Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SamuraiJack

Pathfinder Version 2

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, PaganMegan said:

I was talking about Background, which IS in the current Pathfinder, and which 5e DID borrow from Pathfinder.

 

 Actually, the 5th Ed. Backgrounds were borrowed from 4E, first published in the PHB2... The 4E backgrounds didn't give you proficiency in any skills, but they did allow you to add particular skills to your class list, and some of them gave you some gear or an additional language.

Certain campaign-dependent backgrounds actually gave you tangible benefits, like a bit of fire resistance from one of the Forgotten Realms location backgrounds, and others were particularly useful, such as Born Under A Bad Sign which let you use your highest stat for your HP bonus instead of CON...

 

 

 

Edited by Mad Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marvin said:

 

 

And I mean, they werent that bad or anything, but still. The flavor's all over the place, seems like. I actually don't understand why the D&D powers didn't do an entirely straight, clean PHB for 5e and then release a kickin' guidebook for pertinent settings. I understand wanting to avoid the overload of previous editions, but I'd've been all-in on such a setup.

 

And see, that's something that I thought the 5E PHB got right!  For every thing that could have been setting specific they showed how it could work in the various existing settings.  Like how sun elves from FR were High Elves and so forth.  the 3E PHB only listed the Greyhawk deities, while the 5E book listed Greyhawk, FR, Eberon, Norse, Egyptian and so forth.

 

Now, all of the adventures they have released have all taken place in the FR; and the other source books have a leaning towards the FR.  But the PHB seems fairly neutral from my point of view.

 

As always, just my opinion, YMMV and so forth.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm cautiously optimistic.  We don't know much about what's changing.  I know if they make equipment leveled like Starfinder (this is a level 3 gun that does more damage than a level 1 gun but you can only use a level 1 gun...) I'll be disappointed.  I also don't want to see a joke of an economy that Starfinder is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dilvish the Deliverer said:

And see, that's something that I thought the 5E PHB got right!  For every thing that could have been setting specific they showed how it could work in the various existing settings.  Like how sun elves from FR were High Elves and so forth.  the 3E PHB only listed the Greyhawk deities, while the 5E book listed Greyhawk, FR, Eberon, Norse, Egyptian and so forth.

 

Now, all of the adventures they have released have all taken place in the FR; and the other source books have a leaning towards the FR.  But the PHB seems fairly neutral from my point of view.

 

As always, just my opinion, YMMV and so forth.

 

Oh, yeah, it's got stuff related to all the settings, and I agree that's better than making it straight Realms-themed or something--but I'd've found it better still to have dispensed altogether with the setting info practically altogether in the core material. And that's maybe an oddball idea, idk.

 

I'm hoping they do drop some adventures in other settings--I'd like to see Greyhawk and Eberron particularly--but I do think adventures, especially of the path-type lengths as they've been, should be setting-specific. That makes sense at every level for ready-to-run DM materials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pretty much abandoned D&D when they went to 3.x, and slowly got back into it.  I never got into Pathfinder.

The more I explored the OSR, the more I discovered that more rules didn't make the game better for me.

 

So, I wish Paizo lots of luck, but their game never reflected the worlds I wanted to play in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mad Jack said:

 

 Actually, the 5th Ed. Backgrounds were borrowed from 4E, first published in the PHB2... The 4E backgrounds didn't give you proficiency in any skills, but they did allow you to add particular skills to your class list, and some of them gave you some gear or an additional language.

Certain campaign-dependent backgrounds actually gave you tangible benefits, like a bit of fire resistance from one of the Forgotten Realms location backgrounds, and others were particularly useful, such as Born Under A Bad Sign which let you use your highest stat for your HP bonus instead of CON...

Though Grump already mentioned the options in Pathfinder, you could even go as far back as 1st edition AD&D Unearthed Arcana for background generation. I still remember the DM section having tables for family, number of siblings, social class (Lower-Lower-Class is basically a freed slave, Upper-Upper-Class is wealthy royalty.)

 

Though in most cases, background had little effect on current PC skills and abilities. Traits in Pathfinder were the first time I remember background options actually giving something unique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TheAuldGrump said:

 

 

I... am not actually convinced in regards to the simplified monster creation - I prefer a mechanistic, structured approach, and am afraid that this may be borrowing too much from 5e. I like having the same mechanics between creatures and PCs.

 

But I might well be in the minority on that one.

