PDA

View Full Version : 3.875 edition comes out when?



wumpus
2018-06-08, 02:53 PM
No, not Pathfinder 2e, a presumed attempt to outPazio Pazio by creating a pathfinder continuity game by some upstart (pathfinder 2e shouldn't fit in the numbering scheme, although I expect 5.75 jokes from what little information is out).

While I don't think the opportunity is there, largely because I don't expect Pazio to botch 2e the way Hasbro botched 3e*. Still, expect plenty of people to clutch their books and refuse to try anything new. And thus expect profit to be made in catering to them.

Anybody trying to maintain continuity? It looks like a great opportunity for a small game company to become a medium/large gaming company.

* Note that I only am sure the marketing lead up and launch was botched. I was pretty much told that everything I liked about Dungeons and Dragons since Basic Edition was being thrown away and "streamlined" out of existence. While I didn't think much of the rules released, I've heard that actual play was fine. But the whole launch attempt made certain I would never give it a fair shake. And that's from someone with zero stake in Faerûn, I can't imagine what people with any real stake in that thought after Hasbro's reboot.

Knaight
2018-06-09, 02:46 AM
No, not Pathfinder 2e, a presumed attempt to outPazio Pazio by creating a pathfinder continuity game by some upstart (pathfinder 2e shouldn't fit in the numbering scheme, although I expect 5.75 jokes from what little information is out).

Seeing as 5.5 hasn't come out I'd expect them to either go for that or 5.25 (depending on whether or not 5.5 is broadly predicted among the nicknamers).

That said, Pathfinder 2e sounds far more like 3e than 5e.

Milo v3
2018-06-09, 03:08 AM
With how much material 3.5e and Pathfinder 1e have, I don't imagine anyone would really bother moving to a new 3.x rather than just using the massive amount of pre-existing content.

Nifft
2018-06-09, 03:52 AM
With how much material 3.5e and Pathfinder 1e have, I don't imagine anyone would really bother moving to a new 3.x rather than just using the massive amount of pre-existing content.

With the high variance in quality of that content, I can easily imagine someone starting to curate it, and then deciding that a re-write would be less difficult.

noob
2018-06-09, 04:27 AM
No, not Pathfinder 2e, a presumed attempt to outPazio Pazio by creating a pathfinder continuity game by some upstart (pathfinder 2e shouldn't fit in the numbering scheme, although I expect 5.75 jokes from what little information is out).

While I don't think the opportunity is there, largely because I don't expect Pazio to botch 2e the way Hasbro botched 3e*. Still, expect plenty of people to clutch their books and refuse to try anything new. And thus expect profit to be made in catering to them.

Anybody trying to maintain continuity? It looks like a great opportunity for a small game company to become a medium/large gaming company.

* Note that I only am sure the marketing lead up and launch was botched. I was pretty much told that everything I liked about Dungeons and Dragons since Basic Edition was being thrown away and "streamlined" out of existence. While I didn't think much of the rules released, I've heard that actual play was fine. But the whole launch attempt made certain I would never give it a fair shake. And that's from someone with zero stake in Faerûn, I can't imagine what people with any real stake in that thought after Hasbro's reboot.
dnd 3 goes in versions the following way: dnd 3.0,dnd 3.5,pathfinder(also sometimes called 3.75),rewritten 3.5 srd based on pathfinder material(3.875 simply look at the current srd for example simulacrum have now the same text as pathfinder simulacrum and now quickened spell description mentions it takes a rapid action) then pathfinder 2(3.925)

And yes I am the weirdo who checks for differences between the srd and the 3.5 manuals and found out it was dnd 3.875
So dnd 3.875 exists and is free and fix a bunch of bugs and oddities from dnd 3.5 but is not marketed and try to pretend to be dnd 3.5 while it is not dnd 3.5 at all.

Grod_The_Giant
2018-06-09, 09:43 AM
I'm thinking never. Pathfinder took advantage of a number of circumstances that simply aren't likely to come again. It was announced right around the time 4e came out, and only five years after 3.5 kicked off. At the time, a large portion of the player base was royally ticked off about 4e, and thus were eager to jump on a new product being produced by a name they already knew-- Pazio produced Dungeon and Dragon magazines, remember. And 3.5 was still new-ish at the time, and still seemed to have a lot of potential.

