D&D 4E What was Paizo thinking? 3.75 the 4E clone?

[occam]

The PCs use PF adjustments, nothing else needs to. There's no reason, for example, that you have to go back and convert all the NPC fighters, rogues, wizards, etc. to the PF version.

How about the other way? Players sticking with 3.5 are going to complain when those Pathfinder NPCs in future APs start kicking their characters' butts with all their new feats, combat bonuses, at-will spell-like abilities, etc. Shortly after that comes the mandatory conversion to PF. I suppose that could be part of the plan, to press Pathfinder customers into buying the new book and locking them into Paizo's house version of D&D. It might work out as a business move, but it belies the claim that they're "sticking with 3.5", and seems to go against the spirit of what people wanted when complaining about 4e incompatibility issues. PF may not be as incompatible as 4e, but it'll still require new rules purchases, and lots of niggling conversions.

 

[occam]

Proving opinions are everywhere, I previewed the alpha and it ended up further convincing me what BoXM already convinced me of: Trying to "fix" the problems of 3.5 without going down to the system level and rebuilding is a fool's game.

I'm with you. I was still decidedly on the fence after DDXP, although I liked the promise of a lot of what I saw. Strangely enough, though, this move by Paizo has caused me to reevaluate how I feel about trying to "fix" 3.5, and man... I do not want to do that. I'm getting tired of all the house rules, exceptions, and minor adjustments, just to face most of the same fundamental problems. When the rules come out, if I can play 4e without immediately coming up with 10 pages of house rules, I'm on board.

 

[occam]

If having rulebooks in print is a necessity, Paizo could easily reprint the 3.5 RAW as contained in the SRD and rebrand it as Pathfinder, while keeping all of their adventures 100% compatible with the 3.5 RAW (so that people who continue to use their 3.5 material have no conversion issues). By doing so, they would essentially be assuming the mantle of heir to the 3.5 D&D throne (with all the advantages that go along with it) and doing so in what amounts to a complete vacuum of competition (who else, that even comes close to the level of Paizo in terms of OGL publishers, is going to be sticking with 3.5?). By creating a derivative rulesystem that's "mostly compatible" they've just taken a bunch of the advantages that WotC has handed to them on a silver platter by switching to a new edition while leaving the guts of the old one available for 3rd party exploitation, and thrown them out the window.

I just don't see how any significant deviation from the 3.5 RAW with their products is going to be beneficial. If they aren't moving to 4e, then the next best thing, IMO, is to just keep making 3.5 material.

Nailed it. 3.5 or 4e, pick a side, we're at war!*

* Not really, just channeling Stephen Colbert momentarily.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I hear a lot of people talking, but has anyone tried running the PF alpha rules using a 3.5 module? Because right now I hear alot of people running off at the mouth with assumptions, but how does it actually play? Are the differences THAT different or do the nitpickers win this round?

If I had access to a group on short notice I'd run a playtest myself but my guys and I arent going to be able to meet for a while yet.

 

[Ourph]

I hear a lot of people talking, but has anyone tried running the PF alpha rules using a 3.5 module? Because right now I hear alot of people running off at the mouth with assumptions, but how does it actually play? Are the differences THAT different or do the nitpickers win this round?

If I had access to a group on short notice I'd run a playtest myself but my guys and I arent going to be able to meet for a while yet.

I'm not worried about whether you can use the PF rules to run a 3.5 adventure. Exactly the opposite. I'm worried about whether you'll be able to use a high level adventure based on the PF rules in a game that is 3.5 RAW without significant conversion work. I could care less about whether the PF rules are usable with other adventures, because I don't plan on buying the PF rules.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I honestly don't see how Pathfinder can compete with the 3.5 holdouts.

They're currently the only ones committed to producing new 3.5 products. There is no one to compete against.

I think the number of people who are going to be willing to continue spending money on 3.5 material (if it is made available by retailers) is vastly larger than the number of people who will pick up the Pathfinder RPG and play it.

There is no one else producing 3.5 material.

How about the other way? Players sticking with 3.5 are going to complain when those Pathfinder NPCs in future APs start kicking their characters' butts with all their new feats, combat bonuses, at-will spell-like abilities, etc.

This is what I said:
The PCs use PF adjustments, nothing else needs to. There's no reason, for example, that you have to go back and convert all the NPC fighters, rogues, wizards, etc. to the PF version.

There is no reason that Pathfinder modules should be using the new PF PC classes for NPCs.

Assuming I concede the point to you that PathfinderRPG PCs are egregiously overpowered, and also that Paizo then uses those PC classes for NPCs appearing in their modules, then I'll further concede the point that Paizo has made a mistake with regards to compatibility.

Sort of a lot of assumptions there considering we have only seen the first 60 pages of an incomplete alpha.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

They're currently the only ones committed to producing new 3.5 products. There is no one to compete against.



There is no one else producing 3.5 material.



This is what I said:
The PCs use PF adjustments, nothing else needs to. There's no reason, for example, that you have to go back and convert all the NPC fighters, rogues, wizards, etc. to the PF version.

There is no reason that Pathfinder modules should be using the new PF PC classes for NPCs.

Assuming I concede the point to you that PathfinderRPG PCs are egregiously overpowered, and also that Paizo then uses those PC classes for NPCs appearing in their modules, then I'll further concede the point that Paizo has made a mistake with regards to compatibility.

Sort of a lot of assumptions there considering we have only seen the first 60 pages of an incomplete alpha.

True. I hope that they'll "fix this" - that's what the open playtest is about, after all. But there is a risk that the desire to tinker around with the system is too high to still get the effect. But it's also possible that they used the Alpha to basically put out the outmost of what they would do and are now searching for a satisfying middle with the group.
Time will tell.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I can count the number of people Paizo has lost that I have observed on one hand. (Although, if I put some effort into it, perhaps two!)

Paizo will also have incurred an opportunity cost. As someone that will almost definitely make the move up to 4e, one of the things I'll be looking for is a 3rd party alternative "adventure path". I was hoping that Paizo could have had the opportunity to provide that service to me, but that seems unlikely now. So they could have had a new customer (not a guarantee, but a possibility, for sure, given their reputation), but are instead choosing not to take that opportunity to convince me that they'll be able to produce a quality 4e adventure path.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Paizo will also have incurred an opportunity cost. As someone that will almost definitely make the move up to 4e, one of the things I'll be looking for is a 3rd party alternative "adventure path". I was hoping that Paizo could have had the opportunity to provide that service to me, but that seems unlikely now. So they could have had a new customer (not a guarantee, but a possibility, for sure, given their reputation), but are instead choosing not to take that opportunity to convince me that they'll be able to produce a quality 4e adventure path.

They haven't precluded themselves from producing a 4e adventure path in the future, but they certainly didn't have time to produce anything for the launch. Hence, their decision. I'd be willing to bet that Paizo was also hoping they'd have the opportunity to provide that service to you.

My takeaway is that Paizo just stepped up to completely own the 3.5 market. Nothing more or less than that, although I think that's significant in itself.

Given the choices they had, I think that's a good decision.

They have let the 3.5 community know that there will be ongoing, high quality support from a major publisher. (As far as I am concerned, the major publisher next to WoTC.)

 

[Betote]

I'm not worried about whether you can use the PF rules to run a 3.5 adventure. Exactly the opposite. I'm worried about whether you'll be able to use a high level adventure based on the PF rules in a game that is 3.5 RAW without significant conversion work. I could care less about whether the PF rules are usable with other adventures, because I don't plan on buying the PF rules.

So, you're worried about something that isn't going to happen until August 2009...