The other shoe has dropped and it is official, there will be an edition fork between the 3e OGL and 4e. Paizo will be publishing their own Pathfinder RPG (3p) in August 2009.
The alpha rules are available for free in PDF format and the entire development will be open to all. A beta version in hardback will be available by next GenCon. There are plans for organized play in the Pathfinder universe.
Oh, YES! Oh, HELL YES! I had issues with 3x to the point that I wanted a 4e. Then, I got what Wotc has announced and wanted no part of it. THIS is exactly, in principle, what I was looking for - an improved 3x that is fully backwards compatible - something 4e is most obnoxiously not!
Of course, the Pathfinder world of Golarion is designed by Eric Mona and James Jacobs, both Greyhawk fans. Golarion is not Greyhawk but I have read that both Mssrs Mona and Jacobs have attempted to put a Greyhawk sensibility into Golarion. I guess any Greyhawk fan might do the same were they to design their own game world.
The alpha version of the Pathfinder RPG rules are available free for download at Paizo's site. The Beta version will also be a free download. The final hardcover rules will, of course, cost. In the meantime, Paizo is having an open playtest of the alpha and beta rules.
While I have not digested the new rules yet, my first thought is how some Greyhawk material might be converted or, and I think perhaps more interestingly, some of the more closely fitting Golarion material might be converted to Greyhawk.
I'm not sure about how juiced others may be about this but I'm thinking maybe a postfest? If there would be enough interest. And after the curious have looked at the free download. _________________ GVD
Wow! I really can't think of anything else to say, except wow. Paizo is doing the right thing here. Using a perpetual license to maintain a standard of rules that we all know works is brilliant. The partnership with Necromancer Games is another great element of this effort.
Paizo has consistently developed material that is far better than content presented by Wizards of the Coast. I think this is exciting, and I feel even better that I transitioned to Pathfinder and Pathfinder Chronicles subscriptions. Paizo just added value to a product I was worried about.
I'm glad Paizo has come to this decision. 3.x is a decent enough system, but it could surely be improved with a few tweaks. It will be interesting to see what Paizo perceives to be the areas to improve upon. Making their system open source is also a good idea, as it enocurages third parties to suppoort them as well. Paizo can only make so many new products every year after all, but they can sure as shootin' print(and sell) more of their own Core books in support those who want to play using their game system. Time to do the dial-up download... _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Well I haven't had the opportunity to read any specific details but I must say this is better news than I expected. I was pulling for them to either stay with 3.5 or create their own game. I haven't played D&D for quite some time but when the time comes it will be nice to know that my 3.5 purchases will get plenty of use. The idea of being able to add to this collection will certainly be nice. The rules may be modified but if they are compatible (and they will be from what I understand) I will be very pleased. Way go Paizo, it is good to see someone strike out on their own and not feel the need to follow WOTC on this one. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
I am glad to see that Paizo is going to do what WOTC should have done years ago: Listen to the customer. Force feeding us new rules sets has always been a bad idea. Quality settings, adventures and story materials, on the other hand, is like buying the next book in a good series. I can't wait.
As every age group ages, their available time to learn new rules sets evaporates quickly (as a general statement, there are always exceptions). I HATED 3rd ed., not because I loved the old rules, but becuase I wanted to play, not spend days learning new rules. Unfortunatley, I had lost my old books and had to start anew.
I will buy the book, and appreciate Paizo for their efforts.
BTW, has anyone integrated Golarian into GH? I love the Pathfinder series.
BTW, has anyone integrated Golarian into GH? I love the Pathfinder series.
I have not integrated the settings, but I think about it all of the time. I'd like to see some ideas on that, and perhaps participate in a discussion. I'll browse Paizo's boards today, too. I am sure their Greyhawker's have approached this idea. I'll share anything I find over there.
I'm only just into the special combat manuevers section, and so far I have got to say WOW. I wouldn't mind playing a fighter. A fighter is truly, the king of the battlefield. I've always preferred paladins and rangers to fighters, or if I did play one, it was splashed onto something else, mainly for a bonus feat and some extra base attack. But my favorite class, rogue, and my second favorite, cleric, both recieved some love and I like it. The Combat Manuever Bonus mechanic is pure brilliance. The only bad thing I've got to say about it so far is I don't like the idea of level based skills. I tend to splash a few skill points into knowledges, to give me a little bit of info when I need it. But as far as retrofits go, I tend to think that's among the easiest, and far from earth shattering.
