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

[Zil]

Why go through that again? If I wasn't going to play 4E, I'd play 3.5 so ... why is Pathfinder needed? (For those saying to support the AP, why make changes? Want your main rulebook in print? OGL PHB anyone?)

It's needed for the same reason that Open Source software requires active development. An orphaned or otherwise abandoned system will not be attractive to people looking to play something that will still be supported in years to come. If you were deciding between two different software systems, would you choose the one that has active support or the one that seems to have no support or future? By putting out Pathfinder, Paizo has signaled that the 3.5 OGL game continues to be actively supported now and into the future. They've essentially taken over and forked the project that WoTC has abandoned.

 

[xechnao]

but I do not like there rules and balance...

Did you like how Wotc treated D&D and on these things specifically with 3e and 3.5e?

 

[Jason Bulmahn]

My biggest concern is that the open design approach seems to be going not toward constant refinement of ideas nearly so much as toward giving in to the loudest screams for whatever makes the screamers feel their alter-ego reach the quickest route to maximum "leet"ness.

I think you bring up some fair points, but I did want to comment on this particular issue. I know that it can seem that "those who talk loudest get heard" might be the way it seems that things are going right now, but that is only because there is a lack of context between the Beta and the final for just about everyone but the fine folks who are within 30 feet of my desk. We have been carefully weighing all of the playtest feedback equally, regardless of how many times we hear an idea. This is not design by committee. We want a rules set that is relatively balanced, and that means that we do not give into everyone's pet project or issue.

But, you will need to wait until the final game comes out to judge for yourself.

Thanks for the feedback though. It is always helpful.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Did you like how Wotc treated D&D and on these things specifically with 3e and 3.5e?

not always...infact I had quite a few rants about never allowing druids in my game again in the old days...

I felt that Warlock was closer to what sorcerer should have been, I felt Scout was closer to what a rogue should have looked like, and when incarnum and Bo9S I felt that they were getting closer to what fighters should have looked like

Heck a few years ago I made up my own d20 classes...includeing mixing the Incarnum and warlock and wizard into 1 class...it had mana it could spend for big things (like wizard spells) or invest in small things (like Incarnum melds, and still had at will powers like warlock) and I had a class that was based on warblade and ranger mixed... I had another class that was rogue/swordsage/scout mixed togather...

the funny part is I wasn't that far off of what 4e was like, so I guess I am that demagraphic...

 

[mxyzplk]

And that right there is the rub for me and my group. When we switched from 3.0 to 3.5 there was a lot of grumbling and grousing, even though I think most of us accepted the reasons for the switch. But even to this day we still find odd rules changes tucked away in subheading and side paragraphs from that switch. Argle!

The one guy in my group who was interested in Pathfinder (and not 4E) promptly changed his mind when he was reminded of having to switch from 3.0 to 3.5. Why go through that again? If I wasn't going to play 4E, I'd play 3.5 so ... why is Pathfinder needed? (For those saying to support the AP, why make changes? Want your main rulebook in print? OGL PHB anyone?)

Or just play 3.5, which is fine. But my group, and I think we're not unique, has definitely had the rough edges of 3.5e wear on us. Our campaigns were steadily escalating in weird factor in search of new experiences within the ruleset (to Eberron with characters who were orcs, warforged, bugbears etc., to Planescape with characters who were bladelings, genasi, etc...). The improved beef of the splatbooks meant that core classes, spells, and magic items were largely obsolete. "Screw that, I'm a swordsage!"

Pathfinder freshens it up a bit. It fixes some problems. It brings the core to a comparable power level. It keeps a PHB in stock in a way that will actually generate precious revenue for the company doing it.

The trouble with 3.5e is it's hard to develop it further. All the content in all those splatbooks isn't OGL, so you can't use it, and in fact if you get too close I'm sure the WotC lawyers would be happy to go after you. With a pure fork they have a lot less to worry about there, and more freedom.

And I have to agree with the other poster about the cred Paizo has with me. For a long time I've really admired their work; they carried the flag of Greyhawk and produced great content. It sure wasn't WotC-core adventures that kept me with the game (bleah!) or Dragon Fetish Splatbook I-III, it was the stuff in Dragon and Dungeon (and the stuff that people like Green Ronin, Atlas, Mongoose, etc. were doing). They "speak D&D" in a way that for me, the 4e guys don't. Everything they've done has been the highest quality and I've enjoyed their APs and 3.5e rules work immensely. So I have very little concern about committing to the "Paizo D&D train;" they have a proven track record with delivering quality content that the current folks working at WotC do not. (I know, a side note to the "why not 3.5" question).

