Pathinder Beta up, PDF is free.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:57 pm

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:11 pm

Try putting these where they belong -- Other Games. That is why that forum exists.

Otherwise, OK. Hopefully this will have more appeal than the "alpha."

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:20 pm

Oh yeah, Other Games. Sorry.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:38 pm

I'm hoping there has been more than a coupe significant changes (for the better).

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:01 am

Well, I got it and got fed up looking through it. It's more than a small pain in my mind to have split up the book into separate PDFs for each chapter.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

ssfsx17 · Post by **ssfsx17** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:31 am

Well... it's 3e. The main differences that I've noticed are that it tries to provide more incentives to be pure-classed, and more incentives to choose clerical domains / wizard schools. I wasn't familiar with the detailed mechanics of 3/3.5 and can't comment on any differences there.

dachda · Post by **dachda** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:22 am

moriarty777 wrote:
Well, I got it and got fed up looking through it. It's more than a small pain in my mind to have split up the book into separate PDFs for each chapter.

M

Check it out again, there are two versions, the more easily spotted one is split into chapters, while the other is a single complete download. I did the same thing myself, but then found the full complete download. Both are free.
_________________
Sir Dachda McKinty,

Margrave and Knight of Portlandia
Castles & Crusades Society

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:08 pm

moriarty777 wrote:
Well, I got it and got fed up looking through it. It's more than a small pain in my mind to have split up the book into separate PDFs for each chapter.

M

*edit*

What dachda said.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:39 am

So what do you guys think?

I have a friend running it but have been too busy to play.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:29 am

Joe wrote:
So what do you guys think?

I have a friend running it but have been too busy to play.

I only read through it then read the valid complaints and winery on the Paizo boards.

Personally it does not do what I need to happen, simplify, simplify, simplify. What drove me away from 3E is still in place.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:23 am

I think it looks pretty good. I agree with Tree - it's not any simplier than 3.x. The complexity of 3.x didn't send me away, though; I was running from WotC because of 4e and that's when I found (of "refound") C&C.

I'll keep supporting Paizo, if nothing other than principle. And Pathfinder isn't terrible. I'm not exactly their target demographic, though - I have every 3.x rulebook and I'm not coming into the game late without the stuff. While some of the changes aren't enough to me to switch over completely to Pathfinder, there's some interesting options I could houserule into a 3.x game. I'll hopefully be playing C&C though.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:27 pm

From what I understand there are still lots and lots of bugs to fix in Pathfinder. While I pretty much LOVE all of the base classes in Pathfinder, I think I'll wait until more playtesting and adjustments have been made before looking into it again.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Maliki · Post by **Maliki** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:30 pm

They made several changes I thought were good, and if given a choice I'd pick this over 3E, but still way over the top for my tastes, I'll stick to something simpler like C&C.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

papercut · Post by **papercut** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:09 am

From what I can gather, they are taking a bottom up approach. They are fixing lower levels than working up. The final version is still a year away so who knows what will happen?

My friend wants to run a Pathfinder game so I'll get to see what it is all about. He gets to play in my C&C game. I hope mine is more fun!
_________________
Someone send me some dice!

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:22 pm

Maliki wrote:
They made several changes I thought were good, and if given a choice I'd pick this over 3E, but still way over the top for my tastes, I'll stick to something simpler like C&C.

I'd probably pick 3.x over Pathfinder, but that's me. It'd be a toss-up, to be honest. I'm more familiar with 3.x and sometimes I get hung up on a multitude of smaller changes rather than large, glaring ones.

But, in my "back-to-basics" gaming renaissance, I'm picking C&C over both of them.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:24 pm

I love Paizo, and think their work is amazing. They were one of the few d20 companies I supported with my gaming dollars even though I didn't play 3e.

I can't get into Pathfinder at all though.

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:11 pm

In terms of the revised 3.x ruleset or the setting to go with it?

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:14 pm

Ruleset.

