TheRPGSite

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  (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142) 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?

Quote from: jeff37923;335668Windjammer, 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?

Er...because he's not looking for responses that are in favor of the game?

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;335674Er...because he's not looking for responses that are in favor of the game?

!i!

You think he is looking for confirmation of a negative opinion of Pathfinder?

Jeff, read the reminder of my post. I pick up the futility of citing the FAQ again and expand on that. If the remainder of my post doesn't tell you what sort of thing (not: which actual details) I was looking for, nothing can.

But yes, I'm vastly disappointed that a lot of Pathfinder fans are just as defensive and closed to concrete argumentation as 4E fans.

If you think all of this is aimed at coming down negatively on Pathfinder, just read the final paragraph in my beast of a post. That should seriously clear any doubts.

Who fucking cares if a game's existence can be justified by a single marketing mission statement? I've dealt with enough of that shit in real life. God, if my initial introduction to RPGs were through a mission statement I'd have turned my ass around and gone the other way.

There are things in Pathfinder I don't like at all (mainly re magic item creation which seems to if anything further enshrine 3.5's Christmas tree default setting) so it's not total defensiveness – I just don't grant the premise that "focused" design changes are better design changes. If I did, I'd appreciate 4e a lot for, for ex.

Quote from: Windjammer;335664Stuff

Its interesting to note that to achieve what you describe, namely to benefit from Pathfinder's "innovations", you have to disregard and abandon 3.5E D&D in favor of the new Pathfinder paradigm.

As for specifics:

1. I don't know that they've really achieved a lowering of required player skill. They certainly haven't if you take advantage of Pathfinder's so called "backwards compatibility". Even still, a player with an eye for optimization playing a Wizard or Druid will still trounce a player with a nonspellcasting class to an almost identical degree in core-only Pathfinder.

2. I find it interesting that you mention a future Pathfinder-only orthodoxy. I see signs of that now. Many Pathfinder fans have described abandoning WotC 3.5E altogether and playing core-only Pathfinder. I wonder what this means in the long term for the 3.5E community.

3. Problem solving spells still solve problems. Adding a bit of randomness and unreliability doesn't really remove the fact that these spells can still do what they do. The change is from auto-success to mindlessly rolling dice. While it is a downgrade in power and utility, it isn't really a change in tactics or behavior.

4. While Pathfinder gives some reward to sticking with archetypes, again this is only if you disregard backwards compatibility and ignore all existing 3.5E books. If you use WotC books, 3.5E style multiclassing and Prestige Classes will be more rewarding even with the boosts to base classes in Pathfinder. Even with Pathfinder's changes, Pathfinder isn't a strong class focused game. Not in the sense that AD&D or 4E D&D are.

You bring up some really interesting points, Windjammer. I'm not sure I disagree with any of them, but I haven't spent much time chewing on the whole thing - I'm writting this just as I finished reading the post.

Now, about Monte Cook, he actually points out what his role was:

Quote from: Monte Cook, Pathfinder RPG IntroductionNow, my role as “design consultant” was a relatively small one. Make no mistake: the Pathfinder RPG is Jason’s baby. While my role was to read over material and give feedback, mostly I just chatted with Jason, relating old 3rd Edition design process stories. Jason felt it valuable to know why things were done the way they were. What was the thinking behind the magic item creation feats? Had we ever considered doing experience points a different way? How did the Treasure Value per Encounter chart evolve? And so on.

It was an interesting time. Although I sometimes feel I have gone on at length about every facet of 3rd Edition design in forums, in interviews, and at conventions, Jason managed to ask questions I’d never been asked before. Together, we really probed the ins and outs of the game, which I think is important to do before you start making changes. You’ve got to know where you’ve been before you can figure out where you’re going. This is particularly true when you start messing around with a game as robust and tightly woven as 3rd Edition. The game’s design is an intricate enough matrix that once you change one thing, other aspects of the game that you never even suspected were related suddenly change as well. By the time we were done hashing things out, we’d really put the original system through its paces and conceived of some interesting new ideas. Jason used that as a springboard and then went and did all the hard work while I sat back and watched with a mix of awe and excitement as the various playtest and preview versions of the game came out.

i.e. he served as a sort of historian of 3rd edition. Jason was throwing questions at him, and Monte answered to the best of his recollection why this or that design element came out the way it did. He was thus exactly what the Pathfinder RPG credits say he was: a design consultant. Not a designer himself.

