I've picked up an intereseting sub-debate in the monster of a "Pathfinder qua Pedestal" thread next door which I'd like to pursue in its own right. Here are the relevant contributions.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;334537If [Pathfinder] had actual direction (beyond the nonsensical open playtest) and guidelines designed to promote the game in that direction, I wouldn't mind it at all. The end product says otherwise.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;334579I would describe Pathfinder's lack of focus as attempting a half-assed fix of 3.5E's issues(which I would describe as difficulty with high level play and too much work for the DM above all else, even balance which would rank third), and essentially just rereleasing 3.5E again. Any focus Pathfinder has is a legacy left over from its 3.5E roots.

Quote from: Fiasco;334586Pathfinder's focus was to capture the dissatisfied 3.5 gamers by offering a game that is highly compatible yet attempts to fix some of the weaknesses of 3.5.  That is a pretty clear focus.  The only question is whether they have achieved it.  I think its too early to tell.  Certainly they have simplified a few of the trivial issues (grapples, endless skill points) but fundamentally its the same as 3.5 so yes, crunch heavy for the DM.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;334588The game's focus on capturing the disenfranchised 3.5E community is a marketing focus, not really a system focus. I and I think DeadUematsu were speaking more towards a system focus.

Quote from: Daztur;334889I think that what some people were saying up thread (rather less than civilly) is that Pathfinder doesn't really have any overarching design philosophy. The closest thing would be "get rid of dead levels." The changes are mostly tweaks to various small things rather than trying to get an overall plan about how to change things and implementing it in a lot of specific ways. Its as if they got a hundred people to write up a list of their favorite house rules and then picked all of the coolest things from each of those lists. In a lot of ways Pathfinder design philosophy lost sight of the forest for the trees.

4ed on the other hand has a very very clear design of design goals that were implemented consistently and methodically, mowing down any sacred cows that got in their way. Whatever your feelings are about 4ed, you've got to admit it has a laser-focused design philosophy. It sometimes seems with 4ed that they were so focused on the forest that they forget what those tree thingies are.

I find this an interesting issue worth discussing in its own right. And I find it worth bringing up again since I don't see the thread fully answered the original concern, with the added clarification (which I think is helpful) that outsiders are interested in Pathfinder's design goals as a rules system, not its marketing goals.

In that regard, "Pathfinder wants to, first and foremost, promote continuity with D&D 3.5." is not a terribly helpful response. First, it seems to only tell us which type of people the game is designed to cater for - namely those playing another game - without telling us what type of game experience it is designed to cater for. Second, the answer is at best indirect, by referring us to another game without spelling out what those game's design directions are/were in explicit terms. So, on the whole, this is a non-reply.

The comparion with 4E having a rigid set of system design goals is also only of limited help. Yes, it illustrates what system design goals are (e.g. focus on combat, attempt to make combat more lively by a huge set of pre-fabricated combat maneuvers and powers), but too easily forces the wrong dichotomy on the debate - namely that a system either has a design focus as tight as 4E, or it has no focus at all. What I mean to say here is that bringing up 4E makes it too easy for proponents of Pathfinder to say something like that:

QuotePathfinder aims to cater to a very wide range of play experience - and that's why it doesn't have a set of system design goals at all. And thank god for that! I don't want a game to tell me how I ought to play it! That's what I disliked about 4E so much, so thank you Paizo!

That's a non-reply too, with the added bonus of the person replying feeling good about themselves. But the guy asking is still non the clearer as to what sort of game Pathfinder is. And overall that's a disservice to the promotion of the game to someone who's as yet unclear what type of game he can expect from buying Pathfinder.

So to answer the question of Pathfinder's design goals as a system, it may be best to think about it this. You've got someone who's never played any version of D&D, and who's only interested in buying a core rule book. Ever. Continued support, good PR, lively online community, huge history to the game - etc. all these factors don't matter to him. He's only interested in the book. It's like a guy who's never bought a WW II game in a box who's standing in a shop deciding between Memoir 44 and Tide of Iron. He'd like to know what box he ought to get, based on the type of game experience this box is designed for in contrast to the other box. So yep, he's interested to see how the two boxes differ, but any potentially helpful reply to him must describe each box's merits on its own terms and in terms that differentiate it from all the other options out there.

