Pathfinder 1E What Direction is Pathfinder Headed In?

[Dragon Snack]

I'm judging that PF will go too far for my tastes based on the Beta document and some of the discussion on their message boards (although it's been a while since I came to this conclusion, if things change I'll be pleasantly surprised). I think it goes too far in the power creep direction, even if some races and classes did need it (spellcasters certainly didn't), and ignores other imbalances. I wasn't that impressed with some of the redesigned subsystems either.

I am using the PF Rogue in one of my current 3.5 campaigns though...

I think Paizo would be better off going back to 3.0 and cleaning house, not 3.5 and the same.

I totally agree with you there. A few of the changes made in 3.5 actually increased the "reliance on magical gear" that so many people complain about (or at least started to in the last year or so).

I would be using 3.0 in one of my D&D games (the one with the PF Rogue), except that all the players came into D&D after 3.5 so that's what version their PHBs are...

 

[Starbuck_II]

Pathfinder, by vowing backwards compatibility, tied one hand behind its back on fixing the major issues. They couldn't fix multi-classing, required magical gear, etc. So they glossed everything over by making everything a bit more powerful (some moreseo than others to account for initial imbalance) and added work-arounds and jury-rigs to even out the problems.

Actually, backwards compatibility was vowed lowest on the totem pull on their mind. While not forgotten about: he said in Beta Pdf that it isn't a big force on whether to change something or not.

I did think the nerf to Power attack was just cruel though.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Actually, backwards compatibility was vowed lowest on the totem pull on their mind. While not forgotten about: he said in Beta Pdf that it isn't a big force on whether to change something or not.

I did think the nerf to Power attack was just cruel though.

While this may be true, this only applies to superficial changes. An unstated(or is it?) goal of Pathfinder is the intention that future Paizo adventure paths will be able to be run both in 3.5E and Pathfinder with minimal/no conversion. As long as that particular goal exists, the amount of fundamental changes Pathfinder can offer is very limited.

 

[Gothmog]

What I don't care for is that Pathfinder is ramping up the power levels of races and classes without, so far, addressing the BIG problems with 3.5 (as I see them):
1] Spellcaster multiclassing
2] Keeping track of/handling DR
3] Stacking rules
4] Reliance upon Stat-boosting magic items.
5] High-level play headaches (these include problems #2,3 & 4)

Related to the power-creep issues is the manner in which Pathfinder is redefining races in ways that are not consistant with previous incarnations of D&D (ie. no CHA penalty for 1/2 orcs and granting new ability score bonuses to races that they never had before).

Finally, I'm not digging the look of the Pathfinder. I'm not a fan of anime elements mixing with my generic fantasy game (I realize that others are and am not being derisive of their preferences).

Yep, I agree with your list as well. In addition, 3.x D&D's math was wonky, and Pathfinder shows absolutely no signs of correcting that. Others have rightfully stated that to really fix 3.x, you'd have to rebuild the system, which Pathfinder isn't looking to do. Instead, from what I've read of the PF Beta book I bought out of curiousity, it seems to be increasing the inherent problems of the 3.x system and the complexity of running and playing the game by adding in extra subsystems (rage points, etc). PF has also ramped power level of 3.x up to 12, which doesn't fit my personal tastes. Finally (and this is more of a stylistic gripe), the anime-inspired illustrations really turn me off, even though that has nothing to do with the system.

Ultimately, I don't really care if PF succeeds or fails. I can say its clearly not the system for me, but if other folks like it, cool. Hopefully everybody can have a system to play they enjoy, and not get so involved in the pointless edition bickering threads.

 

[IceFractal]

My main issue with the direction is that they mainly seem to be focussing on intra-class balancing, as opposed to inter-class balancing. Their main strategy seems to be:
1) Take a non-spellcaster class.
2) Buff it up a bit overall.
3) Find the strong tactics for it, nerf those tactics.

For instance:
* Fighters - extra bonuses to AC/attacks/damage, then nerfed trip-based fighters and two-handed weapon fighters (and grappling fighters, but those weren't that common anyway).
* Rogue - more talents, sneak attack against more things, then get rid of blink, throwing stuff, and even grease as ways to get sneak attack.

So the sword-and-board fighter is now closer to the THW fighter, and the hide-and-sneak rogue and flank rogues are closer to the wand-using blitz rogue, but the balance - or lack thereof - between spellcasters and everyone else hasn't changed. In fact, in some cases the gap is bigger because the options that allowed the Rogue, for instance, to keep up are the ones that are now gone.

