As I understand it, the basic idea is to 'fix' 3e while still keeping it 3e. However, last I looked at it (The free alpha), it looked like 3e, only annoyingly munchkin - More special powers instead of real change.

Anyway, the idea of a cleaned-up 3e version sounds good to me; how does Pathfinder do on that score?

Your estimation is pretty spot on.

There are numerous smart and diligent people like Crusader of Light, Psychic_Robot, and Squirreloid who have been trying to point this out and numerous other problems with 3.5E but it seems like literally EVERYONE AND THIER MOM is trolling them.

On top of that, from a cursory read of numerous threads, I have the feeling that many of the posters simply do not know the system (like knowing that blaster wizards are weak, 2H being better than TWF, druids are good, etc.) or thier exposure is limited (thier range of play is mostly levels 1-8). This means that multiple issues are not going to be addressed (high level play, bears are not monsters, etc).

Seriously, at this stage of the game, if Paizo really wants to one-up Wizards, they should hire (pay) people who know the game and have them look over the system and recommend changes.

I'm really serious. Things are not looking good.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;254362Anyway, the idea of a cleaned-up 3e version sounds good to me; how does Pathfinder do on that score?

Excellently.

The minor bugaboos that I had with 3.x have been addressed with Pathfinder to my satisfaction. Its all minor tweaks, but they definitely make for a smoother game during play.

The Pathfinder Alpha is pretty bare bones, download Pathfinder Beta to see how improvements have been made with feedback from the playtest. Both versions are free to download and the playtest is still going on.

Free Pathfinder Beta Download

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;254362Anyway, the idea of a cleaned-up 3e version sounds good to me; how does Pathfinder do on that score?

I haven't paid too much attention to it as I have no plans on purchasing a playtest or reading through a bunch of playtest materials I'm not actually playtesting, but it seems to me that Pathfinder will:

a) end up as a beautiful, playable, and enjoyable game

b) that is far enough from D&D 3.5 to make it at least a bit of a hassle to mechanically convert material from one to the other.

I'm going to get it - the final version, that is - but not to run my existing 3e and 3.5 materials with. I already have shelves full of materials for those editions of D&D - I don't need anything more or anything new. It's likely it'll just sit on my shelf, but, as I said, I expect it to be purdy.

Seanchai

I think Paizo missed the boat with the RPG system, frankly.  I'd agree that it's like 3.5 except with all new problems and it fixed few of the existing problems.

To make matters worse, one of the main reasons the Pathfinder RPG was intriguing in the first place was compatability with existing 3.5 material.  To some extent that's true, but the fact that the rejigged the power balance on all the standard races and classes means that any 3.5 era non-standard race or class is now incompatible balance-wise, and quite markedly so.  Therefore, they immediately lost my interest with their failure to address this; what's the point?  Why not just keep playing 3.5 and incorporate the odd actual fix as a houserule?  You can pick up a "draft" version of the rules as a free pdf anyway, so even more I don't see the point of buying the $50 book.

I guess, honestly, it depends on what you saw as the problems with 3.5, though.  Plenty of folks seem to think that the Pathfinder system addresses them very well; in my opinion, they completely ignored the most glaring problems, or in some cases even made them worse.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;254363There are numerous smart and diligent people like Crusader of Light, Psychic_Robot, and Squirreloid who have been trying to point this out and numerous other problems with 3.5E but it seems like literally EVERYONE AND THIER MOM is trolling them.

I'm not sure which of those three assholes you are, but those three people are (assuming they aren't the same person, and assuming you mean Crusader of Logic and not Light) are widely considered obnoxious, unreasonable trolls on the Paizo boards.

As for Pathfinder, I really like the way it is shaping up.  I plan to support it as long as it's available.  The only real problem I've seen is the boards have become home to a group of very opinionated, egotistical, and self-aggrandizing asshats who seem to be completely incapable of understanding that just because people disagree with their very limited power-gaming munchkin perspective doesn't mean they don't know jack shit about the game.  

The three people mentioned above, and a few others, have made the playtest process really obnoxious.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;254363Seriously, at this stage of the game, if Paizo really wants to one-up Wizards, they should hire (pay) people who know the game and have them look over the system and recommend changes.

You were doing good until about there.

I don't know much about Buhlman (sp?), but Paizo has plenty of people on their payroll that know the system very well indeed, and find the assertion they don't to be a bit bizarre to say the least. I'll take James Jacob any day over any of the current WotC staffers.

Further, they did hire two people to do just that: Monte Cook and Sean Reynolds. Now I frequently disagree with Reynolds' gaming ideals, but you can't say he doesn't know the game.

Quote from: Jackalope;254445I'm not sure which of those three assholes you are, but those three people are (assuming they aren't the same person, and assuming you mean Crusader of Logic and not Light) are widely considered obnoxious, unreasonable trolls on the Paizo boards.

