Has anyone played with Paizo's Pathfinder RPG (aka 3.75)? I got given a copy for my birthday by my fiance and it has some intriguing changes that may just be useful. It also has some things that make me wonder if the game balance has been skewed.
Since I'm thinking of putting together a Greyhawk 'Night Below' game set in Sunndi, I wondered if these new rules would be a help or if they're just way over powered.
The names involved certainly give me cause for optimism: Monte Cook, Nick Logue, Eric Mona, Sean K. Reynolds, etc
Play Castles & Crusades. It'll set you back about $50 for both books and its a fantastic game. Over the last seven months of my campaign, we have had to look up rules once. When I was running the Pathfinder Beta (for about a year) we daily had to argue over rules, and we had all been playing 3.5 for years.
I've read some of the Pathfinder rules and spoken to a number of others who have read and used them. Some folks really like them and others have found a few problems. I'd say it's a 50/50 chance how you feel about them after you've used them, since that's how the gamers I know have felt about them. Personally, I don't see any point in bothering to switch if you're already playing 3.5e.
I'm with Bubbagump on this one. Most 3.5 campaigns have their house rules down at this point and if your home campaign is working already there is no sense in trying to reinvint the wheel.
Having said that, the Pathfinder rules definitely have some great modifications and I am in the process of incorporating a few into my own campain as house rules. I particularly like their take on grappling as the 3.5 grappling rules were unwieldy at best.
Yeah, my group and I have been using PF since August and we really like it. They have beefed up the core classes so they can compete with the plethora of PrC out there, with fairly good results. Now players are a little more inclined to play a core class beyond 7th or 8th level without opting for prestige classes. Grappling and skills are more streamlined and simpler to use, and most spells and feats have been revised. I'd say from our experience so far it has resolved a lot of game balance issues, especially on the monster side of things. For instance, they have toned down the massive Con scores on a lot of monsters to avoid rampant hit points, but have tweaked their AC or other defenses to reflect this. So rather than having overly long slugfests you get a lot more tactical combat. Save or die attacks (like death gazes and destruction spells) are gone, now instead inflicting some sort of damage (hp, abilities, etc.) These are just a few examples, but every game I notice how the changes affect gameplay - usually for the better. They still need to work on balancing the core classes equally (a high level spellcaster is still far superior to a high level fighter-type class), but its definately moving in the right direction.
I ran a Night Below campaign a few years ago, converted to 3E (yeesh, you've got your work cut out for you!) If you're going to convert it I'd recommend using PF rules. That campaign is heavy on spellcasting opponents and I think the newer rules for magic/spells are more suited for it (things that come into play often, like Concentration checks, are far better in PF). At least give it a try, its not too difficult to revert back to 3.5 if you don't like it.
Save or die attacks (like death gazes and destruction spells) are gone, now instead inflicting some sort of damage (hp, abilities, etc.)
In our own real world mythology, the Basilisk has always caused "death" with its "glance," and the Medusa has always turned her victims to stone with a "glance," effectively causing death.
Are you saying that these "abilities" have been removed from the game?
If so, that would appear to me to be "cheating." Our own mythological heroes found ways to overcome these obstacles. If "players" can't find a way, then they aren't "heroes" and are just "average" people.
Are you saying that these "abilities" have been removed from the game?
If so, that would appear to me to be "cheating." Our own mythological heroes found ways to overcome these obstacles. If "players" can't find a way, then they aren't "heroes" and are just "average" people.
Can you verify this, or clarify your statement? Thanks.
They haven't been removed from the game, just modified so they are no longer "save or die" effects. Destruction for example, does not instantly slay a creature on a failed save, instead it inflicts 10 hp of damage per level of caster. I think they did this because some monsters or spells can potentially wipe out a party before they even know what hits them. I once used a bodak that dropped 3 party members as soon as they saw it, so I can see why this has been changed.
By the way, medusas and basilisks still have their petrifying gazes. Only instant death effects have been changed.
