Edit: Now that the final version is released, here is my second look.
I’ve had a chance to look a little closer at the Pathfiner RPG Beta. I then proceeded to write a review that was over a thousand words long. After looking it over I decided to start all over again. I realized that while I was examining the differences between it and 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons, the resulting review would only be useful to those who have a nuanced familiarity with the 3.5 rules. The target of this review shouldn’t be nearly so narrow. If you are that interested in the minute rules differences, go read the Beta rules yourself. What I took away from the exercise is that I really care about the Pathfinder RPG product, and know that I will purchase the final rules when they are out next year.
So I can’t write a review of the Pathfinder RPG without looking at a little history. Dungeons and Dragons is a fantasy role-playing game that has been around since 1977. The game has evolved quite a lot since then, and in the year 2000 the 3rd edition was created. On the one hand it changed the way a lot of things worked from the earlier editions. It added a much needed skill system. There was a new method for playing multiple classes, allowing a character to mix and match its skills and abilities from different careers. Other things remained much the same. The structure of wizard spell casting, having to memorize spells from a list, isn’t much different from the original version. As always, there was some grumbling from older players that it was no longer the game they wanted to play. But for the most part it brought a new group of people into the game, and many players back. I myself had skipped over the entirety of 2nd edition, having many years before moved on to other games like Palladium Fantasy Roleplay or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. When 3rd edition came out Dungeons and Dragons was great again and I, like many others, returned to it.
Another interesting experiment that Wizards of the Coast did was to create the Open Gaming License. The idea was to allow any company to produce material for Dungeons and Dragons. Anything that was created under this license could be reused in other products using the same license.This created a new industry of companies building supporting products. Quality of these products varied, but there are certainly some remarkable supplements and amazing adventures out there. When 4th edition was released, and a much different licensing scheme was introduced, publishers of these products had a choice: Continue making products for the open version of Dungeons and Dragons, or try the new version with a more limited license. What I find interesting is that because of this license there will be some form of 3rd edition available for as long as people are interested in playing it. So when Paizo decided that they would continue to produce content for the game they already love, they also decided to print a rulebook so that anyone interested in their products would have a source for those rules. The Pathfinder Role-playing Game was born.
Paizo has certainly put a lot of work into it. It weighs in at 410 pages, and is a complete fantasy adventure role-playing game system. It is an evolution of the d20 3.5 SRD, so I look at it as an off-shoot of Dungeons and Dragons. Many things are slightly different though, so the biggest difficulty existing players will have in learning it are the subtle changes. I will admit my players still surprise me sometimes with rules changes from 3.0 to 3.5, so there is no way I will find all the differences anytime soon. I do appreciate that all of the rules are in one book. It doesn’t include monsters, but you don’t have to hunt in another book for rules on traps, poison, magic items, creating monsters, or creating encounters.
First impression is that this is a well thought out product. This is written by people very familiar with original rules. They may not have made all the changes you were looking for, but the system they have created is designed to still be reasonably compatible with existing OGL 3.5 adventures and supplements. The first thing that stands out is that all of the basic classes and races have a little more power than they had before. The idea is that many of the existing supplements have made the base classes and races under-powered in comparison. This is probably the biggest change that might keep existing players using the original rules. I like the changes as they allow a little more freedom when creating new races. I am a fan of Planescape, and it would be relatively easy to convert many of the races from the planes into something more balanced with the new core races. I would move some of the more powerful abilities into racial specific feats, and build a set of playable races that way.
They also tried to make it more appealing to stay in the base classes longer. There is something new you get from each class at every level. Classes also have some very hefty abilities added at 20th. I’ve heard them described as ‘near epic’, but I can’t really judge as I’ve never played that high level. On the other hand, 20th level is fairly close to epic anyway, so I don’t think it really matters. One thing that is still being debated over at the Paizo boards is whether or not Fighters and Wizards are balanced. One of the common complaints about 3.5 is that at high levels, the wizard becomes extremely potent compared to the fighter. It is true that the fighter has always dominated at low levels, but eventually a wizard is able to use such powerful magic spells that the fighter becomes merely a bodyguard that gets in the way. So with all of the classes getting a little more power, the casters are no exception. The question of whether the casters still overshadow the melee characters is still debated.
