PF out sells D&D? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Treblain

2013-01-19, 03:47 PM

This matters as well. Who will 5e be for? Will they aim at paizo's playerbase, and if so how, or will they target different players? (Knowingly, that is, not unwittingly like they did with 4e.) Or somehow try to do both?

It would matter, except for the fact that we already know that their plan is to appeal to everyone, which they would do regardless of how well PF is doing because they fragmented the market on their own, independent of Paizo. And their planned audience isn't necessarily who will buy it in the end.

When I say this stuff doesn't matter, I don't mean it doesn't matter to anyone. I mean it doesn't matter for the purposes that are going to arise in this discussion, because this kind of examination intermingles too many interests to tell you anything.

If it's to say "Ha! My favorite game is doing better than yours!" then that's a pointless discussion. If it's fans trying to discuss how an organization that makes things they like should improve the things they like, they have some idea what they want and won't get anything past satisfying their curiosity by tracking sales figures and statistics. If it's to discuss on how a corporation that makes products should run its business, then a business discussion might end by concluding that WotC should downsize D&D and license it out while getting rich off Magic, but since this is a D&D-centric conversation, that wouldn't be relevant (to be clear, I don't actually think that scenario is likely).

Turning points are never easy to see, and even if there were a concrete point in time where Pathfinder surpassed D&D, it wouldn't mean that much. Paizo is too small to really take advantage of a close #1 position, and WotC is stuck on the course it's on because being D&D carries a busload of intangible obligations.

Psyren

2013-01-19, 03:54 PM

It would matter, except for the fact that we already know that their plan is to appeal to everyone, which they would do regardless of how well PF is doing because they fragmented the market on their own, independent of Paizo. And their planned audience isn't necessarily who will buy it in the end.

But if they plan to appeal to everyone, the question becomes how - and looking at the other successful guy in the room is a key part of answering that question. Especially if there was indeed a clear point at which PF pulled ahead, which might lead them to the answer for the question "why?"

If it's to say "Ha! My favorite game is doing better than yours!" then that's a pointless discussion.

I didn't see the OP say anything like that :smallconfused:
Though even if he was and you felt that way, it would be a simple matter to not reply and let the thread deadpool.

nedz

2013-01-19, 03:59 PM

I am fairly sure this has been the case for quite some time now.

http://www.geeknative.com/22529/pathfinder-outsells-dungeons-and-dragons/

The date on that article is Aug 2011, as you say — quite a while.

killem2

2013-01-19, 04:47 PM

You don't need the books - all the rules are available for free online. Even the conversion guide (http://paizo.com/products/btpy89m6?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Conversion-Guide) they made is free. (It references page numbers in the CRB, but you can simply search for the terms they mention on the PFSRD.)

I use a kindle when I am a player, and a laptop with access to all the d&d stuff when I am the DM.

But we have an 8' x 8' table that houses 6 to as many as 10 player players and we don't all have convenient electronic devices :).

Plus, books are just nice to have.

navar100

2013-01-19, 05:09 PM

killem2

2013-01-19, 05:42 PM

What this tells me is that the 3E system is not so horribly terrible as people here, colloquially speaking, are claiming it is, as I knew to be true anyway. WOTC fired its 3E customers. Paizo saw the opportunity and collected those customers to satiate their righteous anger. Pathfinder probably won't beat 3E sales because a good number of 3E customers did switch to 4E with happy glee. 4E collected the 3E players who hated 3E, which turns out to be a smaller percentage of 3E players than envisioned. Pathfinder doesn't need to exceed to 3E sales. It would be nice, sure, but not necessary. That it's beating 4E is all the success it needs.

5E has to work real hard to get back the fired customers. From what I'm seeing so far, it's not so wow-worthy. Expertise dice is nice, but they're mucking it up. People will try it out when it's ready because it's new, but it's still a long time from now. In the meanwhile, Pathfinder will be chugging along with happy customers.

I agree, they should have just released a 3.75, and wrote off 4th. I would like to believe there is no pride when it comes to making money, and that they would not let pride get in the way of going back to their roots.

Since it is really Hasbro calling the shots, its all about the units. D&D in itself is not a product that you can resell over and over with out making a ton of books (like they did), or scrap it and make a new edition.

They SHOULD have focused on those adventure paths, and also instead of a miniatures game (epic failure), just made miniatures to be used with the system.

They could have sold their own dice as well. Unless they did all this and I wasn't aware, if they did, they didn't do a very good job at marketing it.

toapat

2013-01-19, 05:55 PM

Since it is really Hasbro calling the shots, its all about the units. D&D in itself is not a product that you can resell over and over with out making a ton of books (like they did), or scrap it and make a new edition.

I honestly think Hasbro has no idea how to sell DnD. I live 5 minutes drive from a Wal*Mart and a Target, when i go to either, and look in their book sections, the all i see is the generic mass production slop (and most of it is slop, not literature) that is made as a result of people reading the NY Times Weekly best seller list, and nothing else.

What isnt there is a section with game books, what i havent seen are books that look as interesting as the PF core rulebook. I havent seen the minis in great number (more then 5 units on the rack) since the local target opened, and never have i seen them at walmart.

Basically, you want people to buy a product, do what works. Shovel it down the throats of the american public and you will make money on it. Havent seen them doing that at all.

Axier

2013-01-19, 06:18 PM

One of the reasons I feel that PF outsells the recent WoTC system is that, highly unlike WoTC, most of the information on PF is obtainable for free. The high amount of quality content that is put out for free by Paizo has encouraged me to actually buy the books. They also sell PDFs, and in a modern era surrounded by technology, they have great appeal. Less dead trees for the greenies, quick and easy access without having to go to an out-of-the-way hobby shop, and it is cheaper than the dead-tree format.

Another reason that has already been stated is that it is more like 3.75, that is that most of the people that felt left out after the creation of 4e found it to be far more like what they where used to, and WoTC pretty much dropped 3.5 all together. They don't even like talking about it.

As for 5e--which I still like calling NEXT, because why not?--It could affect Paizo's sales, but I still feel that PF will have a long future, and the extra competetion might actually build a better stand for Paizo. They might have to change, but a second PF system wouldn't be a bad thing in my mind.

Agent 451

2013-01-19, 07:55 PM

toapat

2013-01-19, 08:05 PM

Sorry, but no, I strongly disagree. The fact that Hasbro doesn't shove this stuff down peoples throats means that yes, they actually know how to market their product to their target audience, an audience which is not the mass marketed slaves of North America.

shoving alternative materials that are of minimal value is the solution then?

Agent 451

2013-01-19, 08:17 PM

shoving alternative materials that are of minimal value is the solution then?

Such as what? My Little Pony gear, Magic cards? The products where the profit actually lies? Why would Hasbro throw all of their D&D products into huge market stores if it is a niche product that will not attract huge returns in profit?

toapat

2013-01-19, 08:26 PM

Such as what? My Little Pony gear, Magic cards? The products where the profit actually lies? Why would Hasbro throw all of their D&D products into huge market stores if it is a niche product that will not attract huge returns in profit?

because using old data is using old data, you have no idea what people want till you actually put it out. You cant see the future with the past.

and what i mean is like the pre-painted miniatures and the critical sucess/critical fumble decks.

Agent 451

2013-01-19, 08:38 PM

You cant see the future with the past.

I think market analysis disagrees with you.

As for miniatures, they were a product line that lasted for like 8 years. That hardly seems of minimal value, considering how entrenched minis are withing various types of wargaming (although they were discontinued).

What crit hit/fumble decks are you referring to? The only ones I know of were by Paizo. Unless you are referring to that Three Dragon Ante game...

toapat

2013-01-19, 08:53 PM

I think market analysis disagrees with you.

that is just what it wants you to think.

Cavelcade

2013-01-19, 08:56 PM

Market analysts disagree - which is why they're so often wiped out.

Kurald Galain

2013-01-19, 09:04 PM

It doesn't really matter. In a competitive market, there must be a first and a last and every ordinal number in between. What difference does it make?
Obviously it matters because every company wants to be the first.

It is worth mentioning that WOTC tried to reinvigorate 4E sales by the totally-not-a-4.5th-edition "Heroes Of" line, and that this was a controversial base-splitting move with only mediocre sales. Earlier, 4E's "PHB Races" line flopped and was abandoned after only two books, and the second round of "Foo Power" books was abandoned after MP2. The PHB1 indubitably sold well, but when these figures eventually declined WOTC just tried a lot of approaches that didn't work out.

This matters as well. Who will 5e be for? Will they aim at paizo's playerbase, and if so how, or will they target different players? (Knowingly, that is, not unwittingly like they did with 4e.) Or somehow try to do both?
So far, they appear to be trying to do both. The current version of 5E feels like a hybrid of 3E and 4E, that is (predictably) too much like 4E for the 3E fans, and too much like 3E for the 4E fans.

Seer_of_Heart

2013-01-19, 10:32 PM

So far, they appear to be trying to do both. The current version of 5E feels like a hybrid of 3E and 4E, that is (predictably) too much like 4E for the 3E fans, and too much like 3E for the 4E fans.

That is what I'm afraid of, it sounded promising of going back to being more like 3.5 but it's too much like 4e for me. I'll certainly borrow the books from my friends if they buy it but otherwise I'm sticking with 3.5

Anderlith

2013-01-19, 10:57 PM

I'm a Pathfinder Convert. I think what makes Pathfinder so great compared to 3.5, is that it's fresh. Right now Wizards are constantly asking themselves "Does this feel like D&D? with every little change they make. Pathfinder doesn't have to worry about tradition right now. They get to make up whatever they think is cool & interesting, they don't have to worry about things like Dragonborn & Tieflings unjustly replacing Half-Orcs & Gnomes in the PHB, or wondering what kind of magic casting a Sorcerer has (I support what 5th Edition was going to do with the Sorcerer before they pulled it. The class actually gave me hope in the new system :'(

Another thing is that Wizards has kept the same Campaign Settings for a long time now, the newest was Eberron (which tons of people loved). Pathfinder however has Golarion, & when I read the Inner Sea Guide, I was amazed at the life in the setting. For one, I love that they have a god for the humans (it's always bugged me that elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, & even orcs have their own personal gods but humans never did) Everyone knows that Faerun is old & dusty & you can't swing a halfling without smacking a high powerf NPC. Not to mention every time a new edition comes out they have to scramble to adapt. When was the last time Greyhawk or Dragonlance got dusted off? Heck, lead with Eberron.

In the end I don't want D&D to die, they are the founders. But Pathfinder has all the appeal that D&D has lost right now. Give it time, & D&D with come back hopefully, for now though Pathfinder is finding it's own path (Sorry for the pun) & hopefully they will find a good one.

Metahuman1

2013-01-19, 11:01 PM

I've got a buddy who RUNS a game store who has let me know that he sells x4 as much Pathfinder material as D&D on any given week.

killem2

2013-01-20, 01:14 AM

I've got a buddy who RUNS a game store who has let me know that he sells x4 as much Pathfinder material as D&D on any given week.

That is how it is at my LGS too. Pathfinder groups, pathfinder sessions, pathfinder this and that.

Good for paizo. WOTC deserves all the losses they get.

You'd think they would have learned from what happened to Mage Knight. Awesome little miniatures game, then they tried to cancel 1st edition with new rules and the players bit back hard.

Treblain

2013-01-20, 01:22 AM

I honestly think Hasbro has no idea how to sell DnD. I live 5 minutes drive from a Wal*Mart and a Target, when i go to either, and look in their book sections, the all i see is the generic mass production slop (and most of it is slop, not literature) that is made as a result of people reading the NY Times Weekly best seller list, and nothing else.

Large bookstores tend to carry some D&D stuff, but big bookstores aren't doing much better than tabletop RPGs and gaming stores right now.

As for Wizards/Hasbro's management of the D&D brand, this (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315975-WotC-DDI-4E-and-Hasbro-Some-History) does a pretty good job explaining what they were trying for with 4th Edition and what went wrong. Part of why I don't think PF beating 4e in sales means much for the future is because WotC got forced into an ambitious goal for their new edition to justify D&D's value to Hasbro. Then they messed up on some of its initial ideas (the scrapped version of 4e, the virtual tabletop, the first marketing campaign), and those setbacks kept them from getting the audience they wanted. 4e just isn't a game that can support churning out splatbooks on and on like 3.5 did. It isn't any surprise that Pathfinder is pulling ahead when Wizards hasn't had anything major to release in a while.

As for learning from the past, that's probably going to be a problem. Every new edition is preoccupied with the issues of the previous edition, especially during the launch period and therefore the "core" of the system. So 3rd was obsessed with streamlining the complexity of 2nd through the d20 core mechanic and an improved class and level system, and 4th got obsessed with fixing the balance problems the designers saw in late 3rd. So the designers trying to make 5th/Next are looking at the state of D&D, and what is the big problem they think they have to fix this time? Not any problem with the rules themselves, but the problem of fanbase fragmentation among earlier editions! :smallsigh:

So basically, I think the same thing is going to happen, and it's consistent with everything we know of Next so far. The first releases in 5th Edition will be focused the "big idea" of unifying the D&D brand, possibly to the detriment of other areas that need improvement. Best case scenario, the modular "please everyone" design is flexible enough that it will be a good game anyway. Worst case: There are now three competing editions. (http://xkcd.com/927/):smalleek:

toapat

2013-01-20, 02:12 AM

Large bookstores tend to carry some D&D stuff, but big bookstores aren't doing much better than tabletop RPGs and gaming stores right now.

the Barnes and Noble nearest to me has reduced the dedicated space for game rulebooks from an entire shelving unit to a single shelf, on the floor.

the one 5 minutes down the road from it doesnt even stock rulebooks.

A google images search one day yielded a commentary on why Pathfinder is doing so well, and comparing the covers of 3.5 4th. and the PF Core rulebook, it becomes obvious: The 3.5 Book is mysterious, i dont know what im getting into when i buy it. The 4th Ed book looks boring, has the least meat, and costs the most for its weight. The PF book? It assaults my face with images of some Half-naked lady, a dragon, and a guy about to decapitate the dragon. On cover alone the PF book has alone sold itself above and beyond what 4th ed or 3.5 did, Even on a quick skim through the book, Pathfinder looks better then 3.5, and 4th has already made me put it down because the formating is beginning to make my eyes bleed. On a more thorough examination, the 3.5 book seems less like the people writing it knew what they were doing.

So, as generic Consumer, i buy the PF book because it presents itself head and shoulders above what the other books did, while there is warhammer and Star trek on the same shelf, as Mr. Generic Consumer, Warhammer looks in name alone too pretentious to pick up, while i would never be caught in public adding something to my shrine to startrek. So i stick to the stuff that sounds safe for me, and safe means DnD, or this strange thing that quitely and humbly calls itself pathfinder.

While the saying goes, there is no such thing as bad publicity, there is such a thing as bad recognition. DnD here is well respected, but TV in all its non-animated aspects enjoys leaving steaming piles of poo on the name of DnD. Hasbro has never really attempted to change the image of the game, which is not good for its profitability. Do you think Kia would market its cars as liable to have a Driveshaft relocate itself through your sternum? Because that is what Hasbro lets the media do with the game.

Kurald Galain

2013-01-20, 05:34 AM

A google images search one day yielded a commentary on why Pathfinder is doing so well, and comparing the covers of 3.5 4th. and the PF Core rulebook, it becomes obvious: The 3.5 Book is mysterious, i dont know what im getting into when i buy it. The 4th Ed book looks boring, has the least meat, and costs the most for its weight. The PF book? It assaults my face with images of some Half-naked lady, a dragon, and a guy about to decapitate the dragon.

Yes. I will add that, at a cursory examination, 4E's PHB is really boring to read. Most of the book is power descriptions, and many of those look too similar. Indeed, many powers for any class simply have the form of "<stat> vs <defense>: <dice> damage and the target is <condition> until the end of your next turn" (or save ends, in the case of daily powers). Now I know that there are a lot of differences between powers and classes, but at first glance? It really doesn't seem so. And first glances are what sell books.

Eldan

2013-01-20, 07:19 AM

toapat

2013-01-20, 11:07 AM

huttj509

2013-01-20, 11:09 AM

understand i wasnt talking about actual personal oppinions, i was talking from Mr. General Consumer. I also much prefer the style of 3.5 books, barring the inconsistancy of artwork in the books (alot of art in the 3.5 books looks recycled, although it gets better. The pencil sketches are nice.). I also noted that in presentation, the PF book seems to have its act together moreso then 3.5, although we know that to be false.

For me the...not sure what to call it..."faux leather" feel of the 2e books wins out aesthetically. Still need to track down a couple volumes of the Encyclopedia Magica just to have (no, ordering's not allowed, the thrill of the hunt is part of the point :-) ). Really bad for getting mashed on the top and bottom though.