Setting is pretty sweet.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:06 pm

Quote:
They made several changes I thought were good, and if given a choice I'd pick this over 3E, but still way over the top for my tastes, I'll stick to something simpler like C&C.

Yeah, I think simpler is better also.

You want to dazzle me let's talk philosophy or physics.

You want to keep me in a game...make it playable and combat fluid
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:36 pm

I plan to play my first game tonight.

The DM is pretty good, but he seems to enjoy the complexity as much as I disdain it.

So far I see a 3.5 clone with some tweaks. 3.5 is not my favorite, but I'm jonesing for a game. I won't be able to play C&C until December probably, and once my 3.5 campaign come to a closing point I hope to be playtesting my homebrew.

I hate the art and the color pages. All it means to me is another 45 dollar book for 20 dollars worth of rules. Also, the art is superior but what I hate about it are the faces, and the adolescent sexuality of every female. I mean, I never knew gnomes were so hot...puhleese. But what gets me the most are the faces. I have never been a great big fan of anime faces, and though they are not as bad as some, the huge eyes and mongoloid features still makes me think it is being marketed to a customer base that still has pimples.
I just wish there was some way to compete with all the shiny glossy and fancy print without going broke or charging phenomenal prices for a book.
I'll let you know if combat is any faster than 3.5 or if anything seems an improvement.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:46 am

Ok, well I played my first session of Pathfinder. General opinion...it felt just like 3.5 (I could not tell the difference) just with a few different rules to cause one to refer to the rulebooks more often.

Overall it was a great session of gaming but I credit most of that with a good DM and quality players to sit at the table with.

Pros: Well the basics I was already familiar with as it seems to be 3.5 with a different cover. The DM and players were quality but they would have been if we played rock paper scissors.

i see this as a way to keep 3.5 alive, but it was 3.5 that caused me to seek another rules set and thus I found C&C.

Cons: What little tweaks and changes there were are hidden in 400 pages of the same old thing. I see no simple way to find the tweaks and changes easily. The only way to really tell if there was a change would be to research each and every rule and nuance. With 400 pages to peruse, this does not sound like fun to me. My motto is rules schmules more often than not anyway.

One change I did notice was not an improvement imho. I guess you can now apply appraise and detect magic together in order to identify the magical effects of an item. At face value this makes sense, but in practice it just added up to more freaking dice checks. Roll for this item, roll for that, roll roll roll. The concept is good but it needs to be applied differently in order to simplify magic item identification. I have resorted in my game to just almost give the details away if you had the spell. Otherwise the evening is gone as players spend all night trying to figure out basic +1 items.

One negative, and this is my personal bias and does not reflect on the rules. I really don't like the art. Too much anime cartoony look to the npc's. Even some of the names were just straight out of a japanese movie. Anime has it's place...but it is not in a medieval fantasy role playing game.

As for the black paladin...I don't appreciate political correctness inserted into fantasy games. I wonder if they represent a god of Hope and Change.

So my overall opinion is why not just play 3.5? At least highlight what is different so I can tell.

If streamlining was their goal I missed where it was accomplished.

The same issues I had with 3.5 remains. It not so much this particular rule or that rule.

It's the case of making combat fast and furious.

it's the case of allowing "Anything" to happen based on the players imagination, or being corralled into specific feats and skills as written.

It's the fact that indivudual feats makes a player play inside a box defined by feats and skills. I mean one feat was actually called "Over head Swing" or something. It causes more damage...ok. Is there a feat called "Ferocious Scream" that causes my enemy to become shaken and scared? What about the feat, "Chocalate Mocha" that causes my enemy to present a hot frothy beverage for my consumption. now that would be a useful feat indeed.

I just don't see the need for most feats...but this is not about my issues with 3.5, it is supposed to be what I thought of Pathfinder.
3.5 with anime art and Japanese names.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:09 pm

I don't know if Pathfinder is trying to Streamline v3.5 other then for a few areas (like grappling and all other combat related "manuevers", and skills). The rest of Pathfinder seems just as complicated as v3.5 ever was.

