Pathfinder 1E Opinions on Pathfinder

[Mark Chance]

I think that maybe this thread needs to be shot and put of its wildly off-topic misery.

Either that, or folks could actually discuss PF, especially if it can be done without blathering about why 4E is or is not a better system, or whether or not WotC is evil. For example:

I like most of what PF did with the classes. The PF paladin is an improvement over 3.5's. I like the sorcerer bloodlines and the more flavorful/crunchy wizard specialists. Some of it is a bit clunky, however. The bard's versatile performance class feature is a mess. It should either be scrapped or retooled. Great idea; not so great execution.

On the DM's side of the screen, the combat maneuver system is a big plus. The implementation of encounter XP budgeting is a nice addition as well. Best of all, I think, are the clear, flexible guidelines for monster CRs and the simple templates, which make it possible to convert just about anything on-the-fly by noting a handful of modifiers.

Good stuff there.​

See? Not hard at all.

 

[Voadam]

If I recall correctly Paizo was in a holding pattern for a while waiting to see if they would support 4E. It was WOTC who didn't supply them with a GSL before hand and Paizo couldn't afford to wait until WOTC was ready to give them data that they would need to decide the course of their business.

So instead of hitching themselves to a wagon that was only concerned with the release of their new edition Paizo went it's own way with Pathfinder. Also, again, if I'm remembering correctly, the GSL didnt come out until just before or maybe a just after the actual release of 4th Edition.

So yes, the mechanics of 4E was a factor of Paizo not going 4E, but it wasnt THE factor. There were a bunch of things that contributed to it. WOTC not getting the GSL done in time being one of them.

I believe it went:
1) WotC pulled the magazine licenses and Paizo had to scramble to reinvent themselves.

2) Paizo started their Pathfinder module APs

3) WotC anounces 4e is coming.

4) Paizo doesn't want to have their business shackled to a revocable license again.

5) no license or pre release 4e rules for 3rd parties like Paizo.

6) Paizo finds making 3e OGL stuff working for them.

7) Paizo concerned about core rules for their modules going out of print.

8) Paizo decides to make their own 3e compatible Pathfinder OGL core rules to have it in print.

9) Paizo starts open playtesting Pathfinder.

10) 2008 4e comes with no GSL, only 3rd parties not using GSL come out with limited 4e stuff (Goodman, Adamant, Kenzer)

11) March 2009(?) revocable and changeable at will GSL comes with OGL poison pill provisions for product lines

12) Gencon 2009 Pathfinder released.

13) Later in 2009 GSL revised to remove poison pill provisions.

I think it was an early decision based on a combination of not wanting to be under a revocable license after getting the magazines yanked combined with expertise and ongoing success with making and selling 3e stuff as well as the inability to count on doing 4e stuff.

 

[Turtlejay]

I have been looking at trying to make a gish with the PF rules. Probably a Transmuter/Barbarian. . .

I'm kind of impressed by the little bits that a wizard would get at 1st level that would make this a little easer than in 3.5. The ability to choose a bonded item, like a weapon, rather than a familiar, or the school focus power things that wizards get. Still a little fuzzy on how non SRD feats like Practiced Spellcaster work (if that's what it's called), but overall, it looks like fun.

Of course, this is a wasted effort, since it looks like the game I was looking at joining has waffled back to 4e (which is fine, I like both editions!), but the excercise was fun. I'd enjoy a one-shot or story arc with the PF rules.

I was recently in a 4e conversion of the Curse of the Crimson Throne. I didn't get to finish it, but my impression from the first couple books wasn't too positive. I wonder what other people think about this AP compared to some of the other Pathfinder APs?

Jay

 

[Imaro]

I believe it went:
1) WotC pulled the magazine licenses and Paizo had to scramble to reinvent themselves.

2) Paizo started their Pathfinder module APs

3) WotC anounces 4e is coming.

4) Paizo doesn't want to have their business shackled to a revocable license again.

5) no license or pre release 4e rules for 3rd parties like Paizo.

6) Paizo finds making 3e OGL stuff working for them.

7) Paizo concerned about core rules for their modules going out of print.

8) Paizo decides to make their own 3e compatible Pathfinder OGL core rules to have it in print.

9) Paizo starts open playtesting Pathfinder.

10) 2008 4e comes with no GSL, only 3rd parties not using GSL come out with limited 4e stuff (Goodman, Adamant, Kenzer)

11) March 2009(?) revocable and changeable at will GSL comes with OGL poison pill provisions for product lines

12) Gencon 2009 Pathfinder released.

13) Later in 2009 GSL revised to remove poison pill provisions.

I think it was an early decision based on a combination of not wanting to be under a revocable license after getting the magazines yanked combined with expertise and ongoing success with making and selling 3e stuff as well as the inability to count on doing 4e stuff.