All in all, when I start up my new Greyhawk Campaign, I think we're going to use these rules. Of course my co-dm has to approve, but I think that is not a hard approval to gain (right Anced? )
Since I haven't updated to the 3.x rules I have even less taste for 4E. Even so it gladdens me to see Paizo do the reasonable thing towards their customers. If only they could have retained the rights to Greyhawk and the future would be as bright as the desert. A part of me really wishes to see WotC get burned by their business edition and the 3.x OGL proves that such an event won't be the end of the gaming business. _________________ Never say blip-blip to a kuo-tua
I, like GVD, am pleased with this announcement because backwards compatibility is a huge factor for me too. I doubt I'll play Golarion but this gives me hope that maybe Greyhawk has other options in the future.
I can't stand Pathfinder's current crop of mods, and I'm not fond of Golarion (though it is well-designed, generally speaking), but this heartens me. At least there's one company out there who still cares about the tabletop roleplaying community.
And what I've seen of the rules so far isn't bad - not perfect, mind you, but not bad.
Fantastic news. Well done, Paizo. What we now have is a choice that won't involve our past investments, time and money, becoming redundant. I know that carrying on playing 3.5 was an option anyway, but knowing that there is support and ongoing development by quality designers, enthusiastic not hyperbolic ones too, is a hell of a comfort.
I've skimmed through the rules and so far they look good. All I need now is a few hours to myself and a supply of ink for the printer.
Bubba and Ragr....
I was waiting for you two to post. I really wanted to know what you thought of this Paizo effort.
Bubba:
I know Bubba isn't really interested in the modules as we have discussed that in some detail (I haven't made any purchases myself, have never ordered anything off the internet). I hope the rules will be Pathfinder light in regards to their world. My point being Bubba that the concerns you have with the adventures I doubt will surface in the PH, should you decide to check it out.
Ragr:
Glad to hear your liking what you have read/heard thus far. Don't know if you ever got my pm response or not. Oh well. Guess you'll have to wrap up the module before next year. I think it will be great to have three choices as you mentioned. Looks like there is something for everyone. Hopefully there won't be any legal loopholes to come between Paizo/WOTC and the OGL for 3.5. My knowledge of the legal aspects is very limited. It is one of those cross-class skills I don't have. I'm don't think I can use it untrained either.
1. Stick with 3.5.
2. Try Paizo (I think it will be a better Greyhawk fit than 4th edition).
3. Play 4th edition.
I'm guessing whether I am playing D&D or not, I will buy the book,providing I don't start seeing a lot of things I don't care for in the PDF files they are offering. I checked out their advancement chart and was really pleased to see three variations of XP columns. The rapid advancement of 3.5 has always been one of my biggest complaints. I checked my character sheet and I would go from 11th level (using my system) to 14th level (using Paizo slow system). So I thought this wasn't to bad.
I am far more positive about this direction for gaming than I am with 4th edition. It will be compatible with the rules I have already taken the time to learn, it doesn't invalidate previous purchases (minimally at worst I'm guessing), I think they will keep the 3.5 classes and races (which means a lot to me) as opposed to getting things from DI or waiting for future books. All in all, I am very pleased, hope you guys are as well. Perhaps my posts will "brighten up" as was suggested some time ago. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
The new rules are dicussed hotly on the paizo boards. In fact, their servers can´t bear the load from time to time. While paizo has set themselves no small task - further developing the 3.5 ruleset while staying fully backwards compatible, judging from the traffic on the boards, these rules get so much feedback that I think paizo will accomplish the task.
I'm a bit budget-conscious, so a new 3.x hardcover is a hard sell. From the minor changes in the PDF, I could likely boil the "Pathfinder material" into something the size of a tri-fold GM Screen. Then I'd just have to empty my wallet for the Adventure Path booklets.
The rapid advancement of 3.5 has always been one of my biggest complaints. I checked my character sheet and I would go from 11th level (using my system) to 14th level (using Paizo slow system). So I thought this wasn't to bad.
