Pathfinder 1E New Pathfinder Is Up

[Knightfall]

So far, I really like what I've seen in the Pathfinder alpha releases. And while I expect Pathfinder to be backward-compatible with v.3.5, I don't expect it to be v.3.5 with a new name glossed over it.

Paizo has to make changes to the system; it has to be a NEW game. That is fine with me, as long as it "adds to" the game instead of "subtracts from" the game.

Many of the changes made to 4th Edition subtract from the game I like that is 3rd Edition. Paizo is trying to design Pathfinder in a way to avoid such an alienation, for the Alphas are designed to give Paizo's fans a voice in the creation of a NEW game that we actually want.

Will Pathfinder please everyone? No. Will it please the gamer majority? Unlikely. Will it please Paizo's fans? Likely. Will it please me and my gaming needs. Yes.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Will Pathfinder please everyone? No. Will it please the gamer majority? Unlikely. Will it please Paizo's fans? Likely. Will it please me and my gaming needs. Yes.

Errr... what "majority" are you talking about? Do you mean "D&D fans in general", or "people that don't want to move to 4E" or "people that hang out in d20 forums" or... ?

For example, the changes they've done to the skill system really do seem to be geared towards keeping the "majority" of people happy. The "majority" in this case being "people that want Pathfinder to be 3.5 with a new gloss".

I'm not trying to be argumentative or difficult. I just don't think you're going to be able to have "backwards compatible" and _not_ have it be basically 3.5 with a new gloss. The more things get changed, the less backwards compatibility you've got. It's a slider kinda thing as I see it.

I do agree it's not going to please everyone. The two main groups are those that basically want 3.5 with a new gloss (and "fixes" although what really needs to be "fixed" is going to vary depending on the person) and those that were hoping Pathfinder was going to push into a new direction.

Right now it seems to me like Pathfinder might do a few things different here and there, but they're going to stick as close to 3.5 as they can. *shrug* I don't fault 'em for it. I'm just not seeing much of a point to it currently. I already have to houserule 3.5, Pathfinder is going to have to be houseruled for me too, so I might as well stick with what I've already got. Initially I was into the idea of Pathfinder, but currently it's not looking that much different to me.

Then again, I'm not one of those hardcore d20 system monkeys so it could be I'm completely out of the range of the target audience to begin with.

 

[Knightfall]

Then again, I'm not one of those hardcore d20 system monkeys so it could be I'm completely out of the range of the target audience to begin with.

I guess I mean "those hardcore d20 system monkeys."

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I guess I mean "those hardcore d20 system monkeys."

Well, if that's the "majority" of gamers you're referring to then (I don't think the majority of D&D/d20 gamers actually fall into this category), then I'm sure they'll be pleased with Pathfinder.

Pathfinder is currently developing the rules right out in the open so all these folks can get hold of it and start shredding it. They figure out all the ways they can bust the system, and Paizo decides if that's going to be a problem or not. It's actually kind of nifty in a way. The people that would be most likely to break the system are instead helping to plug the holes.

As to the larger market out there? I've got no idea. Scott Rouse estimated (possibly "over inflated" he said) the number of D&Ders to be 6 million. I'm pretty sure that it's a pretty tiny portion of those folks that show up and frequent boards like this, WotC, and Paizo. Out of that small fraction, Pathfinder is being designed basically around those folks that have the biggest mouth/make the loudest noise.

Is that a bad thing? It doesn't necessarily have to be. I mean, most rpgs out there have a tiny number of playtesters that basically determine the "official" way that a huge number of people are going to play the game. But the games come out and sell and some manage to make it to the big time.

I seem to recall Paizo actually saying explicitly that they weren't looking to make a "new" game. Even their website says this:

As Wizards of the Coast's core 3.5 rulebooks are expected to go out of print with the release of 4th Edition, Paizo will use the Pathfinder RPG as a replacement for the 3.5 core rules. The Pathfinder RPG Beta release will represent Paizo's first published take on an updated 3.5 system

If you're looking for a _new_ game, Pathfinder really isn't going to be it. At least "new" as in "different".

 

[Wicht]

Out of that small fraction, Pathfinder is being designed basically around those folks that have the biggest mouth/make the loudest noise.

I'm not sure this statement is quite true. Someone else pointed out recently that Paizo is asking for play testers not play designers. There are a lot of people asking for some pretty extreme changes on the pathfinder boards but just because they post their request a lot does not mean they are actually going to have their way.