I find myself liking the Pathfinder RPG. It isn’t a finished product yet, so I wouldn’t recommend it to beginners. If you are interested in being involved in the development of a game, or have ever liked the 3rd edition of Dungeons and Dragons, I highly recommend you give it a look. Now is the perfect time as the rules are available for free. I realized that customizable characters is what I’m missing from 4th edition. I expect I will continue to play both versions of the game for years to come. I definitely look forward to next year when I will likely be able to recommend the finished Pathfinder RPG to newcomers and old hands alike.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, September 16th, 2008 at 6:51 pm and is filed under Games.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Great review, I have been following Pathfinder very close as I am on my 4th session of 4th Edition. I have taken the Mystara world and roughly updated it for 4th Edition as I try to prove if 4th Edition can be called a role playing game not a roll playing game.
I keep in the back of my mind that Pathfinder is a good option if we do not make it with 4th Edition.
You are right, I always think of the date for Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. It also happens to be the year I was born, so the universe begins then, doesn’t it?
I do have hope for 4th edition’s potential as a role-playing game though. I’ve been following the development of Wrath of the River King and its shown me how a good story driven adventure is crafted using 4th edition.
I’ve followed Pathfinder as well and came away with a bad taste in my mouth. One of their goals was to make certain that all of the books you have accumulated for 3.5 were still useful; but the new base classes are so very different as to almost be a new game. For me the larger issue is that the problem classes were all in the original PHB and they got a boost that was wholly uncalled for to maintain balance. The classes introduced after the PHB were largely balanced, if not underpowered. Okay, most were underpowered or utilized completely different systems. The last part isn’t bad or good, it just is, but it makes those classes more difficult to compare.
On the other hand, I’m obviously not the demographic that they are aiming at. For mechanics 4E suits me just fine and discards all of the baggage that has been schlepped along in Pathfinder. To be fair, Pathfinder is listening to their customer base and giving them what they want. It’s just not what I want. The production values and art are also outstanding and deserving of mention. To me it isn’t a revision of 3.5, it isn’t particularly 3.5 compatible for the most part, it is simply a different D20 game, for better or worse.
As for 4E and role-playing; I gotta say I don’t get it. It is no more or less a role-playing game than any previous edition of D&D, certain no less than 3rd. This isn’t exactly the point of the blog, but Jesse brought it up, so it’s fair game. Do people find it hard to role-play in 4E vs. 3E? If so, why? There aren’t really any mechanical constructs for that aspect of the game, if nothing else it is more pointedly addressed with various suggestions throughout the books on how to make your character more alive (more important to people just getting into the game, but nonetheless). I’m just curious because I hear that a lot for 4E, but never really heard it for 3E (any more so than D&D in general) and I cannot tell the difference between the two from that particular angle.
I do agree that the wizard probably got a bit more of a boost than they needed. On the other hand, I recently made an NPC cleric using Pathfinder rules and I really liked the feel of the new Domain powers. It really fit with the theme of the npc and gave him exactly the powers he was supposed to get in the adventure I’ve been working from. Every time I see a fighter npc these days, I rebuild it as a warblade though. My party will destroy a regular fighter of the appropriate level these days.
Certainly there is power creep in the Pathfinder RPG. I’m sure there are people who will want that. I certainly don’t mind the races being a little more powerful, as it makes it easier to take some of the +1 LA races and tweak them to still be interesting variants, but pretty much on par with the new Pathfinder base races. Since all of the planar races are +1 LA, it let’s players be more apart of the Planescape feel I like without them suffering a set back of a lost level.
You definitely aren’t their target demographic. And 4th edition certainly is a fine game. It just isn’t what everyone wants from D&D. On the other hand, I’m not sure what their target market will be. Monte Cook put it best when he said, “they want to put out a new version of the game for people who don’t want a new version of the game.” Even if it is just used as a source for variant rules like Unearthed Arcana, Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, etc, it can still be a useful source for someone wanting to run a 3.X game. I also have been impressed with how well they listen to their customer feedback.