Psyren

2013-01-20, 12:33 PM

For one, I love that they have a god for the humans (it's always bugged me that elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, & even orcs have their own personal gods but humans never did.)

Humans do have a god in 3.5... but he's kind of an ass.

I don't know. I liked the more low-key 3.5 books. Part of it is that I probably don't like the style of the Pathfinder artist too much (forgot his name, but the one who does almost everything).

Wayne Reynolds? I love his style - he's no Matt Cavotta but he's a powerhouse all the same. But didn't 4e use him too?

I agree with toapat though - the Pathfinder book covers are much more dynamic and interesting than either the 3.5 or 4e ones. 3.5 was too focused on making them seem like actual tomes rather than showing what the actual game was like. For instance, the cover of Magic of Incarnum tells you nothing about what's inside; the blue vial could be an alchemical concoction for all I know.

Eldan

2013-01-20, 12:49 PM

Yes, but honestly, that makes me curious and pick up the book to find out what's its about. Dude slaying a dragon is just... I don't know. Generic?

Psyren

2013-01-20, 01:07 PM

Yes, but honestly, that makes me curious and pick up the book to find out what's its about. Dude slaying a dragon is just... I don't know. Generic?

The problem with the mystery angle is that it plays into D&D's biggest weakness; D&D is seen by too many as something they don't understand and never will, more like a foreign language than a board game. How many board games do you see with arcane or esoteric covers? None of the 3.5 covers show me what I'll actually be doing.

The CRB meanwhile says to me "Hey, you! Check me out, I'm a game! And there's two people on the cover, so you can play with your friends! SEE THAT BADASS WITH BULGING BICEPS ATTACKING AN EFFING DRAGON? THAT COULD BE YOU! WITH BOOBS MAGIC USERS BACKING YOU UP! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRuNxHqwazs) What are you waiting for?? BUY ME!!"

toapat

2013-01-20, 01:21 PM

How many board games do you see with arcane or esoteric covers?

Catan, non-special editions of Monopoly

I think what Eldan is missing is that the point isnt that Pathfinder is better, it makes itself look better, read better, and feel worthier then the 3,5 books, while the 4th ed books honestly made me actively not want to buy them. The books quietly boast their greatness, where as Warhammer is already hamming it up to you, while picking up the books for the startrek or starwars RPGs is viewed as a social event horizon that would ruin your life. The 3.5 books are good at making you pick up and see what they are about, assuming of course they are not plastic wrapped like half the books in the store will be, but the PF book simply does it better. while having only the artistic stylings of Wayne Renolds on every single square inch of the book does in some ways detract from the book, the book always has a consistent visual tone that the 3rd ed books have always lacked.

ericgrau

2013-01-20, 01:24 PM

More specifically 3.5e outsold 4e, then PF outsold 4e. The biggest thing PF did was to not change too much and to basically provide ongoing support of 3.5e.

Blisstake

2013-01-20, 01:36 PM

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that Pathfinder only appeals to the subset of 3.5 gamers who were unsatisfied with the direction 4e was going. While that may have been true initially, Paizo is doing a great job of introducing new players to the hobby, and expanding their market with players who are just getting into tabletop roleplaying games. The fact that most of the information provided in their books (both core, and accessories, unlike 3.5) is available online means it's fairly easy to get into without a large investment, unlike, say, buying all three 4e books.

As for the covers, it's about the single most annoying thing about Pathfinder artwork, which I otherwise love. The perspective just seems way off. I realize this is so the reader can see everyone's face (like in a play), but it just comes off as looking... silly. This is mostly in regards to their hardcover covers. Their softcover accessories tend to have much better covers for some reason. :smallconfused:

silverwolfer

2013-01-20, 01:37 PM

Well 3.5 had a healthier expansion also, and explored other areas of gaming.

Dsurion

2013-01-21, 07:59 AM

I don't know. I liked the more low-key 3.5 books. Part of it is that I probably don't like the style of the Pathfinder artist too much (forgot his name, but the one who does almost everything). But another part is that I really dig the 3rd edition Leather&Gems look. It's cool. As are the pencil sketches in parts like the equipment and races sections. I'd like more of that, instead of the glossy colour action scene drawings.I definitely agree with all of this, especially the bit about the equipment sections. That art in the PHB is probably one of my favorite pieces in RPG art, period. I guess I just also liked how some of 3.5's books had that "tome" look to them that made them look that much more fantastic.

Although I really enjoyed some of the glossy artwork in books later in the print-run, too, especially Tome of Magic and PHB 2. What really bothered me about 3.5 art in general though, is that it made page formatting horrendous more often than not, where a simple cutoff would've done the job splitting the page between a picture and text.

TopCheese

2013-01-21, 12:18 PM

More specifically 3.5e outsold 4e, then PF outsold 4e. The biggest thing PF did was to not change too much and to basically provide ongoing support of 3.5e.

I play pathfinder but I will never buy anything from them, I like their houserules to 3.0/3.5 but I don't think they did that good of a job with it. Heck if people I play with didn't use pathfinder I wouldn't even use the free stuff.

They took a fun (but very broken) system and made some small adjustments and grabbed firmly onto the coattails of another company.

I actually don't think it is fair to compare 3.0/3.5 sales to Pathfinder sales, WoTC did most of the work.

killem2

2013-01-21, 03:23 PM

I actually don't think it is fair to compare 3.0/3.5 sales to Pathfinder sales, WoTC did most of the work.

I do agree, it is a bit Blasphemous, but at the same time, I can just as easily see it as one man's trash (WoTC with 3rd ed -> 4e) and another man's treasure (Paizo and PF).

:smallbiggrin:

nedz

2013-01-21, 03:36 PM

I actually don't think it is fair to compare 3.0/3.5 sales to Pathfinder sales, WoTC did most of the work.

I think it's perfectly reasonable — in fact that's probably what WotC and Piazo marketing people do all of the time. Also TSR.

navar100

2013-01-21, 04:15 PM

Cambrian

2013-01-21, 04:24 PM

I dont think paizo should be shamed for having continued 3.5; really WotC did this all to themselves by how they handled 4th ed. and companies that supported 3.x's OGL. Paizo was left in the dark unsure of what 4th ed. would be, and later found the new license too restrictive, and so they chose the best path for themselves. The team contains people who have helped develop 3rd ed. but yes-- 3rd ed./PF are mostly the creation of WotC.

I'd say 3rd ed. has two significant aspects to it:
1. The system is the best for customizability and therefore lets players best create the character they want.
2. The system is extremely complicated and therefore the prep time is overwhelming for most DMs

Pathfinder kept (more or less) the strength of #1 and addressed the issue of #2. To make the game easier to run they have released a dozen long stretching, well written adventure paths. The adventure paths allow a GM to run a quality game with minimal prep time. Other products like the new NPC Codex add to this. As a sandbox game lover it is probably the most conveniant release Ive seen in years.

Another apsect is Paizo chose a single setting (Golarion) and have supported it more than WotC has any of their settings over the stretch of an edition. For players who use the setting it is excellent; for player who dont its no different than WotC's divided support for several settings. And if you don't want to use the base setting you can always use a 3pp setting which paizo helps advertise on their main page.

Not everything paizo does is good but most of it has impressed me.

Kurald Galain

2013-01-21, 04:34 PM

I think it's perfectly reasonable — in fact that's probably what WotC and Piazo marketing people do all of the time. Also TSR.

Let's not forget that Paizo didn't move to 4E precisely because WOTC's initial licensing terms for 4E were outright draconian. Basically, if your company wrote any 4E stuff, you were never allowed to write anything for earlier editions again, and you gave WOTC the power to pull all your stuff from the stores if they wanted to and destroy it, and if they did, the licensing rights of all that would fall to WOTC. And that's not exaggerated. WOTC was forced to make more lenient terms later, but not after these terms alienated most of the publishers for 3E material.

killem2

2013-01-21, 04:44 PM

Let's not forget that Paizo didn't move to 4E precisely because WOTC's initial licensing terms for 4E were outright draconian. Basically, if your company wrote any 4E stuff, you were never allowed to write anything for earlier editions again, and you gave WOTC the power to pull all your stuff from the stores if they wanted to and destroy it, and if they did, the licensing rights of all that would fall to WOTC. And that's not exaggerated. WOTC was forced to make more lenient terms later, but not after these terms alienated most of the publishers for 3E material.

Yup, they tried to play hard ball, and the players went home.

nedz

2013-01-21, 04:51 PM

All business decisions carry risk: WotC bet one way, Piazo the other.
There is no way either of them could have known for sure how things would turn out — hindsight is lovely.

Kurald Galain

2013-01-21, 05:39 PM

All business decisions carry risk: WotC bet one way, Piazo the other.
There is no way either of them could have known for sure how things would turn out — hindsight is lovely.

That's really not true, you know. WOTC could easily have predicted that, since the OGL is what made 3E big, not having one for 4E would be trouble, and that the draconian terms mentioned above would be a dealbreaker for any sensible business. Likewise, Paizo could have predicted (in fact, did predict) that creating products for 3E would continue to be lucrative, as it had been in the past years.

WOTC could even have predicted that the condescending, belittling way they used to market 4E to 3E players would have backfired, because Whitewolf did precisely the same thing a couple years earlier and that backfired. None of this is a matter of hindsight, it's a matter of knowing your audience.

Scowling Dragon

2013-01-21, 05:49 PM

I would just argue Paizo is just better with marketing and making longer lasting products.

Their beginning Box is masterfully done, and even though they have been making products for about 4 years they have only released about 4 core-ish supplement books.

They release allot of stuff, but its mainly fluff, and Adventures. 3E had allot more supplements which led to much faster power-creep, which in longer term shortens lifespan.

And the idea of releasing class alternatives instead of prestige classes easily limits brokeness to those who aren't looking for it.

Its about 80% 3.5e, but its re-organized and given a stab of fresh life which works very well, and is usually is all thats required to bring in new players.

ericgrau

2013-01-21, 09:36 PM

That's really not true, you know. WOTC could easily have predicted that, since the OGL is what made 3E big, not having one for 4E would be trouble, and that the draconian terms mentioned above would be a dealbreaker for any sensible business. Likewise, Paizo could have predicted (in fact, did predict) that creating products for 3E would continue to be lucrative, as it had been in the past years.

WOTC could even have predicted that the condescending, belittling way they used to market 4E to 3E players would have backfired, because Whitewolf did precisely the same thing a couple years earlier and that backfired. None of this is a matter of hindsight, it's a matter of knowing your audience.

Or realizing that being a jerk and trying to manipulate your customer base never works for long in any business. Most companies that do it go all out and simply change their name every 3 years so they don't have to worry about backlash and a lost reputation. All WotC had to do was continue to support both 3e and 4e like they are finally starting to do (props for that btw), instead of thinking that they could simply force people to do whatever they wanted.

huttj509

2013-01-22, 04:38 AM

The problem with the mystery angle is that it plays into D&D's biggest weakness; D&D is seen by too many as something they don't understand and never will, more like a foreign language than a board game. How many board games do you see with arcane or esoteric covers? None of the 3.5 covers show me what I'll actually be doing.

The CRB meanwhile says to me "Hey, you! Check me out, I'm a game! And there's two people on the cover, so you can play with your friends! SEE THAT BADASS WITH BULGING BICEPS ATTACKING AN EFFING DRAGON? THAT COULD BE YOU! WITH BOOBS MAGIC USERS BACKING YOU UP! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRuNxHqwazs) What are you waiting for?? BUY ME!!"

Ok, what I now want to see in a cover is something like the pathfinder cover, but with a group of people around a table in the foreground. Not pasted in in a "this is what you're "really" doing" way, but fitting, just kinda people sitting round while their epic fantasy rages behind them.

Taelas

2013-01-22, 05:11 AM

Wizards probably knew that leaving out the OGL was not going to be popular, but they were pretty much forced into a corner.

Remember the situation as it was back then: Wizards had to justify D&D as a 50 million dollar business to Hasbro. The market just can't sustain that, even today. I would be very surprised if Paizo and 4e together sells for 50 million dollars annually.

Wizards had to gamble on DDI and the virtual tabletop to get anywhere close. Continuing in the same vein as 3.5--what Paizo effectively did--was simply not an option.

Unfortunately for them, they miscalculated. The virtual tabletop didn't happen, and 4e was not as popular as 3e was.

killem2

2013-01-22, 10:14 AM

All business decisions carry risk: WotC bet one way, Piazo the other.
There is no way either of them could have known for sure how things would turn out — hindsight is lovely.

I think they could have used resources to survey the field ask for feedback on a massive scale from their player base. I bet that profit paizo makes is more than it would have cost to:

- Make phone calls
- Internet polls
- forum replies
- mailers
- Survey Sites like Swagbacks.com
- email surveys
- chat rooms

Ask big name forums to gather info them, this site, min max boards, pod cast sites, ect, trade some sponsorship for some grass root like support.

But, they didn't. They thought they could play big business and strong arm customers. They aren't wal-mart or gas companies, the majority of the country isn't dependent on them.

Metahuman1

2013-01-22, 10:19 AM

To put it another way,

There club jazz, but they don't want to act like it, they wanted to act like there Arrowsmith or Santana. And that has now meaningfully backfired. Hopefully they learned form it and 5E works like they want it too, but one never knows.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 11:02 AM

...anyone want to start a kickstarter on behalf of Paizo so that they can buy the D&D name brand from Hasbro?

...

...oh, and on the other topic: I like Wayne Reynolds' Stuff! Look at all the stuff they're wearing! style of art a lot, for some reason. For me it just screams "HIGH ADVENTURE!"

nedz

2013-01-22, 11:38 AM

...

...

Well you guys are right, but obviously they thought otherwise or they would never had tried that strategy. One can argue that this approach worked with MtG/Pokemon/etc.

Hasbro are mainly a toy company who market to kids and then rely on pester power and control of distribution to cash in. The RPG market is not like that but you can see why they might have thought otherwise — especially if they brought in executives, from other parts of Hasbro, who thought that they knew the business.

There is another possibility: In order to push ahead with a major project such as 4E you require individuals with high Egos — or the project just doesn't happen. Such people routinely ignore critics because of their drive and the likely fact that they have "heard it all before". This can lead to Hubris — which is what appeared to happen.

Ed: more likely it was an alliance, within the corporate politics, of both camps.

Lord_Gareth

2013-01-22, 11:44 AM

WOTC chose to abandon the 3E System. Paizo chose to continue it. Paizo was not wrong to do so. WOTC can cry all they want Pathfinder is a success, but it's their own fault - not because of OGL but that they abandoned 3E. Paizo has nothing to be ashamed of promoting Pathfinder as their baby.

Well, there's all the shoddy design work, SKR being the lead designer and the incredibly sloppy errata to be ashamed of, so be careful with those absolute statements.

Taelas

2013-01-22, 11:49 AM

Paizo got the lion's share of the RPG market when they put out Pathfinder, but they certainly aren't perfect, by any means.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 12:08 PM

Well, there's all the shoddy design work, SKR being the lead designer and the incredibly sloppy errata to be ashamed of, so be careful with those absolute statements.

Pathfinder is a crappy derivatvie work, we get it! The only good thing to come out of PF is PFS. PFS will become less playable as more options become available as PF grows, so PFS will be crap eventually.:smallfrown:

Can anyone actually get me the sales figures for 3.x Vs PF Vs. 4e?

{Scrubbed}

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 12:14 PM

Well, there's all the shoddy design work, SKR being the lead designer and the incredibly sloppy errata to be ashamed of, so be careful with those absolute statements.

Hasn't affected sales, or at least in spite of these shortcomings they're still outselling their primary competitor, so I'd say he was right by saying that they don't have to be ashamed of it. Maybe a bit embarrassed, is all.

Mind, it does need improvement, no doubts there.

I'm actually going to agree with Toapat that the presentation of the PF books is better than that of the 4E books. They just look better, and despite that old adage about books and covers, there's an equally old marketing adage: presentation is everything, because whether or not you should judge a book by its cover, people will.

Lord_Gareth

2013-01-22, 12:19 PM

Pathfinder is a crappy derivatvie work, we get it! The only good thing to come out of PF is PFS. PFS will become less playable as more options become available as PF grows, so PFS will be crap eventually.:smallfrown:

No, not even WotC could have come up with something as stupidly broken as Paragon Surge -> Extra Spells known. I blame Paizo for the screw-ups that are uniquely theirs.

gooddragon1

2013-01-22, 12:24 PM

I looked at 5e. It's fairly interesting. I'm just currently far too emotionally invested in 3.5 :/. I've heard that PF is an upgrade and it seems pretty interesting but unless the campaign I'm in goes to PF I'm sticking with 3.5. Though from what I'm hearing I might prefer PF over 5e. I'd have to have a look at both in detail though to really see what interests me.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 12:30 PM

No, not even WotC could have come up with something as stupidly broken as Paragon Surge -> Extra Spells known.

