d20radio.com

Well, its not really a light read - its something you actually need to use to get the most out of it. Also, unlike the D&D 4E rulebooks, its a little dry. Most rpg books this size I tend to skim to get the basic idea, then look in more detail as need arises.

I picked up a copy of the book, and I like some of what I've read (bard is still nigh useless), and IMO, they didn't really "fix" what was "broken" (i.e., no rhyme or reason for multi-classing, discrepancy between melee and casters as game progresses -- I think they actually made it worse!).

The new paladin is nice, but my PF playing pals call them the "broke-a-din". I like the bloodlines for sorcerers too.

If I could find someone to GM it, I'd play it, but my heart (and most of my wallet!) lies with 4E.

_________________
Run when you have to, fight when you must, rest when you can.

Well, i have mixed emotions, my group and i are going to play a 3.5 game, but we are not using pathfinder.

I am the only one in the group that has really looked at the book, and all I have is a digital copy. Hopefully in the not too distant future we will play a game with these rules.

_________________
"There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss, but when it looked back at us... you blinked."(Batman)

Well, the CMB/CMD (combat maneuver bonus/defense) makes grapple, sunder, move by, etc. much easier. It is all one roll, and if your roll + CMB beats their CMD, you are successful, so that is something that is better about PF than 3.x.

The book is very nice, but it's a large book (made for hand-to-hand combat!), so it's not "portable", but then again, are the 100+ 3.5 books?!

_________________
Run when you have to, fight when you must, rest when you can.

I run a Pathfinder game now as my primary season game. It started as 3.5, moved to Pathfinder Beta for a year, then resumed in Pathfinder RPG in September.

I'm going to throw out a couple points based on stuff I've read in previous posts, and my thoughts in general. All this is just my opinion, of course, but it comes with significant experience of *actually running the system* full time. Take with fist-full of salt.

1. Pathfinder RPG does not equal Pathfinder Beta. Period. In fact, translating from Beta to PFRPG is WAY harder to do than going from 3.5 to PFRPG. Anything you saw, read, or observed about the Alpha/Beta is moot; it was a big sandbox for a lot of ideas that were sometimes "not ready for prime-time" and cannot be compared. It's silly to try. I ended up just letting everyone rebuild their character at current level and asking them to try to keep the same flavor, at least, because it was so different.

2. The 3.5 Core books are all out of print. While the neckbeard/grognard claim that you have all the spells in other books is valid for veterans, it's ridiculous to hold that as a negative for the book overall as not facilitating NEW players with that information and relying on a permanently out-of-print book for reference is just about the worst business practice ever. I type this while looking at my leather-bound 3.5 core set, next to my two regular copies of the 3.5 PHB, and one of the other core books, AND the 3.0 core set.

It’s about growing the audience for Pathfinder too, not just sheltering those who don’t like the taste of the flavor-aid 4e sets out. Frankly, 50 dollars for a book that used to be two books which cost 30-40 dollars each is a cheaper deal any way you try to slice it.

3. Bards are not useless. I have one currently in my campaign, and the player is imaginative and has used the Bardic abilities to great effect already at 4th level. She has specifically saved the entire party at least three times, once in full-on combat (using the character strengths to hit and fade, counteract sonic attacks, focus range combat and generally rock the house), and twice by great use of diplomacy/social functions.

If your bard is not useful, I’m going to have to go with “yer doin’ it wrong” or your GM is not aware of how to handle situations that don’t end with “what’s your AC?” Am I being too harsh? Maybe. I have a pet peeve of people who read something, and yet with no functional experience running/playing whatever it is they pass strong negative judgment on it.

4. Paladins *may* be overpowered. I’m trying one out in Pathfinder Society play, and so far at low levels (1-7) it seems balanced but a little leaning towards strong… especially as the warhorse works as a druid animal companion with the pally level = the effective druid level for the horse. After 12-14, I might skirt broke, I think…. but I’m not convinced that it will be any more broke than a wizard with Color Spray, Reality Maelstrom, and Disintegrates.

5. 4E is awesome-sauce for a ton of people. I’m happy as hell that people like it, and I hope it brings more and more awesome people to the hobby. I loathe the system for my own gaming.

_________________
Acetaminophen
aka - GMDom; @GMDom (twitter)

Feel free to use my SAGA GM screen!

