Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder

[NMC]

As I don't see a thread for this yet, I figure I'll start one.

What do you all think of Paizo's decision to pursue this modified version of D&D 3.5? It is admittedly appealing to me, since I've grown to like that system and the spirit of open-game-licensed creativity and contribuntion that it fostered. A great example of this is the Buccaneers & Bokor e-zine, a supplement for the Golden Age of Piracy that was completely open content, but there are many others. My impression is that the new GSL for 4th Edition won't facilitate such a burst of creativity that the 3rd-Edition OGL fostered; therefore, I'm inclined to like a development that will keep the old OGL going. What do you all think?

-Nate

 

[Stormborn]

Lot's of discussion about Paizo's move in the General area.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

and some in the 4E forum.

 

[Vigilance]

And in the publisher's forum.

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

And in the bar down the street.

 

[Piratecat]

For reference, this will be the correct forum to discuss Pathfinder in. We won't move the other threads until next week, though.

 

[Khairn]

As I don't see a thread for this yet, I figure I'll start one.

What do you all think of Paizo's decision to pursue this modified version of D&D 3.5? It is admittedly appealing to me, since I've grown to like that system and the spirit of open-game-licensed creativity and contribuntion that it fostered. A great example of this is the Buccaneers & Bokor e-zine, a supplement for the Golden Age of Piracy that was completely open content, but there are many others. My impression is that the new GSL for 4th Edition won't facilitate such a burst of creativity that the 3rd-Edition OGL fostered; therefore, I'm inclined to like a development that will keep the old OGL going. What do you all think?

-Nate

Now that everyone else has told you where other discussions are taking place, let me take a shot at actually answering your question.

From Paizo's perspective I think it was a gutsy and smart move. Gutsy as it flew in the face of "conventional wisdom" which seemed to be that any 3rd party publisher with a brain simply had to understand that their only smart decision could be to adopt 4E, whether they had seen the GSL or not. I think that Pathfinder RPG is also a smart decision as Paizo gets the opportunity to galvanize the many gamers who have concerns about 4E, towards a new alternative to adopting a brand new game.

There are 2 parts of the design goals that I find particularly important. The first is "Backward compatibility", and the second is an open playtest. This allows gamers to use the 3E books they've bought, and have a real sense of participation (hopefully) into the systems development. These 2 points really go a long way to illustrate the differences between Paizo and WotC when it comes to game development.

Just an opinion, that's worth the same as yours.

 

[Dragonblade]

From Paizo's perspective I think it was a gutsy and smart move. Gutsy as it flew in the face of "conventional wisdom" which seemed to be that any 3rd party publisher with a brain simply had to understand that their only smart decision could be to adopt 4E, whether they had seen the GSL or not. I think that Pathfinder RPG is also a smart decision as Paizo gets the opportunity to galvanize the many gamers who have concerns about 4E, towards a new alternative to adopting a brand new game.

There are 2 parts of the design goals that I find particularly important. The first is "Backward compatibility", and the second is an open playtest. This allows gamers to use the 3E books they've bought, and have a real sense of participation (hopefully) into the systems development. These 2 points really go a long way to illustrate the differences between Paizo and WotC when it comes to game development.

Just an opinion, that's worth the same as yours.

I don't think it was particularly gutsy. Without knowing what the GSL will eventually say and knowing they need to publish books, it was really their only move. And with Necromancer looking to be their 4e publishing arm, I think they will be able to play the field both ways. So it was definitely a smart move.

It remains to be seen how backwards compatible it will be. I actually find their Alpha release to be less compatible with 3.5 then 3.5 was to 3.0. And if they start fixing all the "problems" with 3.5 that has all sorts of repercussions. Heck, a lot of the people angry at 4e don't even agree on what the problems are, or that there are any problems at all. For example, I think Level Drain is the single WORST mechanic in the history of D&D. I refuse to even play a D&D game that doesn't house rule out level drain. A lot of old school people like it, however. What will Paizo do? Dump it? Or keep it? Either way, someone won't be happy.

