|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
So, after playing two test sessions of this, one as a player, other as a GM, I can certainly say that I will not be buying a single book. It's not for me. Nor people I game with. And I definitely don't want to introduce it to new people. Pathfinder is more than good enough.
Can you detail why? Which pain points did you run into?
Oh, yes, I'm the CEO. :D
I can't bring myself to quite simply avoid coming here because I've been a PF player and GM for a while. I can see why there is bias on a competitors forum but to wholly discount things when it's obvious you either haven't even looked at the competing product, you're lying, or being intentionally obtuse just grates me. In the other thread about trust, people really need to grow up and learn to be accountable for themselves which is another thing that grates on me. Actual age is secondary there which is even more frustrating.
How about you buy it, go to bed, and look to download it after work the next day only to find it not available? Still wouldn't feel wronged?
Nope; I had my opportunity. That'd be when I contact customer service for a refund. Failing that, because the transaction is super fresh, I can call my bank and tell them it was a fraudulent charge because I was denied the product so the business transaction was incomplete and the merchant was unwilling/able to complete it. Like magic I have my money back. I've done this before. It's a matter of understanding who actually works for you and putting that to use.
To the point, as a matter of principle I download my products right away because I don't trust a business. Being a programmer, I'm well aware that business decisions change daily which has sweeping repercussions on tech. I literally see it all the time in emails, in code that I have to ask questions about to find out base assumption has changed, etc. On top of that the random issues that can crop up in tech can also deny you access. Basically, get it while the getting is good.
The concept of trust in business is a PR scam even with Paizo. If they found it expedient to do so, their PDFs would be down in a matter of moments. That's just the reality of business. The only thing in business of import is what you have legal obligations to do so, period. Everything else is secondary. You don't trust companies, or, rather, you shouldn't.
So, I bought the product and had a chance to download it. How was I wronged? Just because it wasn't up the next day? That's immaterial. Unless there was a binding agreement (read: in a legal agreement and not some marketing slogan on the site) that you had with DTRPG then there's zero guarantee. That's a universal truth in business. If there were a binding agreement, then you'd have grounds to sue.
As far as I can tell, the whole "adjustable dials"/modularity thing isn't part of the game. Isn't even really being talked about any more. The only vestige I see is the "Use feats or just get stat increases" thing.
It's implemented. New things are being talked about. There are a lot of sidebars in the basic rules talking about optional variants and the DMG will contain many more. If the feats things is all you know about then you're going based on word of mouth rather than looking into the product yourself.
Optional systems off the top of my head:
alternate ability score generation
It is technically, financially, and practically untenable to expect a resource to exist forever. Paizo and/or Pathfinder won't always be around, and neither will the PRD. I guarantee it.
Anyway, for some comparison here's a timeline of editions:
d&d: 1974 (3 years)
pf: 2009 (5 years)
If the time that a company keeps a product available and supports it determines how much trust that company has, then Wizards is still way above Paizo with an average product lifespan of 6.7 years and two whole editions for lasting over a decade. Since 3.5 worked with 3 that shifts their average produce lifespan to 8 years counting them together. The actual problem is a perception and entitlement one.
The PDF thing sucks, but, and this has become acutely important of late, no company is going out of their way to ensure your individual, personal best interest. Not even Paizo does that. You bought the product and got your copy. To keep that copy in the same place and expect nothing to happen ever is, as I said, untenable. The folks who bought them were responsible for their upkeep. Get a thumb drive, keep a zip file locally, and since I'm doing timelines, Dropbox became a thing in 2008: use it.
The trust argument is blown way out of proportion. The basic rules are available for free and gives a very good impression of the core game. Look at them and see if you like it or not. There have been many, many articles written on the theory and decisions into Next for all to see. You can accurately see where they're going. Whether or not you like their implementation of those ideals is secondary but is where the trust part comes in. But, again, I would point you to the free basic rules PDF so you can see what that implementation can look like.
Nope. You'll have to make some genuinely hard choices. That's a good thing though. Wizards occupy the top still in terms of the system overall, but that ceiling has been reduced drastically.