I do agree that role-playing in 4e is just as possible as it is under any game system. Most role-playing has always come from the people playing more than the mechanics of the game. I’m certain any 4e game you run will have more role-playing in it than most 3e games I’ve ever played in, because you are that kind of role-player and a good GM. I think the difference most people see though, is that 4e has little in the mechanics for outside of combat. The skills are pared down to things useful in combat, things useful for identifying the monsters you fight, and things used to avoid combat (bluff, intimidate, stealth.) You don’t have professions or trade skills which, while mechanically not much use give a sense of realness to a character.
I intend to buy products from both lines and will likely play and run games in both systems in the future. If you really like 4e, more power to you. It does feel a little incomplete to me, but I’m sure in a year there will be plenty of material for it to make it feel a lot more varied that it does now. I think the main point of my review is that if you are interested in a 3.5 variant that anyone can help shape check Pathfinder out. Paizo is very responsive to feedback and the Beta will continue until around February ‘09.
I think that I will agree with Monte Cook on that. You should check out his newer web supplements for more material that changes the nature of 3.5. It showcases how much 3E was his baby and it bears to mention that he loves him some magic. When you view 3E through that lens, it all begins to make sense. He doesn’t seen anything inherently wrong with the dominance of casters and the christmas tree effect.
While Pathfinder alters the game in a way that brings things more in line with what you want out of Planescape (though I would argue 4E does that moreso, it really is a digression), it really brings it out of line with the rest of 3.5, which is a problem and against one of their stated goals. But then again, that goal never really made a lot of sense to me: “Here is the new PHB for a game that is complete! We’ll continue to support this game that really doesn’t need any more support because it has had the boundaries of what it can do explored like -no game before it-”. Seriously, it’s not like they published a book of fixes to clear out the largely perceived problems with 3E, they’re making a new PHB. More power to them, I just don’t understand why they don’t want to say that. It just feels like 3.75 Better, Faster, Stronger Edition. I still download, read and follow, I just don’t understand the larger “Why?”. Which is really sad since I think that Paizo has done some great work in the past and I’d like to see what interesting things they can do for 4E. Alas; hopes, dreams, and starlight.
This is where I’m going to disagree on the need for skills to exist to support mechanically poor choices. Yes, craft, profession, perform, etc (I may have missed one) give character depth. Yes, they are kinda terrible selections because they, generally speaking, don’t do a damn thing (the Bard is inadmissible because he doesn’t really either). Now in 4E, since they don’t exist as mechanical constructs in the game, this moves them purely into the realm of flavor. Want to play a weaponsmith? As a DM I would say “Go for it!”. You get to be “Trained” in it because it’s your backstory. Now, going overboard with background skills would get the stink eye. If those skills have no real bearing on the game, does it really matter if players have them? All they are is roleplaying as adjudicated by the DM. That, to me, is far more satisfactory. Perhaps that is simply my play style coming through. I know that I don’t like being punished for making poor mechanical choices that support my roleplaying; I think that it’s lame. If the system says “You, dude who’s totally playing that dude from under a rock with an equivalent personality, you rock, get it? You ROCK! Now you with the history, why didn’t you take Profession: Corn Boy to represent your time as a Corn Boy, srsly? Don’t you wanna RP here?”
I will fully agree that 4E doesn’t have the options that 3E has. But 3E didn’t have a lot of options at launch either. It seemed like it did, but it didn’t really. It took a while to really create options that “felt” different. Note: Barbarian and Fighter, they felt pretty much the same. Sorcerer and Wizard asked the age old question “Do you hate running out of spells and having to memorize them?” Already there are three new races with full write-ups (Drow, Gensai with five flavors, and Warforged) a new class (Swordmage), a new Warlock pact (Dark pact), and a thorough expansion on a race (Tiefling) and Warlock pact (Star pact). Some of that is free, which is pretty nice. Next year should see a significant expansion in what is out there, so that is really nice. I’m thinking about delaying a potential game just for that so players can get some more options, who knows.
To your final point, I agree (and to bring this back on-topic). If you want to see a variant of 3.5, Pathfinder is just that. It is worth mentioning that while they listen to the forums, it’s hard to be heard there. To put it mildly. I guess, in the end, I was sorely disappointed by Pathfinder. There are things that I like about 3.5, it is a tinkerer’s dream, and I had hoped Pathfinder would fix my issues, but it only exacerbated them. Going to try and voice my own concerns about this didn’t go anywhere and I have generally better things to do than fight internet forum hate. In the end, I applaud their goals, but really have no interest in the final product. Take that as you will.
