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

[Obryn]

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?

One where I can use the simplest prestige class (and the OOtBI is right up there) by simply dropping it into the game. You can say "we changed their hit dice and added feats," and it might sound small, but it's a lot of difference.

-O

 

[mcrow]

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

-O

Yeah, he has the wrong definition of backwards compatible.

For something to be backwards compatible whether it's a PC,software, cardgame or RPG it must be useable with the older version without modification.

For instance, 4E is not backwards compatible with 3.5E supplements. Sure, you could tweak things and use the 3.5 supplements but that does not make it backward compatible.

Pathfinder appears to be "compatible" with 3.5 but not backwards compatible, in other words you can use it with some modifications.

It's backward compatible if you can use it as is with the previous edition.

 

[Wicht]

One where I can use the simplest prestige class (and the OOtBI is right up there) by simply dropping it into the game. You can say "we changed their hit dice and added feats," and it might sound small, but it's a lot of difference.

-O

To be fair, you could use Order of the Bow with the Pathfinder rules without modifications.

But, since the HD of other classes were adjusted based on BAB it seemed fair to do so. Likewise with the empty levels in relationship to the fighter.

 

[Treebore]

That's disappointing...

It's how I kinda felt Pathfinder was shaping up, after looking at the Alpha rules. I was assured it would all be fixed by the release. It seems like it had a lot of ramping-up of power levels, and didn't seem all too backwards-compatible...

Of course, part of the problem is that the design goals are contradictory.

(1) Keep backwards compatibility so everyone can keep using their 3.5 stuff.
(2) Fix the deep problems in the system especially in regards to high-level play and multiclassing.

Paizo rocks, though, so I was hopeful, at least.

A few subsystems have been fixed (skills, grapple), a few have been tweaked unnecessarily (barbarian rage), but no deep mechanical revision can evidently happen if they also want to keep backwards compatibility.

I want Pathfinder to succeed, just in case my 4e campaign goes south, so this is disheartening.

-O

The "Ramping up of power levels" is not bad. It looks to me like they did what they did to make staying the core class as viable as picking up PrC's or multi classing. So I don't look at it as "ramping up", but as making the Core Class so viable that taking PrC's or multi classing actually has costs, instead of power increases with no real loss/sacrifice. So I think what they did was needed, since WOTC screwed it up by making PrC's superior to the Core class.


Backwards compatibility. Is it? Not 100%, probably not even 80%. But it is EASY to have it be compatible with 3E. So for ease of mix and match, its as compatible as any 3E splat book.

So if you buy Pathfinder, you have to make a decision. Do I want Pathfinder as my core, or do I want the PH as my core? Choosing Pathfinder as your core will make "compatibility" much easier. Choosing the PH means your going to have to write up house rules spelling out what you do use from PF.

I don't know about you, but I did that for every single splat book put out by WOTC, and I bought almost every last one of them.

I agree high level play needs fixing. However to do that in a meaningful way would compromise "backwards compatibility" too much. To really make High level play work 3E needs rebuilt from the ground up in fundamental areas like DR, resistances, immunities, and saving throws.

So I am hoping Paizo will do their own "High Level Play" book showing what needs to be changed, and how, in order to make high level play much more viable for 3E.

They simply cannot do it in PF and maintain a decent level of compatibility with 3E Core.


Over all, I like what they are doing. I like the Barbarian Rage points and Monk Ki points. I like how much better written their skills are. I like their changes to feats, even Cleave.

Bottom line is Pathfinder Beta has me considering running 3E again, Pathfinder style. I never saw myself considering that again in this life time. When I finally feel I grasp their changes to "Combat" I'll know.

 

[ruemere]

[...]

Just to illustrate my point, take something as small as the Cleave feat. Did it really need to be changed. If you were to go about revising the 3ed ruleset, would you even think twice about feats like Cleave, or Great Cleave, or Combat Expertise? I think Mr. Bulmahn should have had a plaque made and hung it above his desk that said "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

[...]

I take it you haven't seen Greater Cleave used with Whirlwind attack or multiple iterative attacks (and Haste) against bossy guys and minions (not 4E minions, just regular lower HD support monsters). Bag-o'rats trick also comes to mind.

The way they isolated the problem is beautiful, yet, at the same time, they have allowed room for the Cleave to be actually useful (at higher levels further attacks often become misses - Cleave is the non magical way to get additional attack or attacks at high attack bonus).

This is, IMHO, problem with your post. No playtesting, no actual thought, and no suggestions for resolving the issues, just some negativity.