I think the change is needed - I would still play 3.5e with Paizo at the helm, but I'd be less excited about it than I am with Pathfinder. (I'll also note the open process in which they've conducted the playtest and allowed everyone to read their beta and comment on it/playtest it in depth is evidence that the game can continue to develop in a way the *fans* want...)

 

[Caliber]

It's needed for the same reason that Open Source software requires active development. An orphaned or otherwise abandoned system will not be attractive to people looking to play something that will still be supported in years to come. If you were deciding between two different software systems, would you choose the one that has active support or the one that seems to have no support or future? By putting out Pathfinder, Paizo has signaled that the 3.5 OGL game continues to be actively supported now and into the future. They've essentially taken over and forked the project that WoTC has abandoned.

I understand what you're saying Zil, but I don't think it actually supports the argument you're making. They could have stayed with 3.5 and continued to actively support it as long as they want ... the OGL cannot be revoked. Instead, Pathfinder sets out to set a new course, separate and distinct from 3.5, yet still trying for backwards compatibility. As with others in this thread, I think Pathfinder is being pulled in two directions by the competing nature of these two goals.

Essentially, Pathfinder is too similar to 3.5 to draw me away from 3.5, but too different to be easily used with 3.5. It's like they've shot themselves in the foot ... twice.

(Which, of course, isn't to say you or anyone else shouldn't like Pathfinder. But for me, it's the worst outcome. 4E Paizo APs ... win! 3.5 Paizo APs ... win! Pathfinder Paizo APs ... lose. )

 

[Caliber]

They "speak D&D" in a way that for me, the 4e guys don't. Everything they've done has been the highest quality and I've enjoyed their APs and 3.5e rules work immensely.

Maybe it just comes down to differing regional dialects then? I've never had trouble understanding WotCian. I *thought* I grokked Paizoese but ever since Pathfinder it's just sounded like Greek.

 

[roguerouge]

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.

You just don't know this to be true. You've not seen the final product, nor have you run a session with the final product, nor have you seen a module with the final product. I'm concerned too, but I'm waiting until the adventure path devoted to PRPG comes out to make my final call.

At the very least, Pathfinder will be more compatible than 4e or 2e, making module purchases easier.

 

[lin_fusan]

I understand what you're saying Zil, but I don't think it actually supports the argument you're making. They could have stayed with 3.5 and continued to actively support it as long as they want ... the OGL cannot be revoked.

Didn't the Paizo guys mention that they were concerned that the OGL might be revoked some time in the future? Isn't that one of the reasons they started the Pathfinder project to give themselves their own core rules?

(Of course, now I can't find that press release...)

 

[Zil]

I understand what you're saying Zil, but I don't think it actually supports the argument you're making. They could have stayed with 3.5 and continued to actively support it as long as they want ... the OGL cannot be revoked. Instead, Pathfinder sets out to set a new course, separate and distinct from 3.5, yet still trying for backwards compatibility. As with others in this thread, I think Pathfinder is being pulled in two directions by the competing nature of these two goals.

Sure, Paizo could have simply assumed that people will continue to use their old 3.5 books or that they will use the 3.5 SRD, but without new rule books for the game on shelves in hobby and book stores, it requires a lot more effort for someone new to come into the game. By printing a new fork of the game, they ensure that the game is on the shelves in stores so that new and existing players remain aware of the 3.5 game.

Essentially, Pathfinder is too similar to 3.5 to draw me away from 3.5, but too different to be easily used with 3.5. It's like they've shot themselves in the foot ... twice.

Perhaps, but only if they manage to botch backwards compatibility. I haven't found that to be the case so far.

(Which, of course, isn't to say you or anyone else shouldn't like Pathfinder. But for me, it's the worst outcome. 4E Paizo APs ... win! 3.5 Paizo APs ... win! Pathfinder Paizo APs ... lose. )

I believe that Paizo have stated that they will put out a "3.5 to Pathfinder" (and Pathfinder to 3.5) conversion book sometime around the official final release of Pathfinder so you should still be able to run Pathfinder adventure paths with 3.5 without too much difficulty. Heck, I currently use 3.5 Adventure Paths with Pathfinder and find that the number of things that you need to convert are pretty minimal and most (if not all) can be done on the fly.