I'd like to hear your answers to this guy. Why should he buy the Pathfinder Core Rulebook? Why should he pick that game?

Pathfinder fills a similiar niche as Castles & Crusades.  It brings something fresh to a previous edition ruleset while allowing players to easily convert the previous edition settings and support.   Paizo's focus seems to be heavily on this backwards compatibility and ease of conversion.

As a fan of C&C, I haven't seen any support products from TL that are more interesting than just converting TSR settings.   If it wasn't for C&C, I probably would have sold off most of my AD&D stuff.

Many fans of C&C feel the backwards compatiblity is one of the biggest selling points and certainly, anyone getting into Pathfinder today will be able to snag a tremendous amount of 3e material extremely cheap on eBay and bargain bins to use for their campaigns.

Pathfinder, much like its predecessor 3.5, supports the tool box approach to fantasy RPGing. It provides a highly robust and detailed set of rules that give the DM tremendous detail and flexibility in for creatubg a great diversity of challenges.  If you can imagine it, you can probably create it with Pathfinder. It is ideally suited to a DM style that is big on preparation rather than ruling on the fly.  It is also a rules set that offers a highly tactical combat resolution system.

The rules are far more detailed than anything pre 3E and far broader in scope than 4E.  Why choose it over 3.5?  Well, there isn't much between them but I think Pathfinder is slightly better due to a small improvement in class balance and also the classes are fractionally more interesting. It also has slightly cleaner combat and skill mechanics.  

Note, I am not advocating it as the one true game but if the tool kit approach is your favourite, this is the best version of D&D for that approach.

Pathfinder is a game that is firmly in the shadow of another game, that being 3.5E D&D, and I don't think you can really look at Pathfinder without taking a hard look at 3.5E. If you are looking at Pathfinder objectively as a rules system, the primary focus would be comparing and contrasting Pathfinder to 3.5E itself.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;335536Pathfinder is a game that is firmly in the shadow of another game, that being 3.5E D&D, and I don't think you can really look at Pathfinder without taking a hard look at 3.5E. If you are looking at Pathfinder objectively as a rules system, the primary focus would be comparing and contrasting Pathfinder to 3.5E itself.

Or to rephrase, whatever Pathfinder's design goals were are not nearly as relevant as what 3.5's design goals were given that at least 95% of pathfinder IS 3.5.

Considering that questioning the design goals and design direction of Pathfinder is just a cheap rhetorical trick used by 4E shills, if they were actual questions then they have actually been answered by Paizo's own FAQ on the subject.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/faq

The two best FAQs and their answers are below:

Quote from: Paizo FAQA new RPG? Why not just stick with 3.5?

In a sense, that's exactly what we are doing. All Pathfinder products will be written for the 3.5 rules set until August 2009, at which point new releases will transition to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game rules. That means that Legacy of Fire (the current Adventure Path) uses the 3.5 rules, but Council of Thieves (which begins in August, 2009) will use the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Both rules sets are similar enough that conversion between the two will be an easy affair for most Game Masters.

The core rulebooks for the 3.5 rules system are already out of print, and we feel it is important to keep a core game available to new players. Plus, as great as 3.5 is, there remains room for improvement. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game enjoyed a year of open, public playtesting, making it the most robustly playtested game in the history of tabletop RPGs! We're sure you will find many of the changes intriguing and worth consideration for your campaign.



But why support 3.5? Isn't it a "dying" system?

Since Paizo's launch of Pathfinder, our sales have continued to exceed expectations. Many of our customers have invested thousands of dollars in 3.5 products from Paizo and other companies, and we believe there is little reason why all of those products should go to waste. The 3.5 rules are an excellent adaptation of the original rules that started the tabletop RPG hobby, and allow us to tell the sorts of stories we've been enjoying our entire lives. Even better, the 3.5 rules are anchored to an Open Gaming movement that allows us to benefit from the best practices and brilliant design of the entire RPG publishing community. As long as 3.5 remains a viable rules set, the dream of Open Gaming will last forever.