I'm neither of them, you shit (my user name is DeadUematsu, by the way, look it up) and if I had to deal with some of the nonsense thrown thier way, I would become cagey as well.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;254471You were doing good until about there.

I don't know much about Buhlman (sp?), but Paizo has plenty of people on their payroll that know the system very well indeed, and find the assertion they don't to be a bit bizarre to say the least. I'll take James Jacob any day over any of the current WotC staffers.

Further, they did hire two people to do just that: Monte Cook and Sean Reynolds. Now I frequently disagree with Reynolds' gaming ideals, but you can't say he doesn't know the game.

Because they unbelievably improved spellcasters but made non-casters worse. Spellcasters still have access to SoS effects AND have additional powers while non-casters got nonsense like rage points (with most of the new rage powers being worthless and rage points being a pain in play), worthless feats (like Power Attack and Improved Trip, two of the most worthwhile feats fighters could get, really needed to suck), and more expensive magic items (like non-casters need to pay more for the items they need to compete). How could someone with system mastery allow that nonsense to slide?

I also don't think Monte Cook has as much clout as you think he does (if things started looking more like Arcana Evolved or the Book of Experimental Might, I would be happier but cautious; the guy has a serious love for all things spellcaster) and Sean hits as often as he misses (for every non-absolutes article you receive, you get crap like level adjustments; though he maybe gotten the hint that the monster creation rules suck and they should simply base monsters on most played building block in the game: character classes - his beholder character class is a step in that direction).

I have read the alpha and skimmed the beta and I am unimpressed - the problems I have as a 3e GM aren't addressed.   True20 was a much better take on 3e rules.   However, I won't make a final judgment until the actual book comes out.    

Paizo does a good job, but I have no doubt that Pathfinder is going to be its own RPG and the game appears to appeal to a much higher power level than 3.5 core.

But I have to give them kudos for SELLING their beta test.   That's impressive and smart because they knew the 3.5 holdouts have money burning holes in their pockets and need to buy something RPG this year.

Quote from: Hobo;254428To make matters worse, one of the main reasons the Pathfinder RPG was intriguing in the first place was compatability with existing 3.5 material.  To some extent that's true, but the fact that the rejigged the power balance on all the standard races and classes means that any 3.5 era non-standard race or class is now incompatible balance-wise, and quite markedly so.  

Just to make sure I'm understanding your criticism here, you don't find the Pathfinder Playtest appealing because the non-standard races or classes from 3.x are now really non-standard, correct?

Quote from: Seanchai;254425I haven't paid too much attention to it as I have no plans on purchasing a playtest or reading through a bunch of playtest materials I'm not actually playtesting, but it seems to me that Pathfinder will:

a) end up as a beautiful, playable, and enjoyable game

b) that is far enough from D&D 3.5 to make it at least a bit of a hassle to mechanically convert material from one to the other.

I'm going to get it - the final version, that is - but not to run my existing 3e and 3.5 materials with. I already have shelves full of materials for those editions of D&D - I don't need anything more or anything new. It's likely it'll just sit on my shelf, but, as I said, I expect it to be purdy.

Seanchai

Except that:

b) A major design goal for Pathfinder is that it will be backwards compatible with previously published 3.x material. So far it has done that with the playtest versions released.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;254512I also don't think Monte Cook has as much clout as you think he does (if things started looking more like Arcana Evolved or the Book of Experimental Might, I would be happier but cautious; the guy has a serious love for all things spellcaster) and Sean hits as often as he misses (for every non-absolutes article you receive, you get crap like level adjustments; though he maybe gotten the hint that the monster creation rules suck and they should simply base monsters on most played building block in the game: character classes - his beholder character class is a step in that direction).

I see we have little ground to agree here. Your "treasures" are my "garbage". I thought Sean's article on non-absolutes was absolute rubbish, a reflection of the sort of non-productive game design think that designs around extremes at the expense of the norm.

Most of the guys in my group have downloaded it by now, and are pretty happy with most of the changes and tweaking of level benefits and power level overall (we really like no "dead" levels).  A few things the jury is still out on are a few issues with the domains (Travel comes to mind), and how skill points are handled, especially at first level.  But by and large, no huge complaints.  I'm pretty happy with the way Paizo has handled the rollout, staffing decisions, and playtest, and curious to see the final product.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;254529I see we have little ground to agree here. Your "treasures" are my "garbage". I thought Sean's article on non-absolutes was absolute rubbish, a reflection of the sort of non-productive game design think that designs around extremes at the expense of the norm.

I thought it was a very productive article. Seriously, low-level characters being able to thwart invisibility and arcane lock spells cast by high-level characters is just one kind of nonsense that needs to go, especially since it's a extreme that often creeps up in normative play, and there are others as well. I simply do not believe that any game designer should be absolved of the responsibility of heading off problematic rules interactions when commonly used rules (these are 2nd level spells I'm talking about here) are concerned.