I plan on picking up Monte Cook’s two books of experimental might when the new consolidated version comes out later this year. It is true he could probably give martial classes a little more love though.
As to the Why? of Pathfinder, that is easy. Because of licensing concerns they’ve decided to continue to put out OGL d20 adventures. Since they didn’t want to put adventures for a game that isn’t in print, they are making their own version. I’m sure the adventures they produce will be easily played with either classic 3.5 or the new Pathfinder RPG.
Certainly 4e will grow and develop as time goes by. Probably around PHB2 there will be enough material I could comfortably run a planescape game. On the other hand, changes in the cosmology make it such that certain things I’ll never get rules for. I’ve already done some experiment in race building for 4e, so I’m reasonably comfortable with that.
I think the biggest trouble with 4e is the restrictiveness of the license. I understand why they didn’t want to allow dual stated books, but the restriction on product lines never going back just kills a third party publisher’s motivation. Also, you can’t make a variant players guide for 4e like you could for 3rd. So no Arcana Evolved, Mutants or Masterminds, Traveller 20, Iron Heroes, True 20, etc can evolve from 4e.
So the great thing about the OGL is that if you wanted to publish a “d20 Fixed” book, you can. In fact, if you did, I know know I’d buy it. So I understand why you as a consumer are enjoying the 4e offerings, the publishers as a whole can’t do nearly as much with the new license. As long as there is a niche for the older rule set, companies will still produce stuff for it. The best thing about the OGL is it put the game in the hands of fans, and they aren’t giving it back. If Pathfinder doesn’t fix 3.5 the way you want it, the door will always be open for someone else to try again.
I can already see problems with the current 4e scheme. If I want to publish an adventure, I can’t include a Genasi swordmage as the villain. I can’t use any of the many items from Adventurer’s Vault as loot. I won’t be able to use any of the classes or races that aren’t in the SRD, which includes everything coming out in PHB2. The game just doesn’t seem complete without it, so how are publishers to make good products with only half the game available for them to use? We’ll see what things look like when they redo the license, but I’m not holding my breath.
I don’t know you could play them easily. The balance is different since everything has a power boost. 3.5 adventures will be too easy, this is why it is simply incompatible: It is a different game with a different set of basic assumptions that *looks* a lot like that old game you played, but it isn’t.
The 4E license is loosening up again, but to be fair I cannot blame them entirely for wanting to make their sandbox a bit more restrictive. It’s not like the glut of D20 stuff helped them a whole lot. The principle was to have 3rd party publishers make your adventures for you because that isn’t a really great revenue generating proposition. It seems they have changed that stance at the end of 3.5s run and currently with a large number of adventures and high quality widgets to come with them. Yes, you can draw analogs here to open source software, but their code was used to create entirely different things that did not grow their own business at all. An interesting side effect of this is how it displayed some of the really great talent out there for them to harvest for their own. Some companies the GSL screws, others it doesn’t matter as it stands, though.
The trademarking laws are kinda funny and I believe you can use that, but not using the PC class since villains are really their own thing and not supposed to look like PCs anymore (for better or worse). Also, there is no SRD, that is a OGL artifact. There is a lot of hearsay and confusion on what exactly *is* allowed and what isn’t. The answer really seems to be: If you conform to the GSL and don’t reprint anything in an obvious fashion (i.e. Make the aforementioned swordmage a monster, not a reprint of a PC), then you should really be fine. Simple things like acknowledging a trademark or referencing where you took something from are all perfectly legal last I checked. Also, check out Kenzer for some ways around the GSL entirely. At least that is my interpretation of it as it stands. I could be wrong, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time.
