Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Morlock

memorax's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,912 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,912 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Andoran

Rushley son of Halum wrote:

Gencon has been over for a while now, so that's not really an excuse.

But we desperately need an FAQ to clarify a lot of issues in the ACG. How long does the first round of FAQ's for a book normally take?

Agreed and seconded. Not to say that they don't do some extra work at Gencon. Neither were they building a school from scratch for orphans in Africa. I hope that this time around it's in PDF format for easy download. I really don't want to work my way through all the errata needed for the ACG section by section.

Andoran

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any estimate as to when we can get a errata PDF for the ACG?

Andoran

When it's all said and done I can respect fans for defending the favored rpg company. Even if some don't want to hear negative things about it. I'm not so sure it's truly a bad thing. Nor a good thing either.

Andoran

Odraude wrote:

That's a lot more involved than saying it's an unwillingness. Those are genuinely good reasons to meet GenCon releases. Still, that doesn't bode well for Occult Adventures. I have a feeling history will repeat itself and Occult Adventures will be another editing mess due to rushing to meet the new GenCon date. It's a heartbreaking shame to me, because I genuinely like the people that work at Paizo and I really love Pathfinder. But if nothing can or will be done about the editing issues, and if GenCon is going to continue to be the focus of Paizo at the expense of quality control, then maybe it is time to move on.

That really sucks. But I don't want to spend money on a poor quality project. I guess thems the breaks.

I will concede it may not be unwillingness. Yet while I will still buy product I expect the poor editing and mistakes to continue.

Andoran

Hopefully the posts I was referencing came out properly as my work computer is giving me issues. So I'm not holding my breath on better editing and quality control when the reasoning seems to be Gencon or Christmas whatever the quality and editing of the book it has to be released.

Andoran

Odraude wrote:


Well actually they did use a lot of the feedback in the ACG. They just didn't use all of it. Sometimes for good reason. Other times, like in the case of Dex to damage, it was for a bad reason.

Also, a link to where they said more QA is impossible? I want to read the actual quote before I decide on spending money on Paizo products again.

While I will still buy more Paizo books I'm not expecting the editing to get better. Here's why.

Insain Dragoon wrote:

A lot a cool stuff, but some major weirdness. It feels like the people who wrote the classes, the people who wrote feats, and the people who wrote archetypes had minimal communications. Also feels like the people who wrote feats and archetypes weren't around in the respective feedback threads for the playtest. Too many oddities and unwritten things in this book makes me feel a little disappointed as I read. I'm used to missing and the occasional oddity within Paizo books, but this book has too many.

Maybe SKR was right about the production schedule being too crunched and how trying to get this out by Gen-con constrained them a lot. I would have preferred this stayed another month in development and editing.

Ross Byers wrote:


You have no idea how many moving parts there are to a book like this. With so many new classes and things that rely on them, simple changes to a class feature can ripple throughout the book. I'm not saying its perfect (it isn't), but I don't think it is in any way more or less flawed than previous years' Gen Con releases, including the Core Rulebook. I dare you to do better.

I also doubt that another month would have brought it to your level of satisfaction. Please, do not misconstrue that as saying you're impossible to please. What I mean is that everyone has a pet issue with a book like this where they disagree with decisions that were made. Something left out they wanted, something included they didn't, or just something they wanted not done to their own personal taste. It's easy to say that if the book had more time, or more developers, or a different developer, that it would match the mental ideal the person built during the run up to release. It's sort of a way of saying "I'm right, and if Paizo had just tried harder, they would have realized that." Even though that if the book was different it would be some other person making a slightly different complaint about the thing that was different.