Just to refute a points that you commented on:

As far as the bard being useless, just because a player plays him one way (and please don't tell me "yer doing it wrong", because your way may not be the right way for others...), does not mean that all players are going to find them useful. They get less base skill points per level than the ranger, have a lower BAB, their spell choices are "ok", and I have to say that I (me personally) am not "in love" with their class features. The only class that I can say I said "Ugh" to more was some of the stuff they gave the barbarian ("hey, I'm raging, I can swim, jump or climb better!" What?). For the "jack of all trades, master of none", they fall short, IMO. And the fact that any cross-class skill can be picked up by any class, and the only "negative" is a lack of a +3 bonus, that means that any character with a high CHA (perhaps said ranger, or a sorcerer?) can achieve a very good Diplomacy skill. I'm not saying that they aren't "the awesomeness of all awesome" (or am I?), but at the lower levels, using countersong 1 time per day (maybe + stat? don't have my book in front of me right now) really isn't that great.

I was not commenting on the amount of 3.x books, just that the PFCRB is BIG, but not as bad as having to carry around the hundreds of 3.x books. Never said anything else about them.

As far as the "2 books in one", I've seen the "GM Mastery Book" advertised by Paizo (sounds kinda like a DMG too me!), but hey, if people want to shell out the $$$ for it, more power to them! I mean, I spent money on the PHB, PHB2, DMG, DM2, MM, MM2, etc for 3.x AND 4E.

And c'mon, the broke-a-din (and that's not a negative, I really, really like the new one) is broken. He can channel energy as effectively as a cleric of the same level, can smite, gets to lay hands, cast spells, gets all kinds of great weapons, gets plate (which a cleric doesn't anymore), but has to be a goody-goody (which I still disagree with, but that's a different arguement -- why can't a CN god have a "holy warrior"?).

And as far as your dislike for 4E, I don't recall anyone taking any "negative" shots at PFCRB. I throughly enjoy D&D (and yes, there is a difference now, as Pathfinder is Pathfinder and 4E is D&D -- can't argue patents and legalities of the name). I'm really looking forward to trying out PF, to at least give it a shot. The CMB/CMD will fix some of the stuff I didn't like about 3.x, as well as the lack of ECL for XP and such, but I'm still not sure that it will fix what I really disliked -- the disparity between a melee character and a spellcaster at the higher levels (oh yeah, and the magic system, although w/ the 0 level spells, they sure did take a page from the "at wills" from 4E!).

_________________
Run when you have to, fight when you must, rest when you can.

In the Advanced Player Guide, they're introducing Templars, which are LN to CN paladins, and the antipaladin, which is CE.

_________________
We lost a lot of good hit points that day.

For what its worth, given how "required" it is, the Pathfinder Gamemastery Guide is more like the 3.5 DMG II than the DMG itself. In other words, its got some useful tools for a GM, but you don't need it the way you needed the DMG in 3.5 to run a game, as that information is rolled into the core book.

_________________
"The things that we love tell us what we are."--Saint Thomas Aquinas

Oh, I've heard of the templar class, and I'm looking forward to it. I have just never (even back to 1st ed) been thrilled with the idea that only LG gods could have holy warriors. And KE, as far as the GM book goes, I was under that impression, that you didn't HAVE to have it. Hopefully it will be better than the 3.x DMG2 (ugh, I didn't really enjoy that book).

I don't want anyone to take what I'm saying negatively. The "reset" button has been hit (so to speak), and the rules are going back to before the 100's of splat book came out. I'm really looking forward to giving it a try (and admittedly, I haven't read through the entire tome yet, still trucking!) and then will give a more honest, concise opinion.

_________________
Run when you have to, fight when you must, rest when you can.

Agreed, although I like how the 3.5 sourcebook Unearthed Arcana introduced the three variant paladins. Basically, as long as you weren't neutral in any way, there was a paladin for you. Neutrality denotes a lack of firm commitment and therefore doesn't work with the idea of a devoted holy warrior. And since you can worship a god one step off your alignment, gods of every alignment had paladins.

_________________
We lost a lot of good hit points that day.

Hi man, glad to see you back and posting on the boards. I tried keeping quiet to give you a chance to pipe up, but that hasn't worked out that well. Yeah, I'm a hypocrite


Since I was the one that posted this, I feel kinda obligated to respond. I think a part of it was a lot of Paizo's early hype was that "You don't need to throw out your old books to keep playing a D&D that's actively supported!" Perhaps it was misdirected or misread; I can't really say as I didn't pay much attention to what Paizo was doing given my overall general dislike of 3.5, or at least the bad GM'ing it seemed to inspire.

