were content to just stick with that.

I really don't see that. I am guessing 'some' did not switch because of their library but I doubt its "a lot," percentage wise. Those of us with shelves of books tend to be buyers of books. We like buying books. I was dissapointed that I did not feel compelled or even interested in buying the 4e books. I am happy that Paizo is giving me a new venue for buying books I enjoy.

 

[Admiral Caine]

I really don't see that. I am guessing 'some' did not switch because of their library but I doubt its "a lot," percentage wise. Those of us with shelves of books tend to be buyers of books. We like buying books. I was dissapointed that I did not feel compelled or even interested in buying the 4e books. I am happy that Paizo is giving me a new venue for buying books I enjoy.

To add to what Wicht is saying...

PF RPG also allows a certain type of game experience that is compatible with their setting.

I swap around three different games. A Pathfinder 3.5 game, a Pathfinder RPG game, and a 4E game. At any time I am running two of those actively.

My players like all three games.

However, when asked, they're most excited about the final version of Pathfinder. They enjoy most of 3.5, and what they don't like is being addressed.

These guys aren't poor. They can afford a few core books.

One thing that I think gets overlooked in these discussions is that there are people who like 3.5 based upon its own merits. And if it can be cleaned up a little, they like it that much more.

You may not see those folks represented as strongly here on EnWorld, but they're out there.

 

[mxyzplk]

It's fine to not enjoy Pathfinder, but it seems hard to not enjoy it if you did like 3e/3.5e.

My gaming group has been playing D&D for a long time. We have played 3.0, stock 3.5, and are currently playing Pathfinder Beta, using 3.5e adventures, with most of the 3.5e splatbooks allowed for the characters. And it works fine, and we're really enjoying it.

My Pathfinder cleric has found that some feats and p-classes don't make sense any more (the changes to the domain system make some domain feats not make sense, and the new channeling energy rules make some of the old divine feats seem too weak to take) but in general, it's all the same stuff.

You can play stock 3.5e alternate base classes, take (most) 3.5e prestige classes, use (most) 3.5e feats, use 3.5e spells... You can use stock 3.5e monsters and adventures. It's as compatible as 3.0 to 3.5e, and way more so than 2e->3e or 3.5e->4e.

They made the base classes a little more competitive with the higher-power stuff the 3.5e splatbooks presented. They're not outclassing them though, I still want to take one level of Crusader from Tome of Battle for the sweet, sweet kung fu cheese...

Is it "just house rules to make 3.5e better?" Sure. It's professional designed house rules, which will then have adventures and supplements written for them by a company who has put out the best adventures published for D&D since First Edition.

Our circle of gamers around here have a bunch of campaigns going in various game systems - Savage Worlds, White Wolf, etc. - and of the campaigns that are D&D, they have all migrated off 3.5e and are doing Pathfinder Beta. There were some one-shots of 4e but no one expressed interest in going further with it.

Anyway, random pontification is fine and all, but we're actually playing the thing extensively and using it to interoperate with 3.5e - and it's hot!

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Is English your second language or something? Your incredibly lack of grammar and spelling, combined with "I'D RATHER PLAY CHUTES AND LADDERS" (only misspelled) or "I'D RATHER SEE D&D DIE THEN IN THE HANDS OF PATHFINDER" (only misspelled) amuse me.

Carry on, jester!

Also, in before the inevitable lock.

PS: As another stated, when trying to make a point, it's important to make a point. "I don't like it" is not a point. "I don't like it because..." is. Work on that and have the paper on my desk by tomorrow.

 

[jensun]

Is English your second language or something? Your incredibly lack of grammar and spelling, combined with "I'D RATHER PLAY CHUTES AND LADDERS" (only misspelled) or "I'D RATHER SEE D&D DIE THEN IN THE HANDS OF PATHFINDER" (only misspelled) amuse me.

Carry on, jester!

Also, in before the inevitable lock.

PS: As another stated, when trying to make a point, it's important to make a point. "I don't like it" is not a point. "I don't like it because..." is. Work on that and have the paper on my desk by tomorrow.

I am curious, how did you think your post would help move the thread into a useful direction?

Because it looks like throwing petrol onto the (potential) flames.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

There is no useful direction.

This thread was started for the sheer purpose of saying "I HATE PAIZO SO MUCH. SOOOOOOOOOOOO MUUUUUUUUUUUCH." And that's all it said. It didn't say why they hated Paizo. It didn't say why we should hate Paizo. It didn't even give us anything vile or horrible about Paizo. This entire thread exists for no reason other then the OP bragging about how much he hates Paizo. That sounds useful.

I'm saying in before the lock, but quite frankly it should be "In before this waste of a thread is deleted." It contributes nothing to the forum but more aimless and pointless hate, and I think we can all agree that we need less of that.

The only beginning of a discussion here was how bad it was that Pathfinder wouldn't be backwards compatable, but then a Paizo developer stepped in and wait "Hey yeah no, it's pretty backwards compatable, so no worries." Thus, I guess, killing that discussion.

Honestly, the fact that this thread was created as a branch because a mod told the poster not to post it should be a tip.

 

[Piratecat]

Is English your second language or something? Your incredibly lack of grammar and spelling, combined with "I'D RATHER PLAY CHUTES AND LADDERS" (only misspelled) or "I'D RATHER SEE D&D DIE THEN IN THE HANDS OF PATHFINDER" (only misspelled) amuse me.

Carry on, jester!

If I was going to summarize EN World's general posting policy, it'd be "don't be a dick." You just failed. I don't happen to agree with the original poster, as I love Paizo, but that's no reason to be a jerk to someone who disagrees with you.

Carry on, folks - politely. It's cool to disagree. It's not okay to take personal shots.

And just so we're clear -- this thread is okay, so long as we don't sink into squabbling or cheap shots. I asked that it not be in the other thread so that there wasn't a hijack. It's okay existing on its own.