Ross Byers wrote:


Okay. Which classes get an extra page, out of the 10 new and 18 old in the book? Or are you going to give them a paragraph each, letting that information dangle off to the next page and making header placement awkward? The publishing industry calls those things 'orphans' and they are considered to be bad.
And which feats and spells are there 'just to take up page count'? There are way easier and less error-prone ways to fill space than developing rules text. Perhaps you meant spells that are developed to fill a specific space on a page (i.e. "We need a spell of about 250 words, and the title has to be alphabetized between 'Pe' and 'Pr'")? I have no idea how many of those are actually created, but I'd like to give the developers enough credits that they try to create a spell that is interesting and useful within those constrainsts, because if they just want something no one would read twice they could just use Lorem Ipsum. Or perhaps you just like to assume any option that you don't personally think is worthwhile must have been created for bad reasons?
Also, you'll note that if something is created to fill a space, it is because that space needed to be filled. The feats chapter can't just end halfway down a page, for instance. Well, it could, if you filled that space with a half-page art, but that still doesn't let you start the next chapter a half-page earlier.
Ross Byers wrote:


Do you know how important Christmas (and the associated season) is to the American retail economy? 'Black Friday' is called such because for many retailers it is the day of the year where they become profitable (i.e. out of the red and into the black.) Video game studios can live or die based on if their product reaches stores in time for Christmas.

Gen Con is a big deal for tabletop RPGs. And Paizo, among may other things, is a business. You might prefer that they ship mid-september or something, but showing up to Gen Con with that year's release is a big deal.
They can't finish later - the only alternative is to start earlier. But I think you can agree that running another year in advance of the release schedule is unfeasible. Perhaps they should havecut one of the rounds of playtesting to get more development time. Would that have been better?

Andoran

For the most part I like Pathfinder. To the point where I can no longer play in a game of 3.5. AS I lkike what they did with some of the classes. I don't have any anger towards the devs. Just a lot of frustration as to me at least in some cases they just don't listen. What I mean by that is that they can't seem to find the right middle ground when designing something new. At this point with all their knowledge and experience they should be doing it in their sleep. Either a feat is too good like Sacred Geometry. Or not that good like Slashing Grace. It's one thing if they did their own thing without feedback. Instead they do get feedback and it gets ignored. Usually for the worse instead of better. Which leads to them making the same mistakes in designing new material.

I'm sure someone will point out that they don't have to listen to feedback. Which is true they don't. Then again why bother with feedback at all if they are going to do their own thing anyway. The D&D community for better or worse is a very vocal community. Paizo was imo opening a can of worms when they started asking for player feedback. When gamers give feedback they eventually wan the developers to use it. Ignoring it as I said above gives way to frustration and a lack of faith in the developers. For me what impressed me the least with the ACG was when a poster asked for better quality control and were told "well it's simply not possible". At this point its a unwilligness to do do better. When your release for Gencon is poorly edited with mistakes ad a wrong cover uyou strive to do better. Not say that your unable to imo.

I still enjoy the game and will run and keep playing it. I don't think the rpg or the devs are perfect. If I see something I don't like I will comment on it. Whether I like the rpg or not.

As Paizo can't be given a free pass for criticism because people have a lot of emotion invested in it.

Andoran

First gamers complained they were too liberal in the changes and what they did with 4E. I really don't blame Wotc for being conservative. Given how rpgs are not as popular as before and comptetion from other forms of entertainment. Better to be safe imo. As for releasing stuff and hope it sells Paizo is doing the same thing imo. When PF was first released they did not release as many books. Once it took off we have a bunch of stuff that comes out every month.

Diffan wrote:


But for some, the mechanical choices were paralyzing or otherwise unwanted. They didn't want to wade through lots of options and stuff and they just wanted to sit down and play. Can't really blame them other than their desire to NOT want a robust option system yet desire the "best" options that were there.

Seconded. Players want to make characters asap. If it means less choices than so be it. I don't agree with that type of philosophy yet understand it.

Andoran

I'm curious Sunshadow do you have anything good to say about 5E or Wotc? It's like listening to a broken record. We get it you don't like 5E or Wotc. I can respect that even is I don't agree with it. Could not keep repeating yourself by downplaying everything Wotc has achieved. Or the merits of 5E. It's not even a month since the 5E release and your nothing but doom and gloom.