I don't know if you're just victim of Frank and Voss' anti-Monte Kool-Aid here (assuming of course you're neither one of them yourself), but I thought it best to point out that Monte's introduction actually did point out what his role was.

Quote from: Windjammer;335676Jeff, read the reminder of my post. I pick up the futility of citing the FAQ again and expand on that. If the remainder of my post doesn't tell you what sort of thing (not: which actual details) I was looking for, nothing can.

But yes, I'm vastly disappointed that a lot of Pathfinder fans are just as defensive and closed to concrete argumentation as 4E fans.

If you think all of this is aimed at coming down negatively on Pathfinder, just read the final paragraph in my beast of a post. That should seriously clear any doubts.

OK, I get what you are looking for now. Mea culpa. My apologies.

Quote from: Benoist;335682I don't know if you're just victim of Frank and Voss' anti-Monte Kool-Aid here (assuming of course you're neither one of them yourself), but I thought it best to point out that Monte's introduction actually did point out what his role was.

I've got a strict policy of always posting under the same nick across all forums, precisely to avoid people asking such questions. I'm not a member of TheGamingDen, and I'm certainly not either Frank or Voss. In fact, part of my post is trying to explain why people of such a bent have reacted to Pathfinder as negatively as they have, even once you take out the personal dimension and their disappointment over the  playtesting. I feel that a response such as theirs is informative about Pathfinder as a game, at many levels, since for them system mastery is a key ingredient to enjoying 3.5. Pathfinder has made an effort to take that source of enjoyment away from this version of 3.5. Or so I try to argue.

Quote from: Windjammer;335686I've got a strict policy of always posting under the same nick across all forums, precisely to avoid people asking such questions. I'm not a member of TheGamingDen, and I'm certainly not either Frank or Voss. In fact, part of my post is trying to explain why people of such a bent have reacted to Pathfinder as negatively as they have, even once you take out the personal dimension and their disappointment over the  playtesting. I feel that a response such as theirs is informative about Pathfinder as a game, at many levels, since for them system mastery is a key ingredient to enjoying 3.5. Pathfinder has made an effort to take that source of enjoyment away from this version of 3.5. Or so I try to argue.

Good to know. That's just that the amount of anti-Monte bullshit over there astounded me, and these are the two particular members of these forums that stood out to me in that regard. My assumption that you were neither one of them was laid out in plain view so that you could make that clear. Thanks.

Quote from: jeff37923;335592I 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.

So why change it, why not just make a pure 3.5 clone?

I see fans say its supposed to be 3.5 ramped up, or 3.5 fixed, or 3.5 balanced, but I am unclear as what the changes are really supposed to achieve overall. Is it purely supposed to be 3.5 with the designers houserules made cannon, or is it supposed to be a differently focused game or what?

What is Pathfinder better at doing then 3.5?

It's not meant as a criticism, it's a real question.

Quote from: Imp;335678Who fucking cares if a game's existence can be justified by a single marketing mission statement? I've dealt with enough of that shit in real life. God, if my initial introduction to RPGs were through a mission statement I'd have turned my ass around and gone the other way.

There are things in Pathfinder I don't like at all (mainly re magic item creation which seems to if anything further enshrine 3.5's Christmas tree default setting) so it's not total defensiveness – I just don't grant the premise that "focused" design changes are better design changes. If I did, I'd appreciate 4e a lot for, for ex.

I think mission statements done well, are a good thing. If you look at say Mutants & Masterminds, or Cuthulu D20, there games that you know right way exactly why you are buying it. Its when the focus is stated but doesn't actually deliver I think you have issues.

Quote from: jadrax;335702What is Pathfinder better at doing then 3.5?

Overall, in my opinion, nothing. That's not the point of Pathfinder RPG at all to do anything dramatically "better" than 3.5. It attempts to iron out some commonly reported issues (Polymorph is broken, Grapple rules suck), but that's about it.

People who didn't like 3.5 are most likely going to dislike Pathfinder RPG for the same reasons.

