Pathfinder vs. 3.5E?

[xechnao]

but stopped talking on the paizo boards b/c fanboys just shouted down anything at all against their ideas.

Try talking to someone in charge about this.

 

[SSquirrel]

Perhaps they will deliver even more than what they promised. You still don't know what the people who work on this will manage to make.

Maybe what he's seen from the alphas so far doesn't give him the faith that they will produce more than what they promise? Maybe not even what they promise. We can't know until then. He's allowed to be skeptical of what he sees so far.

Try talking to someone in charge about this.

The few weeks I spent over there talking about the early alphas saw very little moderation on their part, no way to report bad posts, etc. They were in the middle of rewriting their code for the webforums and frankly it wasn't worth the headache. Add having posts go completely missing that I could still see in my lists of posts made but they wouldn't show up for anyone else and the admins said they hadn't deleted them? Sorry between my words just being shouted down by the fanboys or my posts being lost to code issues, I have no faith in my ability to get my view across over there.

 

[Kerrick]

Despite my general apathy toward PF, I want to DL the Beta and give it a lookover. I'm working on my own version of 3.75, but if Paizo does a Pathfinder license, I'll happily jump on board and declare my version compatible (because it more or less is - I think it lies somewhere between 3.5 and Pathfinder, so far).

That being said, I think Paizo is going about it the right way - open playtest, soliciting opinions, and taking what they think will work. There are some very interesting discussions over there, and some really good ideas being batted around and developed. Some of the changes, while not totally necessary as far as brokenness are necessary for game balance and fun. Classes like the fighter, the sorcerer, or even the monk are bland, dull, and don't have much to prevent a player from taking PrCs. Giving them a full suite of abilities may register as "change for change's sake", but I think it's a necessary change (as long as it's done well =P).

If we consider Pathfinder to be a unique RPG related to and compatible with D&D (which, I think, is the direction they've decided to go), then it will in all likelihood succeed as long as they clearly state it as such. If they try to market it as "The new D&D! 3.75 edition!" people will have preconceptions, like they have with 4E, and they'll probably be turned off.

 

[Festivus]

This.

People need to remember it.

And if you want the direction of that game to go in a different way, get active on its forums and suggest the way you want it to go.

Oh I remember that it's alpha, and I fully plan on checking out the beta. Unless Paizo significantly streamline high level play (which is doubtful) I won't be DMing it. This was what I was talkng about earlier, I made my decision to DM only 4E from here on. As a player, sure, if the other DM in the group elects to run it I'll play it if it meshes well with my splat books.

 

[GVDammerung]

Erik Mona and Co. have made it clear that backwards compatibility is now a secondary consideration.

Link to this, please?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Classes like the fighter, the sorcerer, or even the monk are bland, dull, and don't have much to prevent a player from taking PrCs.

If you have a problem with prestige classes, don't use them.

If you don't have a problem with prestige classes, how and when did it become a problem that fighters, sorcerers, and monks frequently take them?

I don't get the antipathy towards prestige classes. Or towards "dipping," actually.

I don't think it's necessary to entice someone to stay in a single class through 20 levels, which you often see embodied in some form of "20th level Apotheosis" ability.

Blegh.

This is not to say that all classes shouldn't be interesting through 20 levels, I just don't think there's anything noble at sticking to it. It doesn't deserve to be "rewarded."

 

[SSquirrel]

I think that you shouldn't feel as if you are being needlessly left behind by NOT multi-classing. We'll see how it all ends up.

Link to this, please?

My guess is its not from a direct statement but an interpretation of how the alphas have shaped up so far.

I wish nothing but the best for the Paizo crew and hope they succeed in their goal.

 

[GVDammerung]

You'll never get everyone to agree on what needs to be changed. So instead they should use A) their own best judgment as industry professionals regarding what needs changing, and B) a sense of what most of the people think are the rules that most need changing.

The level of changes made so far, however, seem to be reflective of more changes than are strictly necessary to "fix" the parts of 3.5 that are truly "clunky," as Erik called them. And I think that's going to hurt Pathfinder over time, unless they scale back the changes for the Beta and the final release.

I think Paizo is very likely following this advice, even if t does not appear that way at any given moment. They are not dumb. They are presently engaging the public and bringing them along as in B above.

I agree that the litmus test for PF is and will always be how compatible is it with 3X. The farther it gets from that test, the more problematic it becomes. However, at present, the level of divergence is minimal, all things considered. What's more some divergence is essential to give PF life and have it more than a reanimated 3x. YMMV.

 

[Sunderstone]

Its funny how some say that Paizo is now changing for the sake of change (just in different words) when 4E has gone well beyond this.

To SSquirrel....

Sorry between my words just being shouted down by the fanboys

Pot. Kettle... etc.
How is that different from the Pro 4E folks here? Its one of the reasons I dont post here that much anymore.

To GVDammerung...

I agree that the litmus test for PF is and will always be how compatible is it with 3X. The farther it gets from that test, the more problematic it becomes. However, at present, the level of divergence is minimal, all things considered. What's more some divergence is essential to give PF life and have it more than a reanimated 3x. YMMV.

well said. I have been house ruling some of the PF changes and its working out perfectly so far. We also love some of the class changes, and will likely see a PF Sorcerer in our game soon. Sorcerer is now actually interesting and different enough to stand on its own merit. Previously, we really didnt see much need for a sorcerer over a wizard.

Also Erik Mona mentioned that some of the splat in the "Complete" books have devalued some of the core classes. I agree wholeheartedly. This is the one of the main reasons we dont use the "Complete" series of books in our game.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

Link to this, please?

Working on it. It was in an interview, possibly a podcast such as Fear the Boot, but I'm not sure. Trying to pin it exactly, but it's hard to do when you have to listen to audio rather than search text (the one thing I hate about podcasts). Let's just say I remember it vividly as I had a 'huh' reaction to the statement when I read/heard it.

It wasn't to imply that backward compatibility wasn't important, just that it seemed as though it wasn't as important as it was originally when Pathfinder RPG began. I'll try to dig it up, and will post it if I find it.