Pathfinder OGL/3.5 RPG system from Paizo

BryonD said:
So, you think these particular people are going to like a game with mechanics that state: "Once a day, when you die... "?
No, but then, the epic level rules probably weren't for them, either, so I don't think that epic play in 4E will appeal to them better. ;) (With that said: Were epic levels for anyone at all? ;) )

The point is - there was enough posts indicating that people didn't like 3E anymore, for various reasons. In the end, WotC probably looked for some "common ground", and maybe those that feeling D&D was to superheroic weren't common enough.

But I still think that even those can have a better play experience with 4E. Maybe you already start "heroic" at 1st level, but the three tiers give you some pointer what levels you can expect to enjoy. In 3E, this was a lot harder to manage, especially since the closest equivalent to the Heroic Tier was probably over at 6th level, and the first 3 levels didn't really feel "heroic" yet, either...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

BryonD

Hero
Mustrum_Ridcully said:
No, but then, the epic level rules probably weren't for them, either, so I don't think that epic play in 4E will appeal to them better. ;)
Yeah, they will need to stay in 4e's sweet spot....

:p

The point is - there was enough posts indicating that people didn't like 3E anymore, for various reasons. In the end, WotC probably looked for some "common ground", and maybe those that feeling D&D was to superheroic weren't common enough.
I'd still point out that this is different than wanting 4e. And whenever a "do you want 4e?" thread came up the answer was overwhelmingly "No".

(There are also a hell of a lot more anti-4e threads now then there were pro-4e threads then, so this logic can get dangerous in a hurry)
 

Psion

Adventurer
BryonD said:
(There are also a hell of a lot more anti-4e threads now then there were pro-4e threads then, so this logic can get dangerous in a hurry)

Not to mention, I could easily dig up complaints about things that in no way, shape, or form looks like 4e.

Anyone can post a complaint on a messageboard, and the presence of such posts only have the weakest correlation to the audience. If I were a 4e hopeful, I'd be hoping that WotC went with something more substantial than messageboard complaints when deciding what needed changed. ;)
 

Aegir

First Post
The whole point of a new edition of anything (at its core) is to take what one learns from the previous editions and fix it: in short, to take a step forward. The RPG industry (and perhaps even just D&D) is one of the very few places where this is seen as such a bad thing, and thats caused mostly by the business model that corporate RPG companies use (printing supplements for the ruleset on a regular basis).

Pathfinder has the right idea by making their RPG a longterm open playtest, but frankly, as its own system I think its doomed to be either an outright failure, or an extremely short-term thing specifically because of their design goals. Pathfinder simply can't fix all the issues 3E has and remain backwards compatible: so while their rules may slow the bleeding somewhat (if even that much), they're still working off what amounts to a system whose flaws have been exposed, and (so far) refusing to make the needed changes because of a desire for backwards compatibility.

I don't think 4E is coming too soon: in fact, for me personally, it should've come about 18 months ago, when the biggest flaws in 3E really started to hinder my gaming, and I gave up on 3.x to look for something else. Right now I'm making due with Iron Heroes (which while still d20, has taken steps to fix several flaws), but I literally cannot wait to move over to 4E.

Will it have its own problems? Sure. Does that mean its too soon? No, it means that once those problems begin to show themselves, its time to start recording them and looking into how to fix them for 5E.

Things evolve, and evolution is a good thing.
 

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
(With that said: Were epic levels for anyone at all? ;) )
I loved Epic levels. We didn't use the spellcasting system from ELH but otherwise epic levels were played by the book. That game ended around 32nd level when the campaign came to a logical conclusion. Yes, stat blocks were a chore but it was fun the first time my mage cast two quickened teleports in the same round along with a touch spell in the middle of course. That's not how I want to play every D&D game. But getting to use those fun high level spells every now and then is fun.

And while "Once per day, when you die..."* appeals to me**, that there are "many" powers with that description is a bit off-putting even to me. Many? How many different ways can folks revivicate, teleport, and/or explode for 20+ dice of damage/healing?

---
* I can accept that there is no way to state the power works on your death, but only once per day, without ending up with that awkward phrasing above. As written it unfortunately implies that you _will_ die each day.

** I love contingency effects.
 

BryonD

Hero
Aegir said:
Will it have its own problems? Sure. Does that mean its too soon? No, it means that once those problems begin to show themselves, its time to start recording them and looking into how to fix them for 5E.