Ok, they have changed spellcasters somewhat, but all it's really changed is that now Wizards are stronger and Druids are weaker, so the order within the top ranks is different.

 

[demiurge1138]

If you want to know the changes being made as the Beta is playtested, look for forum threads started by Jason Buhlman. There've been threads about new paladin and barbarian designs, new feats for playtesting, that sort of thing.

 

[The Highway Man]

Pathfinder's attempt at solving 3.5 issues seems to prove that you actually do need to revamp the system starting from scratch if you want to fix major math issues.

Seems to me that Pathfinder isn't for people desiring a significant fix to 3.X, however. Those who want that can play 4E, a myriad of OGL variations of 3.X or any of the zillions of Fantasy RPGs out there.

No. Pathfinder is primarily directed towards people who, by and large, are happy with 3.X. The main goal being to keep 3.X in print. Some minor changes take place partially to make the system seem fresh yet again, to try and find some things that would need basic tweaking for the fans, but this is still a game targeted at the fans of 3.X, not its most ardent critics. These people most likely have already moved on to other pastures anyway.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Seems to me that Pathfinder isn't for people desiring a significant fix to 3.X, however. Those who want that can play 4E, a myriad of OGL variations of 3.X or any of the zillions of Fantasy RPGs out there.

No. Pathfinder is primarily directed towards people who, by and large, are happy with 3.X. The main goal being to keep 3.X in print. Some minor changes take place partially to make the system seem fresh yet again, to try and find some things that would need basic tweaking for the fans, but this is still a game targeted at the fans of 3.X, not its most ardent critics. These people most likely have already moved on to other pastures anyway.

If you aren't after a significant fix, why not just play 3.5E D&D? I hear about keeping 3.X in print, but is this really necessary? You can pick up every 3.X book off of Amazon without much hassle. As for making the system fresh or basic tweaking, is this worse splitting the 3.X fanbase between those who play Pathfinder and those who stick to 3.5E D&D?

 

[The Highway Man]

If you aren't after a significant fix, why not just play 3.5E D&D? I hear about keeping 3.X in print, but is this really necessary? You can pick up every 3.X book off of Amazon without much hassle. As for making the system fresh or basic tweaking, is this worse splitting the 3.X fanbase between those who play Pathfinder and those who stick to 3.5E D&D?

It's not necessary on the user's side (then again, buying a rulebook isn't about necessity or logic for most gamers, but passion and drive). If you're not using Pathfinder's tweaks, you can still run any of the modules, adventure paths etc with very limited conversion work (taking a feat or ability here and there off a stat block, basically). If you use Pathfinder rules, you can still use all your 3.5 material with little to no conversion work necessary (which is part of the point on the user's end).

Paizo needs to have the rules in print, as Erik Mona and others have stated time and time again on these boards and others. Period. That part of the equation on the publisher's side couldn't be more clearly stated. Let's not forget that.

As for splitting the 3.X crowd into "Pathfinder" or "no Pathfinder" camps, I don't see that happening at all. Look at DaveMage above: he still plays 3.5, but does he see Pathfinder as a bad thing? Nope. Me? I'm playing with the Pathfinder rules. I still use my 3.5 materials with them.

 

[Betote]

Paizo needs to have the rules in print, as Erik Mona and others have stated time and time again on these boards and others. Period. That part of the equation on the publisher's side couldn't be more clearly stated. Let's not forget that.

This. Paizo doesn't sell rules; it sells adventures and background material. But for that material to be sold in significant numbers, it must be backed by a core rulebook which is currently in print.

If WotC doesn't sell that book anymore, Paizo doesn't have any realistic option apart from selling it on its own. Pathfinder is not born from a "3.5 is broken; we must fix it" point of view, but a "If we need to sell the 3.5 core books, at least let's not sell a carbon copy of WotC's ones".

And, IMO, they've addressed quite smartly some of the issues I had with 3.5:
* Simplified skill system, but with the same "graininess".
* Less reliance on magic items (characters are more capable by themselves, the "ability boost" items don't occupy slots you could use for cooler ones).
* Streamlined combat maneuvers (everything you try is d20+CMB againts 15+CMB).
* Faster NPC creation and CR/xp encounter calculation.

As for splitting the 3.X crowd into "Pathfinder" or "no Pathfinder" camps, I don't see that happening at all. Look at DaveMage above: he still plays 3.5, but does he see Pathfinder as a bad thing? Nope. Me? I'm playing with the Pathfinder rules. I still use my 3.5 materials with them.

I'm with you. I use Pathfinder as my core rulebook, but I don't have any problem when using Spell Compendium, Tome of Horrors or Book of Iron Might.