Jeff gave you the detailed version.

But yeah basically their design goal was:
 "Lets give those 3.5 players a way to keep playing and get more players for their games."

There is nothing wrong with that.

The OGL gave them a legal way to do it, there IS a market for it.
Its good all around for everybody.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;335581Jeff gave you the detailed version.

But yeah basically their design goal was:
 "Lets give those 3.5 players a way to keep playing and get more players for their games."

There is nothing wrong with that.

The OGL gave them a legal way to do it, there IS a market for it.
Its good all around for everybody.


- Ed C.

That (and the quoted FAQ) doesn't actually explain why they felt the need to change rules and what the overall goal of those changes was.

Quote from: jadrax;335583That (and the quoted FAQ) doesn't actually explain why they felt the need to change rules and what the overall goal of those changes was.

Sure it does.

Quote from: Paizo FAQWhy aren't you converting Pathfinder to 4th Edition?

We believe that the 3.5 rules best allow us to tell the kinds of stories that our customers enjoy. Since our staff loves the 3.5 system and the 30-year traditions that underlie it, since the world of Pathfinder was originally designed with 3.5 in mind, and since it would take us years to become as adept at the new system as we are with the perfectly good one that we've been using since Paizo was born, we've decided that sticking with 3.5 is the best option for the Pathfinder line.


How does the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game improve on the core 3.5 fantasy system?
Grappling a monster no longer requires you to have a master's degree in combat rules with a minor in spatial mechanics.

Using a polymorph spell does not require 3 different FAQ documents, 4 bestiaries, and a mountain of house rules.

Clerics can actually cast their prepared spells instead of converting them into healing.

Bards don't suck. Now they can make you die with laughter.

Monks don't suck. When they use flurry of blows they actually hit.

Paladins don't suck. Smite evil lasts until your target is dead.

Rangers don't suck. You really do not want to be a ranger's quarry.

Sorcerers don't suck. Bloodlines give you a host of cool powers and abilities.

There is now a reason to wear medium armor. With a good Dexterity score, you can get an AC of 19 by just wearing a breastplate.

Building the skill list of a rogue 5/barbarian 3/assassin 2 now only takes about 2 minutes.

Use Rope is gone. Climbing a wall requires only one skill check.

Spellcasters do not have to spend a bunch of ranks on Concentration (or any other skill) to be able to cast their spells in the middle of combat.

At high levels, a fighter can cause a character to become blinded and stunned with a critical hit.

At high levels, a paladin can cure a character that is blinded and stunned with a touch.

Curses, diseases, and poisons are now something that the players want to avoid contracting.

Putting together an encounter only requires you to add up the XP totals of the monsters you are using.

You do not have to wear a Christmas tree of magic items to be a successful adventurer. Monsters are designed with normal characters in mind.

Creating magic items now comes with the risk of making a cursed item if you are not well-prepared and careful.

You never, ever have to "de-level" your character.

With more healing and reusable abilities, the 15-minute adventuring day is a thing of the past.

You don't have to scrounge through secondhand bookstores to find the rulebooks. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game releases on August 13th, 2009 in game stores everywhere.

All the folks who play it at the store say they love the slight changes to 3.5 and that those minor changes are an improvement.
 They still feel that they are playing a "kind of 3.5 D&D".


- Ed C.

Quote from: jeff37923;335585Sure it does.

Again, that quoted text really fails to answer the question, which was why they felt the need to change rules and what the overall goal of those changes was.

I.e. something along the line of 'we liked 3.5 but the class balance was off so we decided to bring all classes into the same power category', its not the specifics that seem unclear, it's the big picture goal that seems lacking and makes people accuse it of just being 3.5 with tweaks.

Quote from: jadrax;335589Again, that quoted text really fails to answer the question, which was why they felt the need to change rules and what the overall goal of those changes was.

I.e. something along the line of 'we liked 3.5 but the class balance was off so we decided to bring all classes into the same power category', its not the specifics that seem unclear, it's the big picture goal that seems lacking and makes people accuse it of just being 3.5 with tweaks.