Pathfinder won't be able to please everyone and so some people who are bitter at WotC will be equally bitter with Paizo. In the end, it will be another OGL game no different than Arcana Evolved, or True 20. And that isn't a bad thing at all. Those games are cool. And they filled a niche for people looking for a D&D alternative.

I also agree it will probably be cool. And I'll probably even buy it because I think Paizo rocks. It will go on my shelf and buffer my 3.5 books and my 4e D&D books.

 

[The_Gneech]

On the day of the announcement, I was walking on air. I've had a lot of problems with 4E as presented so far, and feeling very down about the possibility of moving forward with D&D. At the same time, YES, 3.5 has problems. I wasn't a heavy-duty E-Tools user because I wanted to be, it was because the tool was absolutely necessary for someone with my atrocious math skills. And at 11th level or higher, my interest in playing or GMing absolutely flags.

So yeah, I'm ready for a new, better D&D. What I'm not ready for is monsters and NPCs having their own rulesets, completely reshuffled settings and "core" races, a MMO-inspired class design philosophy [1], and so on.

I was all jazzed up about SWSE-style D&D. I was subsequently depressed by 4E ... to the point that I wasn't running or playing anything at all for a while.

Paizo's announcement broke me out of that funk and got me excited again, for which I am very grateful. Subsequent examination of their alpha release suggests to me that they're probably not going to make substantiative fixes so much as "another slightly different 3.x ruleset" in order to maximize "backwards compatibility." If so, that's their choice and I can respect it ... but it also means that for me at least, there's no real point.

If they surprise me and make "a better 4E than 4E" then I will definitely convert, stay there, and be a happy camper. If not, well, at least I've got my S&S Saga conversion and my enthusiasm back. So for me at least, it's not quite a "win/win," but more like a "win/get along well enough."

-The Gneech

[1] To anyone who's tempted to say "No it isn't!" here: Deny it all you want, I see it and you're not likely to convince me it isn't there. Let's just agree to differ on that point, okay?

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

I'm probably gonna end up getting lambasted for this sooner or later...

But as far as Paizo's Pathfinder goes... big fat hairy deal.

Granted this based on the "Alpha Book 1," but reading through it feels less like a the much touted "3.75e" that seems to be all the buzz and more like "3.51e." Then again, I'm one of those folks that gneech identified as thinking 3.5e needs a lot of work; as such, based on what I've seen I'm looking forward to 4e. Then again, I wasn't expecting 4e to be "Star Wars in Dungeons" and figured some stuff would be different between the two.

The fighter bit with armor and weapon mastery helps him out a bit, and rogues get plenty more in the way of neat stuff to do. Cleric's turning is a vast improvement over the 3e version, and their method of handling school specialization is certainly more robust than the 3e ruleset's, giving a few more daily uses of certain spells.

The orison/cantrip mechanics (cast all day long) strikes me as amusing since it's not much different than 4e's "at will" magical effects, just for the bottom-rung spells. Doesn't really solve the "15 minute workday" that I've seen and heard about regarding casters wanting to stop and rest after dumping their higher-level spells.

Skill system is just the Unearthed Arcana option for doing away with skill points altogether, though it was nice to see a few steps towards skill consolidation.

The rules bit about only being able to use "one combat feat per round" really sticks in my craw as severly hampering fighters and other martial combatants as they rely extensively on those kinds of feats to do their thing, while the casters can do their thing (casting spells) without a "warm-up period."

I've already passed this along to my GM friend that's in the same camp as gneech regarding 4e should he run a D&D campaign anytime in the future.

And I don't see Paizo's decision as particularly gutsy either. They were on the fence about whether to go 4e or not for a long time, and finally made their decision when it became clear the GSL wouldn't be in their hands in a reasonable time frame. It all came down to the fiscal bottom line, and with no GSL in hand, that meant either push ahead with what they know (3.5e) or take a hit in the wallet. Given that set-up, it's simply smart business to keep producing books for a market that will prove to be quite viable for some time to come. Maybe it's my perspective, but "gutsy" would have been proudly announcing their "Pathfinder" system in the immediate wake of 4e's announcement back in 2007.