Pathfinder OGL/3.5 RPG system from Paizo

[BryonD]

The final product, too? The Paizo site only says that the alpha and beta rules will be free PDFs. If the final product is, too, that awesome, but I don't see that mentioned anywhere on their site.

yes.

Right, but then the modules you buy after Aug '09 are not going to be using 3.5, they'll be using Pathfinder.

Which he can get for free.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Right, but then the modules you buy after Aug '09 are not going to be using 3.5, they'll be using Pathfinder.

I am both smarter than the average bear, and happen to have developed my own "alternate PHB" in Grim Tales.

As it happens, neither of these qualifications will be necessary to run a Pathfinder adventure using existing 3.5 rules. I trust that Pathfinder will be so close to 3.5 as to require ZERO modification on my part.

It will be a trivial matter to run Rappan Athuk 3.5 using Pathfinder.

It will be a trivial matter to run Pathfinder modules using 3.5.

In either case my existing 3.5 library gets a workout, instead of being thrown out.

Just out of curiosity, have you read the pdf?

What are your thoughts?

I was able to read it quickly last night, skimming it for the fixes that I was specifically looking for. While I think their design goals are all in exactly the right place, so far it falls short of where it needs to be.

Of course, it's an Alpha. It's not even a complete Alpha-- it's just the first 66 pages. I figured that out by the end.

 

[Pinotage]

but is it just me or is it 3.5++, souped up more powerful races, more powerful classes, more powerful PCs overall? I read it over, and it seemed like it completely obsoleted the entire 3.5 line. 3.5 compatible? Hardly... Those classes are better. Those races are better. I'd have to increase the power level of everything in order to use them. That doesn't just go for WotC products, it goes for well designed 3rd party products too.

I'm quite disheartened. I love Paizo adventures. But, I already own several OGL games. I don't want another non-3.5-compatible product. And, if Paizo's adventures use this Pathfinder RPG rules, well, then they aren't 3.5 compatible anymore, because I can't use any of my 3.5 stuff (without changing it to suit Pathfinder RPG!) to play the adventure!

What is going on here?

It's very tempting to be overly critical on a Alpha 1 product. If you scour through the comments on the boards at Paizo, though, lots of people are making good suggestions and Paizo are taking note. In a few weeks the next Alpha will be out, and it'll likely improve on what we've seen and include new material.

You're right, the classes do look more powerful, and will likely have more hp. Ala 4e, really. But that's not the whole picture. They could reduce CRs, for example, to compensate without changing the monsters. Or increase monster hp a little to compensate without breaking compatibility. The 3.5e system is very flexible, and this is early days. I'm heartened by some of the good changes I see, and I know the open playtest will improve those that don't look great on the surface.

 

[buzz]

yes.

Which he can get for free.

Well, cool. Can you point me to where this was stated? I searched this thread and Paizo's Pathfinder page and did not see this.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

I think I see what you're saying here. Paizo's main business is selling adventure paths. The Pathfinder RPG is a loss leader supporting their core business, somewhat like gaming consoles and cartridges.

I think it's also a bit more than just a loss leader- at some point when the PHB/DMG/MM are out of print and unavailable, the Pathfinder RPG will be an in for new players to become indoctrinated to the system as well.

That is, if I understand your term "loss leader" correctly (which I may not).

So it helps to not only bolster their existing community support, but potentially has the ability to aid them in expanding it as well.

 

[SteveC]

Then why are you frustrated with people who are doing the exact same thing as you? The only difference is we prefer what we see in 3E. How is one option "right" and the other "frustrating"?

I'm not concerned that you happen to prefer 3E at all, that's entirely up to you. I'm not even sure why you'd think that. It's perfectly okay for you to be frustrated over 4E if you don't like it: right and wrong don't enter into opinions. I trust your judgment enough to know which edition you prefer.

From my perspective: I'm frustrated that I will no longer have Paizo products to purchase, and I'm also frustrated that this first real example of the fracturing of the D&D market has occurred. I'm not blaming Paizo for this, it's squarely WotC's fault, but that doesn't mean that I'm not frustrated by the situation.

I know that Paizo understands their customers and their market, but I believe that staying with 3X is a mistake, and that they are severely over-estimating how many people will be staying with 3X, especially a year from now.