Andoran

Buri wrote:


That's certainly some conjecture. You're using rose colored glasses to demean a years long process of democratic selection and refinement. That puts it up toward hyperbole. It's also entirely counter to my experience. So, to paint everyone who likes 5e as 'they' with your attributions is simply wrong.

Agreed and seconded. So far I'm liking what I see. Not sure if I will ever run let alone play it. For the first time in a long time I want to play a Paladin. I do think that 5E may give PF a run for it's money.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeven wrote:


It would be good for new players. It won't decrease sales of the CRB, as people who already own it won't be buying another copy of the existing book anyway. A new CRB - just like the existing CRB - would mostly be sold to new players.

What stopping them from buying cheaper older copies of the current edition then using the SRD or the free PDF as you mention to take what they need of the new rules. Were talking about a 50-60$ purchase. Not many gamers want to spend that money again just for a few new houserules tossed into the core. Gamers are also cheap as well. You want to bet the first thing that will be said as a complaint that it's more of the same.

Jeven wrote:


Any rule revisions could just be included in a small free pdf for download.

They should and knowing Paizo they will. Were not guaranteed that they will.

Jeven wrote:


A new CRB makes sense if for no other reason than to improve the quality, layout, readability and various fixes.
The CRB is the gateway to the whole game, so Paizo should be putting their best foot forward quality-wise to help sell the game to new players.

It still has to be worth the 5o-60$ of purchasing the same material again. I like organized well written core books. I'm not going to buy the same book again because of it. Not unless 30%+ of the material is new. With the free SRD and Apps the core is not the only geteway to the game. I have a APP that for five or is it six dollars I have the entire catalog of hardcovers. With the exception of the ACG. Let's not forget 5E as well. Unlike 4E it seems to have been better received by the fans at least so far.

@ Devils Advocate. You used WW to point out that how edtions are not needed. They are doing a new one. So using them as a comparison is not a good one. Call what you want it is a new edition. With Exalted, Scion and Trinity Contimuum all being rereleased. With a new core and the core WW lines all getting new core books imo it is a new edition. Why rerelease all the core books if it was not at least different enough to do so. Not that it's a bad thing I enjoy WOD. I call it what it is.

Andoran

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:


I'm not sure we have an example of a selling an RPG twice with no changes. We do have plenty of examples of reselling an RPG with moderate to heavy changes, and from the looks, they tend to do very well. 3.0 -> 3.5, nWoD -> The God Machine, oWoD (which was out of print and no longer supported) -> the 20th Anniversary editions, WotC rereleasing the 1st-3rd Edition core books, which as I understand all sold pretty well. Even Paizo and Pathfinder have rereleased their Core book in what 5 different "printings" editions, and by all accounts their fanbase and sells keep growing exponentially.

Too bad White Wolf is still going ahead with a new edition and rereleasing the core with the GMC stuff inside and a whole new set of core books. http://theonyxpath.com/the-world-of-darkness-second-edition/ Notice that nowhere do they mention that the new edition is backwards compitble.

I get your point. Except their is a difference between a reprint of the core and working on another edition. With a new edition some in the hobby expect something new. If it's a rehash people will not buy imo. Not everyone has 100$ to invest in a core and a Besitiary with no changes. Who unless they are truly a huge fan of the system and company. Half my gaming table has yet to buy the core. Why bother when the free SRD is up. The Apps are cheaper.

Andoran

If the design goal is to please everyone in the design process it's doomed to failure. The devs will never get 100% approval on anything. All that matters is if a majority are happy with it. If that means no changes to the exisiting rpg. Than so be it. I will be dissappointed yet still keep playing and buying product. If the no change side wins then my advice to the devs is not even waste time on the next edition. Gamers don't like buying the same rpg twice with no changes. With apps and the SRD it's going to probably be the first time imo that 0the PFcore is not going to sell as well imo

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:


So basically if they release a new edition and change nothing?

