Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Alpha "crunch" discussion

[Mark Hope]

I made a thread over on Paizo's site about not changing any rules at all.

I won't repeat the entire post here, but the gist of it is this: there's a lot of changes that could be made to 3.5, but ultimately, Pathfinder is meant to stay the course for the 3.5 crowd, so it shouldn't alter any rules. 3.5 isn't perfect, but it's what we know, what we enjoy, and what we want to stay with. Those who want to house rule various things already have; and while I'm sure they think that the entire system would benefit from those changes, other groups quite likely don't have any problem with a particular rule, so there's no need to act like a change is crying out to be made.

3.5 is the game we want to keep playing, and see continued support for, so we don't need a 3.75 for Pathfinder.

I pretty much agreed with your post just now over on Paizo (where I post as Kamelion), so I'll add the gist of the same here.

There are a couple of areas that could use a tweak but in the main, I say leave the 3.5 rules as they are. Any changes that are made should not impact the underlying system or the way the game plays. Changing the way skill totals are calculated is fine - it removes fiddly and produces the same results as the current system. Simplifying grapple likewise gets the same results with a simpler approach. I quite like some of the work done with the classes. But more extensive changes might end up being counterproductive (I'm not yet sold on the new domains system, for example.)

For the Pathfinder RPG to achieve its stated goals of continuing the 3.5 legacy and being backwards-compatible, we need restraint and measured analysis. Don't mess with a winning formula .

 

[AllisterH]

I have wondered how Paizo intends to "fix 3.5" yet stay compatible with it? Anyway, first impressions.

RACES
In 3.5, ths only problem I have is that half-elves and half-orcs are really not worth it. So I figured this was the only thing Paizo would change. However, there's also the fundamental problem I have, namely that CON is king in 3.x, also rears its nasty head again.

The paizo changes to BOOST the other races leaves me scratching my head (unless this is an attempt to get rid of +1 LA races). Half-orcs don't get a big enough boost IMO. The ability to fight at less than 0 sounds cool at first but as you increase in level, the more and more likely it is that an attack will simply blast through the -10 cap meaning this "beanie" actually disappears as you level.

By changing the rules of multiclassing AND the new skill rules, this actually lowered the value of humans and half-elves as well. An dwarven Fighter mage no longer has to worry about equal class levels due to XP reduction (he only loses a couple of HP) thus, the perk of being human/half-elf got seriously nerfed. Throw in the multiclassing rules AND the consolidation of skills PLUS the SWSE skill system and the skill benefit of humans and half-elves also is no longer as big.

Flavour rant: WHY oh WHY did gnomes get the FEY angle? This applies to WOTC as well since pre 3E, gnomes were the COUSIN race to DWARVES. Every bit of Gnomish flavour pre-3E talked about how the gnomes were either created by the dwarven deities or how their communities were usually found next to dwarves.

The "niche" that gnomes had pre-3E was "spellcasting dwarf". Where the hell did this FEY angle from?

Dwarves are still disgustingly powerful (bordering on the LA +1 level) and I think they actually got more beanies now thanks to the elimination of the XP penalty. CON in 3.x is such a huge benefit that even though they take a hit on CHA, they pretty much are still the best race (the wis boost actually means they only "suck" at being sorcerors instead of currently where they are poor paladins). Throw in Weapon Familiarity and Dwarves make out like bandits in this system.

Still, this is an ALPHA document and playing around with the benefits is the easiest to fix (although by changing the XP rule, you definitely have to give more bang for the buck for half-elves/humans.)

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I had a quick look at the alpha PDF last night and also like what I see.

Start with things I don't: the skills thing. It's OK, solves some of the problems faced by, say, fighters, but I like the granularity of skill points buying ranks. My friends and I have been using the system Ridcully mentions: more skill points, remove the cross class costs but keep the max ranks. Works for us. And it's not like it's hard to keep it.

Needing to build up to feats strikes me as unecessary, certainly for something like Dodge/Mobility. But easily ignorable.

Stuff I do like: most of the rest. I like more feats. I like nice, clearly written descriptions of the feats and the fact that they have obviously been thought out. This can be said about the couple of spells I read too. WotC could learn something there.

The races are nice. Humies, Half-Orcs and Half Elves are more in line with the others. To who ever it was said they don't get why Halfings get Int bonus and Gnomes don't: hey. it's just one take on the races. Change it if you want to.

Did laugh a bit at the incongruity of the written description of Elves as "frail" and a picture of an Elf who looked like an Olympic athlete.

A great fix for the grapple rules. Elegant, works and perfectly compatible.

One thing I missed but would like to see: Armour as DR and defensive bonuses for characters as they go. Mmmmm, that's 2 things.