Now fast-forward to 2018. 5e is still going strong, without even rumors of a follow-up edition. The player base hasn't been newly divided by controversial design choices, and whatever ruffled feelings 5e did produce have died away. Most of the discontent I've seen around the edition is less "they're changing everything I know and love!" and more "I just want more options," and producing a book of feats and classes is a hell of a lot easier than an entire new edition. And not only is there no existing division in the player base, there's no major third-party group waiting in the wings to take advantage of it (Matt Mercer?).

And on a less circumstance-based note...3e D&D (including 3.5 and PF) is almost twenty years old. Its flaws are well established, and the only people still playing it are hardcore fans who enjoy the muddle. The point of attraction is the huge volume of material, which a new edition by a new company simply won't catch up to for years and years. And "3.x with the worst balance issues fixed!" isn't much of a selling point either; not only do people enjoy all the various insanities that 3.X produces, they (generally) know that fixing the underlying issues will require a total rewrite on the order of 4e D&D.

And... time has moved on. New players are coming into 5e D&D, while 3.X is increasingly becoming a niche thing. The best you'll ever see are fantasy heartbreakers like Legend (http://www.ruleofcool.com/) and oversized-houserule-compendiums like my own Giants and Graveyards (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329161-Giants-and-Graveyards-Grod-s-collected-3-5-revisions).


No, not Pathfinder 2e, a presumed attempt to outPazio Pazio by creating a pathfinder continuity game by some upstart (pathfinder 2e shouldn't fit in the numbering scheme, although I expect 5.75 jokes from what little information is out).
You know that Pathfinder 2e is being produced BY Pazio, right?


(3.875 simply look at the current srd for example simulacrum have now the same text as pathfinder simulacrum and now quickened spell description mentions it takes a rapid action) then pathfinder 2(3.925)
I think that's just errata being baked in.

wumpus
2018-06-09, 01:53 PM
You know that Pathfinder 2e is being produced BY Pazio, right?


That's the whole point. If Pazio orphans Pathfinder, it opens an opportunity for someone else to adopt Pathfinder and be seen as the source for Pathfinder updates.

It won't have nearly the advantage Pazio had, as I doubt Pathfinder 2e will be incompatible with 1e the way D&D 4e was incompatible with D&D 3e. Another issue is trying to split off from something already a splinter of 5e.

It still looks like an opportunity, but it looks closer to a "curator of pathfinder" than someone who can sets of replacement books (as Pazio did with 3e) as the "new, improved, and still compatible pathfinder" that has any advantage over Pathfinder 2e. So calling anything but Pathfinder 2e "2.875" is likely to be an exaggeration.

But I'm sure any company the right size to scoop up all those "I'll never change editions" types is certainly considering the possibility.

Cluedrew
2018-06-09, 02:14 PM
Some time ago (I think it was near 5e's release) I went to the 3.0/5/PF form and asked why people still played that game. It was one of my more popular threads.

But as I recall it basically came down to 3 reasons:
We know it so well, already.
It gives us more options.
It has a lot of granularity.

3 can easily be replicated in another system. 2 could with time, but it would be near impossible to manage outside of the gate. 1 is not going to happen. The amount of hours that have already been put into mastering, fixing & improving 3.5 is astronomical. And the type of game that would replace that would probably require something similar. I don't think many people, or more importantly the community as a whole, can put that work in again. Not now and not in the foreseeable future. 3.5 still exists for those who want it, for most others different system that are closer to what you want are out there and the remaining group is small to non-existent.

noob
2018-06-10, 04:29 AM
I think that's just errata being baked in.
There is no errata document saying "now quicken is a rapid action" or saying "now simulacrum have the same text as pathfinder simulacrum"

Milo v3
2018-06-10, 07:51 AM
There is no errata document saying "now quicken is a rapid action" or saying "now simulacrum have the same text as pathfinder simulacrum"

Uh.... yeah.... that's why the SRD doesn't say those things? :smallconfused:

Quicken Spell on the SRD doesn't mention the word Rapid once, and Simulacrum on the SRD does not match the Pathfinder Simulacrum spell.

Grod_The_Giant
2018-06-10, 08:19 AM
There is no errata document saying "now quicken is a rapid action" or saying "now simulacrum have the same text as pathfinder simulacrum"
Quicken Spell was updated to a Swift Action in Complete Arcane, and again in the Rules Compendium, after swift actions were added to the game. Simulacrum is, as far as I can tell, word-for-word with my copy of the PHB?

noob
2018-06-10, 11:02 AM
Quicken Spell was updated to a Swift Action in Complete Arcane, and again in the Rules Compendium, after swift actions were added to the game. Simulacrum is, as far as I can tell, word-for-word with my copy of the PHB?