That was always one of my biggest complaints too. It seems like I go up a level almost every game session.
The rapid advancement of 3.5 has always been one of my biggest complaints. I checked my character sheet and I would go from 11th level (using my system) to 14th level (using Paizo slow system). So I thought this wasn't to bad.
That was always one of my biggest complaints too. It seems like I go up a level almost every game session.
Yah -- the speed of levelling is just ridiculous. I'm incorporating Paizo's advancement rules immediately in my EttRoG campaign.
The other thing that's going in next session is the new grappling system. Never before have I been as impressed with a elegant rule as I have been with the grappling system.
This news has really rejeuvenated my group. We were all very upset about 4E, but everyone is quite psyched over Pathfinder. Bravo Paizo! _________________ Greyhawk is dead; long live Greyahwk! It is not heresy; I will not recant!
I like making zero level spells castable any number of times per day, with the number prepared per day as the ones that can be selected each day. I was actually thinking of something similar and their solution was excellent. I also like having domain powers and school powers as this individualizes each character from everyone else in the class.
Having different advancement speeds is also excellent, although any DM could easily fix this in the present 3.5 rules by lessening experience point rewards.
With the fighter, I like that they added weapon and armor proficiencies; it makes him more of a progressive master of these tools as he should be. He might need to have a few bonus feats removed to balance a little.
I will have to examine the Rogue more thoroughly before making an opinion.
When it comes to skills, I tend to like what they have done regarding the combination of some of the skills; this helps out classes like the monk tremendously whose achilles' heel was the low skill points versus the base skills every monk needs to have to be effective. I am concerned that at high levels characters are going to have an incredible number of skills, so the addition of skill choices at levels above first may need to be reduced, perhaps at fourth level and every four levels afterward with an additional skill with each additional intelligence modifier bonus gained as a result of raising intelligence. Finally I will miss being able to customize a character's skills; it will hurt players who like their characters to have a splash of skill here or there without having absolute mastery.
These rules do need to be playtested before final judgement can be made. In order to see how well these rules function, I will need to see the remaining classes and any changes in spell dynamics before making a final decision. The key is to have characters that can advance in power and fame, but also remain challenged by obstacles to overcome. It is also vital to be able to create characters that each player can see as a unique and enjoyable roleplaying experience. It these objectives are met then the system should work well.
All in all I do think these rules will be a step up from 3.5 and they look to be very fun to play or DM. Each DM may (and should!) make adjustments according to their campaign needs, but I think the adjustments from this system will be less than from the standard 3.5 system.
I like making zero level spells castable any number of times per day, with the number prepared per day as the ones that can be selected each day. I was actually thinking of something similar and their solution was excellent. I also like having domain powers and school powers as this individualizes each character from everyone else in the class.
This was among the first things I noticed, and among those I am the most pleased about. It gives more options to the cleric and wizard, and allows those truly non-essential, but flavorfully cool orisons and cantrips to be used when desired, not just when the situation might call for it, and only a few times a day.
Telemachus wrote:
When it comes to skills, I tend to like what they have done regarding the combination of some of the skills; this helps out classes like the monk tremendously whose achilles' heel was the low skill points versus the base skills every monk needs to have to be effective. I am concerned that at high levels characters are going to have an incredible number of skills, so the addition of skill choices at levels above first may need to be reduced, perhaps at fourth level and every four levels afterward with an additional skill with each additional intelligence modifier bonus gained as a result of raising intelligence. Finally I will miss being able to customize a character's skills; it will hurt players who like their characters to have a splash of skill here or there without having absolute mastery.
This is among the easiest of their rules to retrofit. Juts use 3.5 skill points and voila, their system works for those of us *raises hand* who like to dabble in certain skills (tumble, knowledges, appraise). I'll admit the skill selection process was one I had just skimmed over.
Here is a re-posting of my initial thoughts on the Pathfinder RPG:
After reading though things, it looks very interesting.
The balancing of the races is excellent!
