What I'm wondering is how the experience of overhauling 3.5 to create Pathfinder could point to a future path for Monte's 5e. As a DM who first loved and eventually loathed 3.5, I've been very reluctant to play Pathfinder. Recently, however, I've been wondering how Pathfinder fixed the problems of 3.5. Will WotC try to emulate this process to fix the problems in 4e? Any ideas?
I've been doing a lot of thinking on Monte's articles which many of us presume to point to the new direction in 5e. Clearly they're taking a retro approach to retooling 4e into .... something. Probably something modular. Who knows really. All we know is that it won't be 4e as we know it now. Both Mike Mearls and Monte Cooke have addressed specific problems in 4e they'd like to change (ex. off turn attacks, too many feats and powers) and have been tossing out ideas on how to "fix" the system.
What I'm wondering is how the experience of overhauling 3.5 to create Pathfinder could point to a future path for Monte's 5e. As a DM who first loved and eventually loathed 3.5, I've been very reluctant to play Pathfinder. Recently, however, I've been wondering how Pathfinder fixed the problems of 3.5. Will WotC try to emulate this process to fix the problems in 4e? Any ideas?
I'll admit I haven't read the books myself, but from what i've read elsewhere, is that while it attempts to change things for the better, the game is still pretty much the same. What really makes pathfinder great is its community, and the fact Paizo capitolizes on everything WoTC gives up on. They also continue to make new stuff for pathfinder, while 4e seems to be stuck in more of a rut at the moment.
I'm sure some replier can give a more indepth and accurate summary.
Also, to say something a similar thing alittle less...excited as the previous poster, I don't consider Pathfinder any more of its "own edition" than 3.5 is. If a similar thing were done for 5e, it'd feel too much like a 4.5.
I've been doing a lot of thinking on Monte's articles which many of us presume to point to the new direction in 5e. Clearly they're taking a retro approach to retooling 4e into .... something. Probably something modular. Who knows really. All we know is that it won't be 4e as we know it now. Both Mike Mearls and Monte Cooke have addressed specific problems in 4e they'd like to change (ex. off turn attacks, too many feats and powers) and have been tossing out ideas on how to "fix" the system.
What I'm wondering is how the experience of overhauling 3.5 to create Pathfinder could point to a future path for Monte's 5e. As a DM who first loved and eventually loathed 3.5, I've been very reluctant to play Pathfinder. Recently, however, I've been wondering how Pathfinder fixed the problems of 3.5.
What you need to understand about Paizo is that they don't think that 3.5 had many problems. Does 3ed have problems? Depends on whom you ask. For Erik and friends, solving 3.5 wasn't as big a problem as making money off of a market crying out for product.
Interesting. I was under the impression that Pathfinder was a significant reworking of 3.5 to improve game balance across classes and end the insanity of over-the-top spells. Did it fail to do this?
Very much so. It didn't really even try to fix the balance issues. It simplified skills a bit, added weapon and armor specialization for fighters, added some quirks here and there, but failed to address the most glaring issues (spellcasters at higher levels).
I've been playing in a Pathfinder game for a while now, and I can tell you that it's mostly 3.5 with a new paintjob. It's the same engine under the hood, though.
It's kinda like Pimp My Ride. They add flashy paint, big speakers, TV's, shiny wheels, etc.... but the car still leaves the shop smoking and sputtering.
Pathfinder is a good system.
Interesting. I was under the impression that Pathfinder was a significant reworking of 3.5 to improve game balance across classes and end the insanity of over-the-top spells. Did it fail to do this?
It started off with grand ambitions, but the open beta testing put the kybosh on many of the initial ideas they had. They've kept it pretty close to the 3.5 because that is their market. Don't know how it is elsewhere, but at my FLGS the beginner box is not doing well because a majority of the people playing already have the books and are carryovers from 3.5. Could be different elsewhere, though.
I have played Pathfinder form the beta version. I prefer the beta version, but that's not supported. It does correct the main problems that 3.5 had, it also creates a bit more complexity for simple classes like the fighter. Mages are still complex, but that is to be expected. Clerics are more appealing to play than 3.5 with channelling positive energy. Pathfinder seems to get the older role-players from the market, while D&D appeals to the younger roll players and older power gamers. I like the fact that there are two big systems with different focuses. I play both systems and each has a positive and negative. Other classes can match spellcasters at higher levels for damage output, I've played a wizard to level 10. Pathfinder has wonderful support and there are more adventures than WotC could ever keep up with, given there current state of being. Although WotC doesn't need to produce that many published adventures because of D&D insider, Encounter Events and the fact that getting from level 1 to 30 takes years.
Pathfinder is a good system.
NO it really isn't it barley fixes anything casters still out perform non caster still too many skills though some have been consolidated I still don't see an actual use for the proffession skills other than making less money than you can make adventuring, the rules for combat manouvers like grappling are still more complex than they should be. Also I don't think they've fixed the multiple prestidge class issue either.