I would imagine in playing only one session of Pathfinder, one would not notice many differences. As I see it the differences will probably come forth from many sessions, and character advancement. The base character classes in Pathfinder present you with more choices then the v3.5 game (just look at the awesome Rogue for example). One thing that irritates me about Pathfinder are the explosion of needless combat feats that equate to nothing more than EVEN LONGER COMBATS!

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:49 pm

Yeah, I have lost interest in PAthfinder (but still love Paizo!) because they are not making it easier to run it. They are making rules better, I actually like what they are doing to classes, but PF is still going to have the same over all difficulty of DM/managing the game 3E does.

Not that I blame Paizo, they are stuck with this since they have to maintain a high degree of compatibility in order to keep the 3E market. Change PF too much and that market goes away.

I am hoping, down the road, that Paizo will be able, and willing, to do a truly revamped 3E/PF that is easier to DM/manage.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Was streamlining ever part of their agenda? I was always under the impression that Paizo was making Pathfinder for 3.5, and when it got pulled (or 4e was annnounced) they were so far ahead with the Pathfinder schedule that they couldn't afford to switch to 4e. Something kind of trivial got stramrolling into something big and instead of changing months (years?) of plans for Pathfinder that were already done, they went ahead and made a "new " ruleset. That coupled with the fact WotC could not get the GSL out the door when promised sank any chance for PAizo going 4e. I remember Paizo saying that they knew the 3.5 rulebooks weren't going to be on the shelves forever and people coming into the game and wanting to pick up Pathdinder (adventures) would need rules to go along with them - hence the Pathfinder RPG.

I honestly think if WotC had gotten the GSL out when promised (and not had the poison pill inserted into it), Paizo would have switched after this last Pathfinder (#12). Instead, they angered arguably the largest 3rd party publisher (along with Necromancer and Green Ronin, who ironically aren't going 4e either), and they're doing their own thing now.

A few of my guys want to try Pathfinder, but I figured it was going to be as Joe said, just like 3.5 (with a few tweaks). Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the fact they are not going 4e, but if I'm going to run those Adventure Paths, I'll do it under 3.5 or C&C.

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:57 am

Pathfinder is not meant to be a new game... Pathfinder is a 3.5 variant. Nothing more and nothing less.

It seeks to correct or simplify certain quirks of existing 3.5 rules but this is not in order to streamline the game... just tweak it enough. I think Pathfinder is great if you're interested in 3.5 and the big difference between the Pathfinder RPG and the D&D 3.5 Ruleset is one is technically still in print and continues to be supported.

If I chose to run a 3.5 game, I would certainly take a bunch of pieces from the Pathfinder book over the 'stock' ruleset. I think the classes as they stand in Pathfinder are solid alternatives to the ones presented in the PHB but there are little surprises to how everything is set up.

And that is probably what they wanted. They wanted to cater to a fan-base that was entrenched in 3.x and not willing to go on to 4th ed. They didn't want to make a new game... they wanted to refurbish an existing one.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Naleax · Post by **Naleax** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:39 pm

Pathfinder is the same game as D&D 3.5. The text is written almost word for word as 3.5. However they did streamline some of the rules, threw out some things that were not needed and made some things easier. The biggest changes are with the classes. Almost every class has been changed in some way to make it more effective.

1. Classes have been altered to me more effective. One i really like is the addition of orisons which give casters 0 level at will spells. Also cleric can channel healing allowing them to use their spells for other things rather than just convert them into healing.

2. Some skills have been consolidated. An example would be Search, Spot, Listen are all now one skill called Perception.

3. New feats were added in order to give characters more to choose from and make them more unique.

4. Combat rules are almost entirely the same except for the advent of CMB. (Combat maneuver bonus) Instead of all the hard to read rules for bull rush, grapple, disarm etc. Now you have one easy check to see if you succeed in one of these combat maneuvers. Its an opposed role of CMB's.