No, they just came up with Manipulate Form, Polymorph, Wish...

Scowling Dragon

2013-01-22, 12:45 PM

Wish is only broken because of stupid uncreative people and their GMs.

SamBurke

2013-01-22, 12:45 PM

I'll step in here and say this: Pathfinder is what introduced me to roleplaying. The fact that it was all online meant that I could figure things out on my own terms, at my own pace. It meant that the DM could say, "Build a character within these restrictions, " and he didn't have to lend me a book. It meant that I could build a Paladin who could actually contribute to my party.

Compare that, then, with my first experiences with 3.5: Its online presence is pretty much not comparable. The site is uglier, harder to navigate, and incredibly incomplete. It took me ages to figure out how much money a wizard has at level 1. That's not a good thing.

Let's compare that, as well, with 4e: There, quite simply, was NO online presence. My DM scanned all my powers and put them into a PDF, then emailed it to me. He also had to PICK all my powers, because he lives 18 hours from me 4 time zones away, and couldn't do anything to get me a book.

SOOOOOOO.

Compare those three experiences, and tell me which is:

Easiest.
Quickest.
Most Fun.
Has the Most Options.
Cheapest.
Best Organized.

The answer on all of those was Pathfinder. This, to me, explains why they're doing so well as a company: they focused and pleasing the customers.

Whenever I purchase PDFs, it's most likely to be Pathfinder. Just that simple.

gooddragon1

2013-01-22, 12:46 PM

No, they just came up with Manipulate Form, Polymorph, Wish...

Gate...?

(cuz of efreeti)

I'll step in here and say this: Pathfinder is what introduced me to roleplaying. The fact that it was all online meant that I could figure things out on my own terms, at my own pace. It meant that the DM could say, "Build a character within these restrictions, " and he didn't have to lend me a book. It meant that I could build a Paladin who could actually contribute to my party.

Compare that, then, with my first experiences with 3.5: Its online presence is pretty much not comparable. The site is uglier, harder to navigate, and incredibly incomplete. It took me ages to figure out how much money a wizard has at level 1. That's not a good thing.

Let's compare that, as well, with 4e: There, quite simply, was NO online presence. My DM scanned all my powers and put them into a PDF, then emailed it to me. He also had to PICK all my powers, because he lives 18 hours from me 4 time zones away, and couldn't do anything to get me a book.

SOOOOOOO.

Compare those three experiences, and tell me which is:

Easiest.
Quickest.
Most Fun.
Has the Most Options.
Cheapest.
Best Organized.

The answer on all of those was Pathfinder. This, to me, explains why they're doing so well as a company: they focused and pleasing the customers.

Whenever I purchase PDFs, it's most likely to be Pathfinder. Just that simple.

Despite all that I still love 3.5. However, I'm not averse to PF.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 12:46 PM

Wish is only broken because of stupid uncreative people and their GMs.

No, wish is broken because you can functionally wish for more wishes.

Gate...?

We could go on. The point is, WotC is hardly a shining paragon of balance, either. Paizo is simply not any better at it, but we all presumably still love 3.5 regardless, so Paizo shouldn't be denigrated any more than WotC.

TopCheese

2013-01-22, 12:53 PM

No, they just came up with Manipulate Form, Polymorph, Wish...

And aren't the guys who made Paizo the same guys who made Dragon Magazine?

Edit: Well at least the forums has turned away from edition wars and went to publisher wars! :D

SamBurke

2013-01-22, 12:57 PM

We could go on. The point is, WotC is hardly a shining paragon of balance, either. Paizo is simply not any better at it, but we all presumably still love 3.5 regardless, so Paizo shouldn't be denigrated any more than WotC.

They should be celebrated, IMO, because a lot of their content focuses on making martial characters more dangerous. Would you see this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268781) showing up for a vanilla 3.5e Ranger? Probably not.

Still, I'll give you that some things are not as balanced as they could be, but overall, Pathfinder IS more balanced.

TopCheese

2013-01-22, 01:03 PM

They should be celebrated, IMO, because a lot of their content focuses on making martial characters more dangerous. Would you see this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268781) showing up for a vanilla 3.5e Ranger? Probably not.

Still, I'll give you that some things are not as balanced as they could be, but overall, Pathfinder IS more balanced.

That my good playgrounder is false. Pathfinder is NOT more balanced than 3.5. They are both horribly unbalanced.

Edit:

It is like saying you owe $10,000 or $9,999 yeah sure $9,999 IS less but at this point it doesn't matter and is eddentially the same.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 01:04 PM

Still, I'll give you that some things are not as balanced as they could be, but overall, Pathfinder IS more balanced.

Agreed. Not as much as I'd like, but they made strident steps and obvious efforts.

That my good playgrounder is false. Pathfinder is NOT more balanced than 3.5. They are both horribly unbalanced.

Perhaps, but I don't think balance was their design goal: they wanted gameplay to be interesting for every character at every level, and they succeeded at that.

Besides, sure, $10,000 and $9,999 are different numbers. It's the difference between whether or not I get to have a Snickers bar, so it's indeed even a significant difference!

And aren't the guys who made Paizo the same guys who made Dragon Magazine?

Everything contained therein were both purely optional, and had to be developed on a month-by-month basis. Of course their balance wasn't as great as it could have been there; you try running a monthly D&D magazine and see what happens.

I'm simply comparing their published Pathfinder books and PDFs side-by-side with WotC's published books and PDFs.

navar100

2013-01-22, 01:13 PM

I have often said that people who are enraged by 3E for whatever reason will not be satiated by Pathfinder. That is not a criticism of Pathfinder. Pathfinder is a tweak of 3E. Some mock it as 3E with House Rules, but I applaud it as 3E with House Rules. It is 3E. To "fix" 3E to satiate all who are enraged by it means to fundamentally change the game. That was done. It's called 4E. If you hate 3E so much, stop playing it. The rest of us like it very much and good number of us have moved to Pathfinder. We don't give a rat's donkey about Sean Reynolds, Paragon Surge, or even Natural Spell still exists. That's your problem, and we don't need to hear of your rage against 3E over and over and over on 3E forums. I don't go to the 4E Forums to express my rage over it.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 01:14 PM

They should be celebrated, IMO, because a lot of their content focuses on making martial characters more dangerous. Would you see this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268781) showing up for a vanilla 3.5e Ranger? Probably not.

1. Define Vanilla.

2. If Vanilla is anything past the PHB/CRB, then yes.

3. This seems to go towards "PF is broken" than "PF is an effect 3.5 fix".

Still, I'll give you that some things are not as balanced as they could be, but overall, Pathfinder IS more balanced.

And fueled by delusions, it seems.

Blisstake

2013-01-22, 01:21 PM

Pathfinder isn't meant to be a 3.5 fix, it's a continuation of the system. The designers realize it isn't balanced, and CEO herself has even stated that.

Anyway, let's try not to turn this into a "which is least balanced" thread. They're each broken in their own special ways, and the topic has been discussed constantly without any consensus.

Lord_Gareth

2013-01-22, 01:25 PM

Pathfinder isn't meant to be a 3.5 fix, it's a continuation of the system. The designers realize it isn't balanced, and CEO herself has even stated that.

Man, if only SKR and Buhlman hadn't claimed that they were going to fix 3.5 this might hold water. Instead they did, and it doesn't.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 01:27 PM

No, not even WotC could have come up with something as stupidly broken as Paragon Surge -> Extra Spells known. I blame Paizo for the screw-ups that are uniquely theirs.

Man, if only SKR and Buhlman hadn't claimed that they were going to fix 3.5 this might hold water. Instead they did, and it doesn't.

You are being far to kind, milord. If they were going to fix it, then everything they didn't fix is there fault as well. Logic!

Taelas

2013-01-22, 01:30 PM

What, precisely, makes Pathfinder more balanced 'overall'? :smallconfused:

While there were a few improvements in some areas, they went in the utterly wrong direction on other things, and they didn't go nearly far enough in the spells department to affect balance noticeably. (I'm not sure that's a bad thing, mind, giving the utter bore-fest that is 4e.)

Personally, I am starting to want balance less and less.

Lord_Gareth

2013-01-22, 01:33 PM

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 01:36 PM

Man, if only SKR and Buhlman hadn't claimed that they were going to fix 3.5 this might hold water. Instead they did, and it doesn't.

Ba-dum-tiss:

Lead Designer Jason Bulmahn described the following as the primary design goals of the Pathfinder RPG:

Added options
Bulmahn felt that the basic classes of D&D 3.5 were lackluster, and they did not provide incentive to stay with a single class for 20 levels of play. Pathfinder adds options to the classes and boosts their abilities in their core roles. A few of these changes are:

There are around 50% more feats to choose from, all characters gain a feat (a feat is an additional special ability for a player character) every other level (at the odd numbered levels) instead of every 3rd, and classes with "bonus feats" have a wider selection of them.
Core features of most classes have more uses, or are usable more often. For example, 0-level spells (arcane "cantrips" and divine "orisons") are not expended when cast; barbarians gain special abilities while raging; cleric domains gain a second power at 4th, 6th or 8th level; druids who do not select an animal companion are instead entitled to one nature or element based domain; the paladin's lay on hands can cure various conditions; the rogue's sneak attack works against constructs, plants and undead; and wizards gain abilities based on their specialization (including the universal "specialization").
The cleric's turn or rebuke undead is replaced with the ability to channel positive or negative energy, which is used to heal creatures or harm living or undead creatures depending on a character's alignment. This reduces the need for spontaneous casting of heal or inflict spells, effectively giving clerics more spells per day. Turn and command undead are still available through feats. Bards, paladins and rangers also get more spells per day.
Every character gains something at every level beyond base attack bonus and save progressions. For example, fighters get bravery and armor and weapon training, and rogues get "talents", like the 3.5 special rogue abilities but even before 10th level.
Some classes have entirely new features. For example the ranger has favored terrains, and the sorcerer chooses a bloodline that grants bonus spells, feats, and abilities.
Classes that get a creature cohort (such as a familiar or animal companion) can choose something else instead; for example druids can choose a nature-themed cleric domain, and wizards can have a focus object that allows them to cast a spell spontaneously.
Most classes have a "capstone ability" at 20th level to encourage players to reach 20th level in one class, for example bards can kill with their performance and paladins' smite evil can act like a banishment spell.

Compatibility
Pathfinder RPG is intended to be compatible with the extensive body of expansion materials available for D&D 3.5. In most cases this means adding rules instead of subtracting. This compatibility is not perfect: a 16-page guide (which can be downloaded from Paizo's website) is necessary to convert a 3.5 character into a Pathfinder character, and sometimes this goal was broken to meet other goals.

Modifications to the game
The game is modified compared to D&D 3.5 to clean up and streamline problematic parts of the game. New options were added. Changes were made to improve balance between different game elements. For example:

The hit die for each class is tied to the base attack bonus progression (except for the barbarian's d12), meaning the bard, ranger, rogue, wizard and sorcerer all have bigger hit dice, improving the survivability of these classes, especially in low level games.
The rules for non-damaging "combat maneuvers" such as trip, disarm and bull rush, which are slow and complex in 3.5, are simplified and unified. Characters simply have a Combat Maneuver Bonus (CMB) which they roll against the defender's Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD).
Polymorph spells are greatly simplified, with new groups of spells such as beast shape N and elemental body N replacing the 3.5 wild shape rules. Shape changing characters are no longer effectively required to maintain separate character sheets for each of their different forms, nor frequently consult the Bestiary. The changes also counter the fact that, in 3.5, wild shape and other shape changing abilities became more useful with each new monster book.
The skill system is simplified, as are the multi-classing rules. Characters simply get a +3 bonus for trained class skills; characters receive skill ranks instead of points, which they can invest equally in class and cross-class skills. Several groups of skills are merged, such as Listen, Search and Spot (now just Perception).
Characters never lose experience. Crafting does not require XP, and XP costs for spells are replaced by suitably expensive material components; while level loss is replaced by permanent negative levels, which are expensive to cure. In addition, there is no XP penalty for multi-classing; this penalty for taking many classes is replaced with a benefit of extra skill ranks or hit points for taking one class.
Characters die less easily: a character dies at a number of negative hit points equal to his Constitution; stabilization happens on a DC 10 Constitution check; and the threshold for death from massive damage is higher for characters with more hit points.

Overal balance was not mentioned as a design goal, simply evening and streamlining options. They meant "fix" in the sense of "it is now interesting to play a fighter" rather than "fix" in the sense of "it is now balanced to pit a fighter against a wizard"

Lord_Gareth

2013-01-22, 01:38 PM

Modifications to the game
The game is modified compared to D&D 3.5 to clean up and streamline problematic parts of the game. New options were added. Changes were made to improve balance between different game elements. For example:

Prosecution rests.

Blisstake

2013-01-22, 01:39 PM

Man, if only SKR and Buhlman hadn't claimed that they were going to fix 3.5 this might hold water. Instead they did, and it doesn't.

Hm, I don't recall that, but then again I wasn't around during Pathfinder's beta. Jason Buhlman has a few posts on game design on his facebook page, and he makes it quite clear he's aware the game isn't balanced.

I have a feeling the people claiming Pathfinder was a fixed 3.5 were mostly overzealous Pathfinder fans or people jumping to conclusions when the designs mentioned making some fixes.

I can't comment on SKR, but he appears aware of it. It's really hard to defend him though, since he often acts unprofessionally on the forums :smallsigh:

Anyway, do you have a link for when they claimed that? As I said, I wasn't around during the beta. It's very possible I just missed that.

Edit: "Improving balance" is not the same as saying the whole system is balanced. And many agree that balance was improved.

Taelas

2013-01-22, 01:39 PM

Legend does not feel like D&D, and so I have no interest in it.

Which is one of the reasons I don't care much about balance anymore. It seems any attempt at balancing the system rips what I recognize as D&D out of it.

Rogue Shadows:
"The game is modified compared to D&D 3.5 to clean up and streamline problematic parts of the game. New options were added. Changes were made to improve balance between different game elements."

How is that not about balance? :smallconfused:

Lord_Gareth

2013-01-22, 01:40 PM

See above, Blisstake. I bolded the most relevant part of the quote.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 01:40 PM

Prosecution rests.

"Balance between different game elements" is not the same thing as "creating a balanced system where all classes play on an even field."

Blisstake

2013-01-22, 01:41 PM

See above, Blisstake. I bolded the most relevant part of the quote.

Improved balanced isn't saying the whole system is balanced. Subjectively speaking, many agree that Pathfinder did improve balance to a degree.

Scowling Dragon

2013-01-22, 01:41 PM

{Scrubbed}

TopCheese

2013-01-22, 01:43 PM

Agreed. Not as much as I'd like, but they made strident steps and obvious efforts.

Perhaps, but I don't think balance was their design goal: they wanted gameplay to be interesting for every character at every level, and they succeeded at that.

Besides, sure, $10,000 and $9,999 are different numbers. It's the difference between whether or not I get to have a Snickers bar, so it's indeed even a significant difference!

Everything contained therein were both purely optional, and had to be developed on a month-by-month basis. Of course their balance wasn't as great as it could have been there; you try running a monthly D&D magazine and see what happens.

I'm simply comparing their published Pathfinder books and PDFs side-by-side with WotC's published books and PDFs.

But the original goal was balance.

The difference between them is a snickers bar sure BUT you still owe roughly 10k (and if it is a bank loan or credit card loan waaay more than 10k). The point is that you are still indept to the same degree and 3.5 and Pathfinder are both horribly unbalanced to the point where the difference between the two is the same as having or not having a snickers bar.

So someone saying that PF is way more balanced or anything like that is just plain false and quite silly.

I'm now going to measure the differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder in the unit "Snickers".

Pathfinder is a houseruled 3.5, if they balanced the game then they would have ripped it so far from 3.5 that it would have been its own system.

I like both Pathfinder and 3.5 for different reasons (though don't like WoTC and Paizo for simular reasons) but it seems like so many people jump on something and can't see its faults.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 01:44 PM

{scrubbed}

Um.

How?

It is not immediately obvious to a casual player that wish can be used to duplicate planar binding with the specific intention of getting an efreeti lord and binding him to force him to grant wishes. It requires system knowledge, which you don't have if you're stupid; and it requires lateral thinking, which you don't have if you're uncreative.

Or it requires you to hang out on these boards, I guess.

I would just talk to my players not to abuse wish. Or it starts tearing holes in space and time. Or it creates an alternate reality where your wish comes true. Otherwise it does nothing if its too big of a scale.

But, see, therein lies the rub. It is well within the "safe" limits of wish to duplicate planar binding.

Psyren

2013-01-22, 01:48 PM

Prosecution rests.