I think you are missing the point. Pathfinder was meant to be "just 3.5 with tweaks" because 3.5 had already established itself as being successful as a game system and profitable for Paizo. It says so right in the FAQ, in very plain english for people to read.

Quote from: Windjammer;335512So to answer the question of Pathfinder's design goals as a system, it may be best to think about it this. You've got someone who's never played any version of D&D, and who's only interested in buying a core rule book. Ever. Continued support, good PR, lively online community, huge history to the game - etc. all these factors don't matter to him. He's only interested in the book. It's like a guy who's never bought a WW II game in a box who's standing in a shop deciding between Memoir 44 and Tide of Iron. He'd like to know what box he ought to get, based on the type of game experience this box is designed for in contrast to the other box. So yep, he's interested to see how the two boxes differ, but any potentially helpful reply to him must describe each box's merits on its own terms and in terms that differentiate it from all the other options out there.

I'd like to hear your answers to this guy. Why should he buy the Pathfinder Core Rulebook? Why should he pick that game?

That's a very interesting way to put it.

Since this guy has never played any version of D&D, you describe Pathfinder RPG as you would 3.5 D&D, and play on the strengths of the original design: the versatility of the game system, the minutiae all its various options and components, such as feats and prestige classes, allow, the focus on tactical situations and yet, still the room for a wide variety of different playstyles, the underlying coherence of the game world that says that monsters are built using the same rules as players characters, that your creativity and imagination are put on the forefront when you want to make the game your own and push it to the next level by designing your own classes, prestige classes, feats and spells to fit the flavor of your campaign, and so on, so forth.

I think it's easy to forget that for this guy, there is no 3.5 D&D. It never existed, since he has never played any version of D&D prior to this purchase. For all intents and purposes, Pathfinder RPG really is 3.5 in print. The minor differences between those two game systems are mostly irrelevant for this newbie, and he's just interested in the game right now, not what it was almost ten years ago.

Now, for people who played 3.5, I basically agree with Spinachcat:

Quote from: Spinachcat;335518Pathfinder fills a similiar niche as Castles & Crusades.  It brings something fresh to a previous edition ruleset while allowing players to easily convert the previous edition settings and support.   Paizo's focus seems to be heavily on this backwards compatibility and ease of conversion.

As a fan of C&C, I haven't seen any support products from TL that are more interesting than just converting TSR settings.   If it wasn't for C&C, I probably would have sold off most of my AD&D stuff.

Many fans of C&C feel the backwards compatiblity is one of the biggest selling points and certainly, anyone getting into Pathfinder today will be able to snag a tremendous amount of 3e material extremely cheap on eBay and bargain bins to use for their campaigns.

That's what it is, really. Pathfinder RPG is to 3.5 D&D what C&C and OSRIC are to AD&D. It's the game they love that still benefits from new published game materials, and the game they can use all their OGL gaming library with. Beyond the simple support of the various Pathfinder APs, Modules and setting, that's what this game really is about.

How ridiculous to quote that FAQ in reply to my OP. It just shows that people think there's either no serious intention behind the question or no serious need to have the question answered.

The fact that my hypothetical guy hasn't played 3.5 is a rhetoric device to do the following. Instead of referencing 3.5. you actually have to spell out what you mean. So instead of saying, "it's exactly like 3.5., except for this" you have to tell me what you mean. Fiasco made a good attempt with the tool box approach. What I'm missing, however, are serious attempts at being more specific. So far there's precious little to differentiate Pathfinder from everything else that's out there. I'm told that this is a disingenious way to put it, since the intended goal of Pathfinder precisely isn't to be different from everything that's out there - when that everything includes D&D 3.5.

Fair enough. But this ought not blind us to discuss some design decisions taken at a more detailed level. I'd like to hear some of those details, preferably spelled out in concrete, descriptive, precise terms (so the marketing speak aka "x sucked in 3.5 and Pathfinder made it better/smoother/streamlined" won't float).

I'm going to give this my best shot, in the vain hope that people will pick up the gist or tell me I'm completely off (both responses equally welcome).

