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

[Branduil]

After skimming through the pdf, I have to agree with the OP. From what I see, it's essentially just 3.5 turned up to 11. And it just reconfirms for me that I can never go back to that system.

I'm happy that some people will get support for their system but it's clear that it's not for me.

 

[Branduil]

Art's not terrible, though.

 

[Wicht]

Yes but:

1> Piazo explicitly claimed they were going to change these things.

2> They've made enough changes to ruin backwards comparability anyway.

1) What did Paizo explicitly claim they were going to change? They have identified percieved problems to be addressed and are, IMO, on the right track, but I don't recall specific changes to the rules being promised.

2)In what ways has backwards compatibility been ruined? We have had no problems using the new rules with old products. We are using the rules to finish out Rise of the Runelords. My 11 year old son DMed me and his brother through the first dungeon of Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde using the alpha rules and made the adjustments in his head without difficulty.

 

[Obryn]

For instance, the Order of the Bow Prestige Class was easily adapted to Pathfinder alpha in our home games by increasing HD and adding in feats for the empty levels.

Much like in the other thread, you have a different definition of "backwards compatible" than I do.

-O

 

[Spatula]

And on that note, the beta already fixes many of the problems with 3.5. Not all problems are fixed yet. Nobody expected that they would be but I've ran the alpha and it already makes 3.5 run smoother than before. Increased hit points at first level, channeling positive energy, and increased power level at 1st have addressed the 15 minute day.

"15 minute days" usually refers to players blowing their strongest stuff on the first encounter and then wanting to rest afterwards. While I suppose that can happen at 1st level (where characters are somewhat fragile), buffing 1st level doesn't get rid of the issue.

(and it's an unneeded change anyway. If you want more survivable characters, start at a higher level. When I saw that stuff in the alpha I wondered who they expected a 4e-ified version of 3e to appeal to)

The real problem for Pathfinder, from a marketing perspective, is the question of who its trying to appeal to.

The people who tend to go for "official D&D" already go for 4e, and 4e has already presented a coherent ruleset for those who want lots of changes.

People who didn't like 4e because they didn't really want change aren't going to be that enthusiastic about a new game. Winning them over will be tough when 3e is still so fresh. Plus, a lot of them weren't the types who buy lots of new material anyways.

I wouldn't say 3e is "fresh" but I've thought the same. If you liked 3e enough that you're not going to switch... why would you switch to Pathfinder? Maybe it's closer to 3e (debatable, considering the breadth of the changes), but switching will still require work and you presumably already have a game going that runs fine. And it doesn't seem like the difficult issues with 3e (like high-level play being rather tedious) are being dealt with, so why bother?

 

[Aus_Snow]

If you liked 3e enough that you're not going to switch... why would you switch to Pathfinder?

Because Pathfinder is (meant to be) an improvement upon 3e, not a *totally different* game. Many people like 3e, but are not completely happy with all aspects of it. Pathfinder *might* be just the thing for them, or some of them. That is the idea, anyhow. 4e, or any other RPG, OTOH, is for those who want something utterly different.

Maybe it's closer to 3e (debatable, considering the breadth of the changes), but switching will still require work and you presumably already have a game going that runs fine.

The fact that it's closer to 3e is not at all debatable. It's just that: a fact. A lot more could be changed (and at least a bit more probably will be) and it will still be a hell of a lot closer. Compatible, in fact (which does not mean identical, just for the record.)

And it doesn't seem like the difficult issues with 3e (like high-level play being rather tedious) are being dealt with, so why bother?

Well, that's the beauty of an open playtest. Those invested, or even interested at all, will influence the directions the progress goes in. If enough people have a problem with some aspect or other, and let the team know, it's highly likely something will be done. There aren't many examples of this kind of development I can think of offhand, in the RPG market.

 

[Obryn]

If you liked 3e enough that you're not going to switch... why would you switch to Pathfinder? Maybe it's closer to 3e (debatable, considering the breadth of the changes), but switching will still require work and you presumably already have a game going that runs fine. And it doesn't seem like the difficult issues with 3e (like high-level play being rather tedious) are being dealt with, so why bother?

This is where I'm coming from.

I love 4e, and it's working great for my group, but I acknowledge that it may eventually fall flat. The bloom may fall off the rose. I also may end up getting burned out on 4e, and in turn get un-burned-out on 3e. It was my system of choice for 8 years, after all - I loved it, despite the fact that parts of it annoyed me.

Pathfinder just confuses me. The stuff that really concerned me (as a DM) about 3.5 isn't being addressed. This includes magic item trees, extensive NPC design, gruesome spell look-up times, common adjustments to ability scores, and difficult modification of monsters. Stuff that I thought worked okay, or never really thought about, is being changed unnecessarily. (Races, classes, Cleave, etc.)

I found it cumbersome to use 3.0 material when I switched to 3.5, and it looks to me like conversion will be just as burdensome or moreso were I to use Pathfinder. (Doable, absolutely. But that's a little more DM prep time I'd rather spend doing other stuff, like adventure design.)

-O

 

[Wicht]

Much like in the other thread, you have a different definition of "backwards compatible" than I do.

-O

Fair enough. My definition (and I suspects Paizo's) is that I can use my old stuff with little effort or conversion. Any changes to the core will of course mean that there changes necessary for accessories but so long as I can do the changes off the top of my head its compatible.

What's your definition?

 

[Remathilis]

I wouldn't say 3e is "fresh" but I've thought the same. If you liked 3e enough that you're not going to switch... why would you switch to Pathfinder? Maybe it's closer to 3e (debatable, considering the breadth of the changes), but switching will still require work and you presumably already have a game going that runs fine. And it doesn't seem like the difficult issues with 3e (like high-level play being rather tedious) are being dealt with, so why bother?

I think its supposed to say "Hey, you like X idea, but don't want to give up spell slots or gnomes? Try us!"

 

[Wicht]

"15 minute days" usually refers to players blowing their strongest stuff on the first encounter and then wanting to rest afterwards. While I suppose that can happen at 1st level (where characters are somewhat fragile), buffing 1st level doesn't get rid of the issue.

I have to agree that this isn't a rule's problem. It's a DMing problem and any rules that fixed it would be unpalatible to some like me.

The Pathfinder 'fixes' work for me. The PCs are able to survive for extended periods of time in the dungeons with few or no breaks. If they want to stop after every room because they used up their best spells already, there will be in game consequences.