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Well, Pathfinder lost me. Customers come and go, absolutely. But, some little things lead by some huge recent moves just ended my enjoyment of the system. Primarly, I can't escape the feeling that PFS is dictating the future direction of Pathfinder at large more and more. Many genuinely unique things got trashed like Crane Wing all because of PFS complaints. The two should be separate. The thing with spells known also smells of the same situation. It all seems to work toward a generalizing of the system skewing towards more of what 4E was.
Also, the manner of sweeping nature of those changes by way of errata rather than making them really work with a new system with staff comments here and there makes me think Paizo will evolve Pathfinder rather than releasing a new edition. Thus, there is no permanence or sense of mastery of the system since what the system is can and will change based on the needs of the moment rather than what works with the system overall.
A minor nitpick has been the recent book styling. Part of what drew me in to the aesthetics of the CRB was that 'old tome' page design. The new style isn't bad. It's just not what hooked me. In relation to the above points this is incredibly minor.
Anyway, I hope you see this as I've thoroughly enjoyed Pathfinder since beta. My introduction was literally during a 3.5 session with my DM dragging our characters through a portal into Golarion where we then made Pathfinder versions of our characters with beta rules. That was cool. I'm sure you do get tons of feedback how awesome Pathfinder is. It really is. The shakiness is something I can't accept from an expensive hobby. Looking at 5th presents a system that is flavorful, concise, and feels genuinely evolutionary in its concepts. I understand that Paizo has a lot invested into what Pathfinder currently is, but I hope you find the courage to really create your own niche and try to solve all those pesky problems that make you feel like you need to change the base system to cater to a vocal minority of your customers.
All the best.
Outside of my current campaign, I'm done with Pathfinder. The last 6 months has left me with the distinct notion that Paizo is leading Pathfinder with PFS more than anything else. As a system, to lead your development by majority input from the most conservative arm of your player base is just bad, and recent rulings on system wide erratas have no place. PFS should be distinctly its own thing probably with its own CRB equivalent. Until that changes I probably won't be coming back.
5th ed makes a lot of right decisions in that you can spring board so many concepts and gives players and GMs wide latitude to dress things up with just the basic rules. You can say what you want about GM fiat in PF but it's one thing to adapt a system to your game and another entirely to have that kind of flexibility written into the core assumption of the rules that gives you many variants, advice on what affects what, etc. and leaves things open yet mechanically inclusive to give them meaning from within that system. It feels like a more inclusive and overall more robust system from the start rather than putting on a dress of GM bolt ons.
I just think people need to step back and put their presuppositions to rest about alignment and the code. Look at Paizo's examples of holy warriors and read about the good gods actually do and build their paladins based off that rather some bland view that somehow needs to apply to each and every one. That's the boring factor. Not all LG people get along and that applies to paladins interacting with other paladins even within the same religion. So, grow a beard and paladin like no other. GMs that would restrict this are the ones asking for one dimensional paladins and have no room to argue.
What gets demagogued about most often on these forums is what I'd call a mix between the Ragathiel and Shelynite paladin. They're a person who simultneously has to put down all wrong doers but simultaneously can't harm a kitten. That's assinine.
My comments on optimization guide worship is that they all espouse roughly the same ideals. You hit hard, are hard to hit, etc. Looking at that kind of character sheet leads to very few gut responses and they're all pretty much along the lines of being the hardass of the group. Your build should reflect your roleplay ideals because if that's what your character is really all about then you should be putting time (i.e. build resources) into making that actually a part of your character.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Well, quit building to optimization guides and build to a concept and you might get something different now and then.
No, there has not been a newly released CRB, no new Bestiary or GMG. Instead, what's happened over the last several months are fundamental rewrites to base mechanics that have ripple effects. This is how the system evolves: not through new editions and neatly segregated rules, but through rolling rewrites where everyone is dragged into the 'new way' whether they like it or not.
It was never really useful for crafting and always had limited in combat application due to the limited duration.
Minute/level is in a lot of combat spells. It had plenty of use.
I gotta say, too, the whole 'ignore the FAQ if you don't like it' reasoning is crap. What makes me buy Pathfinder materials is what they say, the features they present, and so on. To say it's okay to change it, while objectively true, creates a convenient double speak for marketing. No, I buy Paizo's products for what they are. If it's on me to reinvent them then I'll save my money and just create my own gaming system, thank you very much.