And? Certain game elements were better balanced. Defense rests.

thethird

2013-01-22, 01:52 PM

Humans do have a god in 3.5... but he's kind of an ass.

Incidentally it is one of my favorite gods in d&d

On the PF vs 4e. Well there has been a lot already said, they are different. Their playerbase is probably different and pathfinder has a PFsrd (which is pretty cool imho).

On PF vs 3e (or 3.5e). Both are flawed, both have problems... what I like less about PF in that comparison is the Dan Brown effect. PF was advertised, at least to me, as the holy grail that would solve all of 3.5e problems and still be fun. Well, it is a good game, and it is pretty cool, but it is in no ways balanced (although I like the lack of balance). I feel somewhat "cheated", I had accepted that 3e wasn't balanced, and then PF tried to be balanced and still be 3e. But it is not balanced! And then I cry myself to sleep...

Of course the game I play depends on the table I am playing with. I don't really care about the system I would just read how it works, try to figure how would I have more fun and play that.

Personally I find Legend really well done (it feels a lot more balanced and is also distinctive) and I find 5e interesting (even if it needs a lot of polishing).

Taelas

2013-01-22, 01:59 PM

And? Certain game elements were better balanced. Defense rests.

And certain other game elements were worse. (See: Power Attack; the Wizard and Sorcerer classes; impossible-to-detect run-of-the-mill goblins.)

Mirakk

2013-01-22, 01:59 PM

Pathfinder is doing so well for the simple fact that 4th edition was so bad it pretty much caused a mass exodus to something more familiar.

A lot of people like myself have stuck to our guns with 3.5 only because we:

1. Have invested like $1,000 or more in materials for that system.
2. Have not yet exhausted all the material available for that system, as it's immense.
3. Find newer systems less fleshed-out and more limiting.
4. Are already familiar with the system.

These factors make it difficult to consider moving to another platform. However, with that said, if I do invest in a new platform, it would most likely be Pathfinder over D&D at this point. I have trust issues now after 4th Ed.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 02:09 PM

Pathfinder is doing so well for the simple fact that 4th edition was so bad it pretty much caused a mass exodus to something more familiar.

I think this is a key factor was well. 2nd Edition D&D wasn't as different out of the box as 1st edition, and 3rd Edition D&D wasn't as different out of the box as 2nd edition, as 4th Edition was for 3rd. There were sweeping, immense changes.

Now, if Pathfinder hadn't existed, maybe that wouldn't have mattered so much...but as it stands, Pathfinder did exist, it was basically the same, so the number of players willing to leave 3rd Edition for a new game were split, and the majority of that split went to Pathfinder...which happens to be backwards-compatible with 3.5 to an absurdly easy extent, meaning that, as advertised, "3.5 lives Thrives!"

Scowling Dragon

2013-01-22, 02:10 PM

But, see, therein lies the rub. It is well within the "safe" limits of wish to duplicate planar binding.

OK. Outside of the Efriti ****ing with the players, get an imagination people!

OK so they wish for the Efriti not to mess with them. But since that isn't possible (In the eyes of the efriti) they get transported into a reality where efriti won't mess with wishmakers.

But in that reality the floor is lava (Basic jist) so they all die.

Or I make it so that its dangerous to make too specific wishes. As some rules are not meant to be broken.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 02:11 PM

Now, if Pathfinder hadn't existed, maybe that wouldn't have mattered so much...but as it stands, Pathfinder did exist, it was basically the same, so the number of players willing to leave 3rd Edition for a new game were split, and the majority of that split went to Pathfinder...which happens to be backwards-compatible with 3.5 to an absurdly easy extent, meaning that, as advertised, "3.5 lives Thrives!"
3.5 thrives not because of PF, but because of this community that loves the system. To accredit the survival o the system to a poorly written fix is not only insulting to 3.5, but to the community as well. :smallannoyed:

Blisstake

2013-01-22, 02:12 PM

And certain other game elements were worse. (See: Power Attack; the Wizard and Sorcerer classes; impossible-to-detect run-of-the-mill goblins.)

Again, many of these are arguable. 14/15 of my gaming buddies prefer the Pathfinder changes to Power Attack, and all of us prefer the PF Sorcerer and Wizard. And I have no idea what you're going on about with goblins.

Of course, some of the changes people enjoy are also disliked by others. As long as some people think that the Pathfinder changes were better (and based on their continuing good sales, I'd say this is a non-trivial chunk of people), then the designers weren't lying about improving certain game elements.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 02:13 PM

OK so they wish for the Efriti not to mess with them. But since that isn't possible (In the eyes of the efriti) they get transported into a reality where efriti won't mess with wishmakers.

That's...not how it works. They don't wish for the efreeti to not mess with them. They planar binding the efreeti into granting wishes, which the efreeti must do as loyally as possible because it's bound, as per planar binding's rules. They then use those wishes from the efreeti to duplicate planar binding to get themselves three more efreeti.

Now, it looks here like the problem is planar binding and not wish, but really the point is that this is simply the best use for wish, not the only one.

3.5 thrives not because of PF, but because of this community that loves the system. To accredit the survival o the system to a poorly written fix is not only insulting to 3.5, but to the community as well. :smallannoyed:

You cannot possibly be suggesting that the fact that 3.5 is, for all intents and purposes, still being published and updated and given shiny new things, has been anything but helpful for the system.

Besides, I wasn't crediting its survival: there are still people who play 2nd and even 1st Edition, after all, without any meaningful support. I was crediting its thriving. Of course, Pathfinder itself wouldn't be so successful without the community, either.

I think that Pathfinder and the 3.5 community are two parts of a gestalt whole.

Taelas

2013-01-22, 02:22 PM

Again, many of these are arguable. 14/15 of my gaming buddies prefer the Pathfinder changes to Power Attack, and all of us prefer the PF Sorcerer and Wizard. And I have no idea what you're going on about with goblins.
Melee desperately needed Power Attack to stay relevant, and Pathfinder took it and nerfed it, without replacing it with anything. A smart player in 3.5 can dial in how much to use on Power Attack against a given foe; in PF, it's all or nothing, and it comes at a staggered rate compared to the 3.5 version.

They then buffed the Sorcerer and the Wizard, two classes that really did not need any buffs.

As for goblins, Pathfinder goblins get +10 stealth purely from racial bonuses (+4 stealth from being small, +4 stealth from racial skills, +4 Dexterity). You will never see them coming. :smalltongue:

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 02:23 PM

You cannot possibly be suggesting that the fact that 3.5 is, for all intents and purposes, still being published and updated and given shiny new things, has been anything but helpful for the system.

Besides, I wasn't crediting its survival: there are still people who play 2nd and even 1st Edition, after all, without any meaningful support. I was crediting its thriving.

I think that Pathfinder and the 3.5 community are two parts of a gestalt whole.

This is crazy. So a "thriving" system would be one that updates? I could have a system that update all the time, but if it does not have any players, it does not thrive. 3.5 lacks any support, and that is including PF. While PF is backwards compatible from a technical standpoint, many of the choices provided are not.

I think this thread alone tells you that there is a divide between the loyal and the wanting here, Rogue.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 02:27 PM

This is crazy. So a "thriving" system would be one that updates?

As I said, you can't possibly be denying that the updating helps - not that it's the end-all-be-all, but rather that simply it certainly doesn't do anything to hurt it.

A system that never updates will certainly not thrive. Again, one need look no further than the dwindling numbers of 1st and 2nd Edition players for proof of that.

many of the choices provided are not.

Example, please? Because I personally can't think of a single thing in Pathfinder that can't be easily ported backwards, certainly easier than, say, anything from 2nd Edition or 4th Edition into 3rd. Ditto porting things forward.

I guess the biggest problem is that none of the races really have a favored class in the 3.5 sense of the term...but if that's your hangup...

Psyren

2013-01-22, 02:32 PM

Again, many of these are arguable. 14/15 of my gaming buddies prefer the Pathfinder changes to Power Attack, and all of us prefer the PF Sorcerer and Wizard. And I have no idea what you're going on about with goblins.

Of course, some of the changes people enjoy are also disliked by others. As long as some people think that the Pathfinder changes were better (and based on their continuing good sales, I'd say this is a non-trivial chunk of people), then the designers weren't lying about improving certain game elements.

I had a longer post typed up but I'm just going to second this one.

RE: Planar Binding - I'm with Scowling, there's a million ways to make Binding so fraught with danger that no player will even think of abusing it again. For instance, granting you wishes so you can bind even more of its fellows can easily be judged "unreasonable" by the efreet, resulting in an automatic denial regardless of your charisma check result. Or it might even grant you the Wishes, then "seek revenge" by having an allied efreet grant wishes to your enemy. And I haven't even gotten into "subverting instructions."

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 02:33 PM

RE: Planar Binding - I'm with Scowling, there's a million ways to make Binding so fraught with danger that no player will even think of abusing it again. For instance, granting you wishes so you can bind even more of its fellows can easily be judged "unreasonable" by the efreet, resulting in an automatic denial regardless of your charisma check result. Or it might even grant you the Wishes, then "seek revenge" by having an allied efreet grant wishes to your enemy. And I haven't even gotten into "subverting instructions."

But that's what Diplomacy/Intimidate checks are for.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 02:46 PM

As I said, you can't possibly be denying that the updating helps - not that it's the end-all-be-all, but rather that simply it certainly doesn't do anything to hurt it.

A system that never updates will certainly not thrive. Again, one need look no further than the dwindling numbers of 1st and 2nd Edition players for proof of that.
It's not 3.5. It says PF on the book. I don't think many people bought an CRB and thought "Hey, I'll buy/pirate all of this 3.5 material to go with it."

Example, please? Because I personally can't think of a single thing in Pathfinder that can't be easily ported backwards, certainly easier than, say, anything from 2nd Edition or 4th Edition into 3rd.

I guess the biggest problem is that none of the races really have a favored class in the 3.5 sense of the term...but if that's your hangup...
The favored classes are one thing, actually. Using 3.5's superior multiclassing and PrC options, the Favored Class bonuses become useless. Why even have them there?

The Wizard and Sorc are now a pain to play. Many of the Bloodline abilities were obsolete in 3.5 thanks to reserve feats.

PF never did make it's own equivalent to ToB. Too bad PFS (The only good thing about PF, TM) doesn't allow it.

Many PrCs and builds were made with the old versions of feats in mind. The nerfs/changes to melee feats mess them up.

Toppling Spell shouldn't exist. Not really clashing with anything here, but it's just too messed up.

The new caster traits are incredibly powerful. The new melee traits suck. Combining these with the old options just makes casters even stronger, but does not help melee.

Alchemist is dumb. I think I wanted a better warlock, not that ugly mess. Why does it have limited bombs/day? Who wrote this thing? Why do I need a whole page of text for Alchemy (Su)?! They don't blend with other options from 3.5, either. I didn't see any options for progressing alchemy with spellcaster PrCs.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 03:31 PM

I'm going to preface this with saying that I don't think you actually understand what forwards/backwards compatibility means. It's a term that comes from telecommunications and computing. Something is backwards compatible if it can work with input generated by an older product or technology.

For example, the Wii is backwards compatible with the Gamecube, because a Wii can run Gamecube games. However, the Gamecube is not forwards compatible with the Wii, because Wii games will not run on a Gamecube.

In the case of Pathfinder, what someone means when they talk about forwards or backwards compatibility is "will it run?"

I.e., if I take the Alchemist class, make the minor tweaks necessary to port it backwards to 3.5 (that is, adjusting skill names and any references to CMB), will it function in 3.5? Similarly, if I take Warblade and make the same tweaks, will it function in Pathfinder? The answer in both cases is yes.

Contrast to, for example, trying to port a Sorcerer from 4E into 3rd Edition, or a Thief from 2nd Edition into 3rd Edition, which is basically impossible because the systems are totally incompatible.

Anyway, on with the show.

The favored classes are one thing, actually. Using 3.5's superior multiclassing and PrC options, the Favored Class bonuses become useless. Why even have them there?

Port from 3.5 to PF: Already done for you for the most part. Sure, Kalashtar don't have multiple options, but that's what the generic favored class bonuses are for)
Port from PF to 3.5: Give each race that doesn't have a 3.5 equivalent a favored class as per 3.5, or make them up when they don't have an equivalent (i.e., dhampir = Ranger, I feel). This takes a 1 minute conversation with the DM, max.

Easy. Next!

The Wizard and Sorc are now a pain to play. Many of the Bloodline abilities were obsolete in 3.5 thanks to reserve feats.

Port from 3.5 to PF: Your character now has some redundant abilities. This in no way actually affects how you play him.
Port form PF to 3.5: Your character now has some redundant abilities. This in no way actually affects how you play him.

Does not actually have any affect on compatibility, so again, easy. Next!

PF never did make it's own equivalent to ToB. Too bad PFS (The only good thing about PF, TM) doesn't allow it.

Port from 3.5 to PF: Every ToB class can be run as-is in Pathfinder with only the minor PF adjustments (i.e., more feats, CMB, etc).
Port from PF to 3.5: Apart from the minor PF adjustments (less feats, CMB is multiple things), your Pathfinder character not being a Warblade isn't any different from being a 3.5 character who isn't a Warblade.

So, irrelevant point. Next!

Many PrCs and builds were made with the old versions of feats in mind. The nerfs/changes to melee feats mess them up.

Port from 3.5 to PF: Use the Pathfinder versions of the feats. If this messes things up, a 1 minute conversation with your DM will almost certainly allow you to make the slight edits to your character necessary to run him.
Port from PF to 3.5: Use the 3.5 versions of the feats, unless they don't exist, in which case use the PF versions. Remember that you get less feats.

This is a minor bookkeeping issue and has little to nothing to do with whether or not given character X from PF can be run in 3.5, or vice-versa. Next!

Toppling Spell shouldn't exist. Not really clashing with anything here, but it's just too messed up.

As you said, not really clashing with anything here, so an irrelevant point. Manipulate Form shouldn't exist either. Next!

The new caster traits are incredibly powerful. The new melee traits suck. Combining these with the old options just makes casters even stronger, but does not help melee.

This is a power question but has nothing to do with whether or not you can actually run given character X in both Pathfinder and 3.5 with only the minor adjustments of more feats, etc., that should take you about 10 minutes, max, to fix.

In other words, it is still forwards/backwards compatible. They still run just fine - nothing actually changes about whether or not the character can attempt a given thing. A fighter with Power Attack can Power Attack in both systems; yes, the PF one is worse, but he still can do it, and still goes about doing it in exactly the same way, and trying to Power Attack does not result in an "ERROR 404 FILE NOT FOUND" from your character sheet. Next!

Alchemist is dumb.

This has nothing to do with whether or not it's forwards/backwards comparitble and so is an irrelevant point. Next!

They don't blend with other options from 3.5, either. I didn't see any options for progressing alchemy with spellcaster PrCs.

Then I guess it doesn't blend with spellcaster PrCs. This does not prevent the Alchemist from actually being played as written in a 3.5 game, however.

Psyren

2013-01-22, 03:46 PM

But that's what Diplomacy/Intimidate checks are for.

Incorrect:

(a) Planar Binding involves a straight Charisma check, not Diplomacy/Intimidate.

(b) Even if it was a Diplomacy check, you're forgetting that you can't Diplomance someone to fanatic in PF like you can in D&D. The most you could ever hope for from an Efreet would be Indifferent, which is unlikely to be helpful enough that it will agree to bind its fellows for you.

(c) The "unreasonable" clause is paired with the "impossible" clause; both override this check completely:

You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward. You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature's Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward. If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service. New offers, bribes, and the like can be made or the old ones re-offered every 24 hours. This process can be repeated until the creature promises to serve, until it breaks free, or until you decide to get rid of it by means of some other spell.Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to.

What is considered "unreasonable" is not defined in the rules, thus it is up to the DM to decide. But the definition of "never" is pretty clear.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 03:53 PM

I am talking about the choices being meaningful playable or relevant. Power, redundancy, and whether or not a player should care are very different from the technical standpoint/conversion you are still discussing.

When something is redundant, that makes using one or the other pointless. While someone has the Bloodline option for a frequently used blast, or the CM reserve feat for a superior version, and action cost makes them mutually exclusive, one is pointless.

Favored Class bonuses are pointless because single-classing is useless for most classes, and when it isn't (ToB, MoI, ToM), there is not any official options for them.

ToM conversion is pointless because it would be homebrew, with no official for the features. This also fails in another fun direction, with PF might as well not as exist as far as those classes are concerned. Duskblade, Hexblade, DFI, Warlock, and many other classes from 3.5 dd not receive updates, as well. Magus wasn't an update. It failed if it was.

All PrCs have different break points for skills requirements. I hope you aren't just subtracting 3 from the point requirements. That would cause problems.