Yeah, 3.5 and Pathfinder are pretty hand-holding. I have never understood the need for "balance" between character classes. I think the whole mission statement for Pathfinder is accomplishing the same goals as 4E, just to do it all without killing the sacred cow.
Pathfinder reinforces the same problems I had with 3.5 that, to me, started with Skills & Powers in AD&D: the game becomes more about what is on your character sheet than what is not. The difference between two 5th level fighters should be the player, not the "build."
There should be a degree of common sense when playing an RPG, I strongly dislike the "safety net" of rules 3.5 and Pathfinder grant players.
I don't believe in the concept of a lot of little encounters which the party should be able to quickly overcome. That is not fun for me, as the DM. I am not a string of computer commands. To make 3.5 or Pathfinder work for me, I have to do a significant amount of work. Additionally, whenever I make this argument, people always counter it by saying that the game can be changed to whatever you like it to be. If the game is that good, why does everyone change it?
That's why I like Castles & Crusades. It's a far friendlier version of the d20 fantasy rules set that takes to ad-hoc changes very well. You can use or convert nearly anything on the fly. Players who need constant validation such as feats or powers should probably stick with 3.5, because C&C is more about playing a character, not keeping track of your combat ability on a character sheet.
Furthermore, in 3.5 and Pathfinder the skills system is broken beyond all comprehension. You can just up and learn a skill by killing goblins? By the rules you can just up and learn a new trade through violence. There are ad hoc rules for granting XP for things other than combat, but if you read the 3.5 DMG those rules are very poorly examined and there is wording to actually discourage it.
I understand there is a fair degree of abstraction in the attributes systems, but why further complicate it with skills? In C&C all "skill checks" are based off of your six attributes.
I played 3.5 from day one, and Pathfinder from day one until seven months ago when I started running C&C. I will never play either of the former again.
Point of fact, all of my 3.5 books are on ebay right now...the ones I have not already sold, that is.
With Pathfinder you were supposed to have reverse compatibility with all of your 3.5 books...that is not nearly as true now as it was with the Beta. With C&C you have compatibility with every role-playing product ever. Converting rules into the game are easy. I commonly run 1st and 2nd ed adventures in C&C without any time spent converting them ahead of time. All you need are their HD.
If you hated 2nd Ed and are disaffected by 3.5 or 4E, go for C&C.
I must agree the reliance upon the ever expanding skills list which then morphed into the various builds of later editions have stifled role-playing IMHO.
I would rather role-play a character then build one and frankly don't understand the appeal because it is easy enough to simply imagine a characters behavior.
Imagination not rules is what hooked me; if a player wanted to behave a conan with a two-handed sword or an swashbuckling fop he didn't need certain builds to allow it but simply decided that was how the character would behave. Granted this shift began in the 2nd ed so this is not a dinosaur bashing the new generation but then the proto-build aspect was optional and easily ignored. Now the construction mentality has overwhelmed the system and until imagination returns to promience I believe for myself Greyhawk will remain in the 2nd ed. (sans skills).
They haven't been removed from the game, just modified so they are no longer "save or die"
I will refer you to the Wikipedia entry for Basilisk:
"In European bestiaries and legends, a basilisk (English pronunciation: /ˈbćzɪlɪsk/[1], from the Greek βασιλίσκος basilískos, "little king"; Latin Regulus) is a legendary reptile reputed to be king of serpents and said to have the power to cause death with a single glance."
The basilisk has never "done damage" according to level, hit dice or any other such nonsense. The "glance" of the basilisk is going to kill you, period.
So the game has been changed, changed because too many "players" found the game "too hard."
When Gamers would tell Gygax and Kuntz that their player's character had reached the level of Mordenkainen and Robilar, Gygax and Kuntz basically responded by saying that the person in question must have cheated somehow. I used to think that they spoke out of jealousy.
Now I know why they said that . . . because the new "rules" DO cheat for the players. Gygax and Kuntz were basically right . . . and that's a tragedy.
