Several more steps in the right direction, and I think I can safely say most of the issues I have with the current playtest system have been addressed or mentioned. Looking forward to next August!
I think someone else already explained that you have it backwards, but wanted to note that because of the way XP was distributed and leveling was done, multiclass characters were fine in 2nd edition. Typically a multiclass with 2 classes would be about a level behind a single-classed character at a given level, and would be fine in terms of power - for example, a 3/3 Fighter/Mage was just fine in the same party with a 4th level Fighter and 4th level Cleric. Things got a little weird, particularly with the Rogue, because different classes needed different amounts of XP to attain certain levels, but generally, multiclasses were ok without being overpowered. Since 3.0 changed the dynamics of leveling and how levels scaled, I think multiclassing has taken a hit and has been very hard to balance. But my main point was that 2nd edition multiclassing gave a list of set multiclass combinations that were possible, and made it more difficult to unintentionally end up gimping your character by choosing a couple of classes that did not mesh well together.
Felines of Golarion, run for your lives!
2nd edition multiclassing is a terrible straitjacket. The developers obviously hate freedom.Sarcasm I hope? The new multiclassing system has way more viable freedom than 1e's multiclassing. Which yeah you can level in any class you want to, but why the hell would you want to unless you were leveling into fighter for 1 level for free feats, armor and weapon proficiency, and +1 BAB. You'd just be a crappier version of both classes. Yes, sarcasm. I don't believe the devs hate freedom. However, I am not a big fan of multiclassing as it stands, but I understand the purpose behind the changes. I believe there is a better way to allow more open multiclassing than the playtest rules have now, without the free-for-all that 1st edition allowed. As you have stated, the 1st edition method led to a lot of dead ends. I was actually a big fan of the 2nd Edition D&D form of multiclassing, minus the race restrictions, though, so I readily admit that I may not be the typical audience.
LOL. I love it. I need to save this somewhere so I can quote it frequently. Great post. I see this quite a bit, and my answer is always "well don't go to the forums, then". If your self-worth is so wrapped up in a TTRPG character that learning that the mechanics of what you have built causes you an existential crisis, then don't go learn the details. It always reminds me of the mathematician played by Stellan Skarsgård in that 'Good Will Hunting' movie. His entire ego is built upon being a math prodigy, and his whole world is shattered by the realization that someone out there is not just better/smarter than he is, but is so by an order of magnitude that he never realized existed. Even though Will Hunting's very existence doesn't invalidate his own in any way, he is still crushed.
I can't be bothered finding the rules text right now, but the "0hp=dead" thing is basically a GM shortcut that they are encouraged to not use for things like major NPCs, or for any creatures that have healing backup. Going off this, any intelligent NPC would have to be aware that stabbing things until they fall over may not finish them off permanently. Messy, contrived, and inconsistent is a perfect description of a system wherein the unconscious/dying/healing rules are not the same across the board, PC or NPC. In a world where magical healing is possible, it makes perfect sense to spend an action to ensure that a downed opponent stays down.
Definitely doing this ASAP.
A few more steps in the right direction...
So yeah, you know how many game settings have an ancient civilization, with super-powerful casters who accomplished crazy, unheard of feats of wizardry, but the secrets to such arcane prowess is lost to the ages? This is the same thing, but that civilization was just last year, and the descent into magical diminishment took just a few weeks. Karzoug read the playtest, and wept.
Perfect. So the assumption is that Quick Identification is going to be a luxury. Thanks for giving us the more specific rundown. I gather most of my information while in situations where noise is not really an option, and hate watching videos when reading is so much faster and more accurate. Also captioning on most formats blows.
But you gotta judge a game on the game it is not on the one you want it to be. Patently false. You can judge a game on whatever criteria you choose. Didn't used to be this way, back when there weren't many options, but there are enough TTRPG alternatives in the market nowadays that people can judge games by whether or not they like the cover art, or by how friendly or unfriendly the players of that game appear to be, and still be able to walk away completely satisfied with lots of other options that better meet their criteria for a "good game". There are plenty of people who judge a game by whether or not it's the game they want it to be. They pick the system that is closest to exactly what they desire, and house rule the rest.
No. Thanks for making excuses for the poor design, but you missed my point. IF it is ASSUMED that pretty much EVERY party takes this, then it is bad design to force them to spend a resource on it rather than baking it into whatever base ability gets modified by the spent resource from the start. If that is not the base assumption, and Quick Identification is not seen as a "must-have" or baseline assumption at X level, then it's no big deal. This is the kind of thing that affects scenario/module/adventure path design assumptions for pacing and whatnot going forward, and is the type of detail that can often be overlooked, causing issues down the road, as well as being something that can be most easily remedied at this stage. There's no reason not to be decisive about this now. Is it a luxury, or a default assumption at X level?
If this is true then it is not a particularly good design. If it is assumed characters will have to take something at "high level" then why aren't those classes just given that as a class feature later on?
