Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Members

So this started to come up in a KS discussion so I thought I would just go ahead and start the topic to discuss it.  

 

I'm really not sure how I feel about it.  I'm all for fixing some balance issues and other things, but I'm worried they are going to make it too video game like and more like 4E.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 430
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

9 minutes ago, Clearman said:

That would quite funny, given that Pathfinder came into existence to cater to people fleeing 4e.

 

Wow, I did not know that. After you posted I checked dates and 4e came out in ‘08 (good lord, that long ago?) and Pathfinder came out in ‘09 (as rcently as that?).

 

We’re currently looking over the Starfinder players’ book and seeing some intriguing possibilities.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Pingo said:

 

Wow, I did not know that. After you posted I checked dates and 4e came out in ‘08 (good lord, that long ago?) and Pathfinder came out in ‘09 (as rcently as that?).

 

We’re currently looking over the Starfinder players’ book and seeing some intriguing possibilities.

I'd love to do a starfinder game if I had the time - but alas thats not going to happen. It looks very cool.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, hadn't been keeping up with this. Expected it was coming but still am surprised to see it. And disappointed.

 

This is probably the end of my interest in Pathfinder, in any case. Their entire utility was the preservation of 3.x as a living system. Since they're letting it die it'll of course become progressively niche, which is a shame. Even as the superior system imo it's always been a pain to sell it to (relative) normies who just expect their D&D to be actual D&D. With 5e here now and entirely serviceable, I just can't see investing time/energy/money in an offshoot of an off-brand game. From here on I imagine D&D again will be the go-to living game on my shelf as yet another edition falls under the dust of memorabilia.

 

 

Having said that, I'll probably be bored and caught up on bills and start picking up whatever they put out in a few years. But still.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with an update, per se. I mean, it has been ten years.

 

My problem is this plan to "infuse" Golarion into the core rules, I assume the same way the lore in infused into Starfinder.

 

To me, the biggest turnoff of Starfinder is that the fluff is in many ways inextricably linked to the crunch. As a creative person who writes a lot and likes to feel like I "own" something of my own efforts, I tend not to use pre-published material and find systems where too much fluff is incorporated into the rules to be cumbersome and intrusive. In the case of Golarion, I find the setting occasionally interesting, but largely tedious, and have no interest in core rules that act as a novelization or commercial for same. (I have been vocal on occasion of how much I dislike the name... terrible name for a world.) 

 

LOL - I must have made four or five posts on the Paizo site yesterday, airing this same grip. Doubtless, they will ignore myself and the people who agree with me, and that will likely end my previously long and happy relationship with Pathfinder.

 

Put it this way: one does not go out of one's way to intentionally buy a chocolate chip cookie full of raisins just so one can have the "privilege" of picking them out one by one.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Pingo said:

 

Wow, I did not know that. After you posted I checked dates and 4e came out in ‘08 (good lord, that long ago?) and Pathfinder came out in ‘09 (as rcently as that?).

 

We’re currently looking over the Starfinder players’ book and seeing some intriguing possibilities.

 

Yes.  I didn't realize there was over a full year between 4e and Pathfinder...

 

3.5e was so well loved, and as SamuraiJack mentioned 4e played so much like a video game, the community revolved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My group will get the new edition, and moving forward will likely switch to it for new games. My Homebrew game will remain Pathfinder 1st edition. It sterted as 3.0, then 3.5 and then Pathfinder. There was not a lot of conversion needed but enough that I don't want to have to do it again. If the New edition is vastly superior then that will probably be our go to fantasy system.

 

39 minutes ago, Bruunwald said:

To me, the biggest turnoff of Starfinder is that the fluff is in many ways inextricably linked to the crunch. As a creative person who writes a lot and likes to feel like I "own" something of my own efforts, I tend not to use pre-published material and find systems where too much fluff is incorporated into the rules to be cumbersome and intrusive. In the case of Golarion, I find the setting occasionally interesting, but largely tedious, and have no interest in core rules that act as a novelization or commercial for same. (I have been vocal on occasion of how much I dislike the name... terrible name for a world.) 

 

 

I agree with this. I like the Pathfinder fluff and enjoy playing in adventure paths, but when I run, I want to run my world with my lore and my story. I have and still do incorporate some Golarion stuff I like in my homebrew, but don't want to have to rename or repurpose everything.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dr. Wyrm said:

Pathfinder as a rules set lends itself well to home games, even if the game world is radically different from Golarion.