Alpha and Beta come out, and from what I saw most of that was "okay, here's what we're changing folks!" So you probably have a fair amount of folks that figure "okay, cool, I'm getting just the stuff I need."

Now the final product comes out... and over half the book is stuff they kinda don't need. Handy to have in one place? Yes, and I don't disagree. Useful for new gamers that don't have the 3.X core books? Again, agreed.

Perhaps something Paizo could have done was released a smaller "update" book aka a "stingy gamer edition" much like Guardians of Order did for some of their books; after all, the 3.X diehards have already shelled out their money and then some. See again the backlash about WotC cranking out "summary re-print books" that simply just collected stuff from a lot of older books.

As for availability of the older OGL material (which is what Pathfinder is built upon):

http://www.d20srd.org/

Given the prevalence of electronic aids during gaming, if not outright purely online gaming, a website with what amounts to all the crunch content of the 3.X corebooks isn't an inconsequential thing.

_________________
"If you've never seen an elephant ski, then you've never been on acid."
- Eddie Izzard

Contributing Author of the GSA
Dono's Gaming & Etc Blog
Follow me on Twitter at @donovan421

They sold out of their initial print run on pre-orders. Being a small company, all their focus was on the Core Rulebook. Think about the ramifications of releasing a second book around that same time. Splitting their focus. Splitting their resources. Taking attention away from The Core Rulebook, the litmus test for the 3.5 market. Isn't it enough that they coincided the release of the Core Rulebook with a free downloadable 3.5 -> Pathfinder Conversion Guide?



And now Pathfinder-curious 3.5 players can read all the Pathfinder rules at the Paizo-run Pathfinder Reference Document: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/. Or they could buy the Core Rulebook PDF for $10. Or you can download the Beta rulebook, which is still free. Honestly, most of the things you're saying Paizo should have done with Pathfinder they did, or a version of it.

_________________
We lost a lot of good hit points that day.

I'm not going to argue about what Pathfinder did or didn't do, since I'm not the target market for their products (i.e. really don't care about d20-based fantasy RPGs these days). We could round and round and round in circles about it, but since that was what the OP wanted to avoid, I'm not going that route. Maybe it's just lingering hype backlash from all the frothing fanboys over at ENWorld when Pathfinder was announced, or maybe it's just that I wasn't the least bit impressed with Pathfinder as an alternative to 4e. To each their own.

_________________
"If you've never seen an elephant ski, then you've never been on acid."
- Eddie Izzard

Contributing Author of the GSA
Dono's Gaming & Etc Blog
Follow me on Twitter at @donovan421

Fair enough. What I understood from your post is that you felt Paizo was secretly trying to gouge 3.5 loyalists by forcing them to buy an expensive sourcebook. So I was just trying to inform you of cheaper options available to you. Even if you're never going to play the game, at least anyone interested in cheaper or free access to the rules knows what options Paizo has made available.

_________________
We lost a lot of good hit points that day.

All I was (and am) saying was "try one in practice with a GM that understands the mechanics behind and integrates social functions into the game, especially within combat situations". However, with all due respect, just because you don't want to be told it doesn't mean it might not truly apply. *shrug*

Why do I say that? Well, for one, your summary is factually incorrect after careful consideration of the effects of the class abilities overall. For instance, having a lower base for skill points are true in a single item comparison, but a deeper reading of the class will show that level bonuses and perform synergies are available which net WAY more skill points available to the character.

The points you bring up are the same that a few of my players did, and that indicates to me that you are skimming past at least a few sentences in the class description (which was true in their case as well). I'm also getting that the bard in practice holds no interest for you. I would ask that you read ALL of the text and try one out so that you understand how all of it goes together.

The word BARD originally referenced a type of poet. The goal of the class is geared toward that description, not tracking things down and killing them (as per Ranger). The purpose of the class is not (and should not be!) how many lightning bolts they can cast, or how good they are with a sword alone. If we don't compare apples to apples, then all we're doing is talking into the wind.

Given the available evidence, I'm going to stand by my prior and recent comments.

_________________
Acetaminophen
aka - GMDom; @GMDom (twitter)

Feel free to use my SAGA GM screen!