There will always be a large percentage of people who dislike added restrictions, no matter the situation, and this sort of shortening of the math ranges usable by PCs can definitely be viewed in that light. This holds true even when it comes to removing the illusion of choice rather than meaningful choice.
I want them to have a noticeable, dynamic effect on and meaningful decisions to make in combat, and significant narrative options out of combat, all on par or nearly on par with casters from earlier editions. I don't really care what form these options or effects take, what source is used to explain them, or how mundane or over-the-top they seem. I just don't want to see martial players required to play "mother may I?" with the GM to feel relevant past level 9 or 10.
Not necessarily. I would prefer they get better feats, preferably feats that scale with level like spells or class abilities. I see a lot of Raging Swimmer-level feats and powers in the current version.
I think we might be moving in the right direction.
So what is the problem? Just don't use the content that you dislike.Or you could, you know, just not buy the stuff that you consider to be bloat.I don't have to buy them. D20PFSRD and Archives of Nethys got me covered. What works or doesn't work for you and your players isn't necessarily the same for everyone. I'd much rather you need to rob your players of options than to rob everyone else who plays the game of options, simply because you don't feel you have the time to read and evaluate the content. Now if you wanted to discuss the amount of quality control and evaluation that should be performed on new options before they are published, I am sure that would slow down the rate of release a bit, and I would be all for that.
Interesting. Every change you mentioned and labeled "for the better" was a removal of a restriction rather than the imposition of a new restraint such as resonance.They were the first three things I thought of. Don't read too much into it. No, it just got me thinking of the changes between editions, and how it appears that most, perhaps all, of the more well-received changes boiled down to relaxed constraints as opposed to the uproar I recall over any changes that were perceived as adding restrictions instead.
These types of games are not at all mutually exclusive.
Stop trying to fixing the game by changing the world around it has ben working for decades.Demi-human level limits, paladins only for humans and multi-classing never for humans were all ways the world worked "for decades". They changed, for the better too. Interesting. Every change you mentioned and labeled "for the better" was a removal of a restriction rather than the imposition of a new restraint such as resonance.
I dont get something.What exactly martials are having problems with that cant be solved by magical items? Were people asking for casters to do more damage? I don't recall that, but I am too lazy to go and look. I can see perhaps arguing for this if the caster niche is going to be restricted to "blaster" in this edition, but most of the complaints I am hearing at tables and reading on the forums about the playtest are aimed towards the manner in which non-damage spells have been gutted in either duration or effect.
Most of the spells having 1 minute duration is just an another way of saying that these powers are once per encounter right?Did i get this wrong? Sure seems that way. You have your at-will, encounter, and daily powers...
So what I'm hearing is that you'd have a problem either way - either you complain because everyone can do everything at full competency, or you complain because "arbitrary gatekeeping".One man's "trained competency" is another's "arbitrary gatekeeping." Then you might need your hearing checked. I never said that I do or would have a problem either way. Either the final 2nd edition looks like fun to me and a majority of those I game with, and so we play it, or it does not, and we do not. Either way I have zero problems. My post was simply pointing out the argument against it. There are myriad ways of handling skills, and in a system with such tightly controlled mathematical bounds, some sort of artificial enforcement of boundaries is necessary. I personally would have preferred to see a system that handles increasing skills and their more difficult uses with an increased opportunity cost at higher ranks, but that isn't what is in the playtest. I am not a huge fan of bounded accuracy at all, as it introduces a level of gamism with which I am uncomfortable. With the math as it is now, it's not playing great in my experiences, but I can see it being a usable skill system if the numbers are tweaked, even if it is not my cup of tea.
One man's "trained competency" is another's "arbitrary gatekeeping."
Ostog the Untenured says it's fine.
Almost all people have been put in uncomfortable situations before; congratulations on your impressive luck to anyone who has not. Recall how that discomfort felt, and take another human being's word on the matter if they tell you that something is, has, or might in the future cause them feel this way. Period. It's really not up for debate. As far as the potential controversial subject matter of the game goes, as with any multi-person activity, up-front transparency is of primary importance. If anyone at the table even thinks that something controversial MIGHT come up, it should be discussed with and agreed upon by all participants in advance. If at any point, even after the initial agreement, any single party suddenly decides things have gone too far, and requests that it cease, then it ceases. This is pretty much common decency, it really isn't that difficult, and sure as hell isn't too much to ask.
Had a half-orc in my group. The player really liked the change to the way halfies are handled (as did I). it gets even better. Just wait until the half-orc character reaches a level where their eyes are finally fully developed!
There's also an elephant in the room: spells auto-scale, but martials need to spend their class feats to scale, which gives more room to casters for conceptual development, rather than running to keep up with the tide. I've been pushing for scaling feats since 3.0 for exactly this reason. Why does anyone need to take Cleave, then Great Ckeave, then Greater Cleave, then Greatest Cleave? Taking Cleave should eventually scale up to better Cleaves as your character advances.