 

Starfinder is a little harder to port to other properties (your group wants to do Star Wars/Trek/B5/BSG/Homebrew Space). certainly it's not impossible but some people find it trickier.

I'm coming to this discussion from having run Starfinder as a home game where I have been bending the rules over backwards to do weird things. I've got experience with d&d 3.5 in non core settings, but I've only really glanced at pathfinder. None of these really seemed like generic rules in the same vein as like savage worlds, or true 20, but they seem to work fine for other settings that are in their same genre.

 

Is it just that mechanical effects have names taken from the setting or is there something specific that pathfinder 1 did that made this easier?  alternatively if someone has a good link to something that explains what the difference is that works too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the Golarion setting, but in the infrequent games that I do play I prefer to use Basic Fantasy or Labyrinth Lord. I don't have patience for juggling all the abilities, and feats, etc. 

 

I hope they do well with it. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Wyrm said:

I believe it's the immersion-breaking of game mechanics with setting-based names.

 

I've not read Starfinder, and don't know the extent fluff and crunch are intermixed, but can it be abstracted?  When playing D&D in my youth, we all know Melf, Tenser, and Bigby were all wizards from the Greyhawk setting, but it didn't really phase anyone...

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been playing Pathfinder lately, and in the abstract I can sympathize with some of the stated goals of the revamp.  However, the big appeal for me for Pathfinder is that it's largely compatible with the huge glut of d20 material I accumulated back during the "OGL" boom back in the Aughts and somehow never got rid of.  It's kind of nice to have a huge collection of already-written adventures, and the ability (at least theoretical) that even if Pathfinder institutes a few "tweaks," I could still run those same adventures largely as written.

 

If they "overhaul" the system too much, that's going to go away as a selling point.  I don't know if that's what they're going to do.  I guess I might not really know for sure until August.  In the meantime, I'm still playing Pathfinder on Fantasy Grounds, and I don't foresee shelling out lots of $$$ to retool all our Fantasy Grounds mechanisms to account for a slightly-but-significantly-changed system.  Also, a friend of mine is starting up a "Kingmaker" campaign in a few weeks, so I guess I'll get a refresher on what it's like to play at an actual tabletop, too.

 

I can only hypothesize.

 

The stated desire to tackle the complicated tier of action types -- standard, move, full-round, immediate, free, swift, etc. -- and to simplify it ... yeah, I guess I can appreciate that.  It's a little bit of a speed bump if I'm new to the system, or having to bounce between too many game systems on a regular basis to remember what sort of action is what.  However, it really never struck me as a game-breaker in need of an overhaul per se.

 

The desire to tackle the relationship between the need for PCs to accumulate newer and better arms and armor with higher pluses to hit and damage and protection in order to meet the challenge scale of encounters at higher levels?  Okay, I'm all ears about that, but it could be good or bad.  For one thing, for a long time we've made jokes about some player acquiring and getting excited about his shiny new +1 Backscratcher with its long and storied history of heroics ... and then selling it off without a second thought to Ye Olde Magik Pawne Shoppe as soon as he finds one with a *+2* bonus.  Story-wise, it just seems kind of silly how magic items are so monetized and TRIVIAL in the Pathfinder universe -- even though the amounts of cash involved are enough that you could sell your +1 magic sword and BUY A NICE HOUSE, so the economy's really weird, and things get really messy as soon as a PC gets it into his head that maybe he should try raiding merchants for their vast stores of magic items and gold pieces rather than raiding dungeons.  But I digress.

 

On the other hand, we've been playing "Rise of the Runelords" online, and I've really had my face rubbed around in the meta-aspect of how encounter ratings at higher levels are based on the ASSUMPTION that PCs at a certain level will have acquired powerful combat-ready magic items of a certain power level.  Once upon a time, when I was young and naive, when I managed to get some amulet or dagger with a nice shiny bonus to it, I imagined that it would make it all the easier to survive the next encounter with goblins.  What I didn't realize was that we'd never see a goblin again, and instead it's up from there to orcs, bugbears, and so on, in a never-ending arms race -- and if I DON'T get those weapon upgrades, I'm going to fall behind.  (And the GM has been fretting that the GM guidelines tell him, "At this point, the PCs should be at such-and-such level, and have thus-and-such GP worth of combat gear," and yet we aren't, and we don't, and apparently this campaign world offers us absolutely nothing in the way of "side-quests" we can go on to try to address this deficiency, so I'm rather NERVOUS about the next installment, considering how perilously close to TPK we keep getting.)