PFRPG is not going to be a new game. It is going to be 3e with some polish. Which is what, I think, most of their customers want.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Jason can go nutz with cool designs all day long, and I am sure I would enjoy almost everything, but it seems outside the design scope of Pathfinder.

At least, as I envision it.

*shrug* As far as I can tell, the "design scope" of Pathfinder is to provide a house system for the world of Glorion and associated adventures. I certainly couldn't see myself using Pathfinder RAW for anything else.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If you're looking for a _new_ game, Pathfinder really isn't going to be it. At least "new" as in "different".

Hey ScurvyP, take it from a d20 system grease monkey:

You can have remarkable changes that are nevertheless backwards compatible.

You are correct that it's a slider, but compatibility is primarily about the math, and furthermore the combat math.

It's also much MUCH easier to make changes to the Player Characters than it is to the vast library defining the 3.5 "game world." The statblock for the kobold doesn't particularly care whether or not my sorcerer has a bloodline. In fact, the kobold can even be an old-school sorcerer himself, and not notice the changes in my PC statblock.

The nuts and bolts don't really care what color the wrench is or what shape handle it's got. All that matters is that they fit together.

Don't let the changes to the PCs get you worried.

 

[AllisterH]

Not sure I really like the Rage point mechanics (how come no WoW outcries?)

I can see where PLAYERS would fall in love with Rage Points (more customization, more options) but my problem as a DM is twofold.

1. This is another fiddly bit I have to track when designing and using monsters in combat. Right now, the barbarian is one of the easiest classes to add to monsters and actually have said monster end up effective. The addition of Rage points is a kick in the pants for DMs.

2. It opens the door to the Psion-Nova problem especially among NPCs. There are a lot of NOVA tactics available to psion due to the fine granularity actual pp grants them. The only thing that keeps this in check is that as a DM, you HAVE to use four encounters or at least be somewhat consistent in having at least 3 major encounters a day. This of course doesn't apply to the NPCs (which is why WOTC even recommended NOT to give psions their actual PP their level would indicate but a smaller amount). Opening up rage points this way potentially leads to the same problem where there's an "effect" which while normally wouldn't be a problem in an extended situation, can allow the barbarian to NOVA.

3. As others pointed out, some of the ideas for rage points leave much to be desired. Then again, I don't have that much of a problem even with things like darkvision gained via rage points.

Then there's the sorceror. The idea behind the bloodline feats are flavourful but most of them kind of suck for a sorceror (d6 HD, poor BAB, no armour) and the special abilities aren't close to what the specialist wizards get. In a lot of ways, when compared, the pathfinder RPG actually increased the divide between the two which is just weird.

SKILLS
I'm somewhat displeased in the change from the Alpha version. It doesn't solve the problem that I had which was that as you went up in levels, characters actually became worse. Still, it did get rid of the x4 multiplier.

All in all, I'm somewhat curious as to what the monsters have been changed with regard to their CRs. The classes have definitely been beefed up (so that they are attractive enough not to prestige out) but the MM monsters were designed on the core classes.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

We have chosen to try out the Pathfinder Alpha for our Savage Tides campaign. It's a bad sad having to say bye-bye for my Warlock, and I tried to use the new Sorceror. The bloodlines are a neat idea, but the abilities granted are pretty useless (claw attacks? For a 1/2 Level BAB class with d6 HD? Are you kidding me), especially if you try to compare the class with the new Wizard. I hope they'll "fix" this before our next session starts.

The Wizard, though, seems pretty neat. I think Pathfinder adds a lot of power to most classes, but after our Age of Worms campaign disaster, I certainly don't mind that anymore.

Oh, and I like the slot affinity approach to reduce the Christmas Tree somewhat. There are still the tons of AC boosters, though. I am not sure if it will really affect the game all that much as long as those are still in place. Might give some power back to the buff spells, though.

Still, I can't see running a Pathfinder game. I'll stay with Iron Heroes and its villain classes until I can run a fully fledged 4E campaign.

 

[Voadam]

I'm not really liking the rage points, it is all very expensive in rage points and leads to resource management based on how many more rounds of combat you expect to be engaged in for the rest of the day.

I like the new bloodlines and some of the paladin options as I've never been a big fan of the horse.