 

 

Me, too. To my mind, it only makes sense. Not only does standardization make a system easier to understand in general, it also better ensures more balanced encounters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paradoxical Mouse said:

On fluff - I've known several people who complained about Pathfinder because there wasn't enough fluff. A number of people I know up like to read the handbooks cover-to-cover like books and appreciate the fluff. Then again, I mostly know gamers who started in the last 10 years, due to my age. 

 

Pathfinder's core books had no less fluff than did the 1st through 3.X editions of the D&D core books. Technically speaking, D&D's old default setting was Greyhawk, but you would never know it from reading just core because it was incredibly generic and rather transparent. There were merely the barest mentions of elder spellcaster names in the spell titles, and a handful of deities. Otherwise, it was not much more than a hodge podge of tropes from fantasy, myth and literature.

 

So it's hard to imagine what the comparison is. You have forty-some-odd years' tradition worth of non interference vanilla rules there, right from the source of the hobby itself.

 

I can appreciate fluff where the setting existed beforehand. For instance, I like the Iron Kingdoms. I like Warmachine/Hordes, and I own the IK RPG books. I bought those for the fluff. But I will never play an IK RPG. Because I don't like getting other people's fluff in my storytelling, and you can't extricate it in such a severe case.

 

As to Pathfinder not having enough fluff, one should note that it began as a campaign setting, has volumes upon volumes of campaign setting expansions available, novels, Golarion-themed splatbooks, and an endless line of adventure paths. With that extreme level of fluff available on cheap PDFs to anybody who wants it, regardless of whether they ever even play the game itself, I fail to see why it has to invade the vanilla ruleset.

Share this post


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

Pathfinder's core books had no less fluff than did the 1st through 3.X editions of the D&D core books. Technically speaking, D&D's old default setting was Greyhawk, but you would never know it from reading just core because it was incredibly generic and rather transparent. There were merely the barest mentions of elder spellcaster names in the spell titles, and a handful of deities. Otherwise, it was not much more than a hodge podge of tropes from fantasy, myth and literature.

 

So it's hard to imagine what the comparison is. You have forty-some-odd years' tradition worth of non interference vanilla rules there, right from the source of the hobby itself.

 

I can appreciate fluff where the setting existed beforehand. For instance, I like the Iron Kingdoms. I like Warmachine/Hordes, and I own the IK RPG books. I bought those for the fluff. But I will never play an IK RPG. Because I don't like getting other people's fluff in my storytelling, and you can't extricate it in such a severe case.

 

As to Pathfinder not having enough fluff, one should note that it began as a campaign setting, has volumes upon volumes of campaign setting expansions available, novels, Golarion-themed splatbooks, and an endless line of adventure paths. With that extreme level of fluff available on cheap PDFs to anybody who wants it, regardless of whether they ever even play the game itself, I fail to see why it has to invade the vanilla ruleset.

Ok, so most people I know DID NOT play at all before 5e. 5e made D&D approachable because the core rules weren't just table after table, they had stuff breaking up the tables, interesting setting type stuff. 

 

Rulebook without fluff are just dry reference material are just reference books that are only read by the most obsessed with the game and make the game less approachable. Adding the fluff lets people read and get a bit of flavor, be able to imagine how the world is while learning.

 

Otherwise, they are relegated to books where you just look at the rules you care about immediately...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Werkrobotwerk said:

No. This is not what I am getting at.

 

what I am getting at is an attempt to understand what the specific complaint is. Dr. wyrm's statement about setting names within the rules gets toward what I am trying to understand. I do not agree with it, but convincing people of it or being convinced is not my goal. I want to get to what factors cause this to be an issue for some people so I can better understand what causes people to choose one ruleset over another for specific uses, and to that end what use do people put pathfinder to that doesn't match their new rules changes.

Okay, that's fine. No offense meant. You seemed to be cautiously getting somewhere using brief posts, and it seemed like that was the direction.

 

I can be wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Paradoxical Mouse said:

Ok, so most people I know DID NOT play at all before 5e. 5e made D&D approachable because the core rules weren't just table after table, they had stuff breaking up the tables, interesting setting type stuff. 

 

Rulebook without fluff are just dry reference material are just reference books that are only read by the most obsessed with the game and make the game less approachable. Adding the fluff lets people read and get a bit of flavor, be able to imagine how the world is while learning.