It's a work in progress, so put some effort behind your opinions.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. Also, you're quite wrong about alpha vs beta features. This is not software development field, this is the way source materials for Joe Gamer are distributed - attractively packaged, free and with a hearty encouragement to return feedback on the system.

Given recent move by WotC (rumours about relaxing GSL abound, yet no hard facts available), this is an excellent action by Paizo - they give you the content to work with, to keep you occupied.

So, since you have such amount of energy and enthusiasm. Go, play with the rules and then offer your ideas to improve this. I have given you several reasons on why Cleave needed fixing - you may disagree with them, but please note that for me, and from my perspective, this is the move in the right direction.

Good luck.

 

[Branduil]

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?

This was my main thought as I looked through the pdf... I had been under the impression that it was going to be more of a 3.75, but to me it looked more like 3.55. Right now it seems to be just in the middle of that lukewarm spot where it changes just enough things that people already satisfied with 3.5 won't want to go through the work of converting. Other than the Paizo fanbase, I'm a bit confused as to what their target customer base is.

 

[Caliber]

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

Holy crap! It's like a little one eyed ninja has stolen into my brain, copied down my thoughts and feelings, and then posted them as his own! Give those back brain thief!

(Hehe, just kidding, feel free to post my thoughts, saves me the time to type them myself! )

 

[Obryn]

The "Ramping up of power levels" is not bad. It looks to me like they did what they did to make staying the core class as viable as picking up PrC's or multi classing. So I don't look at it as "ramping up", but as making the Core Class so viable that taking PrC's or multi classing actually has costs, instead of power increases with no real loss/sacrifice. So I think what they did was needed, since WOTC screwed it up by making PrC's superior to the Core class.

You see, this is one of the points where I get confused and I kind of see Pathfinder in conflict with itself.

(1) We want to increase the power level of core classes, so they match the later-released WotC Core Classes, and match or exceed the power levels of Prestige classes.

(2) OTOH, we're going to change things around enough that a lot of those other classes will require some adjustment to work.

From what I've picked up - correct me if I'm wrong - this same tension is kind of running in the Pathfinder community, in regards to the Alpha/Beta rules. On the one hand, you have the folks who want to maximize compatibility and minimize any changes that would break it. On the other hand, you have folks who want to make the game play better through all levels and solve some deep-rooted issues with 3e, while still keeping its basic framework.

As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, I was hoping Pathfinder would find a way to thread this needle. I don't see it so far, and I'm beginning to think it's not possible. Instead, what I'm seeing is a middle-ground that changes some things that needed changing, leaves other problems just as prevalent, and which also introduces brand new rules or rule changes which may be cool, but which have questionable purpose.

I don't know about you, but I did that for every single splat book put out by WOTC, and I bought almost every last one of them.

Naah, apart from Errata, I just used them as-is. They worked out okay, and most importantly I could easily use Heroforge to stat up PCs and NPCs.

I agree high level play needs fixing. However to do that in a meaningful way would compromise "backwards compatibility" too much. To really make High level play work 3E needs rebuilt from the ground up in fundamental areas like DR, resistances, immunities, and saving throws.

So I am hoping Paizo will do their own "High Level Play" book showing what needs to be changed, and how, in order to make high level play much more viable for 3E.

They simply cannot do it in PF and maintain a decent level of compatibility with 3E Core.

Yep. And that's where I think I got lost somewhere along the way.

I think the design goals are in tension with one another - fixing problems, but keeping compatibility. IMHO, the most important problems are the toughest to fix, and do require that they break the 3e rules.

So I guess I'm not the target audience. Which is fine - I nevertheless wish Paizo and PF fans the best.

-O

 

[Caliber]

So you went back to 3.0 then, right?

Cleave is backwards compatible.

It might be a pain in the neck to learn the new rules, but that's a separate issue. Also, I think you can expect that a new game will have new rules in it. (Whereas in 3.5 they downplayed the changes, so the extent of what they changed surprised everybody. It drove us all nuts.)

No, I went with 3.5 anyway, because I felt it made positive contributions to the system, and helped ease issues that had been building in 3.0. I feel quite different about Pathfinder, unfortunately, but again, I like 4E so I am probably not part of the target audience here.

As other posters have said, if I want to go back to 3E, I'll likely actually play 3.5 ... Pathfinder doesn't seem to address what problems I do have, while changing enough of the things that aren't problems to make it a pain to use. Just IMO though.

 

[Wicht]

Other than the Paizo fanbase, I'm a bit confused as to what their target customer base is.

I suspect that if you are confused as to whom Paizo is trying to appeal to, it's likely not you.