The changes to feats are too much to overcome. With no meaningful buffs to melee feats, the people who benefit from more feats are casters. Thanks, Paizo Nerfing team!

Paladin was revamped, Monk/Ninja was/were changed, and fighter was... buffed? The changes they needed came from ToB.

Alchemist is still crap. It does clash, since it doesn't multiclass at all. I can't think of a single PF original class that would appropriately add anything to a 3.5 game.

In short, you should be trying to be getting me to play with PF rules in my 3.5 game, while all I am doing is going "Why should I bother?"

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 04:00 PM

I am talking about the choices being meaningful playable or relevant. Power, redundancy, and whether or not a player should care are very different from the technical standpoint/conversion you are still discussing.

Pathfinder never promised relevancy, only that if you wanted to play a Warblade in Pathfinder or a Alchemist in 3.5, you could. And, as it turns out, you can.

So...it is backwards/forward compatible, plain and simple - and whatever term for what you're suggesting is called? It was never promised anyway, so it's not fair to hold Paizo to not keeping a promise that it never made.

Oh, and for your invisible text - it's my understanding that the Magus is considered Tier-3, the same as the Duskblade. So even if it is not in fact an actual update to the Duskblade, it clearly still does good in whatever it is it's trying to do.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 04:02 PM

Pathfinder never promised relevancy, only that if you wanted to play a Warblade in Pathfinder or a Alchemist in 3.5, you could. And, as it turns out, you can.

So...it is backwards/forward compatible, plain and simple - and whatever term for what you're suggesting is called? It was never promised anyway, so it's not fair to hold Paizo to not keeping a promise that it never made.

They never made a promise I wanted to hear. Their whole system is redundant, and therefore irrelevant to me. Why should I buy one of their books?

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 04:04 PM

They never made a promise I wanted to hear. Their whole system is redundant, and therefore irrelevant to me. Why should I buy one of their books?

Damned if I know since all the good ones are available for free on their website anyway (actually on two separate websites, one of which is also loaded with with 3rd party stuff). More options? Idea mines? That sort of thing.

Not all of their ideas are redundant, in fact most aren't. The Oracle, Witch, Summoner, Magus, and Inquisitor all offer fun classes. And the Alchemist does too if you're willing to go levels 1-20 in it, which most are.

SamBurke

2013-01-22, 04:04 PM

1. Define Vanilla.

2. If Vanilla is anything past the PHB/CRB, then yes.

3. This seems to go towards "PF is broken" than "PF is an effect 3.5 fix".

And fueled by delusions, it seems.

Archers being able to contribute and do damage seems to me to be a good thing.

Whether or not they were trying to "fix it", I have yet to see a signficant, unbalanced, gameplay problem. Gareth, could you show us one?

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 04:05 PM

Whether or not they were trying to "fix it", I have yet to see a signficant, unbalanced, gameplay problem. Gareth, could you show us one?

If I may, can I also add the stipulation of "that does not also exist in 3.5?"

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 04:06 PM

Damned if I know since all the good ones are available for free on their website anyway. More options? Idea mines? That sort of thing.
I haven't even touched large portions of 3.5, and I have been playing it for years. Maybe you should try selling this system who hasn't played anything else yet.

In short:
PF did not fix balance.
PF did not add anything meaningful.
PF did not satisfy me as a standalone system.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 04:09 PM

In short:
PF did not fix balance.
PF did not add anything meaningful.
PF did not satisfy me as a standalone system.

PF never said they would, not as you are using the term, anyway.
PF added the Oracle and the Witch, which are just plain fun, and personally I'm a fan of the cavalier as well.
PF was meant from the get-go to be backwards-compatible. While it can stand alone, it was assumed that you'd be porting stuff from 3.5 into it. That's why it's 3.75 or 3.P, and not just Pathfinder as a standalone system. It is probably a mistake to approach it as a standalone system, and instead you could probably get more mileage out of it if you think of it as an expansion pack for 3.5

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 04:14 PM

PF never said they would, not as you are using the term, anyway.
PF added the Oracle and the Witch, which are just plain fun, and personally I'm a fan of the cavalier as well.
PF was meant from the get-go to be backwards-compatible. While it can stand alone, it was assumed that you'd be porting stuff from 3.5 into it. That's why it's 3.75 or 3.P, and not just Pathfinder as a standalone system. It is probably a mistake to approach it as a standalone system, and instead you could probably get more mileage out of it if you think of it as an expansion pack for 3.5
Well, considering those were 2 of the very pointless classes of which I spoke (Ohai, Wizard clone that should have been an archetype and Favored Soul), I think my reasoning stands.

If nothing worthwhile as added, it has to be able to stand on it's own. It was found wanting.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 04:19 PM

If nothing worthwhile as added, it has to be able to stand on it's own. It was found wanting.

Well, given that it's outselling 4E and seems to be quite popular on these very boards, it apparently wasn't found to be particularly wanting by the majority of gamers

But, hey, what does Paizo know?

Psyren

2013-01-22, 04:20 PM

They never made a promise I wanted to hear. Their whole system is redundant, and therefore irrelevant to me. Why should I buy one of their books?

Cool art, love of paper, and desire for organized play (you have to have the books or purchased PDFs to use splat material in PFS.) The rules are free, so if you don't want to pay for them, don't buy them.

The fact that all the rules are free and still trouncing WotC - especially given the online-friendly community RPG players and especially 3.5 players have engendered over the years - says to me that people are buying it out of a desire to support the property at least as much as a desire to see what the fuss is all about.

The very first google search result for "Pathfinder rules" is the PRD. The free to use, official and hyperlinked PRD. So you can't even claim they're hiding it to try and sell books to the naive.

In short:
PF did not fix balance.
PF did not add anything meaningful.
PF did not satisfy me as a standalone system.

1) is true - but how egregious a violation that is depends on how much you thought needed fixing, which is subjective.

2) is flat-out false since clearly others have found significant meaning where you didn't. So long as it is meaningful to someone your statement cannot be true.

3) may be true, but is also irrelevant to anyone who is not you.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 04:20 PM

Well, given that it's outselling 4E and seems to be quite popular on these very boards, it apparently wasn't found to be particularly wanting by the majority of gamers

But, hey, what does Paizo know?Citation needed. Still. Pirated copies aren't taken into account.
They know how to retype an established and popular system and then sell it as there own. I'd liken it to the WarZ scandal.

4.0 should get a medal for managing to be worse, but at least it was original.

Psyren

2013-01-22, 04:24 PM

4.0 should get a medal for managing to be worse, but at least it was original.

Tank, healer, cc and dps. Yep, totally original :smalltongue:

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 04:26 PM

Tank, healer, cc and dps. Yep, totally original :smalltongue:

I mean the rules bro. I'll amend it to more original, considering the roles. :smalltongue:

SamBurke

2013-01-22, 04:34 PM

And certain other game elements were worse. (See: Power Attack; the Wizard and Sorcerer classes; impossible-to-detect run-of-the-mill goblins.)

I've played both of these a number of times, both on PF and 3.5e.

PF's version of both is very, very, strong. It allows for a lot of choice, and it's *less* overpowered, though not by a terrible amount. Sorc does go up a little bit.

Impossible to Detect Goblins: I don't see where you're coming from, here. I can get +8 Perception rather easily with Pathfinder (Summoner, Eidolon gets Skilled with Perception), which is more than enough to see most goblins most of the time.

Power Attack: I'll give you that it's slightly inferior.

Also, I'd caution against comparing Pathfinder to WarZ. WarZ's only fault was that it was poorly implemented. Zombies in an open world scenario is not copyright, nor is the OGL that Pathfinder took.

Besides that, I don't remember the Summoner, Magus, Alchemist, or Gunslinger showing up in DnD's rulebooks. Paizo has taken 3.5's OGL, and run with it to create a really, really, cool feel in my opinion.

Psyren

2013-01-22, 04:34 PM

I mean the rules bro. I'll amend it to more original, considering the roles. :smalltongue:

Did you see my other post responding to your three points?

Also, the rules weren't original either. It's still roll d20, add modifiers, compare to target. They tweaked minor things like how saves/defenses worked but it's overall not that different. Most of their changes existed in some form in UA - complex skill checks instead of skill challenges, incantations instead of rituals etc.

Tanuki Tales

2013-01-22, 04:50 PM

PF did not add anything meaningful.

That's your opinion and not fact, so please don't tote it around like it is so. I personally think that Pathfinder did add meaningful things to the gaming environment built around it. I've been playing/reading since 3.0 came out and while I found myself questioning buying DnD sourcebooks, I've never batted an eye about spending the 50 dollars for a hard copy of one of their books.

And you honestly think "Melee being relevant/a threat at the table = sign of a broken system"? :smallconfused:

TopCheese

2013-01-22, 05:03 PM

That's your opinion and not fact, so please don't tote it around like it is so. I personally think that Pathfinder did add meaningful things to the gaming environment built around it. I've been playing/reading since 3.0 came out and while I found myself questioning buying DnD sourcebooks, I've never batted an eye about spending the 50 dollars for a hard copy of one of their books.

And you honestly think "Melee being relevant/a threat at the table = sign of a broken system"? :smallconfused:

Everything PF "made" can be done (or damn near close) in 3.5 so I have to agree with the statement "pathfinder didn't add anything meaningful".

Sure Rage Powers are nice, love the barbarian BUT most of the things that rage powers do can be done in 3.5.

Heck to get pounce you have to wait 8 extra levels -_-

Tanuki Tales

2013-01-22, 05:06 PM

Everything PF "made" can be done (or damn near close) in 3.5 so I have to agree with the statement "pathfinder didn't add anything meaningful".

Again, that's a matter of opinion and not fact. Please don't treat it as so.

SamBurke

2013-01-22, 05:08 PM

Everything PF "made" can be done (or damn near close) in 3.5 so I have to agree with the statement "pathfinder didn't add anything meaningful".

Sure Rage Powers are nice, love the barbarian BUT most of the things that rage powers do can be done in 3.5.

Heck to get pounce you have to wait 8 extra levels -_-

Elegance.

That is all.

The LOBster

2013-01-22, 05:16 PM

I want to get into PF, but what I've heard about my favorite classes (Fighter , Monk and Rogue) doesn't sound terribly promising, although I hear my other favorites like Ranger and ESPECIALLY Paladin got buffed to high hell, and some new classes like the Gunslinger seem pretty nice. Of course, there's how some PF modules are a bit more... Rape-y than I'd like, considering I'm adamantly against bringing rape into a story just to establish how evil a villain is or how "edgy" your writing is. (I'm talking to you, Hook Mountain Massacre and Carnival of Tears...)

Then again, PF has some critters I really love - the chupacabra, wendigo, mothman, and the goddamn Nuckelavee are all statted up, and look gorgeous. Of course, they changed the Nuckelavee into a Neutral Evil Gaia's Avenger, when the damn thing is pretty much a Chaotic Evil Omnicidal Maniac... But at least they got the Fey origin right. :smallamused:

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 05:20 PM

Did you see my other post responding to your three points?

I think you are getting the response from other players. I stand by my statements. PF is redundant. It's changes to classes can already be imitated by 3.5 material. So on and so forth.

And you honestly think "Melee being relevant/a threat at the table = sign of a broken system"? :smallconfused:
I like ToB. PF melee is inferior to ToB. Your statement is a bold, and inaccurate assumption concerning my attitude towards melee characters. I think Standalone PF made melee weaker, and as an Add-on, didn't help.

toapat

2013-01-22, 05:26 PM

I want to get into PF, but what I've heard about my favorite classes (Fighter , Monk and Rogue) doesn't sound terribly promising, although I hear my other favorites like Ranger and ESPECIALLY Paladin got buffed to high hell, and some new classes like the Gunslinger seem pretty nice. Of course, there's how some PF modules are a bit more... Rape-y than I'd like, considering I'm adamantly against bringing rape into a story just to establish how evil a villain is or how "edgy" your writing is. (I'm talking to you, Hook Mountain Massacre and Carnival of Tears...):

Buffed/Debuffed is all relative:

Fighters and rogues are better relatively in PF, but i havent seen anything to buff monk outside of archetypes. Ranger is inherently better, although im not sure the Favored Enemy problem was solved or not.

Actually, it ends up that classes like Paladin and bard got the shortstick with their new stuff, because both saw redemption over time in 3.5, but PF hasnt done the same things. Sometimes what is lost in translation is alot more then people give credit then there being.

The LOBster

2013-01-22, 05:28 PM

I think you are getting the response from other players. I stand by my statements. PF is redundant. It's changes to classes can already be imitated by 3.5 material. So on and so forth.

I agree with you on melee classes (aside from the Paladin) being utterly neutered in PF (made worse by how Wizards and Sorcerers got even more cool **** to do and Clerics and Druids getting nerfed slightly - Paizo apparently ascribes to the "Wizards are supposed to be OP, every other class should suck" mentality I've had repeated to me by grogs at too many gaming stores), but PF isn't redundant. Plus, despite Oracles and Magus (Magi) being essentially Favored Souls and Duskblades with the serial numbers filed off, there are a lot of cool classes PF has that 3.5 doesn't, namely the Gunslinger and especially the Inquisitor.

NightbringerGGZ

2013-01-22, 05:28 PM

Pathfinder is close enough to 3.5 that experienced players can pick up the game quickly, but it has enough differences to feel refreshing. Paizo isn't afraid to experiment with new options as well, which is why the vast majority of their content comes in the form of optional rules.

Paizo's also not afraid of lowering the price of entry. All the rules are online for free, and you can buy PDF versions of everything. You get to choose how much you're willing to pay for Pathfinder, so nobody is turned away by a high price point.

What is really brilliant though is the Pathfinder Society organized play system. This is a great way to get new people playing and keep sales going.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 05:30 PM

What is really brilliant though is the Pathfinder Society organized play system. This is a great way to get new people playing and keep sales going.
PFS is nice. I like it. I think its the system's best quality.

Lord_Gareth

2013-01-22, 05:30 PM

Tanuki Tales

2013-01-22, 05:31 PM

I like ToB. PF melee is inferior to ToB. Your statement is a bold, and inaccurate assumption concerning my attitude towards melee characters. I think Standalone PF made melee weaker, and as an Add-on, didn't help.

No, my statement is not bold, nor is it an inaccurate assumption.

3. This seems to go towards "PF is broken" than "PF is an effect 3.5 fix".

That was your direct reply to Sam's posting of the thread he did, which concerned a competent Archer needing to be constructively challenged by his DM.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 05:38 PM

Gunslinger was a mistake. It's mechanics are screwed up. Should have been a Ranger Archetype. Inquisitor doesn't seem very useful either. Their abilities seem like they should be passive, not swift actions.

No, my statement is not bold, nor is it an inaccurate assumption.

Are you telling me that I hate melee characters then? That I think they are a problem? What is the purpose of your statement? Or are your subtly hinting that PF friendly players get to make assumptions without knowing who they are talking about?

RFLS

2013-01-22, 05:42 PM

Original:

Again. This is only a problem if your a stupid uncreative person.

I would just talk to my players not to abuse wish. Or it starts tearing holes in space and time. Or it creates an alternate reality where your wish comes true. Otherwise it does nothing if its too big of a scale.

Fixed:

Again, this is only a problem if you're a stupid, uncreative person.

I would just talk to my players about not abusing Wish, or I'll have it start tearing holes in space and time or create an alternate reality where your wish comes true. Otherwise, if the Wish is on too large a scale, it simply fails

I wouldn't imply that the majority of people here are stupid under any circumstances, and especially not if I were incapable of doing so without a slew of grammatical errors.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 05:42 PM

Have you SEEN those new options? I mean, HAVE YOU? The called shot rules alone are insulting.

Well, that's why they're optional. They're a sort of "screw you" that's just hanging there, and you're only insulted if you've decided that that the "you" means you as opposed to just a generic "you" that only applies to you if you choose to make it apply to you, which is entirely your own fault.

Now see, me, I like their called shot rules.

I really think that this board has sort of forgotten what this particular word means, so Imma just leave this here...

Optional [op-shuh-nl]
adjective
1. left to one's choice; not required or mandatory: Formal dress is optional.
2. leaving something to choice.

Tanuki Tales

2013-01-22, 05:42 PM

Are you telling me that I hate melee characters then? That I think they are a problem? What is the purpose of your statement? Or are your subtly hinting that PF friendly players get to make assumptions without knowing who they are talking about?

I think you're being way more hostile than is honestly necessary in this situation.

You said something that was very ambiguous and that was not really clarified in your later posts. Something that I was honestly questioning since you did later say you liked Tome of Battle, which made me scratch my head.

But I'm honestly done speaking with you, so have a good day sir.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 05:47 PM

I think you're being way more hostile than is honestly necessary in this situation.

You said something that was very ambiguous and that was not really clarified in your later posts. Something that I was honestly questioning since you did later say you liked Tome of Battle, which made me scratch my head.