 

Otherwise, they are relegated to books where you just look at the rules you care about immediately...

I wouldn't call any of those books "dry reference material." They are filled with exciting illustrations, game play examples, advice on world building, fascinating spell descriptions, and yes, a tiny amount of fluff.

 

"Dry reference material" is the old SRD WoTC put out that removed all actual IP and had only statistics, charts, and the barest instructions on how to use the rules. Yet, even that has a sort of fascination to it.

 

Now, you need to be careful. Implying that only the most obsessed people would ever bother to read any of the books that came before your time is wrong-headed and kind of gross. Do you really think you can dismiss entire generations of players like that?

 

Getting back to it, all I am saying is that vanilla rulesets are very handy tools. They are instruments for world building and storytelling, like guitars are instruments for music. You can always buy a new songbook if you want to do something new with that guitar. A guitar that is programmed to play one tune, would be pretty worthless to me.

Edited by Bruunwald

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Paradoxical Mouse said:

Ok, so most people I know DID NOT play at all before 5e. 5e made D&D approachable because the core rules weren't just table after table, they had stuff breaking up the tables, interesting setting type stuff. 

 

Rulebook without fluff are just dry reference material are just reference books that are only read by the most obsessed with the game and make the game less approachable. Adding the fluff lets people read and get a bit of flavor, be able to imagine how the world is while learning.

 

Otherwise, they are relegated to books where you just look at the rules you care about immediately...

 

I think this is pretty fair, if maybe overestimating both the dullness of the more straightforward early books and the usefulness of any PHB beyond rules referencing beyond the initial read-throughs. Marketing-wise it probably does make a lot of sense to include some sort of fluff in base materials to help hook the n00bz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Marvin said:

 

I think this is pretty fair, if maybe overestimating both the dullness of the more straightforward early books and the usefulness of any PHB beyond rules referencing beyond the initial read-throughs. Marketing-wise it probably does make a lot of sense to include some sort of fluff in base materials to help hook the n00bz.

There are few reasons I can think of, marketing wise, that might seem a benefit to Paizo for jamming the setting into the core, among them what you're saying here. There are also reasons I can think of why it's a bad decision, marketing-wise. Chief among them that Golarion isn't exactly a property as hot as Star Wars, the Cthulhu Mythos, WH40K, or even Forgotten Realms, and Paizo would be banking an awful lot on reeling people in on an IP that is years-tested, yet still not on many people's top ten lists.

Share this post


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

There are few reasons I can think of, marketing wise, that might seem a benefit to Paizo for jamming the setting into the core, among them what you're saying here. There are also reasons I can think of why it's a bad decision, marketing-wise. Chief among them that Golarion isn't exactly a property as hot as Star Wars, the Cthulhu Mythos, WH40K, or even Forgotten Realms, and Paizo would be banking an awful lot on reeling people in on an IP that is years-tested, yet still not on many people's top ten lists.

 

I meant it makes sense for D&D--I agree it doesn't seem to make as much sense for Paizo.

Share this post


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

I wouldn't call any of those books "dry reference material." They are filled with exciting illustrations, game play examples, advice on world building, fascinating spell descriptions, and yes, a tiny amount of fluff.

 

"Dry reference material" is the old SRD WoTC put out that removed all actual IP and had only statistics, charts, and the barest instructions on how to use the rules. Yet, even that has a sort of fascination to it.

 

Now, you need to be careful. Implying that only the most obsessed people would ever bother to read any of the books that came before your time is wrong-headed and kind of gross. Do you really think you can dismiss entire generations of players like that?

 

Getting back to it, all I am saying is that vanilla rulesets are very handy tools. They are instruments for world building and storytelling, like guitars are instruments for music. You can always buy a new songbook if you want to do something new with that guitar. A guitar that is programmed to play one tune, would be pretty worthless to me.

Ok. I started playing with 3.5. I didn't mean to be insulting, but I had my first 3 or 4 characters (all those before 5e) made more or less for me because I couldn't get through the rules.

 

This was true for many of my friends who gamed before 5e, as well. The rules only became interesting once you played several times with guidance.

 

Guitars are actually a good example of what I mean. While you can teach yourself to play a guitar and read music, It's difficult without a teacher, especially if you only have fingering charts and sheet music. However, with guided instruction books and interesting music, it becomes much easier. Most people read the music for their first songs and play familiar tunes. Very few start by writings songs, which could comparable to settings in your comparison. 