That seems to defeat the purpose of making a new edition.

It's interesting how those who do not want any change or little expect Paizo to work on then sell such a edition. Why would I or anyone else buy it. If there is nothing new. Why even waste time or effort on playtesting what is essentially a rehash. Good luck trying to sell the same game twice by the way. I don't see it as being as successful as this one. First gamers are cheap. Second the community in general is in no mood for another 3.5 rehahsh. How do you plan to generate interest in a product with no changes. I'm sure to be ignored yet I'm curious.

While I would not mind to see Vancain caasting go away it should still remain while offering a new system for casting spells side by side. No new magic system means zero interest for me and others. I have the current edition if I want to play with just vancian casting.

Martials should get nice things. Both Wizards and Martails should be able to do amazing things in game. If the new edition or rehashed editions keeps martials from getting nice things good luck trying to sell it is all I'm going to say. As again I can stick to this edition.

Backwards compitabiliy would be nice yet not a must. Again no reason to buy a rehashed edition if that is a design goal because the current allows me to do the same already.

Andoran

Pan wrote:


I just dont believe you. I do think some people probably got pushed away and that is a shame. Though I think these forums are pretty well moderated and have fair discussions. The forums are welcoming to anyone who likes PF and even those who dont. There are trolls but what site doesnt have them? I also dont think you have a basis for a biased playtest. The goal was to make a backwards compatibale system so having a lot of changes was never in cards.

I saw what I saw and all we can do is disagree. As I don't want to thread jack any further.

While it would be good for a new edition to be backwards computable it does not have to be IMO. As the current one is already.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:


I think its a bad thing because I dont agree with you. I think things turned out a way you dont like and you feel that forum posters somehow got to make that choice by being vocal. If posters are driving people off I trust the moderators here to do something about that. Though permabanning people just because they dont agree with you is thankfully not going to happen. Folks enjoy the 3E/PF system and like a more conservative approach to evolving the system and they are going to voice that.

There fans who refuse to come to the forums because of the core playtest. Some in the hobby consider the core playtest a sham because a very vocal subset of fans chased them away. I'm not one of them because I own a lot of material.

Why is my asking for a fair and unbiased playtest bother you so much. Is it because of a fear that they might change something. That's the risk of a playtest.

Andoran

MMCJawa wrote:


this comment...is all over the map.

It sounds like what you are really saying is "Take feedback seriously, but not only ignore playtest comments that disagree with me, but ban those people entirely from the process".

And here we go with people misunderstundaing what I said.

I want a playtest where everyone is heard. Not just myself. Where no set of vocal posters drown out everyone else. I came late to the core playtest and stayed away because a very vocal group kept chasing away anyone who wanted significant changes. I don't want to see the same thing happen again. If it's a serious playtest then everyone pro change and not should be given a fair chance to be heard. Hopefully this clears up everything.

Andoran

Pan wrote:


So those who diasgree with you are "sabotaging" the playtests and should be permabanned?

There politely disagreeing and then there shouting people down so they don't get heard while telling them to go elsewhere. Which happened during the playtest of the core. Which I don't want to see happen again. In a playtest everyone should be heard. Not a very select few very vocal posters. I'm surprised that you would think it was a bad thing.

Pan wrote:


Exposure to what?

Letting other people on other forums besides this one know about the poll.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Posted a thread on rpg.net with link to get more exposure.

Andoran

I'm glad we will have access to both the Dreamscarred Press version and the Paizo one. I wonder how long it will be before the cries of blot begin yet again.

Andoran

Absolutely Hell Yes.

I have no interest in spending 100$+ on a rehashed edition with new art and little or no significant changes. Why buy the same thing a second time. Those who don't want any change forgot well how will Paizo market a product with little changes. Even Chaosium Call of Cthulhu 7E is different enough this time around from what I hear. That being said I'm in the minority so realize it will not happen.