How does being petrified and eaten by a basilisk or turned to stone by the gaze of a medusa not equate death
A mere foot is turned to stone or a basilisk is full after an arm and takes a nap
I don't think a basilisk eats statues for one.
Being turned to stone does not equate death because the PC is not down for the count. If a character is killed in combat, he is done until a cleric can properly raise him - a task that can only be done outside of combat usually, since even raise dead takes a full minute to cast. If the same character is petrified, he can be returned to flesh with a flesh to stone or break enchantment which only takes a standard action. So that character can be back in battle by the next round, giving the party a fighting chance. As far as I know, this can't be done with a killed character.
Mystic-Scolar wrote:
"In European bestiaries and legends, a basilisk (English pronunciation: /ˈbćzɪlɪsk/[1], from the Greek βασιλίσκος basilískos, "little king"; Latin Regulus) is a legendary reptile reputed to be king of serpents and said to have the power to cause death with a single glance."
The basilisk has never "done damage" according to level, hit dice or any other such nonsense. The "glance" of the basilisk is going to kill you, period.
A basilisk has never had a death gaze in D&D, MS, despite what European mythology says. It has always been a petrifying gaze in the game, right back to 1st edition. As for "damage according to level, hit dice, or any other such nonsense", I never said it did. My response was that only save or die attacks have been modified.
Quote:
So the game has been changed, changed because too many "players" found the game "too hard."
That's entirely a matter of opinion. I thought I'd have a problem with some of the rule changes as well, including the change to save or die effects, until I tried it. As for being too hard, the game is more dangerous now and offers more ways for a character to die than I can count. Looking back at 1st edition (which I still love, BTW), by 13th - 14th level there was no dragon or demon in the Monster Manual that a party couldn't handle, with maybe the exception of the unique ones. Does this constitute "too hard" for you? At the other end of the spectrum there was one of my all-time favorites (seriously!), the demilich - a creature that no party has any business defeating and gets no save against its death attack. And how many players over the years have complained about that? The game is still plenty tough, and the changes weren't made to make it softer on players - remember that save or die spells that are available to the PCs have also been changed. It was changed because save or die, whether for a character or a monster, does not make for a fun, exciting fight.
I do agree with some of the posts here that 3.5 and PF are way too rules-heavy at times, and this can stifle creativity. I sometimes do yearn for a simpler system and have been meaning to try Castles and Crusades (thanks chaoticprime), which I probably will in the near future. Still, I do enjoy the PF system and gave Ottarrus some feedback and hopefully some useful insight.
How does being petrified and eaten by a basilisk or turned to stone by the gaze of a medusa not equate death
A mere foot is turned to stone or a basilisk is full after an arm and takes a nap
Well in my campaigns I've ruled that characters turned to stone were effectively dead, but could be restored to life by Stone to Flesh or some Dispel effects. The way it works is that you are in stasis, frozen at the moment of petrification. However ANY effect that happens to the statue (weathering, breakage, etc) also occurs to the restored person. This could be fatal in the case of damage the head/torso areas. If a limb is broken while a statue, that limb is severed and bleeding profusely upon restoration and so planning and clerical assistance is required.
This also applied to a person's equipped gear. One of my characters had a dragonslaying sword irreparably broken when the rescuing PCs dropped me At least it wasn't my head....
Oddly enough, we've never really discussed whether a medusa or basilisk actually eats petrified victims. _________________ Reptutation is what others think they know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself.<br />Odin, the Havamal
Last edited by Ottarrus on Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
Insofar as alternative rules systems go, I've never tried C&C and I think I'll check my local bookstores used game sections to run it down some.
Another system that folks could look at is RuneQuest/Basic RolePlaying. Just like any system, the rules can get out of hand, but the basic mechanic is pretty simple... Roll a percentile die vs. your character's ability modified by conditions or defenses. Simple. _________________ Reptutation is what others think they know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself.<br />Odin, the Havamal
A basilisk has never had a death gaze in D&D, MS, despite what European mythology says. It has always been a petrifying gaze in the game, right back to 1st edition . . .