 

Additionally, most people don't want to invest in more than one book to learn to play a new game when the books can cost $25-50. It's a large investment for the younger audience, with no guaranteed reward. 

 

I don't quite personally understand why fluff vs. no fluff is so heated among veterans...maybe I haven't read enough rulebooks to know. I'm just stating observations as someone in the younger, newer to rpg audience new editions are usually aiming for. From veterans, I've heard an incredible amount that still play AD&D 1 and 2. With people still preferring their beginning system in general, new editions make more sense to market to gamers new or mostly new to the scene. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By HolkDiggity
      The Cleric in my D&D group leveled up and acquired the Spiritual Guardian skill. He needed a model to represent his Guardian. Honaire looks so cool, but he didn't have a shield. I found one in my bits box, and painted the symbol of his chosen Deity, Chauntea. I loved painting this because the simple palette left more room to just relax and enjoy the work.


    • By dks
      I don't actually have a "Shelf of Shame" of half-finished miniatures like some painters do, but if I did, this figure could have been on it.
      I sculpted Ulf Gormundr for Reaper's licensed Pathfinder line in late 2012.  Ulf is a character in the "Jade Regent" Adventure Path. 
      Although I have painted almost every one of the figures I've sculpted, I neglected to paint Ulf and a few others, mostly from 2012-2014.  Probably it was because Martin Jones was working as Reaper's staff painter and giving them good paint jobs for the gallery as soon as each figure was released.
      Several years ago, I prepped this metal casting of Ulf but then put it aside.  I removed the moldlines, patched a little pit in the handaxe, clipped away and bent the wolf-pelt leg (which is attached to pommel of the sword in the original casting) to make the overall pose a little more dynamic, and twisted his sword slightly out-of-plane for the same reason.
       
      Despite the sheltering-in-place over the past eight weeks, I haven't painted or sculpted much (er... anything).  My painting area had gotten even dustier than usual.  I resolved to paint something this week.
      I poked around my painting area, found the prepped-but-unpainted Ulf, and spent a few late-night sessions painting him.
      The color scheme is the "official" one -- from the portrait by Wayne Reynolds on the cover of Adventure Path #51, plus the shield design by another artist in the interior of AP #50 (I don't know who, but there are several artists listed in the credits and I could rule out a few; does anyone out there know?). 
      The figure has some complicated layering of clothing and armor and gear (but I actually simplified Wayne Reynolds's design a bit for the miniature).  I made it even more fiddly with freehand textures.
       
      For the base, I glued the figure to a plastic base, sculpted a layer of putty over the top (including his last footprint behind him), painted it blue and white to look like snow, and glued on a "Winter Tuft" grass product.  I cut the smallest tuft into 3 sub-tufts because I didn't want to hide his legs behind a big clump of grass, especially in the front view.
       
      Enjoy!
       
        
       
       
      Derek
       
    • By Lostraven
      Here is Zadim, Iconic Slayer from the Pathfinder Iconics stretch goal to the core set. He was sculpted by Bobby Jackson and is also available in metal sku 60179. I kept pretty well to the Wayne Reynolds artwork for the colour scheme.
       




    • By Darcstaar
      Copyright 2012 Paizo Publishing.
       
      Using the Pathfinder Rules from the Pathfinder Core Rulebook
      Sixth Printing, 2013 and copyright 2009 and on
      Also uses Open Game License Content 1.0a Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast
       

       

      You can decide if you know each other before the start of the adventure, or are all randomly passing through this small rural town on your way to or from Korvosa.
      You have heard rumor that a carnival passes through this town, and have come to investigate and have some fun.
      As you mill about the carnival grounds, you can sample delicious food from vendors, view exotic sights or shows, and participate in games of skill and chance.
       
      Let me know what types of things you are interested in, and if/how you know each other.
    • By Citrine
      I forgot to post this mini which I recently finished, Reaper 60036 Visbaronetess Delour Aulamaxa from the Pathfinder line.  She is just such a hilarious and fun mini.  I tried my best to make her garish, but I just could not make myself paint her with clashing colors, which is why she took so long to finish, I was just stuck on what color to paint next.  If I had just realized there is a Pathfinder illustration with her, I would have used that color scheme.  
      Anyhow, here she is singing for the royal court!
       


  • Who's Online   35 Members, 4 Anonymous, 34 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...