I like the realignment and streamlining of the skills, but I still am yet to be sold on the class/cross-class mechanic. This regards the implication that learning things is more difficult for characters of a certain class than it may be for others. I'd rather the system be slightly more open, such that you can have a fighter who has studied engineering for the purposes of siege warfare, and would know it as well as any scholarly type who studied the same, yet doesn't have to sacrifice a massive amount of skill points just to do so. Or, a fighter who was raised among mages could be as well versed in Spellcraft as any Wizard(he can identify magical properties), even if he can’t actually cast any spells. I could give other examples of this too, but it is a simple fix for me. I'd rather just have the classes themselves define the characters, and not have such stringent limitations placed on learning skills. Perhaps you could introduce a Feat called “Variant Training: Choose any two Cross-class Skills. These skills now count as Class Skills for you.” That would cover those instances where players want to play a character of a certain class, but who has skills outside of the norm and knows them very well. While it doesn't suit my view perfectly(like you can ever make all the people happy all the time anyways ;) ), the Skills system is still greatly improved. Some of the racial abilities also address this issue(half-elves and humans), but it would be a good option to make available to anyone through the use of a Feat slot.
The seldom used Escape Artist Skill should probably be rolled into the Sleight of Hand skill(both involve flexibility of the hands/body) instead of how it is now for Theft. Instead, combine Open Lock and Disable Device together, as both skills are completely related and really do require Perception, Dexterity, and Intelligence to pull off, and not just good hand-eye coordination. These tow popular skills will always be focused on, even if they are separate skills, but combining them makes sense and also has the benefit of freeing up a few extra points to spend on other, less used skills.
The Fly skill is an interesting addition. I can see why it was made a skill, as it is a skill that can be acquired through the use of magic, but is also one possessed by creatures that can fly normally(either through the use of wings, internal gasses, or a permanent magical affect). On the other hand, it does suffer from the same problem that the Scry skill did- you must be able to fly somehow in the first place to use the skill. The earliest level a character will gain a fly spell is 5th, and as it is a Trained Only skill it presents a further problem to noob characters who get their hands on a Fly potion. It also prsents the problem of expaling how a 1st level character can train in flying. Potions of flying are expensive, and the simple fly spell is way beyond a novice's abilities. The one odd thing I noticed about the skill is that is doesn’t have any size penalty built into it. Massive creatures ought not to have the same maneuverability as tiny creatures. While this may end up being dealt with in the monster book, it still needs to be dealt with here, as you can of course have things like flying gnomes(Small), and flying, enlarged, fighters(or en-spelled flying giants or whatever). The Fly skill needs to take into account all of these varying factors for it to work well. The size of the flier is one omission that comes to mind. Simply adding the “Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8” size modifier will fix the size issue in regard to skill checks, but bigger things should also have to spend more movement to maneuver(that isn’t covered at all). An en-spelled flying ferret familiar might be able to practically turn on a dime, but a fire giant who drank a potion of flying probably can’t (speaking of which, Fly should not be a Trained Only skill, as anything can be made to fly via spell or potion). Big things should have to move at least a certain amount before being able to conduct a maneuver. Maneuverability Class handled this before, but taking it out is not a good idea and it needs to be included in some way under the Fly skill. Also, the collision section of the Fly skill should have its DC modified by the current height of the flier as well(maybe DC 25, -2 for every 100 feet of height of the flier), if you collide with something 40 feet above the ground, yes, you are probably going to crash and burn, but if you collide with something at 800 feet in the air, you have a much better chance of pulling out of your death dive in time. There is no distinction made in regard to height when a collision happens under the skill as it is written. 10 feet or 10 miles in the air, it is DC 25 or nothing. That paragraph that says you cannot avoid a fall if you are involved in a collision should therefore be removed as the above option would cover the situation. I’ll leave it to you to hammer out the details though. I’m just here to provide opinions.
As to the revision of the 4 Core classes, I mostly like what I see. I think I get the gist of how Orisons are intended to work, but perhaps this re-wording would make it a bit more clear:
“Orisons (Sp): Clerics can prepare a number of orisons, or 0-level spells, each day. They can cast each of these prepared spells an unlimited number of times per day, at will, as a spell-like ability. The number of orisons a cleric can prepare each day is noted in Table 4-2 under spells per day. Orisons are treated like any other spell cast by the cleric in terms of duration and other variables based on level. Orisons cannot be channeled through spontaneous casting.”