-----------

1. Pathfinder is designed to lower the player skill needed to play 3.5. well

Give a set of 4 masterminds over at TheGamingDen (char-op-perfectionalists) the opportunity to come up with 4 level 10 PCs. Ask a set of 3.5. noobs to do the same, explaining them the rules content at every point (time is no constraint). Set up a PvP between the two sets of PCs. Tell you what. That second team is a CR 1 encounter for our GamingDen team.

Now why is that? D&D 3.5. went to insane degrees to reward system mastery. Even if you constrained yourself to the core PHB when building a PC, the gap between a PC built by a casual gamer and someone who put seirous effort into optimization would be considerable. And that gap would only escalate as people went from level 1 to level 5 and beyond.

The system also rewarded rules knowledge. If you didn't know the precise range of your spells (and their shapes), didn't know the conditions which would best reward performing a combat maneuver (such as Bull Rush and Trip) and when best to avoid performing it - then you could either end up blowing your resources in a highly ineffective manner (and thus be penalized in play) or end up being at the recipient end of a DM using these things efficiently against you while you're caught off guard (and thus be penalized in play).

Monte Cook once wrote a design diary entry in which he talked about this - about how WotC specifically wanted D&D 3E to have the "Magic: the Gathering" effect of rewarding rules mastery like that.

To me, Pathfinder wants to retreat from that design path somewhat. They want to level out the discrepancy between rules masters and rules newbs. The guy who continues his level progression as a fighter beyond level 5 is no longer looking like a complete retard (whereas 3.5. positively expected him to branch out, pick the best feat combinations out there, and cherry pick prestige classes - or be eaten in combat if he refuses to do that). (Sure, if you throw in the Pathfinder Core Book with every 3.5. splat book out there, we still have the gap between the rules master and the rules newb. But in the long shot, that may well be the minority situation. In 3-4 years, people won't mix and mash Pathfinder with WotC books. They'll mix and mash Pathfinder with Pathfinder supplements. While I can't divine the direction that Pathfinder will be heading then, it may well be that Pathfinder doesn't go down the lane of power creep. The announcements of the new 4 classes, in fact, seems to encourage such a cautious estimate.)

So to a degree, Pathfinder has lessened the degree to which rules mastery matters during character generation. It hasn't erased it - that would be nigh impossible in a 3.5. descendant - but it has lessened it. A considerable diversion from 3.5. CORE, say I.

Second, Pathfinder aims to lessen the degree to which rules master is rewarded during play - and, more importantly (but it comes to the same thing), it tries to lessen the degree to which lack of rules mastery is punished during play. Again, this needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as we're talking about a 3.5. descendant, so knowledge of how to apply the rules effectively in play will always matter.
Still, an entry in the Pathfinder Bonus Bestiary raised my awareness, when I saw that they had changed the Allip's dealing ability drain to dealing ability damage. I call that the "Rusty effect". The idea, first propounded by Mike Mearls' 3.5. "makeover" of the rust monster, and since canoninzed in 4th edition MM 2, is to lessen the effect a monster will have on a party's condition beyond the encounter in which they face it. Mearls calls this the "blast radius", and his overriding goal is to lessen the duration thereof. In the case of the 3.5. allip, ability drain causes a PC's ability (here: Wisdom) to be reduced permanently, and only magical means - usually out of reach of such PCs, certainly out of ill-prepared PCs - can help the PC regain his wisdom. Ability damage, on the other hand, is the "soft" version of this in 3.5, and was picked for the Pathfinder allip. The PC still loses Wisdom, but when a certain time after the encounter with the Allip has passed, the character will regain his initial Wisdom score "naturally" - that is, without player input.

This minor change brings about two things. First of all, it means that a player whose character has suffered a hit from the allip need no longer exercise his brain to think about how to alleviate the infliction. Second, a player going toe-to-toe in combat with an allip need no longer be extra careful in how he's going to behave: the penalty of behaving foolishly with respect to maneuvering and the timing of attacks and the choice of weapons (allips are immune to ordinary swords, for instance) has been greatly reduced. Thus the penalty for ignorance or sheer lack of player skill has been reduced. A player can screw up an encounter with an allip and still survive to tell the tale.