If they do a playtest

If your going to ask for feedsback use some of it. Don't ask for any if in the end your not going to use it.

Your not going to please everyone so don't approach a new playtest with that in mind as imo Paizo is dooming itself to failure.

Keep a very tight rein on those who are very vocal who attempt to sabotage the playtest. Permabanning them if need. We don't need another core playtest debacle imo.

Andoran

I can see a special race once or twice in a world where you have the core races. To be treated the same by the locals it depends on the race. I can see a furry while raising a eyebrow not get asked too many questions. After all people in town own cats or live in a area with wild cats. A nagaji or Kobold would raise a few eyebrows and would have to prove themselves to the locals. People in my worlds act like real people not locals from a fantasy novel.

Andoran

Odraude wrote:


That's also not true. Feedback was taken into account and applied during the playtest and after. For example, the action for studied target on the Slayer was changed in regards to the feedback given.

The thing with any beta is that the feedback isn't always right or matches with the design vision of the company. For better or worse, a company sifts through the feedback and sees what aligns with it. Of course I don't agree with their decisions all the time (like Dex to damage). But from the previous books we've read they do listen and apply what feedback fits in the game.

I guess we will have to disagree then. They do listen yet imo they do when it suits them to do so. And that's okay because in the end they spent the money on making the rpg from the ground up.

It's hard to feel like they listen when Sacred Geomtery is given the green light. Yet slashing Grace is really not worth it imo. Same thing with Craft Ooze. I wanted a feat that allowed me to create and use oozes in combat. Instead it's a very situational trap feat. I guess the frustration from myself is that their seems to be no proper middle ground on the design process. Either something is very good or very bad. Never a mix of the two imo. At this point with the experience in designing new material they should be finding the proper middle ground in their sleep.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:


I am noticing a patern with your posting Mem. Just becuase the DEVs dont run with your ideas doesnt mean they are not listening to feedback. Also, when they do listen to folks, whom you happen to disagree with, that doesnt automatically make them a "vocal minority". Who cares about the rogue if you now have "rogue" viable classes? I get that folks are upset because the rogue sucks. Paizo decided to leave the rogue as is for people who play CRB or 3.5 comp only but add optional new classes for the rogues sucks crowd. sounds like win/win to me. Especially, since unchained is going to offer a new rogue. Patience is a virtue. I am pleased that Paizo takes a conservative approach to changing the game. Something folks on the internet rarely want to wait for. /shrug.

I guess you were not here for when they playtested the core. Anyone who tied to post any major changes were chased away by a very vocal minority who wanted no changes. It happened.

Here the thing about feedback if the fans ask and ask for a proper dex to damage feat and they don't deliver why would it look like they listen to feedback. They were told over and over again by some fans not to allow Gunslingers to target touch AC yet in the end they still did. I'm not saying they have to listen to me or others feedback. Just don't ask for feedback if in the end the devs are going to do their own thing.

Then again to me anyway it's just a good PR exercise. Make the fans think their feedback means something then do the opposite. It makes the fans feel good yet the devs do what they want. To be honest they don't have to listen to feedback. They can take it into account when developing new material. Yet at the end of the day they can and will do their own thing. I may not like it. I can respect it.

At this point we are seeing much more levels of frustration from the fanbase. When they still can't find a proper middle ground on developing new things well it can be frustrating. I have never seen the boards being so very vocal imo. Asking for patience when the end result is the same is also frustrating. It's been how many years they just keep repeating the same mistakes imo.

As for the Rogue the Investigator is so much better in all ways. Except for their version of Sneak attack which still requires a melee weapon. I get your point about the Rogue yet im owe will see a lot more Investigator builds than Rogues in the future.

Andoran

Odraude wrote:


On the other hand, we got the Slayer and Investigator as actual good skill classes that can contribute more than most martials can.