I wish them well as a company, but every instinct says this is a bad move. Launching a new line of products based on 3X isn't a bad idea now, but a year from now? I would expect their market to be 10-15% of what it is now, and to be shrinking.

Time will tell, and I will be entirely happy to be proven wrong in this matter, believe me.

--Steve

 

[ThirdWizard]

They could reduce CRs, for example, to compensate without changing the monsters. Or increase monster hp a little to compensate without breaking compatibility. The 3.5e system is very flexible, and this is early days. I'm heartened by some of the good changes I see, and I know the open playtest will improve those that don't look great on the surface.

I don't think changing monsters is an option. It would invalidate way too many monster books. You also can't get a formula to change CRs. What I think they need to do is to add more options without increasing power, so by my thinking decrease overall power of everything, then add in more options to the rules. I don't know...

They won't be addressing my biggest problem with 3e, though, so I'm kind of disappointed. I've seen some good stuff in there, though. I like what they did with wizard specialization. I like the half-orc far better than the default 3.5 one. Their combat maneuver rules are elegant and extensible. Overall, I see a lot of cool fun intriguing stuff. I just worry because it doesn't look backwards compatible to me.

I would love to play in a Paizo adventure. Love it. I never have, I've always DMed. Even though I'm pro-4e, I've never claimed that I wouldn't play 3.5 again. I'm just a bit stand offish to 3.5-but-not-really. It just seems like I'd have to move away from 3.5 no matter what if I go with Paizo.

 

[JoshuaFrost]

Howdy folks,

I'm keeping an eye on this thread (as are others here at Paizo) and I've read every single post. This is a great, lively discussion and I'm enjoying reading everyone's feedback (good or bad!). I want to mention a few quick items and then I'll duck back out of the discussion:

1) The document available for download on our website, PRPG Alpha release 1, is a playtest document. It is not the end-all, be-all of PRPG and we certainly want everyone even tangentially interested in PRPG to give us feedback on our direction over on our Alpha boards. There seems to be some confusion about the nomenclature between Alpha, Beta, and final. This is not the final RPG. Those of you interested in playtesting through the Alpha and Beta open playtest will help us create the final.

2) Every stage of the Alpha and Beta playtest will have FREE downloadable PDFs to continue FREE participation in our open playtest.

3) We'll release a Beta soft-cover book at Gen Con and into hobby distribution as just another approach to getting as many playtesters as possible. At $24.99 for a 300+ page, full-color, soft-cover book we think a large number of interested players who want a physical copy will jump on this opportunity. If paying for a Beta isn't for you, then awesome! It'll be a free PDF download.

4) The finished Pathfinder RPG product in August 2009 will be a 420 (or so) page hardcover designed to replace the PHB and DMG for 3.5 that we expect will go out of print. Hopefully, with everyone's participation in the Alpha and Beta playtest, we'll have enough awesome feedback to make this the game that folks sticking with 3.5 (or even just interested in the rules) will want to play. We know it won't be for everyone, unfortunately, but our primary design goal is create an updated rules set that is largely backward-compatible with 3.5 and will require a minimum of adjustment for pre-PRPG products to be run via PRPG.

5) This is not a Paizo vs WotC announcement. We know 4th Edition will be successful and we wish our friends (seriously, we have a lot of friends there) at WotC the best of luck launching 4E this summer. We know a portion of the existing audience will want to stay with 3.5 and we intend to provide the support to keep 3.5 alive for many years to come. We certainly have not closed the door on 4E, either! We're eager to see the GSL (still!) and eager to see the full rules and may be able to support 4E in the future--certainly through our partnership with Necromancer and possibly in other ways too. Just not with Pathfinder.

Thanks everyone!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I don't think changing monsters is an option. It would invalidate way too many monster books. You also can't get a formula to change CRs.

You're right on the money, there.

What they can (and should) do is change what CR means-- or rather, what CR means to encounters.

For example, if CR1 stops meaning "Throw 1 of these at a 1st level party..." and instead means "Throw 1 of these at each PC..." then we're cooking.

Or whatever. It's not really used "in the math" in any way except to express a certain power level. CR1 doesn't mean "half the power of CR2" for example. It's just a tag, used for shorthand.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

D&D by contrast has a very different model. Its core business is selling PHBs.

I never believed that for 3.x (at least, after the first year). I categorically deny that for 4e. The core business of D&D is now DDI. Everything else is to drive that.