Okay, so back to my original point. Do you think WotC learned anything (good or bad) from the Paizo attempt to rework 3.5? Do think 5e will be to 4e what Pathfinder is to 3.5? Or will WotC kick 4e to the curb and do a complete rewrite for 5e?
Okay, so back to my original point. Do you think WotC learned anything (good or bad) from the Paizo attempt to rework 3.5?
They realized that presentation of the rules was just as important as the rules themselves. They realized that one person's bug could be another person's feature. They realized that factors completly unrelated to the actual system (the GSL, cancelling the print versions of Dragon and Dungeon Magazines) can affect a person's acceptance of it.
Overall, I think they realized that change is scary to D&D players, and that it has to be something they're eased into with familiar things.
Do think 5e will be to 4e what Pathfinder is to 3.5? Or will WotC kick 4e to the curb and do a complete rewrite for 5e?
That depends on how well 4ed does over time, as well as how well Pathfinder does over time. If, in 3 years, Paizo is still eating WotC's lunch, then the design team will either be replaced or told in no uncertain terms that game balance should not trump the feel of the game (whatever that means). If, in 3 years, Paizo's sales deflate and WotC remains stable, then Wizards can chalk their problems to presentation and PR, not from their design policy.
I have played Pathfinder form the beta version. I prefer the beta version, but that's not supported. It does correct the main problems that 3.5 had, it also creates a bit more complexity for simple classes like the fighter. Mages are still complex, but that is to be expected. Clerics are more appealing to play than 3.5 with channelling positive energy. Pathfinder seems to get the older role-players from the market, while D&D appeals to the younger roll players and older power gamers. I like the fact that there are two big systems with different focuses. I play both systems and each has a positive and negative. Other classes can match spellcasters at higher levels for damage output, I've played a wizard to level 10. Pathfinder has wonderful support and there are more adventures than WotC could ever keep up with, given there current state of being. Although WotC doesn't need to produce that many published adventures because of D&D insider, Encounter Events and the fact that getting from level 1 to 30 takes years.
Pathfinder is a good system.
NO it really isn't it barley fixes anything casters still out perform non caster still too many skills though some have been consolidated I still don't see an actual use for the proffession skills other than making less money than you can make adventuring, the rules for combat manouvers like grappling are still more complex than they should be. Also I don't think they've fixed the multiple prestidge class issue either.
We will have to disagree and that's fine. I've seen a Paladin repeatedly do more damage than a fireball in my own game group, so casters don't dominate in my experience. There are alot of skills for a reason, and not all skills need to have a combat or environmental function. Profession and craft give roleplay flavour for a character, although depending on the player it might have other uses. I've taken Profession "circus performer" because my character started with the circus. Juggling, tight rope walking and performing to an audience can be useful in a hostile village. Grapple is still complex, but it's easier than it was. I've to see a system that does grapple well. Multiple prestidge classes is something the GM can houserule, but it leaves the option for players and groups that like this.
As for the real question. Do you think 5e will be to 4e what Pathfinder is to 3.5? Or will WotC kick 4e to the curb and do a complete rewrite for 5e?
I think WotC has realized that tomuch change lost them their older player base. 4e sorted some issues out but created new problems. I would expect a system that is a simplify game engine with optional rules for any new edition. My guess is a combination of 4e, 3.5 and the old chainmail system. Only time will tell if the customers agree.
I have played Pathfinder form the beta version. I prefer the beta version, but that's not supported. It does correct the main problems that 3.5 had,
And those were? I'm sorry, but this is key. Was CoDzilla not a problem? Were 5-minute work days a problem? What were these problems that were acknowledged, and how were they solved?
it also creates a bit more complexity for simple classes like the fighter. Mages are still complex, but that is to be expected. Clerics are more appealing to play than 3.5 with channelling positive energy.
3.0 gave fighters a lot more choice and customizeability, but the wild power of casting could still overshadow them a great deal - an incremental 'bit more complexity' wouldn't seem to address that issue. Mages aparently aren't particularly different? And what was unapealing about a 3.5 Cleric?
I've seen a Paladin repeatedly do more damage than a fireball in my own game group, so casters don't dominate in my experience.
Two things:
1) I saw that in 3.5, too. A high-level buffed up, mounted, charging Paladin could do /insane/ damage. Fireball was a 3rd level spell, with a 10d damage cap, at high level, unless empowered, the save was virtually a given, typical damage: 17. Not much of a yardstick.
2) Paladins /were/ casters. Still are, really. Not primary, but they had a nice little selection of self-buffs.
So, really, your assertion is that casters didn't dominate, because a secondary caster, optimized for a specific high-damage trick, could out damage a low-level spell that was more notable for the number of enemies it targets and the amount of property damage it caused, than for it's capacity to do significant damage.
It added a lot of new shiny toys that made things like fighters and monks more fun. But in terms of 'fixing d20' it did nothing of the sort.