If Orisons(and Cantrips) are NOT intended to work this way, please explain a bit more about how they are intended to work.
Also, unless druids have some fantastic abilities that already give them bonuses with regards to the 4 elements and animals and plants, they should have access to two Domains the same as clerics do. I’ll have to wait and see what is done with them though. Perhaps they will have a few abilities that they will be able to make use of at will too.
One other thing. Black Tentacles(Evard's Black Tentacles) used to be such a simple thing to take care of in 1e/2e. Please bring the Pathfinder version more in line with what the effect once was. Roll a simple Reflex save to avoid the tentacles or be nabbed. Strength check vs. DC 10 + caster level + ability modifier to break free, or do so much damage(tentacle has 1 hp/2 caster levels perhaps) to a tentacle to destroy it(and break free). The current damage level is just fine. It is just a royal pain to make use of this spell in-game when it has grabbed a whole crap-load of enemies. Resolving this spell each round slows the pace of the game such that even a sloth would scream "Hurry the **** up with that spell effect already!!!" Do this with Entangle too, and leave Grappling for non-spell related effects that target individuals(not groups). _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Ragr, Monte announced the BoEM some time ago; its a collection of house rules and updates of previous products, though it is still 3.5. Haven't seen much out of Malhavoc Press of late, overall; after Ptolus, things have kind of dried up over there, it seems... _________________ Greyhawk is dead; long live Greyahwk! It is not heresy; I will not recant!
Perhaps you could introduce a Feat called “Variant Training: Choose any two Cross-class Skills. These skills now count as Class Skills for you.” That would cover those instances where players want to play a character of a certain class, but who has skills outside of the norm and knows them very well. While it doesn't suit my view perfectly(like you can ever make all the people happy all the time anyways ;) ), the Skills system is still greatly improved. Some of the racial abilities also address this issue(half-elves and humans), but it would be a good option to make available to anyone through the use of a Feat slot.
Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly here. I think we (those of us who prefer a bit more organic growth to skills) should use skill points, and use the simple system for NPCs that don't really matter. I know I did basically just that for NPCs when I had full stats for them, unless they were some custom crafted masterpiece meant to survive more than one encounter with the PCs.
Cebrion wrote:
The one odd thing I noticed about the skill (flying) is that is doesn’t have any size penalty built into it. Massive creatures ought not to have the same maneuverability as tiny creatures. While this may end up being dealt with in the monster book, it still needs to be dealt with here, as you can of course have things like flying gnomes(Small), and flying, enlarged, fighters(or en-spelled flying giants or whatever). The Fly skill needs to take into account all of these varying factors for it to work well. The size of the flier is one omission that comes to mind. Simply adding the “Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8” size modifier will fix the size issue in regard to skill checks, but bigger things should also have to spend more movement to maneuver(that isn’t covered at all). An en-spelled flying ferret familiar might be able to practically turn on a dime, but a fire giant who drank a potion of flying probably can’t (speaking of which, Fly should not be a Trained Only skill, as anything can be made to fly via spell or potion). Big things should have to move at least a certain amount before being able to conduct a maneuver. Maneuverability Class handled this before, but taking it out is not a good idea and it needs to be included in some way under the Fly skill. Also, the collision section of the Fly skill should have its DC modified by the current height of the flier as well(maybe DC 25, -2 for every 100 feet of height of the flier), if you collide with something 40 feet above the ground, yes, you are probably going to crash and burn, but if you collide with something at 800 feet in the air, you have a much better chance of pulling out of your death dive in time. There is no distinction made in regard to height when a collision happens under the skill as it is written. 10 feet or 10 miles in the air, it is DC 25 or nothing. That paragraph that says you cannot avoid a fall if you are involved in a collision should therefore be removed as the above option would cover the situation. I’ll leave it to you to hammer out the details though. I’m just here to provide opinions.
Actually that's covered under manueverability in the Monster Manual/SRD. Below is the link to the tactical movement table at d20srd.org. Most creatures larger than medium have poor maneuverability, and more than a few larger than huge have clumsy. Just take a look at dragons for an example.