I understood all that you said and you are quite right about the gaming system. I find that I am often not clear in my explanations of my opinion.
Gygax and Kuntz invented a Gaming System . . . that's all. TSR built upon that and WotC has been screwing with that . . . a Gaming System.
None of them invented the Basilisk . . . the Medusa . . . the Banshee . . . nor 90% of all other creatures found in the Game. Therefore, they cannot legally, honestly or truthfully tell anyone how that creature "works," how it acts or responds. The creatures -- for the sake of this conversation -- are "real," they are products of the Real World, not Greyhawk, Faerun or any other Gaming World. None of them, WotC, Paizo, etc. own the IP to these creatures.
I do not make these creatures "easier" in my world. Nor do I allow adventuring parties to "run over" dragons, no matter the party's level. In mythology, all such creatures were bested by demigods, not mortals: Heracles, Perseus, Gilgamesh, et al, were the sons of Gods -- demigods.
Very few stories speak of mortals doing these things. The players' characters are mortals. They simply do not "run over" such creatures in my world.
But each of us will run our world as we see fit, and everyone is welcome to. I'm not telling anyone else how to "play" their game. I'm simply stating that it is apparent to me that the rules keep making these things easier to do for the players and I don't want it easier. It is a matter of view point and this is mine. So . . . no "new" editions for me.
I appreciate your information, I told you it was informative. I was sincere. But I am personally not interested in these "new" editions.
I agree with Mystic Scholar. I have never even seen the point of books like Deities and Demigods, what is the point in statting up a god?
In 1st Ed a 14th to 15th level party is a further accomplishment to characters in excess of level 30 in 3rd Ed, I don't know the equivalent to 4E but seeing as you gain three levels in every adventure, probably pretty high.
I have been running my C&C game for seven months now, and the party is right around level four, with the Assassin being level 5. They all started at 1st level. Most of the XP, as well, is awarded by gaining treasure and solving the problems in the campaign. I am running it all out of Salinmoor based around the U modules and thusfar it has been great fun.
I know that I could never run it using 4E rules. For instance, if the Bard in my party could attack with a twenty feet wide ball of psychic energy there is no way civilization would still exist. It's not that he's a douche power gamer, but if any world were thickly populated with Bards that could throw psychic fireballs...or any other Power usable by a 4E character, they would fall to pieces in short order. I am curious to hear about some of the new 4E novels in Faerun to see how the authors are handling things. I think it is funny how Forgotten Realms first novels were about a moratorium on magic, and now with the Spell Plague, even a Fighter gets Exploits...which are basically super-powers.
I'm getting angry, I'll slow down.
Anyhow, how I handle petrification is with a hit-location die. I do the same with many other effects. I roll the die, which does include Full Body amongst its sides, and the portion rolled up is what gets petrified.
I have never cared about the 3rd ed concept of a universal mechanic, so I don't mind rolling different dice for different powers...everything does not have to roped together into some d20 roll...though many if not most rules still do, anyway.
Anyhow, buy C&C, it's a cheap investment and great fun.
I did mean the comments about petrification as an attempt at humour and not an alternative to gameplay .
However I find myself in a curious position of defending the new from the old .
While I personally prefer the style of the older editions and feel stats for deities, demon lords and other planar transcendental beings to be ludicris. Let us not place the skill of the old gamers on a pedestal quite so high.
After all within several products, interviews an publications the revered guard even including Gary Gygax himself fudged an unfortunate roll to benefit the adventure. Indeed Gary Gygax mentioned, IIRCC, that was the purpose of the DM screen so the players would not realise he had fudged it. Some early products even backhandedly encourage such behavior when necessary as it should be remembered the goal is suppose to be fun not rule retention.