But I'm honestly done speaking with you, so have a good day sir.Now you are assuming hostility. I am just confused.

I am still trying to figure out where I said "melee being relevant is a problem". Would someone kindly show me where that is?

Wonton

2013-01-22, 06:17 PM

I haven't even touched large portions of 3.5, and I have been playing it for years. Maybe you should try selling this system who hasn't played anything else yet.

In short:
PF did not fix balance.
PF did not add anything meaningful.
PF did not satisfy me as a standalone system.

Wow, ease up buddy, if I wanted to see sweeping generalizations made from someone who has a position of illusory superiority, I'd go to reddit.

1) Although I believe that PF was a step in the right direction, I'll give you this one. In the grand of scheme of things, PF is pretty much just as (un)balanced as 3.5.

2) Completely subjective. Playing a PF Gunslinger was the most fun I've had in my roleplaying career.

3) Completely subjective and irrelevant to this (or any) argument. Pathfinder satisfied me completely as a standalone system.

NightbringerGGZ

2013-01-22, 06:23 PM

Have you SEEN those new options? I mean, HAVE YOU? The called shot rules alone are insulting.

I didn't say the new options were going to be good. The fact that Paizo is willing to try new ideas keeps the system fresh, which is a major strength of their business plan. The downside is that not every idea they try will be a winner.

Now my PF group actually uses the Called Shots rules and we have had some fun with them, while acknowledging that they aren't perfect. We also experimented with and then dropped the Word Casting system, since it increases the power of Evokers (and the Magus class in particular) too much while hindering most other spell casters. Hero Points (on the other hand) have proven to be a brilliant system that my group uses constantly.

The trick is use the optional rules you like, tweak the ones that just need minor modifications and ditch the ones that are just poorly thought out.

Cambrian

2013-01-22, 06:29 PM

...

...
What exactly do you two feel you are adding to this thread? I think no one is unclear that you both don't like what pathfinder has done and likely hold paizo in contempt for creating an update to 3.5.

Both of you are just stating you're gripes with the system (which isn't the topic of the thread); you're not really adding anything constructive.

I really feel the production quality, good community support and communication, stance on 3pp material (actively selling on the main sight), the offering of free rules and PDF formats, and many premade adventures has been key to paizo's success.

The OGL was huge for 3rd since it gave the game significantly more options. It's like 3rd-party products for anything: an additional camera lense, an alternative console controller, an optional vehicle modification kit all make the value of the core product greater than if the products for it were restricted to those produced by a single manufacturer.

Additionally the focus on premade content has 2 major effects that 3rd/4th edition lacked:
1. The material gave easy play options for gaming groups while increasing profits. (The same goes for pf:chronicles and similar micro releases.)
2. The profit from products like adventure paths (and products like crit decks) reduces reliance on splat books. This means the books can be released less regularly; increasing production quality and edition longevity.

Lycar

2013-01-22, 06:46 PM

Let me tell you a bit about the balancing PF did to 3.5.

Did it bridge the gap between melee and magic?

No.

And how could it? What balanced melee and magic in 2nd ed. were the drawbacks that came with using certain magics. Just on the top of my head: Casting Haste would age your character a year. Employing this beast of arcane energies would literally rob you of your life. Even a long lived rave like an Elf would think long and hard about casting this spell.

In 3.5? No drawback whatsoever, spam at your leisure.

Should PF have reintroduced drawbacks to magic? I feel they should but I also know how much of a ****storm that would have caused. I understand why Paizo didn't touch that issue even with an 11-foot pole.

Moving on.

Melee being 'relevant' in 3.5 pretty much boils down to pulverizing single targets via übercharging. That requires unlimited Powerattack and Shock Trooper to work. Also leaves any fighting style but THF irrelevant.

This is not a good thing.

PF Power Attack hammers in this proud nail but actually gives you a better return on investment for each point of to-hit you lose. The important part is Power Attacking is no longer an all-or-nothing proposition. Because you will either PA for full (and have a way to mitigate the loss to to-hit) or you might as well not bother. Or have a calculator ready to find that 'ideal' amount to PA for. Certainly the other players don't mind you taking your sweet time...

Now THF is still King of Damage, as it should be, but adding options for shield users and TWFers means that those fighting styles become viable again. Check the PF feats, you can do interesting stuff with shields. If you have the feats for it that is. Say hello to Mr. I-get-10-more-feats-then-anybody-else.

Oh, what is that? Fighters got worse because they now only get 20 feats compared to 10 as opposed to 17 to 7? Oh and the combat maneuver feats suck now because they are split up into 2-4 feats?

Gee I dunno. First of all: In absolute numbers, Fighters still get 10 more feats then anybody else. And only getting the most out of combat maneuvers by investing multiple feats into it actually favours the Fighter!

First of all, Fighters have more feats to spend to begin with. And, let's face it, what are they going to spend their feats on but the usual suspects like Power Attack etc? Other classes must spend feats to boost their own special class features like Paladins and Clerics. Rangers and Rogues also have other fish to fry then just getting Combat feats.

In other words: For them the opportunity cost to take Combat feats is even higher then it is simply for the fact that they have fewer feats to spend to begin with.

Critical feats: Some say it is a trap but consider that they have a chance to trigger on every single attack roll you make. And if you don't fight with a keen weapon, you don't have any business to go for Crit. feats to begin with. Now do the numbers for a TWFinf crit-fisher. Compare to the success rate of a competent spellcaster. None too shabby considering that all this is on top of the damage you already do.

And if you want to inflict some impromptu status effects on your enemies, there is always the Dirty Trick line of feats. Even forcing an enemy to use but a move action to make it go away means no iterative attacks for that foe. Blinded casters have problems targeting their spells.

And the Step Up feat is a godsend to smite that obnoxious 5-foot-step-of-impunity. You can make a fighter type sticky with but one feat. Compare to the hoops you have to jump through even with ToB. A real improvement.

Small steps, but melee got better. Not in the pulverizing-single-foes department. In the having-interesting-things-to-do-while-hitting-things-with-other-things department. You know, where they really needed that help.

Not enough to bridge the gap to magic but again: Fixing that would need much more then nerving a few problem spells. It would need to be closer to 2nd. ed then 3.x for that. And that is something Paizo didn't want to do and with good reason.

Wonton

2013-01-22, 06:47 PM

While we're at it...

Gunslinger was a mistake. It's mechanics are screwed up. Should have been a Ranger Archetype.

An incredibly well-written, well thought-out and compelling argument. Bravo![/s] :smallannoyed:

Why Ranger? Because it's ranged? Gunslingers getting Favored Enemy or Favored Terrain almost makes some sense, since you could conjure up an image of the "sheriff" that hunts outlaws in the plains of the wild west (although pigeonholing every Gunslinger into that role is silly). But then you'd still need to do something about track, wild empathy, hunter's bond, woodland stride, camouflage...

Now if you'd said a Fighter archetype, you'd be closer to the mark since the original class was in fact an alternative Fighter (kinda like Ninja is an alternative Rogue). But in the end it was different enough and they wanted multiple archetypes right out of the gate so they made it its own class.

As to its mechanics... I found the Grit system to be a breath of fresh air. Having limited resources ("I can do this cool thing 3/day") is a lot more fun than just having passive bonuses ("I have a +1 on all attack rolls") and Grit fuels a bunch of 4e/ToB-like powers that work really well and are tons of fun to use. Balance-wise it works out too since Firearms (compared to bows) basically trade range, reliability (misfires suck), reload time, and Str to damage for bigger dice, bigger crits, and hitting touch AC.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 07:02 PM

While we're at it...

An incredibly well-written, well thought-out and compelling argument. Bravo![/s] :smallannoyed:

Why Ranger? Because it's ranged? Gunslingers getting Favored Enemy or Favored Terrain almost makes some sense, since you could conjure up an image of the "sheriff" that hunts outlaws in the plains of the wild west (although pigeonholing every Gunslinger into that role is silly). But then you'd still need to do something about track, wild empathy, hunter's bond, woodland stride, camouflage...

Now if you'd said a Fighter archetype, you'd be closer to the mark since the original class was in fact an alternative Fighter (kinda like Ninja is an alternative Rogue). But in the end it was different enough and they wanted multiple archetypes right out of the gate so they made it its own class.

As to its mechanics... I found the Grit system to be a breath of fresh air. Having limited resources ("I can do this cool thing 3/day") is a lot more fun than just having passive bonuses ("I have a +1 on all attack rolls") and Grit fuels a bunch of 4e/ToB-like powers that work really well and are tons of fun to use. Balance-wise it works out too since Firearms (compared to bows) basically trade range, reliability (misfires suck), reload time, and Str to damage for bigger dice, bigger crits, and hitting touch AC.

Well, it's a ranged based class, so ranger with rapid shot would be more its speed. A sheriff sort of deal makes sense, and the grit abilities could have easily been done with a limited spell list + refresh option. Not that any Gunslinger I knew ever used the Grit System as intended. Another problem is that this full BaB class with a bonus damage from Dex (less MAD than Archery ranger?!) inexplicably gets to hit on touch attacks in the the first increment while Deadly Aim (Ranged power attack) is an option? Definitely needs some tweaking in my eyes.

So, basically I would call it a Ranger Archetype because you would have to change less, and Guns need tweaking.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 07:03 PM

and hitting touch AC.

Wait, Pathfinder firearms are ranged touch attacks?

That's...actually, that's kind of brilliant. That never occurred to me, but yeah, that makes perfect sense within the context of what firearms do VS what AC represents.

Good job, Paizo.

Well, it's a ranged based class, so ranger with rapid shot would be more its speed.

Actually when I think of a "gunslinger," I really do think of it as being its own thing. They're not really rangers because I don't really associate them with any of the classic Ranger tropes. Especially spells.

Besides which, ranged attacks are not the sole province of rangers, despite the name.

navar100

2013-01-22, 07:04 PM

And certain other game elements were worse. (See: Power Attack; the Wizard and Sorcerer classes; impossible-to-detect run-of-the-mill goblins.)

Power Attack is not worse. It's a lateral shift. Weapon & Shield style is no longer obsolete and can benefit well enough from Power Attack. Sorcerers are now more interesting. You want to stay to 20th level instead of going into a prestige class at first opportunity. Ditto wizards, but wizards can still prestige class out without too much of a hitch. Unsure what you mean by the goblins.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 07:06 PM

Wait, Pathfinder firearms are ranged touch attacks?

That's...actually, that's kind of brilliant. That never occurred to me, but yeah, that makes perfect sense within the context of what firearms do VS what AC represents.

Good job, Paizo.
In the first increment.

And you say this as if arrow and bolts don't punch through armor. They did. You say this as if the armor wasn't magically reinforced. You say that as if the mechanic was needed to improved a full-BaB class's hit chance.:smalltongue:

There are not many other classes that actually give bonuses for ranged fighting. I can't name one, actually. Do Rogues get Rapid Shot as a Bonus Feat? Do Monks? What percentage of Fighter bonus feats work with ranged weapons?

Plus the Gunslinger adds some skillmonkey to the mix. That's more Ranger's thing.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 07:06 PM

Unsure what you mean by the goblins.

No one knows what he means by goblins.

In the first increment.

And you say this as if arrow and bolts don't punch through armor. They did.

Sure they did, but between taking an arrow to the knee, a bolt to the knee, and a bullet to the knee, I'll take the arrow or bolt.

Besides, realism need not apply. They're trying to represent guns as interpreted by High Fantasy, which dictates that they be more powerful weapons than bows and crossbows.

Mystic Muse

2013-01-22, 07:31 PM

No one knows what he means by goblins.

Goblins get a +10 bonus to stealth checks (+2 from Dexterity boost, +4 from size, +4 from Racial trait) just for being a goblin. Purely from that and no other boosts, if a Goblin decides to be a rogue and takes a rank in Stealth, he will have a Stealth bonus of +14 at level 1. That's a pretty silly amount.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 07:34 PM

Besides, realism need not apply. They're trying to represent guns as interpreted by High Fantasy, which dictates that they be more powerful weapons than bows and crossbows.

What does this even mean? I was under the impression High Fantasy precluded the use of guns. This is sounding like nonsense. Explain, please.

Arrows can be pretty awful. You don't want to be shot by one. It's not like in the movies. We don't use arrows as weapons not because they aren't dangerous, but because guns are easier to use.

In a high fantasy setting, an archer can be anywhere from a little stronger from commoners like us to many times stronger. 18 Str isn't unheard of for an archer.

Now, your GUNS, are touch attacks. This is implying they are shooting straight through armor. Fullplate. That becomes harder than steel with each plus. That started off as Adamantine. And the bullets always punch right through it, but only deal as much damage as an arrow.

Psyren

2013-01-22, 07:47 PM

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 07:49 PM

Firearms in PF are the opposite of how they are in real life - they are harder to use than bows and thus get the touch attack thing as a boon.

I wouldn't say so. I would understand if they had better increments, but touch attacks is a HUGE bonuses at high levels.

TopCheese

2013-01-22, 07:50 PM

What does this even mean? I was under the impression High Fantasy precluded the use of guns. This is sounding like nonsense. Explain, please.

Arrows can be pretty awful. You don't want to be shot by one. It's not like in the movies. We don't use arrows as weapons not because they aren't dangerous, but because guns are easier to use.

Also because they are cooler, well was... Bows are making a comeback.

Heck I think it wasn't up until the mid-late 1800's that guns became better than bows .. And even then that was because people focused more on creating better guns than creating better bows.

Before that a bowman could fire a crazy ton more arrows than a person could shoot from a gun...

I like the idea of a Gunslinger, though PF didn't do it justice. Gunslinger would be an awesome Ranger variant... One that came through time and space to a High Fantasy .... But hey I've had a few warforged that have done that...

rollforeigninit

2013-01-22, 07:55 PM

Just loving this thread. Ask a simple question, get a 3.5 vs PF flame war going.

It does occur to me that ToB melee > PF melee. There's a reason for this in my opinion. Seeing as ToB was (pointedly) not under the OGL, Paizo couldn't touch it or come up with anything resembling it without unzipping their fly and daring WotC to call them on it. I had a bad feeling when TSR got bought all those years ago that this wouldn't end pretty. It just took longer than I thought. I happen to love both games & don't give a fig for balance and have no personal grudge against any designers at all. (Just calling it like I read it.) If designers falling short of any of their goals is a capital offense then the designers of any/all computer programs should be hung drawn & quartered.:smallsmile:

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 07:56 PM

Just loving this thread. Ask a simple question, get a 3.5 vs PF flame war going.

I think that's officially over. We are talking about the gunslinger right now.

I think they could have done a better job. Besides, some companies put out pretty good work on an almost consistent basis, like Blizz (almost, Diablo is dead) and From Software.

rollforeigninit

2013-01-22, 07:59 PM

I think that's officially over. We are talking about the gunslinger right now.

Good. It never got really out of hand. I tracked it over the last couple hours but was at work. I don't care for the Gunslinger at all. Guns & High Fantasy don't meet at all in my world. I do agree with you on those points.:smallbiggrin:

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 08:06 PM

Good. It never got really out of hand. I tracked it over the last couple hours but was at work. I don't care for the Gunslinger at all. Guns & High Fantasy don't meet at all in my world. I do agree with you on those points.:smallbiggrin:

Yeah. GUns can be cool, but they don't make very much sense in this setting. Sort of why I am not a big fan of Monks.

It gets worse. Look at page 145 and 146 of your 3.5 DMG. We already had guns if we wanted to use them.

Cambrian

2013-01-22, 08:13 PM

Now, your GUNS, are touch attacks. This is implying they are shooting straight through armor. Fullplate. That becomes harder than steel with each plus. That started off as Adamantine. And the bullets always punch right through it, but only deal as much damage as an arrow.so you don't like PF because it didn't fix magic > mundane but you feel that gunslingers shouldn't get something nice because it breaks realism? Don't you see an issue with arguing both?...

Psyren

2013-01-22, 08:14 PM

I think that's officially over. We are talking about the gunslinger right now.

I'm not.

When something is redundant, that makes using one or the other pointless. While someone has the Bloodline option for a frequently used blast, or the CM reserve feat for a superior version, and action cost makes them mutually exclusive, one is pointless.

Both have their place, because some tables will allow 3.5 material and some won't. That's the beauty of the system.

Favored Class bonuses are pointless because single-classing is useless for most classes, and when it isn't (ToB, MoI, ToM), there is not any official options for them.

That sounds like a 3.5 problem to me, not PF.

ToM conversion is pointless because it would be homebrew, with no official for the features.

There is no official conversion of anything 3.5 outside of OGL, because doing so would be illegal. Instead, they gave you the necessary building blocks to do it yourself (i.e. Skill checks, SLAs and Su abilities are still a thing, which is all you need to convert the entirety of ToM.) That you choose not to do so is not a fault of the system.