[...] of my first reviews was of the Pathfinder RPG Beta. It is probably a testament to Pathfinder’s growing popularity that it is, to date, my most read [...]
swine flu symptoms and treatments
symptoms of the swine flu Oculo And Tamiflu molen flu shoots,
cdc + swine flu treatment; Tamiflu Sales swine flu in ohio
tamiflu for bird flu and 2007Tamiflu Gilead Rumsfeld tamiflu shelf life;
tylenol cold and flu severe Tamiflu Has Thermisol tamiflu and effectiveness and safety
tamiflu in dogs Tamiflu Resistance In Avian Flu tamiflu for only 4 days;
ingridients of tamiflu! Case Study Of Tamiflu intestinal flu
Number needed to treat for tamiflu nursing tamiflu 789.
medwatch form for tamiflu
when to take tamiflu Mail Order Tamiflu tamiflu otc
Tamiflu recalls tamiflu recent news 189. Ibuprofen After Flu tamiflu,
tamiflu manufacturer gilliad
pravachol nexium actos phentermine tamiflu
flu shoot clinics northwestern pa Tamiflu Immune System stock ticker who makes tamiflu
does tamiflu work Gilead Science Donald Rumsfeld Tamiflu influenza a tamiflu
aids tamiflu flu Tamiflu Safety Elderly 2009 flu multnomah county oregon,
rumsfeld's growing stake in tamiflu fort detrick
September 17th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Great review, I have been following Pathfinder very close as I am on my 4th session of 4th Edition. I have taken the Mystara world and roughly updated it for 4th Edition as I try to prove if 4th Edition can be called a role playing game not a roll playing game.
I keep in the back of my mind that Pathfinder is a good option if we do not make it with 4th Edition.
Regards
September 17th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Interesting viewpoint. I’m still trying to make up my mind about Pathfinder.
Oh, and just for historical accuracy, D&D came out around 1974.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
You are right, I always think of the date for Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. It also happens to be the year I was born, so the universe begins then, doesn’t it?
I do have hope for 4th edition’s potential as a role-playing game though. I’ve been following the development of Wrath of the River King and its shown me how a good story driven adventure is crafted using 4th edition.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I’ve followed Pathfinder as well and came away with a bad taste in my mouth. One of their goals was to make certain that all of the books you have accumulated for 3.5 were still useful; but the new base classes are so very different as to almost be a new game. For me the larger issue is that the problem classes were all in the original PHB and they got a boost that was wholly uncalled for to maintain balance. The classes introduced after the PHB were largely balanced, if not underpowered. Okay, most were underpowered or utilized completely different systems. The last part isn’t bad or good, it just is, but it makes those classes more difficult to compare.
On the other hand, I’m obviously not the demographic that they are aiming at. For mechanics 4E suits me just fine and discards all of the baggage that has been schlepped along in Pathfinder. To be fair, Pathfinder is listening to their customer base and giving them what they want. It’s just not what I want. The production values and art are also outstanding and deserving of mention. To me it isn’t a revision of 3.5, it isn’t particularly 3.5 compatible for the most part, it is simply a different D20 game, for better or worse.
As for 4E and role-playing; I gotta say I don’t get it. It is no more or less a role-playing game than any previous edition of D&D, certain no less than 3rd. This isn’t exactly the point of the blog, but Jesse brought it up, so it’s fair game. Do people find it hard to role-play in 4E vs. 3E? If so, why? There aren’t really any mechanical constructs for that aspect of the game, if nothing else it is more pointedly addressed with various suggestions throughout the books on how to make your character more alive (more important to people just getting into the game, but nonetheless). I’m just curious because I hear that a lot for 4E, but never really heard it for 3E (any more so than D&D in general) and I cannot tell the difference between the two from that particular angle.
September 28th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I do agree that the wizard probably got a bit more of a boost than they needed. On the other hand, I recently made an NPC cleric using Pathfinder rules and I really liked the feel of the new Domain powers. It really fit with the theme of the npc and gave him exactly the powers he was supposed to get in the adventure I’ve been working from. Every time I see a fighter npc these days, I rebuild it as a warblade though. My party will destroy a regular fighter of the appropriate level these days.
Certainly there is power creep in the Pathfinder RPG. I’m sure there are people who will want that. I certainly don’t mind the races being a little more powerful, as it makes it easier to take some of the +1 LA races and tweak them to still be interesting variants, but pretty much on par with the new Pathfinder base races. Since all of the planar races are +1 LA, it let’s players be more apart of the Planescape feel I like without them suffering a set back of a lost level.
You definitely aren’t their target demographic. And 4th edition certainly is a fine game. It just isn’t what everyone wants from D&D. On the other hand, I’m not sure what their target market will be. Monte Cook put it best when he said, “they want to put out a new version of the game for people who don’t want a new version of the game.” Even if it is just used as a source for variant rules like Unearthed Arcana, Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, etc, it can still be a useful source for someone wanting to run a 3.X game. I also have been impressed with how well they listen to their customer feedback.