Of course I still contend somewhere along the path (pun intended) someone somewhere wearing a suit I doubt not, declared give the kids what they want. More, more and still more; explain everything, everyone gets to be a superhero. Imagination was a causalty as the answers were to be found in the latest book of even more rules. Players no longer care about the personality of the chararacter as too many are busy analyzing the next build.
To take are old friends; the encounter was the key not the build to survive. Let us revisit the Basilisk and Medusa the early editions stress the encounter and provide clues the stench and the tell tales hiss.
DMs were provided with further opportunities within the story frame if the DM was decent to survive and encourged to fudge if the players did well but the dice came up short. Not all the time; mind you but it was an acceptable option although to be fair early editions had their killer DMs.
However listening in on some games much more concern is placed on beefing up builds beforehand in anticipation of five Basilisks and Medusas being around the corner as the GM needs the extra numbers to give the players a run and look at all the extra XP. It reminded me of an online game rather then pen & paper. One player even used the term spawning to describe the number of monsters below (shudder).
The goal had changed from the storytelling and the suspension of disbelief to some adrenline slashfest. If that is your cup of tea more power to you, plz enjoy but like any addict after awhile five will not be enough and neither will ten or fifteen Basilisks and Medusas. It is the Monty Haul syndrome for powergamers on a corporate level.
I don't mean to disparge anyone but I miss the imagination within the hobby. The enjoyment of the journey and the pride for a character not based upon his skills, stuff or level.
I say save it till you feel up to experimenting with new rules sets.Other than that,stick to 2nd edition,since both of your mix-campaigns are all 2e anyhow and wait for the right time to re-learn a whole new playing standard.
No mortal fights the Gods. Even Heracles, the mightiest demigod to ever "live," only defeated their machinations, not the Gods themselves.
Chaoticprime wrote:
Quote:
I am curious to hear about some of the new 4E novels in Faerun to see how the authors are handling things.
I read the first two books of the latest trilogy this summer. Book 1: Tyr has killed Helm and taken all of his Solars, Planetars and Divas. Book 2: Shar and Cyric have murdered Mystra (again). No, I haven't bothered with Book 3. I'll let somebody else read it and let me know what happened.
When the Gods stole two meaningless tablets Ao, the Overgod, stepped in and forced them to behave themselves. Now the Gods are blatantly murdering each other and Ao doesn't seem to care. The people at WotC seem to make no sense whatsoever. Its just weird man.
Craig wrote:
Quote:
Let us not place the skill of the old gamers on a pedestal quite so high.
I never have. I was speaking sarcastically myself. I used to think them rather arrogant and big headed. I was simply pointing out that all this "hand holding" is beginning to make them look as though they spoke truthfully. And that's a sad situation.
Craig wrote:
Quote:
Indeed Gary Gygax mentioned, IIRCC, that was the purpose of the DM screen so the players would not realise he had fudged it. Some early products even backhandedly encourage such behavior when necessary as it should be remembered the goal is suppose to be fun not rule retention.
Yes indeed. I myself have always said the the Rule Books were merely guidelines and were not "cast in stone."
Craig wrote:
Quote:
some games much more concern is placed on beefing up builds beforehand in anticipation of five Basilisks and Medusas being around the corner
Yes, "game play" is a dying thing. Defeating the creature is everything, defeating the machinations is nothing. In other words, thinking and role playing are no longer encouraged.
Just my 2 cents on the back and forth above. Like many people who frequent Canonfire, I grew up on 1st ed. and have witnessed the ups and downs of the whole thing over the years. With each new edition I've tried to take the best with the worst and I'm sure many people here make use of plenty of house rules developed in whatever edition they care to use. IMHO, expansions are where it all hits the fan in each prior edition to 4th. The original dynamic of each edition was sound, and they only fell down when that dynamic was mucked with.
For my part, I utterly despise what I've seen of early 4th edition (which admittedly isn't much) and there are problems with 3rd edition too. Having said that, I walked out on ad&d when the 2nd ed. skills and powers came out and didn't return until 3.0, favouring the white wolf d10 system by far (and I still do, for that matter). !st edition wasn't altogether perfect either.