I have a 3.5 phb where the description mentions the simulacrum have 50% of the abilities of the target creature
in the srd it says it have abilities appropriate with creatures with half of the hit points.
Furthermore according to the rules about applying rules, changes made in additional manuals(which are not considered as errata) that contradicts core are overwritten by core rules.
So the fact the srd change the action in quicken means that it does not have the same rules as manual based dnd 3.5.
And yes it is a total headache and is caused by the fact most of the designers of dnd 3.5 does not knows each other or any rules in any other manual.


Uh.... yeah.... that's why the SRD doesn't say those things? :smallconfused:

Quicken Spell on the SRD doesn't mention the word Rapid once, and Simulacrum on the SRD does not match the Pathfinder Simulacrum spell.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#quickenSpell


Quicken Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit
Casting a quickened spell is an swift action. You can perform another action, even casting another spell, in the same round as you cast a quickened spell. You may cast only one quickened spell per round. A spell whose casting time is more than 1 full round action cannot be quickened. A quickened spell uses up a spell slot four levels higher than the spell’s actual level. Casting a quickened spell doesn’t provoke an attack of opportunity.

Special
This feat can’t be applied to any spell cast spontaneously (including sorcerer spells, bard spells, and cleric or druid spells cast spontaneously), since applying a metamagic feat to a spontaneously cast spell automatically increases the casting time to a full-round action.

pathfinder version of simulacrum: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/simulacrum/


Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature’s levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can’t create a simulacrum of a creature whose HD or levels exceed twice your caster level. You must make a Disguise check when you cast the spell to determine how good the likeness is. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Perception check (opposed by the caster’s Disguise check) or a DC 20 Sense Motive check.

At all times, the simulacrum remains under your absolute command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in some other manner. A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities. If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to snow and melts instantly into nothingness. A complex process requiring at least 24 hours, 100 gp per hit point, and a fully equipped magical laboratory can repair damage to a simulacrum.

srd version of simulacrum
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/simulacrum.htm


Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can’t create a simulacrum of a creature whose Hit Dice or levels exceed twice your caster level. You must make a Disguise check when you cast the spell to determine how good the likeness is. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Spot check (opposed by the caster’s Disguise check) or a DC 20 Sense Motive check.

At all times the simulacrum remains under your absolute command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in some other manner. A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities. If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to snow and melts instantly into nothingness. A complex process requiring at least 24 hours, 100 gp per hit point, and a fully equipped magical laboratory can repair damage to a simulacrum.


Look srd was not like that some time ago
I noticed the change because I am a stupid maniac
But in the past the srd told a simulacrum had 50% of the abilities instead of saying it had abilities appropriate for a creature with half the hit dice.
Right now it is a perfect copy except that it says hit dice instead of HD.
No errata who have been ever made told "now copy the description of pathfinder simulacrum"
You can not say "pathfinder copied simulacrum description exactly" for the simple reason that they rewrote all the rules with different formulations for being legally allowed to sell their product.
Therefore that change was made after pathfinder was created.

the current srd is post pathfinder dnd so it makes sense to call it 3.875

Milo v3
2018-06-10, 11:58 AM
I have a 3.5 phb where the description mentions the simulacrum have 50% of the abilities of the target creature
in the srd it says it have abilities appropriate with creatures with half of the hit points.
Furthermore according to the rules about applying rules, changes made in additional manuals(which are not considered as errata) that contradicts core are overwritten by core rules.
So the fact the srd change the action in quicken means that it does not have the same rules as manual based dnd 3.5.
And yes it is a total headache and is caused by the fact most of the designers of dnd 3.5 does not knows each other or any rules in any other manual.
.... You're looking at 3.0e not 3.5e. :smallsigh:
And it was 51% to 60% (based on a die roll).



http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#quickenSpell

yep. No mention of the word Rapid in that feat.


pathfinder version of simulacrum: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/simulacrum/


srd version of simulacrum
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/simulacrum.htm
Those two parts of the spell text are identical (they have completely different component sections) because PF didn't change it from 3.5e. Your remembering 3.0e where it was based on a percentage.

noob
2018-06-10, 12:04 PM
.... You're looking at 3.0e not 3.5e. :smallsigh:


yep. No mention of the word Rapid in that feat.