 

So ... removing the arbitrary acquisition of +X weapons and armor from the combat difficulty equation?  Sounds interesting.  I have no idea how that's supposed to HAPPEN without getting terribly video-gamey about it ("Lo and behold, as a level 5 Warriordude, a +1 magic sword MATERIALIZES in your hand with level-up sparkles and fanfare!") but I'll be curious to find out.

 

...

 

Now, one thing that concerns me a little more is this mention of the idea that Feats are now going to be a function of not merely your class, but also of your race -- er, I mean, "Ancestry."  (Okay, seriously, I don't mind replacing the term "Race" with "Ancestry."  It sounds less scary, and prompts me to be less picky when it's really a matter of SPECIES.)  That sounds a little too much like what I thought was happening in 4th Edition, where, by virtue of being an Orc or Dwarf, you're just going to get these ANCESTRY-specific benefits at level 5 and 10 and 15 or whatever.

 

I suppose that the INTENT is because they think, "Gee, isn't it terrible that your Ancestry is so important at character creation, but then it becomes less and less important as you increase in level as a hero?"  But to that, I think ... WHY NOT?  I mean, to me it seems entirely appropriate that when you start as a novice, factors beyond your character's control (such as the matter of his birth) are going to have a large impact on his starting connections, wealth, etc.  However, as he distinguishes himself as a hero, it only makes sense that his choices in career and his personal accomplishments will come to be more prominent in defining him as a character.  If anything, I think it's GREAT that as you increase in level, any two Dwarf Clerics or Half-Orc Fighters or Human Rogues will be less likely to be mirror-reflections of each other.

But ... ah ... I've only heard some very, very vague things.  I don't know where they're going with it.

 

Just please, PLEASE, please, whatever happens ... let me still use the same minis!  :D

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the announcement yesterday. Sure seems like they're taking ideas from D&D 5th edition, with backgrounds that provide mechanical benefits and the use of reactions during rounds and defining monster challenge by more than just hit dice...

Hmmmm.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Rickdraco
      I saw the Rocky miniatures, and with how cute they are I could not resist getting one to use as a dragon to send against my players. As such, here is my take on the Flying Rocky, as a juvenile Red Dragon!
       
      Comments, criticisms and advice as ever more than welcome! 
       

    • By kazmania7
      She I did try to copy the fan art on her. Again not happy with the way the hair turned out in the back...ugh...nightmarte for me.




    • By kazmania7
      Mortisha Adams? nope just a drow.




    • By strawhat
      I started Rimeblast a couple weeks ago.  She's the first thing I've painted in some time.  It won't be anything special (I've got to learn how to up my game one of these days), but it's a start.
       
      This won't be a real in-depth thread, just the "end of the night" update after a painting session.
       

       
      Well, that was where I started.  I knew that the "white" dragon wouldn't be white.  It's not the way things are in the world where Rimeblast dwells.  But, this is the Ocean Colors triad (specifically Deep Ocean), which isn't just blue enough.  
       
      So, after a couple weeks of unhappy-back-of-the-mind pondering I pull out the paints again.  This is where I am now.
       

       
      This is better.  This is Sky Blue with little bits of Deep Ocean peaking through.  I'm "OK" with that.  It gives some variation so she's not (quite) all the same shade.  I'm thinking I'm going to take a heavy drybrush of Frosty Blue, and then a lighter drybrush of Ghost White, or even Sparkling Snow, to finish the scales. 
       
      The scutes (belly scales) have received a coat of Foggy Grey which is, I've discovered, very close to the shade of Vallejo grey primer already on it.  I'll likely be using Pure White and Sparkling Snow to finish those up--assuming I don't go back and redo them in Rainy Grey.  I'm afraid the countershading will be a little too "bright" if I leave them at "Foggy."
       
      I'm still not sure where I'm going to take the spinal ridge, crest, and wings.  The bones/supports in the wings bug me a bit.  I keep thinking that there should only be three or four support "fingers" (like a bat), and there a lot more there.  Pardon me while I over-analyze fantasy creature morphology.  
       
      Thanks for dropping by!
       
    • By kazmania7
      OMG what's with me and drow nowadays.... this one I tried to stay true to the pathfinder fanart




  • Who's Online   23 Members, 3 Anonymous, 32 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...