All any of this proves is that there are examples of good mechanics and bad mechanics that are in Paizo books. Though it's my opinion that editing aside, ACG has a great deal of good options, with a few that admittedly boggle the mind.

Don't get me wrong there are good things. Though with the Investigator we might as well just have a tombstone with the heading Rogue RIP 2014 IMO. No reason to take a Rogue anymore. Slayer is good as well. I just think that in the end feedback is useless IMO. As for better or worse the devs will do their own thing.

Andoran

I don't mind anthrorphic characters as pcs. Nor should DMs be forced to allow them at the table. It's a matter of preference. I have both a Gunslinger and Alchemist in my latest game. I'm not going to allow them in my next game. Nor is it a bad thing.

Andoran

I'm with Kthulhu. After seeing what we got with Sacred Geometry and Slashing Geace I'm not holding my breath on the revised Stealth rules. Feedback was given yet chances are good The devs will ignore it and do their own thing.

Andoran

Hama wrote:


Anyway, a guy who after I show enthusiasm for my game in which I am introducing him to tells me to lay off the caffeine and curb my enthusiasm because I'm not 10
.

You think it would be a bonus to some that the person running the game is enthusiastic about it. If happened to a friend of mine as well. He took booted the player out of the game.

Annoying thing by players I have come across.

One who play casters yet by level 5 still don't know any spells by heart. Or uses a cheat sheet. I can understand not memorizing certain spells . How hard is it to remember what Bless dies.

The restrictive DM turned player who wants access to anything and everything in the books. Then when one refuses something complains about it.

Players who channel their inner male chauvinist mysognustic self through their characters at the table. Nothing runic a fans more than seeing a player make lewd, rude comments towards female npcs or players. Had two in my games over theocrats booted them out as soon as that BS began.

Players who ignore any advice at the table. Then when bad things happen get angry and lash out at players. Had his happen in a game two weeks ago. A player lost 11 hp to a trap. Instead of saying " I need to he healed" went on and his character died. Began to pull a fit at the table. Which the DM stopped finally and very grudgingly admitted he screwed up.

Players who make characters unsuitable to the campaign at hand then get mad at both the players and DM when he or she can't do anything. If it's a hack and slash style of game told upfront about it why make a character built only for social encounters who can't hit broadside of barn.

Is told writing game notes is a must to join g the group. Then complains, whines, moans and tries to weasel his way out if doing them.

Andoran

In the end if the majority if fans want a new edition. With the current version becoming unprofitable they should do a new edition. They are not going to please everyone. Not should they lies money just because some want to stick with a older edition , I only ask that this time around they have a proper play test. The last one was hijacked by a very very vocal minority that wanted no change. Who did they damn best to chase away anyone who disagreed with them.

If not and the majority want more if the same than they stick with the current rules. In the end in not licked into any one rpg.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Editing and mistakes aside as some have said the book is not a total loss. He'll it even close to one. It does bother me that whenever we ask for better quality control the response seems to be " well that simply not possible. ". Which us even more frustrating. It just seems they are unwilling to improve on quality control IMO. I could be wrong yet when we mentioned the same issues with quality control with UMD we were given the same response. It could have been rushed for a Gencon release with the release if 5E. If that is the case it shows.

I will say this with the Investigator Paizo really IMO does not like Rogues IMO. Or very much.

Andoran

I may not be as excited with a unchanged core book. If it was better organized and written I might purchase it. Heaven knows the first few pages of the magic section put me to sleep. Even better if they split the book into a phb and dmg. I still think it won't be a guaranteed sale IMO.

Andoran

The same thing happened to Pathfinder once they started releasing new material. So it's not just a problem that will happen to 5E.

So I ask the question again if the next edition will not change anything or very little how does one go about selling it. I mean why would myself or others buy the same thing twice. Which keeps getting ignored by the don't change anything group.