All PrCs have different break points for skills requirements. I hope you aren't just subtracting 3 from the point requirements. That would cause problems.

For the majority this is indeed all you need to do. Some do need additional tweaking but this is hardly a titanic undertaking. Any table willing to convert every PrC ever likely loves PF enough to make the effort; the rest can focus just on the classes that a given PC (or the DM) may want to port over.

The changes to feats are too much to overcome. With no meaningful buffs to melee feats, the people who benefit from more feats are casters. Thanks, Paizo Nerfing team!

I actually agree that melee benefit less from the extra feats than casters do. But it's not hard to simply use the 3.5 versions instead in cases where you feel this is a problem.

Paladin was revamped, Monk/Ninja was/were changed, and fighter was... buffed? The changes they needed came from ToB.

Good thing WotC licensed ToB content to Paizo then.

Alchemist is still crap.

No.

I can't think of a single PF original class that would appropriately add anything to a 3.5 game.

Nearly all of them. (Cavalier not so much.) And while I'm at it, DSP's stuff would be great in 3.5 too; just look at their Soulknife compared to the official one.

In short, you should be trying to be getting me to play with PF rules in my 3.5 game, while all I am doing is going "Why should I bother?"

Nobody is trying to get you (or Gareth) to do anything, you both have clearly made up your minds long ago. However, your tendency to present your opinions as though they were facts is provoking responses from people.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 08:19 PM

@Psyren TL;DR, but at a glance, it seems like you've posted after seeing everything you quoted before.
EDIT: Reading it now, I'll just say I don't like my arguments to go overboard, but the bloodline versus reserve feats should sum up how I feel about this. Essentially, if it was played with 3.5, it would be almost entirely redundant. I could replicate the new classes, or just have more fun with the unique class options from 3.5, which are far more varied. If it's stand alone, I'd sit around wishing I was playing a more malleable 3.5.

so you don't like PF because it didn't fix magic > mundane but you feel that gunslingers shouldn't get something nice because it breaks realism? Don't you see an issue with arguing both?...

I am just saying a PF bullet can shoot through a MBT and keep going. It makes no sense in the setting ,and it makes no sense out of the setting, and the Gunslinger didn't need it. Bolts and Arrows should have gotten the same buff if it was an issue.

There was no point. Gunslingers are full BaB. They will hit things anyway. Dex is there god-stat. Why would they need to be able to gun down Fighters better?

Psyren

2013-01-22, 08:31 PM

@Psyren TL;DR

Yep, I now know what you're up to and will take my leave.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 08:31 PM

Yep, I now know what you're up to and will take my leave.

Jokes on you, I read back and read it. HA!

You ninjaed my edit. :smalltongue:

Raven777

2013-01-22, 09:59 PM

For you guys talking about how Gunslingers would have been better as a Ranger archetype... I'll point you towards the Shieldmarshal (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/s-z/shieldmarshal) PrC. It captures exactly that sheriff feel you are talking about.

Wonton

2013-01-22, 10:01 PM

Well, it's a ranged based class, so ranger with rapid shot would be more its speed. A sheriff sort of deal makes sense, and the grit abilities could have easily been done with a limited spell list + refresh option.

No, no, no, no, no.

1) Every ranged class should use Ranger as the base now? Why not have every caster be either a Cleric or Wizard, every melee be Fighter, and every sneaky/skills guy be a Rogue? Amazing, we just reduced the PHB to 5 classes! I'm not seeing any logic to this argument except "ranger = ranged".

2) Mechanics aside, it's clear that you don't care about the fluff of a Gunslinger class when you say "A sheriff sort of deal makes sense" and just leave it at that. Okay, a "sword and board deal" makes sense for Fighters, let's make every fighter required to use a shield and a sword. Obviously, that would be stupid since I would be ruining the most customizable class in 3.5. Same thing with your sheriff idea. People might want to play different gunslingers and just because your idea of a "ranger/hunter/tracker" gunslinger works as a ranger archetype, doesn't mean everyone's does. The "Gun Tank" archetype is a perfect example of this.

3) The only similarities between grit and spells is that they renew at the end of the day. Making the Gunslinger spell-based would have completely ruined the class. One of my favourite books in the whole world is Stephen King's The Gunslinger. Clearly, the PF people liked it too since it was mentioned in the back of Ultimate Combat as an inspirational work. The titular character in that series does not have magic, he is not a sheriff, and yet he is a downright badass and has some sort of near-supernatural ability with firearms. This is Grit. It's (Ex) for a reason, because it represents more about a character's training or luck than the magical tie to nature that rangers have.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 10:05 PM

1) I addressed this.

2) I didn't even bring up the sheriff. It was your idea.

3) You can literally replace Spells with an (Ex) descriptor. It's the same sort of thing they did with Alchemist's spells.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 10:18 PM

Goblins get a +10 bonus to stealth checks (+2 from Dexterity boost, +4 from size, +4 from Racial trait) just for being a goblin. Purely from that and no other boosts, if a Goblin decides to be a rogue and takes a rank in Stealth, he will have a Stealth bonus of +14 at level 1. That's a pretty silly amount.

...so? They're goblins, they're supposed to be sneaky. Also that's not impossible to find, that's hard to find. Impossible to find would be, like, a cheap trick to give them permanent improved invisibility at level 1, or something.

What does this even mean? I was under the impression High Fantasy precluded the use of guns. This is sounding like nonsense. Explain, please.

High Fantasy has never precluded the use of guns. John Carter and Solomon Kane both had guns and made use of them, as Pathfinder itself points out. Smokepower and firearms that use it have been available for awhile in the Realms, or at least it was prior to 4E; I'll admit to not knowing its current status. Magic: the Gathering had guns all over the place in their starter set, Portal Second Age, and they popped up in other places, too.

Tolkienesque fantasy doesn't use guns, obviously, since it's trying to create a pseudomedieval setting. However, not all high fantasy is pseudomedieval, and especially not all D&D settings - not with Sigil, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Eberron, and so on knocking around. Again: John Carter of Mars, the grandaddy of all High Fantasy, and Solomon Kane, created by Robert E. Howard, who also created Conan the Barbarian.

Prior to Tolkien, there wasn't really as sharp a divide between sci-fi and fantasy as there is today.

Before that a bowman could fire a crazy ton more arrows than a person could shoot from a gun...

Guns and bows have different advantages and disadvantages. As a general rule, guns from about the 1500's onwards have always been better, but in specific instances bows and arrows were superior. Notably with bows, you can get indirect fire, whereas with guns you need line of sight to your target. Thus in foresty terrain, bows will probably be better.

The "number of arrows verses number of bullets," however, is something of a fallacy. I'm pretty sure generals of musketeer corps figured out within three seconds the basics of volley fire. Thus while any one man in the army is only firing three shots per minute on average, the entire column is constantly firing, with greater range and accuracy (though, again, at the cost of not being able to indirectly fire).

Bullets also have more stopping power. More to the point, an arrow or crossbow bolt is likely going to get stuck in you and hold fast, stopping the bleeding. A bullet fired from a musket probably doesn't carry enough kinetic force to leave the body, but it's also far too small to stop bleeding.

Further, logistical supply trains with guns are much smaller. A solider can carry more shot, bullets, and powder than a bowman can carry arrows. Entire forests used to have to be stripped to make enough arrows for an archer corps; supplying a musketeer corps was a much simpler and smaller endeavor (for a suitably advanced society, in any rate).

Both bows and muskets don't do so well in the rain, either.

However, the deciding factor was this: it takes several years to train decent bowman. You can train a corps of musketeers in a matter of days. Sometimes quality beats quantity, but in general, quantity has a quality all on its own. Assuming that each know the other is coming, sheer bloody numbers of musketeers will beat a corps of archers even three times its size ever time.

Now, of course, this doesn't matter on an individual adventurer level, but the fact is simple expectations: we expect a bullet to do more damage than an arrow.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 10:24 PM

I think John Carter sits closer to Star Wars as a Space Opera (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceOpera), not a High Fantasy. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HighFantasy)

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 10:28 PM

I think John Carter sits closer to Star Wars as a Space Opera (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceOpera), not a High Fantasy. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HighFantasy)

Again, the divide between sci-fi and fantasy has not always been as sharp as it is today. John Carter is sci-fi. John Carter is also fantasy. This is because it comes from a time when people did not distinguish between the two.

Does this look like a sci-fi character to you? (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Princess_of_Mars_large.jpg/399px-Princess_of_Mars_large.jpg)

(Star Wars is also, incidentally, considered to be much more of a "fantasy" than a "sci-fi." Again, the distinction wasn't quite as sharp in the 70s, and it's always been blurry to begin with. It is "Space fantasy" - a fantasy that happens to be set in space).

Raven777

2013-01-22, 10:28 PM

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 10:30 PM

(There's an adventure path, I kid you not, where the last volume (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/adventurePath/reignOfWinter) culminates into plane shifting to 1918 World War 1 Russia, complete with fighting current tech decked Russian soldiers and a Lichified Rasputin as the BBEG. And it makes perfect sense in context.)

...

...

...

BRILLIANT!

That is utterly ridiculous! I love it!

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 10:32 PM

(Star Wars is also, incidentally, considered to be much more of a "fantasy" than a "sci-fi." Again, the distinction wasn't quite as sharp in the 70s, and it's always been blurry to begin with. It is "Space fantasy" - a fantasy that happens to be set in space).
Read the tropes I linked, please. They are there for your benefit.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 10:39 PM

Read the tropes I linked, please. They are there for your benefit.

As you wish.

Basically, the Dark Lord, The Lord of the Sith, thought defeated millennia past, has returned to his Dark Tower in the Dark Land, Death Star, gathering around him evil hordes Hordes of Loyal Stormtroopers. The free lands Rebel Alliance have only one hope, a small band of lost heirs, princes, and simple village folk Ewoks gathered together by a mysterious wandering wizard Obi-Wan Kenobi, though he died and so Luke Skywalker, Last of the Jedi, did the actual gathering.

You're not going to win this one because George Lucas intentionally designed Star Wars to mimic every fantasy trope, and it just happen to be set in space. This is common knowledge, that it's a fantasy, not a sci-fi. Hell, the "mysterious wandering wizard" line up there is a link to a trope entitled "The Obi-Wan," and further the High Fantasy page itself says:

The sci-fi version of High Fantasy is Space Opera, but not vice versa. The quintessential Space Opera doesn't necessarily include a Dark Lord equivalent, but if a Space Opera does, as with Star Wars or Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep, it is High Fantasy in space.

Emphasis mine, of course.

So in other words, something can be a space opera, and be High Fantasy.

Like John Carter! Again, the grandaddy of the genre.

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 10:46 PM

Except, read under Literature for Space Opera, and then again, but for High Fantasy.

Realize it's Space Operas that are not being produced in DnD, but rather High Fantasy in the Tolkeinian sense. This is not Space Opera. Not Planetary Romance. Heroic Fantasy.

Mystic Muse

2013-01-22, 10:52 PM

...so? They're goblins, they're supposed to be sneaky. Also that's not impossible to find, that's hard to find. Impossible to find would be, like, a cheap trick to give them permanent improved invisibility at level 1, or something. That's before any other modifiers. Without much trying, you could quite easily get +17 (+5 ability score modifier, +8 from being small and a goblin, +4 from a rank in a trained skill) at first level, and that's pretty good. I Mean, I know that's not "Impossible to find" but even so, it's rather unlikely. You'd have to be a Gunslinger, Monk, Or Inquisitor (Or maybe some other base class I missed that has wisdom as a primary attribute and Perception as a class skill), and even then, your modifier will probably only be about +10 (+4 from skill training, +4 from ability modifier, and +2 from a racial bonus).

So, even if you're still noticeable, you're still quite hard to notice, even for a PC who's put a fair amount of effort into making their perception check. If a PC hasn't put anything into their Perception score, they're basically never going to notice a first level goblin sneaking up on them. Then, at higher levels, it becomes much easier to increase stealth than it is to increase perception.

EDIT: It's not necessarily broken or overpowered, but it is kind of silly for a first level Goblin to be able to optimize their stealth check to the point where somebody without perception as a trained skill basically can't notice a Goblin on a natural 20 (Untrained person will likely only have a +2 to perception or so) when the Goblin fumbles (Skill focus and a trait means +21 to stealth, which means the average person will NEVER notice a sneaking goblin).

High Fantasy has never precluded the use of guns. John Carter and Solomon Kane both had guns and made use of them, as Pathfinder itself points out. Smokepower and firearms that use it have been available for awhile in the Realms, or at least it was prior to 4E; I'll admit to not knowing its current status. Magic: the Gathering had guns all over the place in their starter set, Portal Second Age, and they popped up in other places, too.

In general, Magic: The Gathering does not feature guns much.

Though, even if it did, guns wouldn't help much against some of the stuff in their settings. :smalltongue:

Raven777

2013-01-22, 10:55 PM

While we're on the subject... You want to play John Carter in Golarion? One of the solar system's planets is a shameless John Carter ripoff (http://www.pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Akiton) short of being called Barsoom. Or maybe you prefer Pandora? 'Cause it got that covered too (http://www.pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Castrovel). Actual setting book for these is Distant Worlds (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8qib?Pathfinder-Campaign-Setting-Distant-Worlds).

Snowbluff

2013-01-22, 11:17 PM

Though, even if it did, guns wouldn't help much against some of the stuff in their settings. :smalltongue:

Are they ever? Guns usually epitomize epic levels of suck in High Fantasy . Star Wars had guns so pointless, many people were better off hitting each other with them.

Wonton

2013-01-22, 11:18 PM

Also, to all those that assert that Paizo is not deserving of Pathfinder's success because of it's ties to 3.5, I'd like to mention that Pathfinder's success is not only a product of mechanics, but also of the setting being built. Golarion, the adventure paths and the modules, are very, very good.

(There's an adventure path, I kid you not, where the last volume (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/adventurePath/reignOfWinter) culminates into plane shifting to 1918 World War 1 Russia, complete with fighting current tech decked Russian soldiers and a Lichified Rasputin as the BBEG. And it makes perfect sense in context.)

Ho. Ly. ****. That's amazing. :smallbiggrin:

And yes, Golarion is amazing even before that. As Cambrian put it,
To make the game easier to run they have released a dozen long stretching, well written adventure paths. The adventure paths allow a GM to run a quality game with minimal prep time. Other products like the new NPC Codex add to this. As a sandbox game lover it is probably the most conveniant release Ive seen in years.

There's literally 4 or 5 epic plot lines going on in Golarion at the same time. And the world is so well detailed in various books that you can freely add more of your own. It really makes for a very rich setting - my PCs are going through Serpent's Skull and adventuring on a tropical island, and meanwhile they're subtly learning about Golarion's history so if they suddenly get on a ship and sail for Cheliax, I can just insert them into Council of Thieves and play it out from there.

TopCheese

2013-01-22, 11:28 PM

No, no, no, no, no.

1) Every ranged class should use Ranger as the base now? Why not have every caster be either a Cleric or Wizard, every melee be Fighter, and every sneaky/skills guy be a Rogue? Amazing, we just reduced the PHB to 5 classes! I'm not seeing any logic to this argument except "ranger = ranged".

Yes to all of them. I happen to like 2e.

Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladins were just types of Fighters.

Druids were just a type of Cleric.

I didn't see a problem with that.

Agent 451

2013-01-22, 11:32 PM

Star Wars had guns so pointless, many people were better off hitting each other with them.

Gotta love Imperial Stormtrooper training!

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-22, 11:46 PM

Gotta love Imperial Stormtrooper training!

To be fair, in the books the Stormtroopers eventually started getting better training. They were much better then, able to take on Jedi and Mandalorians with relative ease. The problem isn't with the weapons, it's with the training, always the training.

Compare/contrast Han Solo, who was quite handy with a blaster, if you'd care to recall.

So, even if you're still noticeable, you're still quite hard to notice, even for a PC who's put a fair amount of effort into making their perception check. If a PC hasn't put anything into their Perception score, they're basically never going to notice a first level goblin sneaking up on them. Then, at higher levels, it becomes much easier to increase stealth than it is to increase perception.

Given the ubiquity of invisibility, I'm still not seeing an actual problem with this.

Realize it's Space Operas that are not being produced in DnD,

Spelljammer. Polyhedron even did a 3rd Edition update. Pathfinder allows travel to other planets as well. Your argument is invalid.

Although, again, you're assuming that there must be a clean divide. There doesn't have to be. Hell, the divide between fantasy and sci-fi is slim already. Someone points a tube at you, and you get hit by a beam of light. Laser gun? Or wand of searing light? Without actually being told, you have no way of knowing.

Are they ever? Guns usually epitomize epic levels of suck in High Fantasy

Tell that to Roland.