Uhm... I really don't think this is correct. There is no way Paizo did "Pathfinder" AP's before 4e was announced.

 

[Shazman]

Paizo's post Dungeon and Dragon AP's were called Pathfinder. It was the name of the product line before the RPG came along, so they were still Pathfinder AP's, just using 3.5 rules since the Pathfinder RPG wasn't out yet.

 

[Imaro]

Paizo's post Dungeon and Dragon AP's were called Pathfinder. It was the name of the product line before the RPG came along, so they were still Pathfinder AP's, just using 3.5 rules since the Pathfinder RPG wasn't out yet.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. That being said, I still am quite certain the post is a bit "off" in its presentation of Pathfinder's (the game) history.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

timeline

Well, that post certainly matches my recollection of the timeline!

Ken

 

[billd91]

I have been looking at trying to make a gish with the PF rules. Probably a Transmuter/Barbarian. . .

I think the githyanki are not OGL. So for a gish you'll have to rely on non-converted stuff for the base race...

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. That being said, I still am quite certain the post is a bit "off" in its presentation of Pathfinder's (the game) history.

Yeah I think 2 & 3 on that time line can be swapped or happened REALLY close together. Then again my memory is hazy enough so I might be dead wrong. Either way it's not THAT big of a deal.

Also yeah the date on BURNT OFFERINGS (the 1st Pathfinder AP adventure) is 2007.

EDIT: Checked Paizo's news page Vodam is pretty much correct in his time line as far 2&3 goes.

They announced the cancellation of Dungeon and Dragon on the same day (4/19/07) they that they announced the coming of the AP's.

Also I'm now curious about the complaints that Paizo didnt satisfy VB after the magazines ended. What option did he want?

Because they OFFERED

1) to start a subscription to Pathfinder AP's
2) Use the remaining credit for Dungeon or Dragon back issues
3) Paizo.com Store credit
4) A refund for the remaining credit

So unless I'm being short sighted is there any other option for customers that could have been offered here within reason?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

On-topic: For those who have played Pathfinder, what measures has the Pathfinder team taken towards reducing the phenomenon where high-level combats can often result in a battle of "who wins Initiative?" I don't mean this as a loaded question at all, I'd really like to know. Disclaimer for some: I know this phenomenon might not occur at your table, no need to tell me it doesn't.

OFF-TOPIC:
[SBLOCK]

What would have satisfied you, out of curosity? If it was keep the magaizne, you have to take it up with Wotc who owns the license, owns the magazine. Pazio does not.

It was not "keep the magazine." I understood the reasons behind the move. What would have satisfied me at the time was a deal on Paizo product I was interested in equivalent to the deal they offered on Pathfinder (that would be the original new AP, not the RPG). They made a decision to offer more to fans of their adventure paths while fans of stand-alone modules were left with lesser store credit. I wasn't satisfied with their decision. Do I hate them for it? Obviously not, since I would buy product from them again if they sold for a system I use (or if I decided I really liked something they offerred enough to buy and convert it).

The fact you blame them just shows, as someone just said, how big of an axe your grinding.

Blame denotes that I think they are at fault for something. I don't blame them for any faults. I don't agree with some of their business decisions regarding money I had already paid them, that's it.

So....who's to blame for the cancellation? Whose the bad guy?

IMO, nobody is the bad guy. What people forget on both sides of this is that WotC and Paizo are made up of real people. So when you demonize either company, you are attacking real people making difficult decisions in their day-to-day work. I think people around here should be handed vacations just as easily for attacking a company as when they make personal attacks against another poster.

Cancled. If I dont have a print magazine in my hands, its not a magazine. What you have now is a E-zine. Not the same thing.

In this day and age it is. I'm sorry a form of media you enjoy is dying, but it is. Hope you're not holding your breath on the turnaround of the newspaper indusrty too.

Unless Lisa or Erik say, its really specualation. But I might agree with that, considering how they eventually reacted to the OGL/GSL debacle.

I never said it wasn't speculation. In fact, I think I referred to my own comments as "tin-foil hat territory."

Also I'm now curious about the complaints that Paizo didnt satisfy VB after the magazines ended. What option did he want?

Because they OFFERED

1) to start a subscription to Pathfinder AP's
2) Use the remaining credit for Dungeon or Dragon back issues
3) Paizo.com Store credit
4) A refund for the remaining credit

So unless I'm being short sighted is there any other option for customers that could have been offered here within reason?

I would have liked to see a deal equivalent to option #1, but instead of Pathfinder modules I would have liked Gamemastery modules. Sure, I could have used my credit from option #3 to buy these, but they offered those willing to choose Pathfinder more value for their dollar than the credit was worth.

[/SBLOCK]