I do agree that role-playing in 4e is just as possible as it is under any game system. Most role-playing has always come from the people playing more than the mechanics of the game. I’m certain any 4e game you run will have more role-playing in it than most 3e games I’ve ever played in, because you are that kind of role-player and a good GM. I think the difference most people see though, is that 4e has little in the mechanics for outside of combat. The skills are pared down to things useful in combat, things useful for identifying the monsters you fight, and things used to avoid combat (bluff, intimidate, stealth.) You don’t have professions or trade skills which, while mechanically not much use give a sense of realness to a character.
I intend to buy products from both lines and will likely play and run games in both systems in the future. If you really like 4e, more power to you. It does feel a little incomplete to me, but I’m sure in a year there will be plenty of material for it to make it feel a lot more varied that it does now. I think the main point of my review is that if you are interested in a 3.5 variant that anyone can help shape check Pathfinder out. Paizo is very responsive to feedback and the Beta will continue until around February ‘09.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
I think that I will agree with Monte Cook on that. You should check out his newer web supplements for more material that changes the nature of 3.5. It showcases how much 3E was his baby and it bears to mention that he loves him some magic. When you view 3E through that lens, it all begins to make sense. He doesn’t seen anything inherently wrong with the dominance of casters and the christmas tree effect.
While Pathfinder alters the game in a way that brings things more in line with what you want out of Planescape (though I would argue 4E does that moreso, it really is a digression), it really brings it out of line with the rest of 3.5, which is a problem and against one of their stated goals. But then again, that goal never really made a lot of sense to me: “Here is the new PHB for a game that is complete! We’ll continue to support this game that really doesn’t need any more support because it has had the boundaries of what it can do explored like -no game before it-”. Seriously, it’s not like they published a book of fixes to clear out the largely perceived problems with 3E, they’re making a new PHB. More power to them, I just don’t understand why they don’t want to say that. It just feels like 3.75 Better, Faster, Stronger Edition. I still download, read and follow, I just don’t understand the larger “Why?”. Which is really sad since I think that Paizo has done some great work in the past and I’d like to see what interesting things they can do for 4E. Alas; hopes, dreams, and starlight.
This is where I’m going to disagree on the need for skills to exist to support mechanically poor choices. Yes, craft, profession, perform, etc (I may have missed one) give character depth. Yes, they are kinda terrible selections because they, generally speaking, don’t do a damn thing (the Bard is inadmissible because he doesn’t really either). Now in 4E, since they don’t exist as mechanical constructs in the game, this moves them purely into the realm of flavor. Want to play a weaponsmith? As a DM I would say “Go for it!”. You get to be “Trained” in it because it’s your backstory. Now, going overboard with background skills would get the stink eye. If those skills have no real bearing on the game, does it really matter if players have them? All they are is roleplaying as adjudicated by the DM. That, to me, is far more satisfactory. Perhaps that is simply my play style coming through. I know that I don’t like being punished for making poor mechanical choices that support my roleplaying; I think that it’s lame. If the system says “You, dude who’s totally playing that dude from under a rock with an equivalent personality, you rock, get it? You ROCK! Now you with the history, why didn’t you take Profession: Corn Boy to represent your time as a Corn Boy, srsly? Don’t you wanna RP here?”
I will fully agree that 4E doesn’t have the options that 3E has. But 3E didn’t have a lot of options at launch either. It seemed like it did, but it didn’t really. It took a while to really create options that “felt” different. Note: Barbarian and Fighter, they felt pretty much the same. Sorcerer and Wizard asked the age old question “Do you hate running out of spells and having to memorize them?” Already there are three new races with full write-ups (Drow, Gensai with five flavors, and Warforged) a new class (Swordmage), a new Warlock pact (Dark pact), and a thorough expansion on a race (Tiefling) and Warlock pact (Star pact). Some of that is free, which is pretty nice. Next year should see a significant expansion in what is out there, so that is really nice. I’m thinking about delaying a potential game just for that so players can get some more options, who knows.