Now, Windjammer, when talking about the way Pathfinder RPG attempts to backpedal a bit on the System Mastery that was inherent to 3.5 brought up a bunch of very good points, IMO. In that sense, it could be said that Pathfinder RPG is more rewarding people who do not want to spend hours and hours learning all the intricacies of the system, whereas it kind of gimps the uber-builds of optimizers out there.

I don't know yet if the changes introduce some new tweaks and loopholes the game system aficionados out there could exploit, but my guess would be "yes", just because that's generally what will happen when you try to "fix" some powergaming issues: you just replace one loophole with another to the astute system master who takes the time to tinker with his character builds. No system is infallible in that regard, particularly one who replicates the level of detail of the 3.5 game system. Optimizers will remain optimizers, no matter what type of game system they game. That's the nature of the beast, if you ask me.

Quote from: jadrax;335702So why change it, why not just make a pure 3.5 clone?

Because that would be illegal.

Quote from: jadrax;335702Is it purely supposed to be 3.5 with the designers houserules made cannon, or is it supposed to be a differently focused game or what?

Yes, my impression is that Pathfinder is supposed to be 3.5 with tweaks, a 3.75 if you like.

Quote from: jadrax;335702What is Pathfinder better at doing then 3.5?

Staying in print.

Going back to Windjammer's long post, it seems like he's arguing that Pathfinder is taking a few steps back from 3.5E's focus on infinitely customizable character creation based on piles of splatbooks and somewhat backpedaling from 3.5E's infinitely expandable toolbox approach and focusing instead on the core rules.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;335709Going back to Windjammer's long post, it seems like he's arguing that Pathfinder is taking a few steps back from 3.5E's focus on infinitely customizable character creation based on piles of splatbooks and somewhat backpedaling from 3.5E's infinitely expandable toolbox approach and focusing instead on the core rules.

Nope, that's not what he's saying.
That's what he thinks the Pathfinder users will do, based on what they're doing right now. Important nuance.

I have doubts, personally, about this. Personally, I intend to run Pathfinder RPG from the Core Book first to get a sense of how the system works in practice. From there, when I feel I get a good grasp of what changed and what didn't change, I'll start using more and more of my OGL library with it, converting stuff where it needs to be converted. I don't know how many people intend to do the same thing, but I bet I'm not the only one thinking this way.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;335709Going back to Windjammer's long post, it seems like he's arguing that Pathfinder is taking a few steps back from 3.5E's focus on infinitely customizable character creation based on piles of splatbooks and somewhat backpedaling from 3.5E's infinitely expandable toolbox approach and focusing instead on the core rules.

Which I don't really accept.  Mind you, I'm not a relentless character optimser so maybe I wouldn't know.  Obv core pathfinder has much less options than 3.5 and all its splat books, but if you just compare 3.5 Core and Pathfinder Core I don't see how rules mastery was gimped unless its a reference to the +1hp/+1 skill point reward for sticking to your preferred class rather than picking up a new prestige class every 2 levels.

I think people are really overthing Pathfinder's design goals in any case.  Paizo is a much smaller company than WOTC and I'm sure didn't devote anything like the resources that WOTC did into 3/3.5 or 4E.  Nor did they need to.  Pathfinder is just 3.5 with a few little fixes (emphasis on the little) and some inetresing house rules thrown in.  Me personally, I like most of the changes made. They are minor but satisfying.  Others clearly feel otherwise but most of those are I suspect not playing 3.5 either.

Pathfinder is a great game in the sense that 3.5 was a great game.  Which is also why 4E fans don't like it (though its weird they are so threatened by it). Paizo doesn't deserve a hell of a lot of credit of the good qualities of Pathfinder because essentially they all came out of WOTC's 3.5. What they do get credit for is having the balls to support a system that still had a lot of fans when WOTC summarily dropped it.

Quote from: jadrax;335702I think mission statements done well, are a good thing. If you look at say Mutants & Masterminds, or Cuthulu D20, there games that you know right way exactly why you are buying it. Its when the focus is stated but doesn't actually deliver I think you have issues.

