Paizo's Pathfinder RPG - Good for FG?

[gamerhawaii]

Is Paizo's decision to create their own RPG based on the 3.5 SRD good for people using Fantasy Grounds? It seems that it will be more open as well as close to the current 3.5 edition rules, so it may be easily supported by Fantasy Grounds. And those not interested in 4e may have another alternative. However, will it receive enough support by the RPG community?

[Stuart]

I'm not an overly avid fan of 3.5 but it works nicely and with all of it's flaws there is no denying its popularity and thus "gameability". Personally, having invested time to learn the rules, buy a number of books and pdfs plus crunch a number of the Goodman modules into FGII, I'm not about to change to 4th Ed. Especially since my preferred rpg system will be out on FGII later this year (barring any disasters). :D

I hope 4th Ed. works for those who want it too but at my advanced age ... sadly, "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" :o

So ... yup, good to hear that Paizo will use 3.5.

[Griogre]

I don't think Paizo's decision will hurt FG. I'm not sure it will help either. I doubt it will work long term for them and I think they got pushed into that decision by WotC/Hasbro dragging their feet on the new GL. I fully expect most D&D players to transition over to 4th ed like they did from AD&D to 3.0. (And no I'm not ignoring Stuart above - but he's really a rolemaster guy. ;) )

However, I think it might be a slower process than the AD&D to 3.0 was because of the 3rd OGL which will allow 3rd parties to easily keep 3.x going and extend the transition period. A much more restrictive GL for 4th may cause some publishers to try to stay 3.x but they will end up fighting for a shrinking number of customers. There is also the problem that it appears WotC is blowing the marketing effort for 4th in some ways. Horrible support for 3rd parties is going to restrict the number of 4th Ed products until the "early" adopter period is over (they appear to have screwed up so badly I expect things to change here).

From my very limited experience of 4th from Xorn's playtest, I think it is going to be a *lot* easier on DM's to run. If this is true then most DM's will jump - because 3.x can be such a chore to run/prepare monsters for just to have them die in a round or so at the higher levels.

[scytale2]

Although I think Griogre is spot on with 4th edition, I do think the new Pathfinder RPG, which looks suspiciously like D&D 3.51 (at least in its first incarnation) will be good for Fantasy Grounds, as it won't need much changing and will at least be a modern ruleset for people to utilise for their favourite mods or develop their own campaigns.

Will it receive enough support from the RPG community? I think it will receive some support, possibly enough to keep it going indefinitely, but frankly I think it's a borderline decision for Paizo on the back of very vocal Paizo fans and less through crystal clear strategic thinking, which may well have been made more difficult by secrecy from Wizards over the new edition.

[Malovech]

After looking at their alpha pdf, I have to say that it doesn't really change a whole lot. It simplifies a few things, but ulimately it's vanilla 3.5. Maybe that's a good thing, but I have to agree with scytale2 as a business decision you'd think Paizo would be all over 4th Edition.

[kalmarjan]

I don't think Paizo's decision will hurt FG. I'm not sure it will help either. I doubt it will work long term for them and I think they got pushed into that decision by WotC/Hasbro dragging their feet on the new GL. I fully expect most D&D players to transition over to 4th ed like they did from AD&D to 3.0. (And no I'm not ignoring Stuart above - but he's really a rolemaster guy. ;) )

However, I think it might be a slower process than the AD&D to 3.0 was because of the 3rd OGL which will allow 3rd parties to easily keep 3.x going and extend the transition period. A much more restrictive GL for 4th may cause some publishers to try to stay 3.x but they will end up fighting for a shrinking number of customers. There is also the problem that it appears WotC is blowing the marketing effort for 4th in some ways. Horrible support for 3rd parties is going to restrict the number of 4th Ed products until the "early" adopter period is over (they appear to have screwed up so badly I expect things to change here).

From my very limited experience of 4th from Xorn's playtest, I think it is going to be a *lot* easier on DM's to run. If this is true then most DM's will jump - because 3.x can be such a chore to run/prepare monsters for just to have them die in a round or so at the higher levels.


After participating in the playtest, I have to agree with Griogre.

Part of the stigma of D&D was the complexity of the game. In 3.0 we were promised something that would streamline D&D, and that really did not deliver. (Especially considering there HAD to be a 3.5) I know a lot of players/dms are leery of the change, but I promise you that 4E will be worth it.

Now, will Paizo's decision hurt FG? Not in the slightest. The great thing about FG is the customization built right in. I would like to see FG support the two. After all, the more rulesets we have, the more players we can attract to the game, which translates to more sales.

That is the benefit FG has over the DDI, it is NOT just centered on one ruleset. ;)

Sandeman

[Illrigger]

Pathfinder is just another SRD-made ruleset, same as all the others out there. FG will likely benefit from it, as people who already use FG will find it relatively easy to port it in.

On the subject of 4e, has anyone seen Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might? It's essentially a collection of the house rules he uses under 3.5e, but after reading it, it's amazing how close it comes to 4e. The class and levelling modifications and the new healing rules are essentially mirrors of what 4e is, and the new skill rules essentially serve the same purpose as what they did in 4e, just on a different tangent.

After seeing the D&D Experience stuff, I was skeptical on how much I'd really end up liking 4e, but given that the guy who wrote D&D 3e has independently come up with essentially the same rules in his game, I'm a lot less iffy on the chances of success.

