Jump to content


Recommended Posts

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.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
  • Haha 5
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bruunwald said:

 

To me, the biggest turnoff of Starfinder is that the fluff is in many ways inextricably linked to the crunch.

I'm not sure I get what you mean about this.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow!

 

I just texted Grump the notice, which did no good at all, because I just heard his phone get the text.

 

It's still plugged into the wall.

 

And people wonder why I talk to him so much on the forums.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 13

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Floyd Ryan
      This is Barzillai Thrune, the major villain from the Pathfinder Hell's Rebels campaign. I painted him as a service to my DM because we are currently playing that campaign and my intuition tells me that it will be needed some day. The mini is extremely faithful to the original Wayne Reynolds art and I also used the same colour scheme, but I regret using my standard unimaginative "block of acryl paste" base. With the burning mace the mini would be excellent for OSL experiments and there are two fine versions of it on the forum with lighting effects, but I thought to late about the idea and was reluctant to add it to the almost finished mini.
       
       




    • By Floyd Ryan
      So here is my take on the famous Pathfinder Sorceress Seoni. I mostly kept to the original color scheme but wanted to find out how a green dress would look.
       
       



    • By Brianuk
      I don't play Pathfinder but really liked the idea of Kul Inkit being a barbarian outfitted from a crashed spaceship. I tried to include spaceship grey and bright orange to suggest this. 


    • By PandorasGhost
      Hey everybody!
       
      Tried to get the word out by word of mouth, and decided on here might be a good way to go about it as well. The tables for gaming had to be altered from what was on the printed schedule due to some logistics issues. (Logic?! At a con?! Say it isn't so.)
       
      Games on GrowTix should reflect accurate locations (and hopefully always reflected accurate times). Also, there are printed schedules available on the table just beside registration. ALSO, ALSO, I attached the Xcel spreadsheet of the schedule if anyone wants to peruse.
       
      Joseph Wolf's Dreadmere games are still at Table 1 - under the big Dredmere banner. Tables 2 ,3, and 10 are various Roleplaying games, as per the schedule Table 4 is an all-day, every-day Freeblades demo - drop by and check it out! Tables 6 thru 9 are for Gamers looking for Pathfinder/Starfinder D&D Adventure League is now tables 11 thru 23, but Gamers taking part in DDAL are encouraged to head to Table 18, where Colby (and crew) will be marshaling GMs, getting players into games, and generally just controlling the madness of League events. Tables 24 thru 28 are going to host Frog God Games (in the Arabian rooms) ReaperCon 2019 Gaming.xlsx
    • By Metalchaos
      Good day everyone, here is my take at 89031, Tar-Baphon the Whispering Tyrant sculpted by Bobby Jackson. The 77531, Graveyard Fence Posts are also fron Reaper and were sculpted by Bob Ridolfi.                          
  • Who's Online   48 Members, 4 Anonymous, 328 Guests (See full list)

×