Sure, no doubt, there, but I don't think that having a unifying theme to your design is necessary or compelling in your more toolbox-type games. Talking strictly about appeal, here, a mission statement isn't going to sell me on a game – I have to be able to look into a book and go, "ooh, you can be that?" far more than I would say "those are design priorities I concur with!"

QuoteGoing back to Windjammer's long post, it seems like he's arguing that Pathfinder is taking a few steps back from 3.5E's focus

I think Pathfinder is taking one step back. :)

Maybe there was no design goal for Pathfinder to begin with?

Perhaps what they stated as purported "design goals", was just rewriting history to suit their own propaganda purposes?

Who knows?  They could have just chugged along haphazardly for the entire time, while pumping out "good vibes" PR press to fool everyone.

Quote from: ggroy;335823Maybe there was no design goal for Pathfinder to begin with?

Perhaps what they stated as purported "design goals", was just rewriting history to suit their own propaganda purposes?

Who knows?  They could have just chugged along haphazardly for the entire time, while pumping out "good vibes" PR press to fool everyone.

I've heard it said in places(RPGnet) that the "design" of Pathfinder consisted of pumping out "good vibes" PR press while printing one of Paizo's main designers(Sean K Reynolds?) houserules from his home campaign.

I don't believe that is the whole story, but it has a ring of truth to it, even if only a kernel.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;335825I've heard it said in places(RPGnet) that the "design" of Pathfinder consisted of pumping out "good vibes" PR press while printing one of Paizo's main designers(Sean K Reynolds?) houserules from his home campaign.

I don't believe that is the whole story, but it has a ring of truth to it, even if only a kernel.

Would not utterly surprise me.  Mind you, its all the plan they needed becuase IMO, WOTC handed them a sure winner by abandoning 3.5 so early in its cycle.

Quote from: Fiasco;335831Would not utterly surprise me.  Mind you, its all the plan they needed becuase IMO, WOTC handed them a sure winner by abandoning 3.5 so early in its cycle.

This probably will not happen when 4E is abandoned (most likely very early in its cycle), with the way the GSL is written.  4E will most likely sink into the background and become another "dead edition" like 1E/2E AD&D.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;335825I've heard it said in places(RPGnet) that the "design" of Pathfinder consisted of pumping out "good vibes" PR press while printing one of Paizo's main designers(Sean K Reynolds?) houserules from his home campaign.

Even if there is truth in some of this, I'll give Paizo credit for running a very effective PR campaign for the Pathfinder RPG book.  But how well this "good vibes" PR campaign can sustain the company into the future, remains to be seen.

We'll know in a year or so whether that "good vibes" PR campaign had any substance or legs to stand on its own.  If the company files for bankruptcy in a year or two, we'll know that the "good vibes" was just fleeting and never there to begin with.  (ie.  Pure hype with no substance whatsoever).

What will be more interesting to watch is how Pathfinder, through its community more than anything, seems to be evolving into something significantly distinct from 3.5E D&D. I was a semi-regular in the WotC forums 3E section before the announcement of 4E, and I must say that the games Pathfinder fans are discussing bear surprisingly little resemblance to what was being discussed on the WotC 3.5E forums in 2006-2007. Be interesting to see how that turns out.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;335840What will be more interesting to watch is how Pathfinder, through its community more than anything, seems to be evolving into something significantly distinct from 3.5E D&D. I was a semi-regular in the WotC forums 3E section before the announcement of 4E, and I must say that the games Pathfinder fans are discussing bear surprisingly little resemblance to what was being discussed on the WotC 3.5E forums in 2006-2007. Be interesting to see how that turns out.

How exactly was the Pathfinder chatter different in those days?

Quote from: ggroy;335843How exactly was the Pathfinder chatter different in those days?

2009 Pathfinder chatter vs. 2006 3.5E D&D chatter.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;3358442009 Pathfinder chatter vs. 2006 3.5E D&D chatter.

I didn't read the WotC boards regularly in those days.

For example, how much more fanatical "fanboy-ism" is on the Pathfinder boards compared to the WotC 3.5E boards several years ago?

Quote from: ggroy;335845I didn't read the WotC boards regularly in those days.

For example, how much more fanatical "fanboy-ism" is on the Pathfinder boards compared to the WotC 3.5E boards several years ago?