Joe M. wrote:
There MUST be a point where the 'we inherited this' line is no longer an acceptable response. They've had the system for years. They are uniquely their own entity as a company and as a gaming system. No longer do I hear Pathfinder likened to being D&D 3.75. People know Pathfinder as Pathfinder. At this point the inherited rebuttal is an excuse. If you disagree then, we'll have to agree to disagree.
My take away from those other classes is more confusion not less. If it's okay for them to do that then why isn't it okay for the spell to remain as it was? The brawler doesn't have those limitations. Neither does the arcanist for those exploits. So, it's clearly not a martial vs. caster balance thing. What's worse, the brawler can have up to 3 feats at a time. As a move action. Thus, being able to still attack. Hell, you can do one as a free action. Chain a few of those together for some nifty effects. For FREE. Some even as an immediate. But, god forbid paragon surge letting you select some extra spells as a standard action. Which, depending on the GM, takes away complete surprise depending on what they reveal to those making spellcraft checks. You can't chain surges to qualify for whole feat chains so many of the bogeyman scenarios are just as that: nonexistent.
I think this change speaks to a philosophy that is against ingenuity. Want a different ability? Better gain that level or go through weeks of in game retraining. But on the fly? No, sir...
One of the larger critiques a friend of mine has against Pathfinder is that to do anything mechanically different is tedious as all hell and then it's essentially unchangeable if circumstances change such as say from one round of combat to another. I'm starting to see his point. It's one thing to create rules and have to live with them but to back track like this speaks to a philosophy of thought. Spontaneous invention is bad.
Talk about a thread lobotomy. I've not been so confused visiting a thread before and almost sent a PM to Vic to report a supposed huge bug. Anyway...
Lemmy, I find the 'can't' argument unreasonable compared to 'can' because the rules are structured for your external contact with the game world. They define the manner and reason you can perform an action in an objective sense for most general cases. You interacting with yourself or what you think about yourself and others is subjective so you can't really have rules for it, not that I think they're required anyway.
However, I've seen the 'can't' argument brought up more since PFS came out and is a large reason why we can't have nice things, imo. In PFS you can basically only do what your sheet says you can. Genuine inventiveness be damned. It doesn't matter if you can describe something simply and concisely. If you don't have feature x then you can't do it. For example, even if you invest of your own time and write a beautifully constructed prayer to your god in a time of need as a one time thing, I've yet to see a table lately where the GM would give you so much as a +1 bonus to something let alone any other effect. I've seen that transition largely to non-PFS play and I utterly hate it.
If I were to allow it, it would probably come in the form of a skill check that you couldn't take 10/20 on. Probably a DC 25 know(arcana) or some such that you had to make every round. Or, simply treat it as a standard action every round you wanted to not hit your friends to concentrate and not do the skill check.
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Ok, but saying "Sometimes people aren't on the same page" is not a legitimate argument.
Sure it is. Proper context is crucial to any debate. If someone can highlight that opponents are using different contexts then the debate is moot. I'll point out many political debates where nothing of real substance is worked through but is merely a barrage of accusation, riposte, and retort that looks good. Election periods in the US are notorious for these kinds of debates. The debates that stay on point and actually try to get something done are likely to come from organized forums like a congressional subcommittee.
The context here is a spell that easily says you very likely can get wish consistently far lower than you could cast it yourself and for far cheaper in a way that gains you further free castings. Some guidelines on the scope of what that spell was meant to be used for would be very beneficial. It's not a new rule. It's a clarification on how the current rules work. Thus, an FAQ and not errata.
Certainly. Nothing stops someone wanting to make a simulacrum of an efreet expecting access to wish either. The only thing stopping it is the GM. The thing differentiating the two is that planar binding prescribes many ways a bound creature can potentially escape or have other ramifications. Simulacrum has no such provisions and even the higher binding spells don't modify how the process works at all except for the HD of the outsider you bind. Simulacrum is simply "do this, get this" with no buts or clauses. Thus, when comparing the two, it deserves a set of guidelines for various scenarios.