5. Some of the very rules intensive spells have been altered to be eaiser to use and make more sense.

The game is a an open beta test to the public and is very compatible with 3.5 material. I have run several games now and am learning some of the new rules which i think are all very good improvements. All in all i am very happy as a DM with the Pathfinder Rules. Whenever i pick up an RPG, rules heavy or rules light, there is one rule that supersedes every thing in the rule book. Rules and artwork don't make good games, the DM does.

I suppose many consumers also look at the artwork before making a purchase. Thats ok, i'm a fan of some of the artwork from paizo and some of it i don't like, but i always try to get familliar with the rules before letting the artwork talk me out of buying a game. Hackmaster had good ol black and white artwork that wasnt all that great but it was decent and gave feel to those books. There is plenty of artwork on the web to inspire anyone and its totally free. So if i need artwork i suppose thats where i will look. I think the artwork is just in the book to sell more copies.

There are to many rules systems on the market and not enough awsome support material like adventures. Another reason i love Paizo as thats pretty much all they publish are modules and adventure paths. I wish people would just start supporting their products with adventures and sourcebooks rather than more rules editions and splat books. I like that C&C has put out a lot of adventures and source material, however i'm still waiting for that elusive DM's guide.

I was a die hard TSR/WOTC fan for many years but Paizo has won me over and i almost exclusively buy their products today. In the short time they have been producing adventure paths and modules i have enough to run games for a decade. C&C is also a great game and i'm a huge fan of their rules easy rpg, now i just need a DM who will run it.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:38 am

I have found it is not so much the specific rules set but rather the group that makes or breaks a game.

I am sure Bunnys & Burrows would kick ass if the right group was playing it.

One of the most fun games I ever played was D&D and one of the lamest games I played was D&D...same edition. One was a long standing campaign with well developed characters and one was a monty haul joke with munchkin characters.

I have seen rules heavy games driven into the ground by concentrating on asserting every rule, and I have seen the same game fly with imagination and fun...that game was Rolemaster.

Yet for each his own pie. Maybe to some the above games are not lame but fun. That is why we have a diverse set of styles and games.

Personally I like imaginative players with infinite possibilities over a thousand feats. Infinity vs 1000...give me infinity.

The game is fine in and of itself much like 3.5 was I guess.

3.5 lives on in Pathfinder. If that was the intent then they succeeded.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:04 pm

Joe wrote:
3.5 lives on in Pathfinder. If that was the intent then they succeeded.

Yes, this is the single intent of PF, to keep 3.5 in print, and to keep players around to buy Paizo product.

Fortunately, with C&C, their adventures are just as useful to me as anyone who plays 3E, so I buy their product when I can afford to do so, which isn't nearly as often as I would like.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:15 am

Treebore wrote:
Yes, this is the single intent of PF, to keep 3.5 in print, and to keep players around to buy Paizo product.

Fortunately, with C&C, their adventures are just as useful to me as anyone who plays 3E, so I buy their product when I can afford to do so, which isn't nearly as often as I would like.

Agreed. I think it's a brilliant move on Paizo's part. I don't know if I would have tweaked all the classes, and indeed if I ever run it I will probbaly run spellcasters as per 3.x rules.

It almost makes me wonder how the landscape of the gaming industry would have looked had some of the simulacrum games (OSRIC, LL, etc.) would have come out at the "appropriate" times - OSRIC at the end of 1st edition, for example.

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:13 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
It almost makes me wonder how the landscape of the gaming industry would have looked had some of the simulacrum games (OSRIC, LL, etc.) would have come out at the "appropriate" times - OSRIC at the end of 1st edition, for example.

OSRIC wasn't needed back then... TSR gave us 2nd Edition but kept the rules continuity alive (or in other words, compatible).

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com