What I'm getting at here is that every edition has had it's drawbacks, and at risk of drawing the wrath of what appears to be the an Old Guard element on this site I include 1st edition in my appraisal. I think the original unearthed arcana complicated 1st ed. beyond repair if you go purely on game mechanics. How many of you cursed the barbarian class with it's ridiculous number of hit points and lamented the loss of the simple fighter with chain mail, shield and broadsword as he receded into distant player memory?
I know that I sound like a broken record but it is up to the DM to decide what works. IMHO mechanics don't matter at all if you are doing your job and guiding the story correctly. Good players remember good storytelling more than they remember what non-proficiency or skill or whatever that got them the result or failure in any given situation.
Basilisks and medusas should be scary, and they are in my 3rd ed game. They are scary because of the way I run them, not because of saving throws or automatic stoning this or that.
What matters is the love of the story, not the mechanic that helps facilitate that story. I think it best to use what works and junk the rest. From what I've seen of Pathfinder it has some good stuff, and I'm eager to look at Castles and Crusades too. For my money the best d20 stuff I've seen in years is the Guardians of Order Westeros stuff and that didn't get beyond the Core rule book!
So to get the thread back on track if I may beg Cebrion's indulgence, we are talking about Pathfinder and whether some of the rules are skewed and overpowered, not whether 1st ed or 2nd ed or 3rd ed is best. Ottarrus, I think Pathfinder is a most worthy successor to 3.5, as far as skills and whatnot are concerned at least. If you find something skewed or over-powered, just don't use it and default to whatever edition you are used to...
Pathfinder is the just successor to 3.5. 3.5, however, I believe to be worthless.
C&C is the way to go. Point of fact, in big bold text all in caps in the rules section of the Player's Guide, you see the following:
"THE RULES ARE YOUR SERVANT, NOT YOUR MASTER."
That is how it should be. Take what you want, leave the rest.
I hear a lot of people argue that you can run a game of 4E as in depth as a game of any edition that the rules take a back seat to the players. This is true in a sense, but if you compare a 5th level fighter from 1E to a 5th level fighter from 4E, you are going to see some vast differences in what they can do. I fail to see how one can role-play in a world where there is a suspension of disbelief between what powers a character can use on and off the battlefield. What is the point of a locked door when you can throw infinite fireballs?
I think Pathfinder would be better if you pulled out the skills system altogether, cut out 90% of the class abilities, and raised the XP to level...but then you'd have Castles & Crusades, the Player's Handbook of which costs exactly 1/2 that of the Pathfinder book.
That is how it should be. Take what you want, leave the rest.
That is how it is with any game system- C&C, 3.5 or otherwise. Actually stating it in the rules doesn't make it any less true for any other game system. Some folks just need to be reassured that they are doing nothing wrong by changing the rules to suit themselves; others not. 3.5 is full of options that you can choose NOT to use. Due to the dearth of material, you might say that it is THE example of a pick and choose rules system. Simple is fine, and complex is fine too. Both and neither are superior systems, but either perspective is of course solely based on one's personal tastes in gaming.
Though I have had some issues with each game edition, I have enjoyed every edition of the rules from Basic, to 1e/2e, to 3.x, and for entirely different reasons.
chaoticprime wrote:
I agree with Mystic Scholar. I have never even seen the point of books like Deities and Demigods, what is the point in statting up a god?
I remember having a debate about the relevance of these types of books with Erik Mona on GREYtalk. My point of view is that such books are all but pointless, and that a better book would be about the religions of the various gods, their churches, their clergy and worshipers, unique spells and magic items, etc. You know, things you will actually use in your game all the time. In effect, such books as Deities & Demigods have about as much relevance to in-game play as does a book containing stats on somebody's collection of 40+ level characters of awesomeness, or, more aptly, a guidebook entitled "My God Can Beat Up Your God". _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
At least it wasn't my head....
.