To your final point, I agree (and to bring this back on-topic). If you want to see a variant of 3.5, Pathfinder is just that. It is worth mentioning that while they listen to the forums, it’s hard to be heard there. To put it mildly. I guess, in the end, I was sorely disappointed by Pathfinder. There are things that I like about 3.5, it is a tinkerer’s dream, and I had hoped Pathfinder would fix my issues, but it only exacerbated them. Going to try and voice my own concerns about this didn’t go anywhere and I have generally better things to do than fight internet forum hate. In the end, I applaud their goals, but really have no interest in the final product. Take that as you will.
September 29th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I plan on picking up Monte Cook’s two books of experimental might when the new consolidated version comes out later this year. It is true he could probably give martial classes a little more love though.
As to the Why? of Pathfinder, that is easy. Because of licensing concerns they’ve decided to continue to put out OGL d20 adventures. Since they didn’t want to put adventures for a game that isn’t in print, they are making their own version. I’m sure the adventures they produce will be easily played with either classic 3.5 or the new Pathfinder RPG.
Certainly 4e will grow and develop as time goes by. Probably around PHB2 there will be enough material I could comfortably run a planescape game. On the other hand, changes in the cosmology make it such that certain things I’ll never get rules for. I’ve already done some experiment in race building for 4e, so I’m reasonably comfortable with that.
I think the biggest trouble with 4e is the restrictiveness of the license. I understand why they didn’t want to allow dual stated books, but the restriction on product lines never going back just kills a third party publisher’s motivation. Also, you can’t make a variant players guide for 4e like you could for 3rd. So no Arcana Evolved, Mutants or Masterminds, Traveller 20, Iron Heroes, True 20, etc can evolve from 4e.
So the great thing about the OGL is that if you wanted to publish a “d20 Fixed” book, you can. In fact, if you did, I know know I’d buy it. So I understand why you as a consumer are enjoying the 4e offerings, the publishers as a whole can’t do nearly as much with the new license. As long as there is a niche for the older rule set, companies will still produce stuff for it. The best thing about the OGL is it put the game in the hands of fans, and they aren’t giving it back. If Pathfinder doesn’t fix 3.5 the way you want it, the door will always be open for someone else to try again.
I can already see problems with the current 4e scheme. If I want to publish an adventure, I can’t include a Genasi swordmage as the villain. I can’t use any of the many items from Adventurer’s Vault as loot. I won’t be able to use any of the classes or races that aren’t in the SRD, which includes everything coming out in PHB2. The game just doesn’t seem complete without it, so how are publishers to make good products with only half the game available for them to use? We’ll see what things look like when they redo the license, but I’m not holding my breath.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I don’t know you could play them easily. The balance is different since everything has a power boost. 3.5 adventures will be too easy, this is why it is simply incompatible: It is a different game with a different set of basic assumptions that *looks* a lot like that old game you played, but it isn’t.
The 4E license is loosening up again, but to be fair I cannot blame them entirely for wanting to make their sandbox a bit more restrictive. It’s not like the glut of D20 stuff helped them a whole lot. The principle was to have 3rd party publishers make your adventures for you because that isn’t a really great revenue generating proposition. It seems they have changed that stance at the end of 3.5s run and currently with a large number of adventures and high quality widgets to come with them. Yes, you can draw analogs here to open source software, but their code was used to create entirely different things that did not grow their own business at all. An interesting side effect of this is how it displayed some of the really great talent out there for them to harvest for their own. Some companies the GSL screws, others it doesn’t matter as it stands, though.
The trademarking laws are kinda funny and I believe you can use that, but not using the PC class since villains are really their own thing and not supposed to look like PCs anymore (for better or worse). Also, there is no SRD, that is a OGL artifact. There is a lot of hearsay and confusion on what exactly *is* allowed and what isn’t. The answer really seems to be: If you conform to the GSL and don’t reprint anything in an obvious fashion (i.e. Make the aforementioned swordmage a monster, not a reprint of a PC), then you should really be fine. Simple things like acknowledging a trademark or referencing where you took something from are all perfectly legal last I checked. Also, check out Kenzer for some ways around the GSL entirely. At least that is my interpretation of it as it stands. I could be wrong, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
[...] of my first reviews was of the Pathfinder RPG Beta. It is probably a testament to Pathfinder’s growing popularity that it is, to date, my most read [...]