Wonton

2013-01-22, 11:57 PM

Yes to all of them. I happen to like 2e.

Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladins were just types of Fighters.

Druids were just a type of Cleric.

I didn't see a problem with that.

More power to you. Especially with things like Wizard and Sorcerer, I can easily see how most classes could be collapsed into one of the "basic 4" roles. I don't think that's what Snowbluff was arguing though, since there was no mention of Ninjas being Rogues or Barbarians being Fighters - just a misconceived notion that every Gunslinger is just a Ranger with a gun.

Snowbluff

2013-01-23, 12:03 AM

More power to you. Especially with things like Wizard and Sorcerer, I can easily see how most classes could be collapsed into one of the "basic 4" roles. I don't think that's what Snowbluff was arguing though, since there was no mention of Ninjas being Rogues or Barbarians being Fighters - just a misconceived notion that every Gunslinger is just a Ranger with a gun.

No, it's that every other class that's isn't ranger doesn't lend itself to ranged fighting. Ranger is built around it. They get feats for it and spell for it. It has the better skill list and skill points than fighter. If I had to choose a class to make a gunslinger out of, I would pick Ranger.

WhatBigTeeth

2013-01-23, 12:04 AM

Now you are assuming hostility. I am just confused.
Wait... you aren't trying to make toxicity your MO? :smallconfused:

Wonton

2013-01-23, 12:05 AM

No, it's that every other class that's isn't ranger doesn't lend itself to ranged fighting. Ranger is built around it. They get feats for it and spell for it. It has the better skill list and skill points than fighter. If I had to choose a class to make a gunslinger out of, I would pick Ranger.

So what's wrong with building a new class built around ranged fighting? Like... the PF Gunslinger? :smallconfused: Do Rangers have a monopoly on being able to fight well from range?

Snowbluff

2013-01-23, 12:06 AM

So what's wrong with building a new class built around ranged fighting? Like... the PF Gunslinger? :smallconfused: Do Rangers have a monopoly on being able to fight well from range?

No, having a gun does not justify having a new class.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-23, 12:08 AM

No, having a gun does not justify having a new class.

Paizo felt differently. The result is generally considered to be one of the most fun classes they've yet made.

If the Gunslinger hadn't been specifically built around guns, but instead built around ranged attacks in general, would you feel differently?

Also, what about that nifty two-weapon style thing that rangers do? Should no one else do that?

Snowbluff

2013-01-23, 12:11 AM

Paizo felt differently. The result is generally considered to be one of the most fun classes.

Okay. Tell me. Why wasn't it just an archetype? Like the other gun-archetypes? Where does the unique function lie in Gunslinger? It certainly not grit, a lot of people get that anyway. It's not guns, a lot of classes get that anyway. It's not being a Full-BaB ranged fighter, fighter (to a degree) and ranger can do that.

If they made a class revolving around nothing but TWF Hatchets, I would complain about that having its own class as well.

Wonton

2013-01-23, 12:17 AM

It certainly not grit, a lot of people get that anyway.

I know a few (not a lot) archetypes get Grit, but it's always in reference to the Gunslinger class. So is the Amateur Gunslinger feat. How is Grit not the Gunslinger's defining feature?

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-23, 12:18 AM

Okay. Tell me. Why wasn't it just an archetype? Like the other gun-archetypes? Where does the unique function lie in Gunslinger? It certainly not grit, a lot of people get that anyway. It's not guns, a lot of classes get that anyway. It's not being a Full-BaB ranged fighter, fighter (to a degree) and ranger can do that.

Because it's all of those things together, and because it's COOL.

Remember back when we played D&D because it was cool? Paizo remembers those days.

Also because the Gunslinger as printed is so different from the baseline Fighter class that there is no reason to call it a fighter anymore, and plus, this allowed them to make all sorts of archetypes for the Gunslinger class, rather than overload the Fighter class with a dozen more archetypes, many of which would contain identical abilities.

To call the Gunslinger a fighter (or ranger) archetype is like calling the Favored Soul a Sorcerer variant. In the most technical of senses, this is a true statement...but if you look any deeper...

Snowbluff

2013-01-23, 12:21 AM

To call the Gunslinger a fighter (or ranger) archetype is like calling the Favored Soul a Sorcerer variant. In the most technical of senses, this is a true statement...but if you look any deeper...
Except for that's what it is. A favored soul is what happens when you swap "Familiar" and "Arcane" with "Weapon Focus" and "Divine".

I am looking for a mechanical reason. Fluff is mutable. Pick it up. Tell me that this class isn't a waste of a chart that reads full BaB and slightly more skill points than fighter.

Wonton

2013-01-23, 12:21 AM

I am looking for a mechanical reason. Pick it up. Tell me that this class isn't a waste of a chart that reads full BaB and slightly more skill points than fighter.

Grit. How many times do I have to say it?

Agincourt

2013-01-23, 12:22 AM

Yes to all of them. I happen to like 2e.

Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladins were just types of Fighters.

Druids were just a type of Cleric.

I didn't see a problem with that.

That's not really true. 2nd Ed. divided classes into four groups: Warrior, Wizard, Priest, and Rogue. The writers of the 2E PHB must have had their reasons for explicitly stating this taxonomy, but they didn't have to.

Paladins and Rangers were types of Warriors, just like a Fighter was a type of Warrior. Barbarians weren't in the PHB; they must have been in a splatbook I didn't have. Each of these different classes had different level progression, ability requirements, prime requisites, and allowable races. A Paladin is no more a type of Fighter in 2nd Ed. than a Paladin is a type of Fighter in 3rd Ed.

Likewise, Druids were a type of Priest, just as Clerics were a type of Priest.

Snowbluff

2013-01-23, 12:23 AM

Grit. How many times do I have to say it?

Several archetype grant it (Le GASP, just like I said!), and a feat grants it as well.

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-23, 12:24 AM

I am looking for a mechanical reason. Fluff is mutable. Pick it up. Tell me that this class isn't a waste of a chart that reads full BaB and slightly more skill points than fighter.

Because it was the major selling point of Ultimate Combat and arguably what people bought it for.

I.e., it sold books.

Also, Grit, which is the Gunslinger's "thing." If you're going to insist that the Gunslinger be judged without Grit just because other classes get it (but only through the book that introduced it...is the Binder pointless because it's possible to bind vestiges without being a Binder?), then I will insist you judge the Wizard without spells and see how far you get.

Wonton

2013-01-23, 12:25 AM

Several archetype grant it (Le GASP, just like I said!), and a feat grants it as well.

They grant it because those archetypes give those classes a slight "hint" of Gunslinger.

Your argument is backwards. It's like saying that if I add a feat that gives a martial character a single arcane spell, the Sorcerer and Wizard classes are no longer unique enough to exist.

...What? :smallconfused:

Snowbluff

2013-01-23, 12:30 AM

Because it was the major selling point of Ultimate Combat and arguably what people bought it for.

I.e., it sold books.

Also, Grit, which is the Gunslinger's "thing." If you're going to insist that the Gunslinger be judged without Grit just because other classes get it (but only through the book that introduced it...is the Binder pointless because it's possible to bind vestiges without being a Binder?), then I will insist you judge the Wizard without spells and see how far you get.
I'll buy "marketing".

Binder can be pointless. Depends on how you use it. It can save you 2 feats for Anima Mage entry.

I am judging it on the fact that they demonstrated how little they had to do to add it to an existing class, but they made it anyway.

Raven777

2013-01-23, 12:32 AM

Several archetype grant it (Le GASP, just like I said!), and a feat grants it as well.

These archetypes and feats were introduced alongside the Gunslinger when it was published, so that actually existing classes could join in some of the gun slinging fun.

But none of them are as effective at gun play than the Gunslinger proper. To make a Fighter or Ranger work with guns with the potency the Gunslinger does, you'd have to rework it so much it wouldn't feel like a Fighter or Ranger anymore. Vice versa, the Gunslinger really is all about his guns and little else. Put a sword in his hands and he would be liable to chop off his own arm. To me, that pretty much means "that guy plays different enough to be a class of its own".

Rogue Shadows

2013-01-23, 12:38 AM

Snowbluff

2013-01-23, 12:41 AM

But none of them are as effective at gun play than the Gunslinger proper. To make a Fighter or Ranger work with guns with the potency the Gunslinger does, you'd have to rework it so much it wouldn't feel like a Fighter or Ranger anymore. Vice versa, the Gunslinger really is all about his guns and little else. Put a sword in his hands and he would be liable to chop off his own arm. To me, that pretty much means "that guy plays different enough to be a class of its own".

Really, this must be hyperbole. The Gunslinger is pretty much just as capable of using a sword as ranger, paladin, or fighter. Unless they don't have proficiency. Which I would not understand.

Gunslinger is Nimble, Dex to Gun Damage, and Grit. Oh, and a Gun.

Oh, and some bonus feats. Why didn't you guys bring this up earlier? It actually holds ground on the "Fighter can be gunslinger" thing.

Felandria

2013-01-23, 12:43 AM

I doubt they beat 3.x but they're definitely beating 4e.

You don't need the books - all the rules are available for free online. Even the conversion guide (http://paizo.com/products/btpy89m6?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Conversion-Guide) they made is free. (It references page numbers in the CRB, but you can simply search for the terms they mention on the PFSRD.)

And if you have an iPad, you can go to the App Store and find an app that has like eight books in it for around four bucks.

Wonton

2013-01-23, 12:57 AM

Really, this must be hyperbole. The Gunslinger is pretty much just as capable of using a sword as ranger, paladin, or fighter. Unless they don't have proficiency. Which I would not understand.

Gunslinger is Nimble, Dex to Gun Damage, and Grit. Oh, and a Gun.

Oh, and some bonus feats. Why didn't you guys bring this up earlier? It actually holds ground on the "Fighter can be gunslinger" thing.

I guess I'll say it a 3rd time. :smallsigh:

Grit.

It's one of the most unique resources in 3.x since it refreshes when you rest, when you crit, OR when you perform a daring act. Deeds are for the most part unique (a few of them are similar to feats), and you can even get Grit Feats to expand your list of Deeds.

All in all Grit + Deeds is 18 class features in one (I counted) and I don't see how that's not unique enough from the Fighter when the 3.5 Barbarian can be completely summed up in 6 (no feats, Fast Movement, Rage, Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense, DR).

Snowbluff

2013-01-23, 01:27 AM

We have 2 to fix Paizo's scrappy mechanics for guns exploding (Why?). One is literally Improved Uncanny Dodge + Improved Evasion.
Aside from those, I'll call 11 of these lift from little from other features/spells.

Utility Shot, Dead shot, Targeting, and Cheat Death are the four out of those I think are unique beyond "You save, something happens". Even if it gives you a few options to do just that.

My other problem is a few of these only require you to leave grit in your pool, and that most of them have their Grit cost entirely subverted by the Signature Deed feat. Gunslingers not using their grit up seems to be common trait with gunslingers I have seen.

I think that's all I have to say on the matter. Au revoir.

White_Drake

2013-01-23, 02:27 AM

Is that a bad thing? After all, high level wizards only run out of spells under the rarest of circumstances.

Snowbluff

2013-01-23, 02:33 AM

Is that a bad thing? After all, high level wizards only run out of spells under the rarest of circumstances.

Gunslingers never run out of grit. They never spent it. They never need to refresh it. They don't very much need Wis to keep it high. None of the system put in place holds up. The points might as well not be there. You could delete the word grit from the book, and the gameplay would not change.

Thanks for reminding me to explain why that's an issue.

Cambrian

2013-01-23, 02:58 AM

...
Well lets look at what is different from a fighter:

Grit
Proficiencies (add firearms, remove medium and heavy armor)
Removed feats at levels 2 and every 4 levels thereafter
Gunsmith bonus feat (more options than fighter feat options)
Deeds to enhance Grit (A list similar in size to the Barbarian Rage powers)
4+int mod skills (2 greater than the fighter)
Added improved REF Save
Nimble class feature
True Grit Capstone ability
Gun Training
Different Skill List (Add: Acrobatics, Bluff, Heal, knowledge: Local, Perception, Slight of Hand Remove: Knowledge: Dungeoneering)

Looking at that and you can see it is most certainly not an archetype labelled as a new class-- far too many changes. I also didn't mention many of the things removed from a fighter which would make the list longer.

Taelas

2013-01-23, 04:22 AM

...so? They're goblins, they're supposed to be sneaky. Also that's not impossible to find, that's hard to find. Impossible to find would be, like, a cheap trick to give them permanent improved invisibility at level 1, or something.

Not quite invisibility, but they can have +20 stealth at 1st level. 18 Dex (22 from racials), +4 racial bonus to Stealth, +4 size, +1 rank, +3 from being a class skill, and +3 Skill Focus. Oh wait, that's actually +21. If we are extra silly, we can add a +2 circumstance bonus for having a masterwork tool for Stealth for a total of +23.

I'm not saying it's game-breakingly powerful, mind you. I was just pointing it out.

TopCheese

2013-01-23, 10:39 AM

To get close to on topic...

It looks like Paizo pushed WoTC into doing something that might just be the best thing WoTC has ever done.

Y'all go look at this thread http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268790

(You know in case you missed it :p)

Now for a conspiracy theory! WoTC wanted to see if pdf sales could work... They told the dragon magazine guys to make their own version of 3.5 (not better but different enough). Pathfinder was born and did their own thing and now that pdf sales work... WoTC is bringing this out. Soon WoTC will buy pathfinder and they all will share a laugh when they read threads like this. No risk to WoTC is pathfinder fails, high rewards if pathfinder suceeds (WoTC gets their info and Paizo gets money + money from being bought out), and the fans get "healthy competition" and new editions of d&d.

Almost crazy enough to be true!!!

Sorry I can't change the color of my text on my phone.. To troublesome.

NightbringerGGZ

2013-01-23, 02:30 PM

Snowbluff, I'll agree that Gunslingers don't really fit in most of the 3.5 settings, but they're designed for Golarion. They do work in this setting, which is basically high-fantasy with some steam punk thrown in. They even recently introduced an android race, indicating that Paizo is all about blending in some science with their magic.

As for the class itself, Grit and Deeds were supposed to help make the class "cinematic", letting you act out the kind of awesome scenes you see in action movies. The main problem the class has is this core system just wasn't well thought out.

Too many deeds provide passive buffs, but require you to maintain 1 point in your Grit Pool. This is an effective Grit Tax, which is compounded by the fact that your grit pool is limited by your Wisdom Modifier. This starts you off with an effective grit pool of 1 or 2 points of Grit (14 - 16 Wisdom). That's just too few points for a system that's meant to be spent several times per combat.

The next issue is that most of the active Deeds are really really situational. There are a few that could see regular use, but by level 11 you can take the Signature Deed feat and make them free to use. You're also doing tons of damage by mid levels, and with some coordination among your party, you should be refilling your Grit Pool with killing blows. This incentive's players to use the Deeds that improve their damage over the "utility" deeds.

That being said, the class is still fun to play. You just have very few "optimized" options. Personally, I think the class just needs three changes. First the Grit Pool should increase as you level, maybe Wisdom Modifier + 1 per 4 levels. Next, the Deeds that require you to hold onto one Grit point should just be passive bonuses and not a Grit Tax. Finally, the deeds you spend Grit on should be more exciting overall, particularly at higher levels.

Wonton

2013-01-23, 04:41 PM

snip

Now here's a criticism I actually agree with. Basing Grit off Wisdom and then making it so that if you misfire when you have 0 Grit you're screwed - this makes spending Grit a much, much riskier proposition than they probably intended. However, in my opinion, it can also make for some really cool storytelling moments too - when you're down to 1 Grit at the end of a long fight, you can go "all in" so to speak by spending that last point for some more damage and risking being stuck with an empty grit pool and a broken gun.

Personally, I think the class just needs three changes. First the Grit Pool should increase as you level, maybe Wisdom Modifier + 1 per 4 levels. Next, the Deeds that require you to hold onto one Grit point should just be passive bonuses and not a Grit Tax. Finally, the deeds you spend Grit on should be more exciting overall, particularly at higher levels.

There is actually a human Favored Class option that increases your Grit pool in that exact fashion (although I know that's not exactly a good solution from a game design perspective, it can be a decent workaround for a player who wants more Grit). With Deeds, I am inclined to agree - some could have been more fancy. The cool thing is that Paizo has a chance to make up in this area by releasing more Grit feats in future books (Ultimate Combat, sadly, only had 2 interesting ones).

Overall, using the Grit resource is tons of fun and if the biggest complaint is uses per day, you can take the human favored class option, you can take Extra Grit, or you can have the DM make one simple rule change. Certainly, my Gunslinger had 16 Wis and never felt stifled by it, - it was a limitation to work within, just like a wizard's spells per day.