As always, I've picked up isolated instances to mount general claims. Don't forget that I might be totally mistaken in this diagnosis, if only because I attended to a fragment of the actual rules only. Well, guess what, if people start to engage with Pathfinder's actual rules to debate the actual design goals behind them, I'll kiss their feet nonetheless if they prove me wrong. Because my stated intent in the OP was to get clearer on these issues. With that said, onto my second attempt at contributing.

-----------

2. Pathfinder has received the Monte Seal of Approval. As one consequence, Cook's houserulings recorded in the various Books of Might have been canonized.

When Pathfinder announced Monte Cook's involvement in the production of the Pathfinder RPG, and Paizo fans started to dance and go crazy on paizo.com and enworld.org, I was that lonely bastard who asked what precisely this announcement came to. No one quite knew what the extent and even nature of Cook's involvement was, so I volunteered the cynic scenario that Monte is going to write a preface to a book which he never read. A book he'd endorse, but not one he'd actually read, much less consulted for. Like, you know, his preface to the Tome of Horrors II, which I'm sure Necromancer Games paid him good money for.

8 months later my stance on this has little changed. The preface Cook wrote to the actual core rulebook has only aggravated my severe doubts to begin with, as Cook himself (similar to a blog entry he composed earlier) stresses just how minor his contribution is, and how little final responsibility rested with him on the actual design process ("none", and that's from Cook himself). The preface itself, much like Jason Bulmahn's preface which follows it, is totally silent on the design goals of the game, and equally silent on the goals Cook had going into the process. I remain convinced that Cook's role with Pathfinder is barely less superficial than his involvement with Tome of Horrors II. In fact, this is one of the few personal gripes I keep towards Paizo, a company I otherwise appreciate greatly, because they pulled a cheap marketing stunt in preference to putting serious and - most importantly - transparent effort into rules design from an acknowledged expert.

None of this, however, can blind anyone to see how much Monte Cook's writing for Malhavoc Press contributed to what ended up in the Pathfinder RPG. There's a couple of houserules in Cook's various Books of Might which I've adopted over the years. A pretty central one reworks a number of 3.5. spells which solve a significant in-game problem for a player without ever having to roll a die. Worse, some of these 3.5. spells meant that casters outclassed the non-caster classes in performing their (the non-casters') prime responsibility in play. Here's two examples.

I. Arcane lock and knock. Renders the rogue pretty soon obsolete as the guy who, you knows, opens locked doors.
II. Various condition removing spells - like neutralize poison, remove disease, and remove curse - succeed automatically.

Spread over a couple of supplements, Cook realized that the best solution to such cases was to introduce a die roll for the caster (namely, a Caster Level check, as you find in the 3.5. version for Dispel Magic). The die roll would succeed at two things: it would no longer make the caster better at the task in comparison to a non-caster specialized in the task (this is re:I.) and it would make the caster's results more randomized, forestalling the automatic success of the task (this is re:II.).

But there are also benefits to this rule changes that could be translated into design goals. For instance, I already argued in 1. that Pathfinder wishes to make the single-classed character a viable chargen/char-leveling choice again. In a sense, this reinstals the 4 archetypes which 3rd edition diluted so much (and which was one of Gary Gygax' major gripes with 3rd edition: the ease of multiclassing rendered the core archetypes of magic-user, fighting man, thief, and cleric obsolete). Pathfinder rewards people who pick an archetype and stick to it. It seems natural, then, that Pathfinder will also attempt to prevent one archetype getting into the "area of expertise" of another archetype. The revision of the knock and lock spells (I. above) would seem to be a good instance of serving this design goal.

Second, as the Pathfinder FAQ (pointed out by Jeff above) say, Paizo wanted to stick with something 3.5-ish rather than 4E since 3.5. better suits them "to tale the tales [they] want to tell" - namely their modules. I wish someone would actually spell out what this means. In the mean time, I'm going to give this my best shot.
There are a couple of spells in the game which positively wreck an engaging session, and an engaging stretch of campaign, because they present the players with a problem that can either be solved in an instant by one of the aforementioned "problem solving spells", or because it presents the players with a problem that can't be rationalized as actually occuring in the campaign world, given that that campaign world could have taken care of the problem ages ago by recourse to one of these aforementioned "problem solving spells".