It is a very reasonable stance to not touch it as a GM given the distinct lack of those same features of planar binding. To say the mind boggles is a bit of a stretch and leads me to think you're not looking at all the variables.
The tempo I'd prefer to things like this is "GM until we clarify" and not just "that's why we have GMs." I'm fine house ruling but dealing with players who bought the materials and clearly see certain options in black and white (beige, rather) do, in fact, have a reasonable expectation to be able to exercise those options. To be told no, it doesn't work that way, you read it wrong, [insert other "no" response here], etc. is frustrating and deflating. They should be fixed eventually.
I don't care what the development team has to say about it or even Paizo as a whole. It's good customer service to explain to people what the default assumptions are to your system so if they buy it they don't need a bunch of clarifications from some other person or to come here and be told "learn 2 read" in various forms by dozens, or potentially hundreds, of people.
I wholly hold that to fix all the rules is impossible is conflation born of a mind that doesn't want to really examine what's wrong. Maybe they feel they're too busy, too tired, etc. But, it's possible and possible to do cleanly and concisely. I know it's possible. Having been in software for the past decade, all I do is develop and fix rules. If I told a client "no fix for you, just use this work around" I'd have not made it this long. Yes, it can be painful. Yes, it can have some ripple effects, but you do it because it's vital to the health of the system and your relationship with your customers.
So, I live in both camps. "House rule 'till FAQ'd/errata'd" is my stance.
Ditto. I have absolutely no concept of measurements without reference. I can't estimate time, distance, weight, anything.
I can understand them and visualize them fine. However, I tend to take things so precisely as described that I've had attorneys tell me I was being too literal. I've found a scene spoken to me or described in a book, even in great detail, can have multiple logical interpretations. Pictures are just so much easier. Else, those games turn into a game of 200 questions (no typo) about things that seemingly don't matter, and really don't, but help me route out logically what can and can't exist in the scene. Essentially, I force myself to draw the scene correctly by scatter shot questions that usually just end in frustration for myself and the GM.
Dotting for interest. I believe the full arsenal of spells and abilities should be open for consideration for GMs. I'd like to see the argument against that.
Re: wish, the GM is greater than the mightiest god. Pharasma bows beneath his heel. A GM lynchpinning something with wish doesn't realize the arsenal they have.
Ilorin Lorati wrote:
It's frequented often. The test of the Starstone would be gone if the stone itself was. So, someone shows up being all hopeful, there's no test, just an empty room, feels had, complains, investigation is made, "zomg it's missing," the call is made for heroes. Go!
In fact, by the time anyone knows otherwise, you're already leaving.
Why not pull me back in? I've revisited places many times. I've never gotten a note from management, none of the servers, no dirty looks, no attitudes, no bad food, and so on. No one except those I've been with may have remarked about it after the fact. In my experience it acts like a thing that others force upon themselves and others rather than being an industry expectation.
One of the areas I've thought about making some house rules around is identifying items. I'm talking about going way beyond just identifying the item. I mean like having a caster concoct a ritual that would reveal the story background of an item that would let me reveal at least bits of the multiparagraph history the AP attached with it. Or letting the party go through those laborious rituals I'm sure most of have read about to gain some nifty powers or different abilities. I'd love to let my player do it but I'm up the air on how to judge things.
And what if the 'tip' is added to the bill automatically?
I wouldn't eat there.
A few other questions, does the tip get shared with the cooks, dish-washers, or concierges? Or would that be on an ad-hoc basis?
Many chain establishments split tips which I vehemently hate. If I'm trying to tip the bartender or my server, that doesn't mean the hostess was pleasant to deal with.
I tend to not tip but not out of douchebaggery. I want the wait staff to be angry. I want them to complain to their boss. They deserve a guaranteed fair wage and shouldn't feel like they have to kiss ass to get one nor do I think customers should feel they have to bribe someone to not f$ with their food or give them poor service. This whole exchange is inherently antagonistic and is unnecessary. I'd gladly pay more for eating out if this were remedied.
When I do tip I tip well even upwards of 50-75% if you really impressed me with your service. I make good money.