BTW, the that book is a great resource for those who want a 4e flow to their games but want to protect their 3.5e investment. It is also a good "stepping stone" to get used to a lot of the concepts in 4e.

[Griogre]

After looking at their alpha pdf, I have to say that it doesn't really change a whole lot. It simplifies a few things, but ulimately it's vanilla 3.5. Maybe that's a good thing, but I have to agree with scytale2 as a business decision you'd think Paizo would be all over 4th Edition.
I think Piazo was forced into playing both ends against the middle. They managed to preseve some important options business wise: 1) They are using Necromancer Games to release a 4th ed Adventure Path called Iron Tower. So they are "in" 4th ed that way. 2) The Pathfinder RPG can go either of several ways. a) They might really keep it backward compatible which means they may be able to make money printing "3.x core book" replacements when WotC stops printing them on release of 4th Ed. b) Pathfinder might evolve to an effective 4th ed clone using the 3.0 OGL and side stepping the 4th Eds still unknown GL. c) They might even be able to pull off both.

The good news is with their "public" development they can let some of their customers determine which path it is going to be and get a large amount of marketing feedback which still keeping their hand in with 4th ed with Necromancer.

Naturally, this is my outside observations - for all I know Lisa, Eric and James all hate 4th ed - but I doubt it.

[Xorn]

From my very limited experience of 4th from Xorn's playtest, I think it is going to be a *lot* easier on DM's to run. If this is true then most DM's will jump - because 3.x can be such a chore to run/prepare monsters for just to have them die in a round or so at the higher levels.

I'm only quoting this for emphasis--the prep time in 4E compared to 3.xE really looks like it's going to be sooo much simpler. Even more than that though--running NPCs has been so much fun for me--because the difference in a kobld, goblin, hobgoblin, or orc was just how far the barbarian drove them into negative hitpoints. The NPCs in 4E really feel archetypical (is that a word?) to me--and I've had my play group express that it's kind of cool when you figured out that kobolds REALLY fight with mob tactics, and hobgoblins REALLY benefit from formations and militaristic fighting.

To comment on the original topic, I'm agreed that Paizo was really only following the logical course of action here. Keep waiting for a GSL that is long overdue, so they can not have a product ready to release earlier than people that don't shell out five grand, or they can take advantage of the 3.5 OGL/SRD, make a game system that cleans up 3.5 a bit, and try to retain as many of the 4E-resistant crowd as they can.

They didn't say they will never do 4E, just that they are going with Pathfinder right now. Plus they have their foot in the door with Necromancer, and two years from now, when 3.5 is played with the regularity of previous D&D editions (I'm not predicting 2 years, but I think the hold out will be longer then 3.0 > 3.5 was, for sure--Paizo being a big reason), I think Paizo still has the option to do 4E--it'll be a great day too, I love their adventure paths.

And both Paizo & Wizard folks have said there's no animosity between them, on the same forums. (EnWorld)

[DM Greg]

It's really just a timing thing. Paizo produces, for now, Pathfinder Adventure Paths in six, monthly installments. Planning for the 3rd AP is under way. WotC has not provided the GSL (the new version of the SRD) to the initial wave of 3rd party producers thereby forcing Paizo to either 1) wait for the GSL delivery, review it, and hold up their production schedule or 2) forge their own way with a supplementary product, Pathfinder RPG, to support their own line.

They went with option 2 while still being able to publish 4e stuff through Necromancer, who is rumored to be utilizing Paizo writers.

In the end it's win-win for the smaller company Paizo, who can play both sides, 3.x and 4e, until the 3.x crowd dies down...which if previous version of D&D are any example there'll be 3.x players for the next 30 or so years.

Later

[richvalle]

Since the Pathfinder RPG is SRD based, maybe Kevin @ Digital Adventures can make an official FG rules set for it. Heck, if that happens then FG could become THE VT for 3.5 vs WoTC's DI for 4.0.

Its still up in the air about how well FG will be able to support 4.0 so, in that regard, anything that helps FG keep adding new players is a good thing.

rv

[DM Greg]

Rich,

That is a fricking outstanding idea. While I'm not a WotC/Hasbro basher by any stretch of the imagination I'd love to see the team-up of two smaller companies produce a much tighter product than what's been revealed by WotC's Digital Initiative.

Paizo's already shown that they are willing to take risks - with something like this there's really no monetary risk to them so I'd say somebody should approach them.

Later,

[richvalle]

Hmmm, I wonder if I can get Kevin to buy that idea off me.

:)

rv

[joshuha]

Well its ultimately up to Paizo. While they are basing there rules off the SRD I am sure they will have some protected content in there. Although I haven't had a chance to look over their release though, so are they putting it out all out there as OGL?

[Xorn]

*waves his hands around a crystal ball*

Fantasy Grounds II will be like eating caviar on toasted almond crackers compared to GameTable, which will be like eating too much ****, spread over not enough burnt toast.

Heh, I don't mean for that to sound inflammatory to anyone here--and I'm not bashing WotC at all--I'm bashing their ability to make a virtual tabletop that will be worth $120/year per player, minimum.

[richvalle]

I think there might be some lower cost options for the DI VT. Something about being able to pay... $3? to play for one night. And the DM gets some freebies he can hand out to people.

Though neither one of those works well for a regular player in a steady game.

rv