Andoran

I dont mind more rules. Nor more sourcebooks. Its how most if not all rpg companies make their money. I does bother me that because its new people comne across as forcing to use it. No one is bein forced to use anything. My main complaint of the new stuff is lots of interesting fluff but the crunch is severy lacking imo. Or they release badly designed feats or worse classes that are better than what is in th core.

Odraude wrote:
In the product description it mentions a simplified action econom, monster creation, and crafting.

I read that as well. While my interest is high Im nto holding my breath either.

Andoran

With 5E still being new there is no way to know how well it wil do yet imo. Agree about HeroLab it's very helpful dare I say needed to buil;d characters. Nothing slows a session donw more than the player who even after ten sessions of gaming still has not learned what his character can or cannot do.

Andoran

Odraude wrote:
I still don't want a second edition though. Happy with Pathfinder Unchained making the slight upgrades I want. And it does have stuff for simplifying combat and monster creation.

I can respect that. Though without major or at least some changes a new edition of PF will be a difficult sale to gamers imo.

Andoran

What would be the major selling point of a edition that changes nothing or very little.

Backwards compability. We would have PF 1E. So no need to upgrade.

Supporting Paizo. Already did with a purchase of PF 1E. To be blunt it would take myself my gaming group and other like minded players in the hobby something more to upgrade.

Better production values. Again not worth getting the new edition not unless it offers something new. It's going to require more than better organization and new art to get to buy the same material twice.

Agreed and seconded on all points Squirrel_Dude. Sure we can play another rpg. Nothing wrong with trying to improve the current version of PF. It will not suddenly make all current books of Paizo obsolete. I don't get the fear of change from gamers sometimes. Also spare me the 4E fallacy. Not in the mood to hear about it.

Odraude wrote:


I can agree to this. Those arguments do little for the debate at handle, instead just being highly dismissing. These same arguments are used when people ask for psionics or Asian settings or firearms. I bated them then and I hate these arguments now.

Again agreed and seconded.

Andoran

The thing is if your going to get interest in a new edition it had to have something new to offer. Which is something those who want nothing change forget. If you think all it takes is some new cover and interior art with little to no rule changes. All I'm going to say is good luck. Some in the hobby refuse to play it because they think the cite is too similar to 3.5. My gaming group and myself are not going to fish out another 100+ dollars. Even with the online srd we have little interest in rereading the same rules twice. Even Call of Cthulhu with its latest 7E has some major changes from what I hear.

I understand and respect people who have invested and not wanting to either purchase more material or have older material go obsolete. New editions seem to be a standard in the hobby. White Wolf announced a new edition of the World of Darkness at Gencon. Complete with a release of a new core book and rerelease of the core WOD line. From the looks of it chances are good the new edition will not be backwards computable. I would not mind a simplified version of the rules. Not rules light not that I have anything against it. The rules could use some streamlining. I played a Bard on the last game. I needed to write a cheat sheet just to keep track of the bonuses from spells, feats and class abilities.

Andoran

I like what I see with Pummel Fist. My worry is that given enough time it will go the way of the Crane Fist.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.

At the same time keeping PF unchanged may not sell as well either. Already some in the hobby refuse to buy it because they find it similar to 3.5. Releasing the same rules a second time with little or no changes beyond organization and art means no reason to upgrade from PF 1E. Not unless their is significant changes imo. Myself and my gaming circle will not be buying a PF that offers nothing new. Why buy the same thing twice. It's a catch 22. Damned if thewy do and damned if they don't.

Andoran

Arachnofiend wrote:


I mean... "we made a finesse feat that works with everything except finesse weapons" is a pretty ridiculous mistake. A lot of people must have green lighted Slashing Grace before it went to the printers. Did nobody seriously stop and say "hey wait, you do realize this feat doesn't work with anything we expect the Swashbuckler to use, right?".