As to the revision of the 4 Core classes, I mostly like what I see. I think I get the gist of how Orisons are intended to work, but perhaps this re-wording would make it a bit more clear:
“Orisons (Sp): Clerics can prepare a number of orisons, or 0-level spells, each day. They can cast each of these prepared spells an unlimited number of times per day, at will, as a spell-like ability. The number of orisons a cleric can prepare each day is noted in Table 4-2 under spells per day. Orisons are treated like any other spell cast by the cleric in terms of duration and other variables based on level. Orisons cannot be channeled through spontaneous casting.”
If Orisons(and Cantrips) are NOT intended to work this way, please explain a bit more about how they are intended to work.
That's pretty much my own understanding on it.
Cebrion wrote:
Also, unless druids have some fantastic abilities that already give them bonuses with regards to the 4 elements and animals and plants, they should have access to two Domains the same as clerics do. I’ll have to wait and see what is done with them though. Perhaps they will have a few abilities that they will be able to make use of at will too.
I'd say that Druids are already powerful enough, and have massive amounts of options each round. Clerical options have always boiled down to "Do I heal the fighter, cast a spell, or turn undead?" Not all are available each round. I'm still unsure on the change to turning/rebuking undead, though it is highly intriguing. I see no reason why druids wouldn't have the same deal with 0 level spells that wizards and clerics have - it just makes sense. Same with Bards in that respect.
Cebrion wrote:
One other thing. Black Tentacles(Evard's Black Tentacles) used to be such a simple thing to take care of in 1e/2e. Please bring the Pathfinder version more in line with what the effect once was. Roll a simple Reflex save to avoid the tentacles or be nabbed. Strength check vs. DC 10 + caster level + ability modifier to break free, or do so much damage(tentacle has 1 hp/2 caster levels perhaps) to a tentacle to destroy it(and break free). The current damage level is just fine. It is just a royal pain to make use of this spell in-game when it has grabbed a whole crap-load of enemies. Resolving this spell each round slows the pace of the game such that even a sloth would scream "Hurry the **** up with that spell effect already!!!" Do this with Entangle too, and leave Grappling for non-spell related effects that target individuals(not groups).
I thought the Pathfinder mechanic itself is pretty straightforward. CMB+15 is the base DC to hold someone. Evard's has its bonus in the spell description. The Grapple mechanic is one of the things I most like about their rules. Its simple, elegant, and boils every grapple to a single roll, much like combat - LIKE IT SHOULD BE!! YAY! Sorry, while I understood the old rules, I am VERY happy to see the change. and rolling a grapple on that many people is no different now than rolling an attack on that many people. (And I see no reason why the DM couldn't roll one attack and compare it to all the base grapple DCs of the players, or the player do the same versus a large number of NPCs).
The biggest thing I like about their rules changes is you can stick a summary on a single page and have them there for quick reference. Of course you'll need to refer to the rules if you have a question, but once you know the rule, all you really need are the DC threshholds.
I am very glad to see this happen. I have been against 4th edition since I saw the Dragon Magazine article featuring the rogue build. I feel that the art and gameplay of the new game is too far drenched in new standards of rpgs based off of video and mmo games.
I like to keep my brands of games separate, I do not like the heavy WoW influences of 4th edition, regardless of how often I have had that point argued against.
Paizo is doing a good thing, I hope they do well with it.
Since I haven't updated to the 3.x rules I have even less taste for 4E. Even so it gladdens me to see Paizo do the reasonable thing towards their customers. If only they could have retained the rights to Greyhawk and the future would be as bright as the desert. A part of me really wishes to see WotC get burned by their business edition and the 3.x OGL proves that such an event won't be the end of the gaming business.
Gilban,
I am a 4e fence sitter. I have only seen dribs and drabs of the new rules and I don't feel that I can make a decision on whether I will like them, I will be indifferent to them, or I will hate them until I see the whole thing in front of me.
I too am gladdened by Paizo's decision to embrace and extend the 3.5 SRD. It gives me options. If I hate 4e, then I have two sources to steal rules ideas from for my 3e GH campaign.
No part of me wishes WotC ill. 4e will be the market leader for the RPG catagory (whether I like it or not) and there is no one that has the capital or the financial resources to lead the hobby if WotC were to stumble and then pull out of that segment of the gaming market.