I can't really say, beyond saying that "fanboy-ism" is a lot more visible on the Pathfinder boards. If 3.5E "fanboy-ism" existed, you didn't see it at WotC, since other games really weren't really discussed, ever. There were some striking internal divides, which you don't see much with Pathfinder.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;335840What will be more interesting to watch is how Pathfinder, through its community more than anything, seems to be evolving into something significantly distinct from 3.5E D&D.

What exactly do you see it evolving into that is different than 3.5E?

Quote from: Koltar;335587They still feel that they are playing a "kind of 3.5 D&D".

Like AD&D fans playing C&C.  

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;335681Many Pathfinder fans have described abandoning WotC 3.5E altogether and playing core-only Pathfinder. I wonder what this means in the long term for the 3.5E community.

In the OSR community, you see an increasing number of discussions about people abandoning AD&D for either a retro-clone or C&C for various reasons.

I'm one of them.  If I play a TSR setting, it will be with S&W or C&C.   My AD&D books exist as supplements to the clones.

I suspect the 3e community will split between Pathfinder players and the "old guard" who decry the use of non-3e era books.    

Quote from: jeff37923;335684OK, I get what you are looking for now. Mea culpa. My apologies.

Holy fuck!  Somebody apologized on theRPGsite!

That's gotta be a banning offense.

Quote from: ggroy;335834This probably will not happen when 4E is abandoned (most likely very early in its cycle), with the way the GSL is written.  4E will most likely sink into the background and become another "dead edition" like 1E/2E AD&D.

Obviously, WotC does not adhere to the TSR cycle.  It's akin to the Game Workshop cycle so like 3.0 and 3.5, we can bet that 4e has 5 years at the most before 5e arrives.  

4e will die off much quicker than AD&D.   And I'm a fan of 4e.    4e is all about WotC's total control.   DDI and the RPGA will seamlessly switch over to 5e so there won't be much of 4e community left behind.

Quote from: Spinachcat;336107In the OSR community, you see an increasing number of discussions about people abandoning AD&D for either a retro-clone or C&C for various reasons.

I'm one of them.  If I play a TSR setting, it will be with S&W or C&C.   My AD&D books exist as supplements to the clones.

Main reason why I've used some retroclones instead of the original books for some short evening or long weekend pickup type games, is mainly because the other players frequently don't have their old 1E AD&D or basic D&D books anymore.  Their parents may have chucked them away during spring cleaning many years ago.

Quote from: Spinachcat;336107Obviously, WotC does not adhere to the TSR cycle.  It's akin to the Game Workshop cycle so like 3.0 and 3.5, we can bet that 4e has 5 years at the most before 5e arrives.  

4e will die off much quicker than AD&D.   And I'm a fan of 4e.    4e is all about WotC's total control.   DDI and the RPGA will seamlessly switch over to 5e so there won't be much of 4e community left behind.

The only ways I can see 4E lasting well past its official "expiry date", is if 5E either really sucks bigtime and/or WotC has a change of heart and changes the 4E license to OGL.  I don't see either case happening.

Quote from: Benoist;335711I intend to run Pathfinder RPG from the Core Book first to get a sense of how the system works in practice. From there, when I feel I get a good grasp of what changed and what didn't change, I'll start using more and more of my OGL library with it, converting stuff where it needs to be converted. I don't know how many people intend to do the same thing, but I bet I'm not the only one thinking this way.

That's exactly what I'll be doing.  As the campaign moves on, I'll introduce new spells and PrCs if and when campaign-appropriate.

For what it's worth, the idea that PF backs away from the 'system mastery' attitude is a selling-point to me.

To me, the Pathfinder approach is very simple to explicate: 3.5 is a living system, amenable to changes, updates, expansions, retro-fitting or what have you. WotC declared 3.5 dead prematurely for a lot of people such as myself. To me, there is still a huge design space in 3.5 and I think the Pathfinder folks also see that.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;3358442009 Pathfinder chatter vs. 2006 3.5E D&D chatter.

That's interesting.

In what way were they different? Did they talk about different campaign set ups? Did they design their adventures or settings differently? Were they mainly comparing character builds? Did they talk about which rule was official, and which was not (or, what third party supplement got used at their table)?