For the most part I like what the devs have done. Yet I'm seeing the happen way too often as of late. I know they are human. I know they like what they do and respect the effort they put into their work. Yet to me at least it feels like they just ignore what done of the fanbase are asking for. At this point they should know better as well. A well designed feat with a proper mix if fluff and crunch should be very easy for them to develop test and print. I think it's a very conservative approach to design which is both a good and bad thing. As it goes I have very little hope for PF Unchained. I'm in no mood to get feats that have great fluff. Yet nothing in terms of crunch. And more feat taxes.

Andoran

I don't know the whole lot of you so I'm going to go back to eat my sub.

Andoran

I see your point Chenfor. The devs are much more experienced at this point. Their is a difference between being unable to see the flaws in ones work. Another in seeing the and unwilling to change them. If thus was the first year of development I could understand. Now it's just bad design IMO. I used to be a big fan of palladium books. Yet even after 30+ years of existence the owner still can predict a release schedule correctly.

Andoran

I think the devs at this point are imo experinced enough to have a good idea what is balanced or not. I don't mind feat taxes that much. It's when the feats don't make much sense. Weapon focus should be more for strength build. Not a dex build imo. Improved Critical makes more sense.

Andoran

I never said I was part of the majority. Or when I mentioned some fans the fans that they were. All I asked is that they listen to the feedback and possibly take it into account when designing new things for the game. Or are we no longer allowed to do so.

They don't have to listen to all feedback. Neither should they just simply ignore it either. If a certain feat causes a negative reaction from the fans. I see no reason to repeat it again with other feats. If they insist on repeating the same mistakes they can't really be surprised if the new material gets the same reaction imo. I can't understand why the devs can't seem to find the proper middle ground. Either the feat is too good. or not worth it. Or great fluff yet the crunch barely matches the fluff.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The point is that at this point the devs should be designing feats properly. Instead we keep getting more of the same. I like Pathfinder. I like what the devs have done with the rules for the most part. I do feel like their is a huge disconnect from what some of the fans want. To what they give us. If fans say don't give us a feat similar to Dervish dance. Yet they do just reworded. Why would we be happy. Yes I can houserule it. But I should not have to. They also seem to love feat taxes even when the fans have told them that they don't.

I also agree with Tels. As I said I like the majority of the product. I'm not going to simply keep quiet and ignore rules from them I don't like. If no one says anything nothing will change. Mind you even if we the fans speak up it seems nothing will change either.

Andoran

To feat is okay. Even if I share Lemmys concerns about it. I can understand the need for Dex to be high enough/ Even Weapon Finesse. Why the need for weapon focus. I would have added improved Critical rapier instead. Or all light weapons. I do wish the devs would listen. Fans disliked Dervish dance because of being tied to the Scimitar. Then they plan on doing it again a second time. I also wish the devs would get out of the conservative everything must be balanced thinking inside the box rut they seem to be stuck in. Not everything needs to have a feat tax.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Duncan7291 wrote:
I dont have an axe to grind. With that said and meaning no insult, your analysis of the situation is a bit simplistic. There are more facits to a business decision than just one source of revenue.

It's a good business decision. simple as that. The only us vs them attitude towards rpg publishers is by the fans or poorly run rpg companies.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo is a business. The business needs money. Which genrates profit. Why would they not carry 5E. Its a extra source of revenue. It shows they have no axe to grind with Wotc unlike some in the community.

Andoran

Hama wrote:


Because if they start making 5E material it will impact the amount of Pathfinder material that comes out. And I don't want that happening.

I think your selling the devs short. I doubt it will happen in any case. I just don't see the need to worry. The sky won't fall. Posters claimed that more book with more options would spell the end if the rpg. So far that too has not happened IMO.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.

How would it dilute one Pathfinder material?

I have both Pathfinder and 5E starter set sitting side by side on a shelf. I can tell you that physically they are not at all altered on any level. Having both is not causing me to be unable to like, play or run both either. I get not liking 5E. Let's not go into the realm of ridiculous please. I don't think it ill happen. At least until their is a OGL for 5E.

1 to 50 of 1,912 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.