In the short run that would be super bad for the hobby and those companies that live off the scraps that WotC leaves behind. I talked with Eric Mona after a panel at NorWesCon this weekend and he stated the same thing, there is WotC and then there is the rest of the hobby.
Personally, I think given WotC's crappy behavior towards potential 3rd party producers viz-a-vie the Game System License (GSL) has given Paizo no choice but to strike out on their own and be the master's of their destiny.
They have a little over a year to put together a rule book they can continue to publish long after the 3e WotC material is out of print. I think the Open Playtest works well with the resources they have to work with and getting, essentially, free help from the fans is a very smart move.
Even if the Pathfinder RPG bombs or doesn't have enough support to survive, they have bought themselves a year in which to scope 4e and the GSL. Their partnership with Necromancer will mean they will have contact with 4e developers. To me this is a win-win for them. Either their own edition is self-sustaining and provides them with a viable niche market or they can transition into 4e with far less uncertainty than if they roll the dice like Necromancer and Goodman have.
So, I am hoping that both editions do well. I am glad there is no one paying attention to Greyhawk right now, the setting needs a bit of fallow time where some creativity for its own sake can take root. That way if there is a Greyhawk revival, perhaps we can provide some of the people to help that along.
Also, unless druids have some fantastic abilities that already give them bonuses with regards to the 4 elements and animals and plants, they should have access to two Domains the same as clerics do. I’ll have to wait and see what is done with them though. Perhaps they will have a few abilities that they will be able to make use of at will too.
I'd say that Druids are already powerful enough, and have massive amounts of options each round. Clerical options have always boiled down to "Do I heal the fighter, cast a spell, or turn undead?" Not all are available each round. I'm still unsure on the change to turning/rebuking undead, though it is highly intriguing. I see no reason why druids wouldn't have the same deal with 0 level spells that wizards and clerics have - it just makes sense. Same with Bards in that respect.
Cleric options boil down to healing the fighter, casting a spell, turning undead, or taking part in combat.
Druids options are much the same, being healing the fighter, casting a spell, or taking part in combat(either through Wild Shaping or not), except in the combat department Druids suffer a bit due to their inability to wear more protective forms of armor and animal forms are not known for good AC either. Druids of course cannot turn undead. What is this massive amount of powers that Druids have that they can use multiples of each round? Nature sense? Woodland Stride? Trackless Step? Resist nature's Lure? Not quite the most useful of powers when one gets in the thick of it.
A Cleric can memorize a bunch of summoning spells and spontaneously change them to healing spells. A Druid can memorize a bunch of healing spells and spontaneously change them to summoning spells. Druids don't have Domain powers at all, which is something that either provides additional power choices to a Cleric or that directly affect spells that they may use each round. Clerics also get bonus Domain spells, so they also can have more memorized spells than Druids.
So, Clerics do indeed get a few more benefits than Druids do. Druids could use access to Domain powers, but I can see why that may not be the best option. It might be better to give them a few organization templates to draw powers from which would provide benefits similar to Domains/Schools. For instance, instead of a list of Domain powers there could be a list of powers representative of one of various Druidic organizations. A Dark Druids sect might have a certain list, a Nature Druids sect(the archetypal Druid basically) might have a list, and Elementalist Druids might have a list. Maybe there could be one or more other types too. This would also serve to differentiate Druids further from Clerics. Druids would of course have access to orisons in the same way as Clerics do.
Other than these things, I am most interested in seeing what Paizo does with the stat block and how much simpler it will be. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Has anyone heard any news concerning when the next part of the Pathfinder Alpha Test will be released? If they are going to release the Beta Test in August, they will need to get these other two remaining Alpha Test releases out soon so the full balance can be playtested together.
Has anyone heard when Alpha release 3 will be available from the Paizo site?
It's out now, but I'm assuming most of you know this already. Some fans are hoping that their pre-orders of the printed Beta Release will ship soon.
and add me to the list of people happy about what Paizo is doing. I'm a huge fan of their 3.5 products, and I'm eager to get get my hands on the Beta release of the Pathfinder RPG.
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
)