Example. In the second instalment of the Crimson Curse Adventure path, a city is beset by a plague. The adventure portrays the plague as a huge, nigh insurmountable problem for the city, a problem the characters have to get round while dealing with further problems in the city.

Well, guess what. Any players steeped with the 3.5 ruleset will call bullshit on that (and lots of people on the Paizo forums have). A city of proper size (as was the case) will feature plenty of clerics who can auto-succeed, and mass-perform, the Cure Disease spell. The "plague" (which, to make matters worse, was non-magical in nature and thus cured even more easily than otherwise) would have never spread in a city governed by 3.5. rules, much less become an "insurmountable" problem for it - or for the players.

Pathfinder drastically revises this set up by erasing the automatic success of the Cure Disease spell (as specified above - success now requires a CL check, with a DC forestalling automatic success).

And this ain't the only instance. A lot of Pathfinder modules rely on the PCs obtaining (and having to act on) a Call-of-Cthuluesque "clue" - typically a diary or other written record, whose actual intent is unclear given that it is written in some truly arcane (read: obscure) language which precious few know about. Again, guess what, a cleric at level 1 can perform the Comprehend Languages spell. Any part in the module which would require the PCs to go to lengths to decipher the "clue", to find the right resources (manuals or the right person) to "translate" it - all that is gone.

See, what aggravates situations such as these in 3.5. is that they take the joy out of roleplaying. Instead of a DM waiting to see if the players can pick their brains to figure out a creative solution, it boils down to the question of whether the party has selected the right spell at chargen or memorization time. (3.5. detractors more often bring up the introduction of skills to D&D as the ultimate "roleplaying killer", but it's the spells which are 3.5.'s killer.) Pathfinder changes that again; first, by erasing the auto-success nature of "Comprehend Languages", second, by giving the DM new means (namely new spells) to counter the Comprehend Languages spell (and pretty cool counter spells at that, fooling all-too-confident players in entertaining ways I wished I had thought of years ago).

And with that observation I conclude. Of the few rules changes I actually paid attention to, very few of these I would say make 3.5. better for the players, in particular for players who are accustomed to a system that rewards them for their rules mastery at every turn. Not only has Pathfinder removed (by leveling out) the very best feat (etc) choices for these guys. It has also lessened the degree to which such players will benefit from rules knowledge - be it knowledge that enables these players to come up with the "proper" reaction to an allip, or be it knowledge that enables players to "pick and perform" the one Problem-Solving spell to overcome an in-game conflict situation in one fell swoop.

My prediction therefore is that a lot of extant 3.5. players, players who spent hours on hours to master the rules, will be pissed and turned away. Not only do they have to re-learn the rules - they will also get precious little reward out of it.

However, from a DM's point of view, moreover a DM who values creative player input miles above actual rules mastery, the new Pathfinder RPG is a true gold mine. It takes the old 3.5. rules, but attaches a completely new mindset to it. It rewards players who pick and stick to archetypes, and it rewards players who solve problems by using their creativity and roleplaying. It basically turns down the "10 out of 10" metagaming which 3.5. was all about, and thus gives us - us meaning old 3.5ers - a new way to experience 3rd edition. An experience that WotC might never have desired to give us. God knows, maybe this type of experience is truer to what D&D once was about, and in an unexpected twist of events Pathfinder might be the first instance of 3rd edition D&D to accomplish that.

Quote from: Windjammer;335664How ridiculous to quote that FAQ in reply to my OP. It just shows that people think there's either no serious intention behind the question or no serious need to have the question answered.

 

Fair enough. But this ought not blind us to discuss some design decisions taken at a more detailed level. I'd like to hear some of those details, preferably spelled out in concrete, descriptive, precise terms (so the marketing speak aka "x sucked in 3.5 and Pathfinder made it better/smoother/streamlined" won't float).

Windjammer, if the answers to your serious questions about Pathfinder are so important to you and you feel the answers given here are insufficient, than why ask them here? Why are you not asking these questions of Paizo on the Paizo forums themselves?