All up I think it's really good. As the intro blurb says, the changes are mostly in sub-systems that can be changed out for other variations that players may prefer.

 

[trancejeremy]

Ugh. The trouble with discussing it on the Paizo message boards is that their message boards are awful. Besides the rather ugly design (IMHO), they are painfully slow and prone to lose posts.

Anyway, I agree with Alzrius - at least personally, I'd like to see Pathfinder as close to 3.5 as possible. The biggest selling point for me is compatability with 3.x, not fixing its problems (which people seem to disagree on)

 

[Mark Hope]

The biggest selling point for me is compatability with 3.x, not fixing its problems (which people seem to disagree on)

QFT with added emphasis!

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I don't see why it can't do both. Sure "fixing" means "changing" but the changes seem pretty easy to mix in. Now if it required massively re-writing every NPC and monster then I'd have a problem. But as it is it the only thing to worry about is adding or subtracting (depending on which direction your converting) feats to PC and NPC write ups. Some work yes, but not unbearbale.

 

[Alzrius]

I don't see why it can't do both. Sure "fixing" means "changing" but the changes seem pretty easy to mix in. Now if it required massively re-writing every NPC and monster then I'd have a problem. But as it is it the only thing to worry about is adding or subtracting (depending on which direction your converting) feats to PC and NPC write ups. Some work yes, but not unbearbale.

While I'd like Pathfinder to not change the 3.5E rules at all, I agree that they'll probably still be some changes. That said, what's in the Alpha playtest document is more than just fixing some broken things - there's more here than just adding or subtracting feats.

Racial abilities are different, class abilities are different, there's various XP progressions to choose from. Several feats have altered effects, and skills (both how you gain them, and the skills available) are quite different from mainstream 3.5E. Domains are different, etc.

As it stands now, Pathfinder is a different animal, though a related one. It's not the mainstream 3.5E that it's marketing towards, however, and I think that takes it off the course the Paizo people say they want it to go. Simplifying the grapple rules or giving 1st-level characters a few more hit points is one thing. This is something else altogether.

 

[Korgoth]

I made a thread over on Paizo's site about not changing any rules at all.

I won't repeat the entire post here, but the gist of it is this: there's a lot of changes that could be made to 3.5, but ultimately, Pathfinder is meant to stay the course for the 3.5 crowd, so it shouldn't alter any rules. 3.5 isn't perfect, but it's what we know, what we enjoy, and what we want to stay with. Those who want to house rule various things already have; and while I'm sure they think that the entire system would benefit from those changes, other groups quite likely don't have any problem with a particular rule, so there's no need to act like a change is crying out to be made.

3.5 is the game we want to keep playing, and see continued support for, so we don't need a 3.75 for Pathfinder.

Speaking as someone who doesn't even like 3.5 (though at least it actually vaguely counts as D&D, unlike Warlords & Warlocks), I think you are 100% on the money. If Paizo's ballsy move is to pay off, they'll have to convince 3.5 players that it makes more sense to continue playing the game they (presumably) already like, rather than switching to W&W. That means that these 3.5ers get to keep buying and playing Pathfinder with their 3.5 books... the PFRPG should serve only to clean up a few of the notorious problems of 3.5 and leave the rest be. They can always release a "Pathfinder's DM Companion" later if there are some house options they absolutely have to showcase; this could also be Web Enhancements for PF subscribers rather than a separate book.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I think the biggest changes are the purely mechanical ones, eg grappling, more feats and skill system. Any of which can be ignored if you want to keep using Pathfinder adventures for your standard 3.5 campaign.

Changes to classes and races: erm so what? Really, there's so many classes and races out there what's a couple more? If they called the Elves "Pathfinder Elves" and the Gnomes "Burrow Gnomes" and said they were new sub races then would there be an issue? I think not. Rather people would be saying "They're expanding the 3.5-verse by adding new races and classes! WHOOT!" (Or what ever the hell it is the kids are using for exclamations this week.)

And you don't even have to change the NPCs from published adventures if you don't have the time/inclination. What's a couple of different powers for an NPC really? They're just stat blocks. Personally I'm glad there's going to continue to be stuff that's compatible with 3.X. If I need to make small adjustments to a module, well there's nothing new in that.

 

[Alzrius]

Speaking as someone who doesn't even like 3.5 (though at least it actually vaguely counts as D&D, unlike Warlords & Warlocks), I think you are 100% on the money.

Thanks Korgoth. If you don't mind, please post that sentiment on the thread I linked to earlier (this goes for pretty much everyone else posting in regards to that subject also), since Paizo is more likely to see assenting/dissenting opinions over there than they are here.