Things evolve, and evolution is a good thing.
By that logic anything labeled 4e would be better.
I think it is far more reasonable to make the case based on the elements of the edition in question.

I know for certain that many people really didn't like 3e and I know for certain that many people will like 4e. Those items are not in question and don't really prove anything.

I also know for certain that 3e was a huge success. Has it run its course in terms of being a large-scale marketable game that can keep cranking out big selling title after title? Probably so. And so I don't question at all the logic of going to 4e.

But again, you have to look at the details. IMO 4e will start in a hole of some fraction of lost players. And I really don't believe that it will retain players as well either. I'm not claiming people will change their mind and decide they didn't like it after all. But I think it is losing a lot of what makes it distinct, what makes it a game of choice. I think it will be a lot more common for 4e to be a game that people like to play, amongst a lot of games they like to play, rather than being THE game they play, or at least the first choice of games they play.

3E proved itself as a landmark and very successful. So telling me that some people didn't like it doesn't mean much. 4E has a high standard to reach, a standard that can not even be measured for two or three years. So telling me know that some people like it doesn't mean much.

Which gets to the point where I strongly agree with you. 5e will be a great opportunity.

In the mean time, there are many people who don't see 3E's problems as all that hard to manage. (Many of the debates on the Paizo boards right now are around how much the changes should be rolled back!!! )And PF has a much lower standard it needs to reach in order to be a smashing success.
 

Geron Raveneye

Explorer
Aegir said:
Things evolve, and evolution is a good thing.

200 million years of stagnation would like to disagree. ;)

crocodile.png
 


doghead

thotd
OGL - pathfinder

The paizo server doesn't seem to be responding, so I thought that I would ask here. What are the design principles or guidelines behind Pathfinder? From what I understand, they are something like 'streamline the 3.5 system while maintaining backward compatibility'. But I was wondering what they were exactly.

doghead
aka thotd
 

Psion

Adventurer
doghead said:
The paizo server doesn't seem to be responding, so I thought that I would ask here. What are the design principles or guidelines behind Pathfinder? From what I understand, they are something like 'streamline the 3.5 system while maintaining backward compatibility'. But I was wondering what they were exactly.

Yes, there are.

Paizo's working for me. Here's what Jason Bulmahn had to say:

When work first began on the Pathfinder RPG, I set down a number of principles to guide me. Since this game is based off the 3.5 rules set, I wanted to make sure that it stayed true to the original vision of the game. When taking a look at these rules, please keep the following guidelines in mind as they might help you understand the changes that were made.

Improve the Game: The 3.5 rules set is excellent, but it has its flaws. Over the past few years, a number of common problems have seemed to crop up again and again, problems that delay the game or cause no end of arguments (grapple and polymorph, for example). I wanted the Pathfinder RPG to clean up these rules, by streamlining in places and adding options in others. You can still grapple in the Pathfinder RPG, but it is no longer the huge headache that it was. I also worked to even out some of the choices. A number of 3.5 skills are far less valuable than others, making them suboptimal choices. In my experience, few rogues took Forgery, but Spot was an incredibly common choice. These rules work to even out some of these choices. So while you might still take Perception over Linguistics, the latter is now a far more useful choice than it was before.

Add Options: Just before design began, a friend of mine asked me why no one ever seemed to take rogue beyond 2nd level or fighter beyond 4th level. This got me thinking. Far too many of the basic classes lose their luster after just a few levels, leading most players to take a host of other classes or a number of prestige classes. While this option is still available, I wanted to add more to all the classes, to give each one of them a reason to be followed up through 20th level. To this end, I have tried to add options to the game whenever possible. This is a tricky path to walk, though. Too many options and you end up with overly complicated classes. Too few and players get bored of their class. This principle goes beyond class powers, as well. From sundering to magic items, there are now more options and choices to make than ever before, each one opening up whole new avenues of character and adventure design.

Compatibility: Of all the goals I set out with when designing this game, compatibility ranked near the top. I wanted to make sure that any rules we changed were adaptable to the extensive body of work that exists for the 3.5 rules set. In addition to being compatible, I wanted to ensure that any conversion work would be minimal. In most cases, this meant adding to existing rules, instead of subtracting. So, while we changed the way turning undead works, we did not remove turning undead from the game. We added options to the fighter without removing any of them. This design philosophy doesn't always hold true, however. Some skills were combined and a few disappeared altogether (goodbye Use Rope). Whenever I broke this rule, it was because the other guidelines took precedence.
 

Remove ads

Top