Those two parts of the spell text are identical (they have completely different component sections) because PF didn't change it from 3.5e. Your remembering 3.0e where it was based on a percentage.
(sorry I meant swift and not rapid)
I have a physical 3.5 player manual.
and I did read it and it was different from srd(not only quickened spell was described as taking a free action instead of a swift and the simulacrum was described as having 50% of the powers of the creature(and not a variable percentage))

Furthermore you did not a address the issue that if pathfinder did copy exactly those two paragraphs of text(as shown by the quote I did made) it would not have been allowed to be distributed by law(since it is clearly enough copied text for laws to apply and allow wotc to take them to court and win the case)
Pathfinder did reformulate everything for legal reasons and if they did not for those two paragraphs then they would have had legal problems.

Rhedyn
2018-06-10, 12:08 PM
I could see someone making a comprehensive generic 3.x single book game meant to offer more concepts possibilities with less book weight.

Like instead of races, it offers a race builder. Instead of 11 classes, it offers a class builder. Instead of monsters, it offers a monster builder.
Skills, feats, and spells/powers would have to be fleshed out the normal way along with general rules.
Yeah, but take that, add in some RC D&D magic item creation (flying castles!)
Revamp general combat options so not everything mildy ok is locked behind a feat.

Bam done. Nice evergreen book that if it's successful, you can support with campaigns, setting guides, and bestiaries.

Milo v3
2018-06-10, 12:22 PM
(sorry I meant swift and not rapid)
Swift Action was errated as mentioned above.


I have a physical 3.5 player manual.
and I did read it and it was different from srd(not only quickened spell was described as taking a free action instead of a swift and the simulacrum was described as having 50% of the powers of the creature)
I literally just opened up both my physical 3.0 players handbook, and my physical 3.5e players handbook to be sure when I made my previous post. You're remembering 3.0e simulacrum, not 3.5e simulacrum.


Furthermore you did not a address the issue that if pathfinder did copy exactly those two paragraphs of text(as shown by the quote I did made) it would not have been allowed to be distributed by law(since it is clearly enough copied text for laws to apply and allow wotc to take them to court and win the case)
Pathfinder did reformulate everything for legal reasons and if they did not for those two paragraphs then they would have had legal problems.
The Open Game License that the Players Handbook (and a few other books) has most of it's text under specific permission for republication by anyone else that follows the restrictions of the Open Game License, allowing Paizo to reprint 95% of the book and around 98% of the Monster Manual. That's the whole reason Paizo was able to make Pathfinder RPG in the first place.

wumpus
2018-06-10, 12:44 PM
the current srd is post pathfinder dnd so it makes sense to call it 3.875

I'm pretty sure (I'm a hardware guy) that most software updates allow bugfix/build/release updates. Current srd would be 3.5.1 or similar. You don't get to leapfrog numbers without incorporating their changes.

D+1
2018-06-10, 01:10 PM
Anybody trying to maintain continuity? It looks like a great opportunity for a small game company to become a medium/large gaming company.
No version of D&D has an expiration date. That applies to PF as well. Continuity continues as long as people play it. People can play it forever because of the OGL and retroclones cover every edition predating 3E. Pathfinder will not need a retroclone. It will exist in the PRD just as 3.5 exists in the d20 SRD. Maybe, someday in the misty future Paizo will even do reprints of the original PF books just as WotC has reprinted OE, 1E and 2E. But somebody doing a "retroclone" of it? Makes no sense at all.

However, nothing prevents anyone from doing just what Paizo did do with the OGL to create Pathfinder in the first place - take the d20 rules, revise, delete, add, and then put their own brand name on it.

Psyren
2018-06-11, 11:32 AM
Furthermore according to the rules about applying rules, changes made in additional manuals(which are not considered as errata) that contradicts core are overwritten by core rules.

Well, enjoy only having the eleven PHB classes then.


With how much material 3.5e and Pathfinder 1e have, I don't imagine anyone would really bother moving to a new 3.x rather than just using the massive amount of pre-existing content.


With the high variance in quality of that content, I can easily imagine someone starting to curate it, and then deciding that a re-write would be less difficult.

A workable option might just be recommending specific combinations. "Our game will use PF as a base, plus anything you'd like from 3.5 first party, plus Dreamscarred Press, Spheres, and Radiance House" for example. Then you can start layering in things like feat tax reduction. (http://michaeliantorno.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/)

EccentricCircle
2018-06-11, 02:03 PM
Maybe, someday in the misty future Paizo will even do reprints of the original PF books just as WotC has reprinted OE, 1E and 2E.

I read that Paizo were planning to keep 1e in print as pocket editions, at least for the foreseeable future.