Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder BETA - Some Sizzle, Not Much Steak

[Plane Sailing]

Sorry, but begging an internet troll to keep something in mind, you might as beg a real troll to not eat you. If someone is going to point out that the 3.5 PHB isn't going to be 100% compatable with PFRPG when the PFRPG book is meant to be a replacement for the PHB and DMG, then they're not going to let a little thing like facts stand in the way of making their argument.

Best to simply not feed the troll.

If you think someone is trolling, report it.

Don't throw around accusations of trolling against someone whose opinions you may disagree with or dislike. It's rude and it tends to get you banned from threads.

Such as this one.

 

[Dareoon Dalandrove]

I think that Enworld's mission statement for Pathfinder. Outline the changes that are plaguing 3.5 in one thread. PF isn't going to be all things to all people no game ever will. But the biggest things and can be changed.

Things I would like to see are:

Easier to prep for running games. I can't spend hours and hours of prep time for a game. I busy and i can't put all that prep time in. maybe more expirenced Dms are able to handle this better but i can't seem to ever manage. I think that 4E did a great job on the monster manual and would like to see PF think in the same direction. Wizards was fiddling with the concept of monsters of the same race for filling many roles. Just look at the latter Monster Manuals. 4E took this one step forward and simplified things.
High level play again needs to be easier to run. More than a few people complain that they get to 7-10 lvl and they're done. the game fizzels. it's hard to keep up with the prep time needed. Players have their one character to keep track of. the Dm has the whole campaign to keep track of.

I'd like to take the christmas tree taken down also. PC walk around aglow with magic items. Yea we all like them but it's hell to redo your character in the middle of combat after they all get turned off.

To many bonus types. simplify.



The barbarian has been getting some slack in the thread lately but it seems that people are forgetting somethings about the rage points aspect. You don't have to use any of those extra powers! You can still do your standard rage and that's it if you want. Those extra powers are there if you'd like to use them.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

On the other hand, stating that the Pathfinder Beta is a failure of compatibility because its classes are more powerful than the original PHB classes is an objectively specious argument.

PF is the PHB -- it's a replacement, not an add-on. You should not be using the PHB classes and the PF classes together, because they're the same classes -- the PF ones are the tweaked versions. That's the entire point of Pathfinder.

It's like putting a more powerful engine into your car, and then saying, "I don't like this car because it's more powerful than my car!"

 

[Wyrmshadows]

PF is the PHB -- it's a replacement, not an add-on. You should not be using the PHB classes and the PF classes together, because they're the same classes -- the PF ones are the tweaked versions. That's the entire point of Pathfinder.

It's like putting a more powerful engine into your car, and then saying, "I don't like this car because it's more powerful than my car!"

This.

 

[JeffB]

I spent a good amount of time today going through the Pathfinder Beta download as I've been considering picking the print version up-mostly to throw some support to Paizo, and secondly- a small hope that it would bridge a gap betwen 4th and 3rd edition- retain more of the D&D flavor of 3.x and previous versions, while streamlining the game ala 4th (a unrealistic expectation, now that I know the nitty gritty of the design goals-I had not paid much attention to the development so far)

From what I can tell, PF is not a "bridge", but rather 3.X on steroids. It doesn't address the issues I have at all in short.

In a way it reminds me of Rolemaster Standard System (=PF) as compared to RM2/MERP i.e. much more crunchy and detailed for the hardcore gamer and def not the kind of game for me (I'm that core RM2/MERP type of guy). I'll have to check out some of the generic products they make or pick up some Planet Stories books instead.

 

[CBonnet]

Objectively, isn't this how Pathfinder should be looked at? Shouldn't the question be what about Pathfinder makes it necessary to abandon 3.5E?

I think there's another aspect to keep in mind. Months ago, initial information was released by Wizards about licensing agreements to publish 4.0. Third party publishers were not allowed to continue publishing 3.5 content when they begin publishing 4.0. Also, I'm not sure how long Wizards would continue to license 3.5 D&D products. I'm not sure if Wizard licensing stance has changed in recent months, it's possible.

So, it seems to me that Wizards has abandoned 3.5 D&D, which means the rest of the community (Paizo, you, me, other third-party publishers) have interesting and difficult decisions to make. Sure, individually we can continue playing version 3.5, our books will not disintegrate overnight. Still, publishers will need to produce and sell new product. New players will need to obtain the base rules system. Also, current and future OGL content will need some sort of rules system to be available.

The Paizo boards had several postings related to the business decisions regarding Pathfinder. As I recall, another benefit is that Paizo could publish "4th D&D" licensed product at the same time as they release "Pathfinder RPG" content, since they're not reliant on Wizards to license "Pathfinder". I think other third-party publishers have also expressed some plans to publish "Pathfinder" related materials, since they could publish those alongside "4th D&D".

My input to the Pathfinder discussion: I like the new character options, and I thought a lot of the rules were worded more carefully...I hope it will be harder to find examples where the rules are unclear or contradictory. I do hope that they continue to make changes. I would prefer to see more changes toward a 3.75, rather than keeping it very close to 3.5 and ending up with a 3.55. I do hope that Paizo will collect other opinions and rules options to develop some sort of "Unearthed Arcana" style collection of variant rules.

One last comment, though I know this is already a long post, about the DM prep time for adventures. Probably my best comment about the Paizo "Rise of the Runelords" product is that it requires very minimal DM prep time. Several times we've started a session and I've only spent 30 minutes reading over the next few encounters. I don't believe this is because I'm some sort of master-DM, rather that the material gives a good understanding of the storyline and the enemy's motivations and goals.

Regards,
Charles

 

[Kunimatyu]

I read through the Beta. It seems like all of the low-hanging fruit was changed, with no real attempt to address the major issues with 3.5:
-fighter vs. mage at high levels
-difficulty of statting and playing at high-levels

(I do think the Combat Maneuver Bonus helped, for what it's worth)

Instead, it seems mostly like a giant chunk of house rules slapped on top of 3.5. In fact, it reminds me a lot of Iron Heroes at this point.

I'm not 100% sold on 4e yet, but Pathfinder in its current state is not going to convince me to go back to 3.5. Modified Saga Edition is as far back as I'd go now.