Pretty sure I have said this before, but I just adore how everyone assumes that their personal views align with the "silent majority", and yet there is never a professed member of the "vocal minority" anywhere to be found. It's a MIRACLE!
I don't know why skills as a mechanic haven't been split off into their own section yet, to be evaluated and balanced on their own, giving all classes the same base number of points or ranks to start.
I'm starting to come around on the decreasing accuracy, at least for martials. I think the casters could use a little tweak upwards. I am all for higher CR creatures being more competent and harder to kill, even at equal levels, as characters advance. Sort of gives the game a deadlier feel as players advance. Very OD&D-ish.
This is an excellent question.
I don't know why many people have some knee jerk reaction to blanch when RPG math is presented, almost as if they wish they hadn't been shown. Math is not really arguable or subjective in the same manner as "how it feels" and it is very good to know the hard numbers underlying the system. The mass of playtest results is where Paizo can get a good idea of "how it feels" overall to the player base, this is not something you or I, or any group that doesn't number in the thousands, can do. What we can do is break down the numbers, compare those numbers to our anecdotal playing experiences, and then make suggestions as to how we think the system could be improved by adjusting the math.
But you might make a less than optimal choice, which obviously makes your whole character terribad and useless, and will cause you to quit and play something else once you figure it out, if they allow these options in the game. They're just trying to protect you from yourself, Lady!!! /sarcasm
I think there are much better ways to do this. Higher ranks having an increasing cost is the best one I can think of off the top of my head, perhaps with a cap on how many points can be spent per level, or how many ranks can be achieved overall. Keeping things within an acceptable range that fits within the d20 range of utility, isn't too difficult. Tone down feats and items that allow for insane bonus progression, and make their advantages fit the expected range. There's not one reason the bonus should have to ever outstrip the 20 on a d20, if you build the system that way from the start, which means a DC higher than 40 would be unnecessary.
Yes, but that brings out another group: "This isn't realistic! I wanted Tolkienesque fantasy, not this anime nonsense!"The prospect of a new edition is inevitably going to bring back the conflict between the "I hate the way my Fighter/Rogue was made to look obsolete by a Wizard/Druid/Magus" crowd and the "I like playing an awesome caster who can do anything" crowd.Is just me or seems like both issues could have been solved by giving martials more toys? High level martials would play like mythological heroes and casters would still be awesome. Yes, it's pretty telling when people say they want more Tolkien in their RPG. Middle Earth had a handful of casters, and pretty much all of them feature pretty heavily in the big events that happen there. Meanwhile martials get to accompany them and stand guard if they're lucky.
I do sometimes wish I could be a fly on the wall of the Paizo offices Everyone involved in the game development and playtesting process is better off being brutally honest. From our side we get a better chance at receiving the product we want, from their side they (hopefully) get to sell more of this product thanks to our honest feedback. I have no reason to believe anyone from Paizo has been less than truthful with me, why would I want to do them the disservice of being less than truthful in return? Because I don't want feelings to be hurt? I'm certain they would rather I hurt their feelings than chance costing them their livelihoods. They can massage the emotional bruises with paychecks.
Awesome, a flow chart. Haven't needed one of those for a game mechanic since D&D 3.0 grappling!
There is much less disparity between a character who is considered "poor" at something, and a character who would be considered "best" at the same thing. In the older system, the gap was wider, and each individual +1 meant less in the grand scheme of things. This new system seems to have closed that gap, making each bonus much more valuable overall.
There is no difference, from what I can see. The bonus for stats has not changed, which means that for every two points in a stat, your chance of success goes up 5% relative to whatever d20 roll is associated with it. This is identical. If anything, with the focus on flattening of the number curves, and the smaller range in "best-to-worst" in skills, each +1 is now a bigger deal, so higher stats would be of even more importance in this new system.
I recall seeing one game try to fix this by tying the ability used for DC, etc. to the school of the spell being cast. Worked ok for the most part, and was a neat idea.
Because that sounds almost exactly like how much work was put into calculating the result of a roll in Pathfinder 1e, and this new edition is supposed to be SOOOOO much simpler so as not to frighten off new players...
Which does mean you can never fall from the ladder, though. Yesssss! All level 10 characters report to the ladders for a drunken ladder dance party, stat!
Our unabashed powergamer was awesome, but he always played his Wizard (or Druid, or Cleric) in a manner that made everyone else the stars of the show, as far as encounters went. Took the rest of the group a couple of years, and a few sessions where he wasn't able to make it, to catch on to exactly how it was working.
Don't think it's about narrative at this point, but fun. Which truly is the point, I think. Treadmills aren't fun for most people. I am sure there are some people out there who love them, but they are few and far between.
I thought that they did answer this, but the answer was "There really isn't going to be a new release of the playtest."?
|
