|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
True. Yet I just can't see the fans of 3.5. or PF rushing out to buy another 3.5./PF unless it address all or at least some of the flaws of the system. My gaming group and myself see no reason to buy another edition which continues the martial.caster disaprity.
I don't see why one can't be both optimized and be a roleplayer. Building a character with one of the character creation guides does not suddenly remove my ability to roleplay. I can contribute both at the table with my character and roleplay as well.
The main problem is that while one can build a character the way the want and roleplay the same as well. One also has to accept that the character can be flawed at the table. If one is going to build a 7 STr character. First off your not going to be carrying much. Standard weight is going to be between 24-46 pounds. Leather armor is 15lbs, a armored quilt 10. That's not counting weapons and a shield as well as other stuff a character wants to buy. In the games I run if a BBEG is wearing magical heavy armor it suddenly does not turn into a suit of light armor. As well one takes a penalty granted a small penalty to damage.
If one is alright with the shortcomings of a character then such a character can work. Yet more often than not. A player who builds a weaker character than the others also wants to do the same as other built optimized or even normally. Which cannot be done with the system as is imo. Only with the help of a kind DM. To use the above fighter he is not going to be able to carry much in terms of equipment let alone treasure unless he gets a haversack or asks help from his teammates.
That's the thing though one wants to help a fellow player only so many times before it becomes annoying. After a point if I have a high str fighter and I'm also part pack mule for another player. I'm going to start charging a player a fee to carry his stuff. Nor do I see the reason to downplay or build a weaker character simply because a player insists on building a character with lower ability scores. I'm doing more damage with the higher str fighter. How about building him with a better str next time. As I said build a character the way you want. Don't complain if he is not as effective at the table. Nor begrudge players who do.
As long as attributes are tied so strongly to character classes it's just how the system is. One can build a Bard with both a 12 another with 18 cha. Yet the one with the higher score spell DCs will be higher. No amount of roleplaying can change that imo. The rules also reward those who optimize or at the very least take the bread and butter feats for their characters. A Rogue that has low str but high Dex and Weapon Finesse. Just hits more often than one without. A fighter that takes all the weapon style feats does more damage than one that decides to say focus on skill based or crafting feats.
Heh... At this point, Dreamscarred Press (and few other 3pp, actually) is a better Paizo than Paizo.
Seconded. Which is both good and bad imo. Good because I have access to better quality material than what I can get at Paizo. Bad because it shows the shortcomings of the Paizo devs at designing new material imo. When 3pp does it better than the parent company it's really not a good thing. I find myself barely looking through most of my Paizo collection. Instead finding more inspiration in 3pp and even 3.5. While Inner Sea Gods has better production values. Green Ronin Book of The Righteousness simply has more flavor and better options imo.
Probably not for a few more years. Though if they do they would have to offer something new IMO. A rehash of a rehash with a few houserules and new art. Is not going to do as well the second time around. Especially with 5E fixing some of the flaws of 3.5. Chaos effects advice is good check out the SRD.
I still think they need to offer something new. With both 3.5 and PF those who want their 3E fix can get it. I just can't see a majority of those who have access to both editions buy another edition with no changes. Some will but the large amount that did so with PF. I don't think will IMO. They have existing RPGs to cater to their gaming needs. Why buy it a third time. That's the problem beyond current flaws in the rules. How to get gamers to buy the same product withitylr if any changes a third time. Both 4E and 5E offered something new and a reason for some to reinvest.
As for edition loyalty it's a very subjective and fleeting thing. Gamers who swore they never would touch anything from Wotc that included 4E material. Still ended up buying 5E. Edition loyalty does exist but not to the level that some people think it does IMO.
I don't know which point buy systems you have played. Having played Hero System. It's pretty balanced IMO. With the devs pointing out which elements can be overpowered. Contrast that with D20 where one has to figure that out by trial and error. Point but systems can like D20 be exploited by someone with enough system mastery. Nowhere near the level of D20 IMO.
While casting in 3.5./PF is not foolproof it's a hell of lot easier then it was in previous editions imo. Unless the person playing the caster is really new to the game it's really hard to fail at casting. In the hands of a experienced player forget it he or she is not going to fail at getting the spell off. A combination of Combat Casting, defensive casting and the write spells means that Wizards more often than not succeed.
With previous editions needing to study. Losing a spell while taking damage Casters had to stay out of melee. Now then can go into melee and succed imo. A DM can make a caster life hard to be sure. Yet it requires a DM goes out of his way.
Buri Reborn wrote:
If/when there's a second edition, I'd just like to see all the needlessly duplicated text removed such as every single friggin' supernatural ability saying it doesn't provoke and so on. Let single sources be definitive so that there aren't arguments over whether two abilities of the same type behave in certain ways. I've had many of these "discussions" including whether or not abilities like tremorsense function as "monster" tremorsense. I blame the splattering of minor wording differences here and there to be the cause of so many misunderstandings. Use extra text only to describe exceptions, not normal rules.
Seconded as well as the section explaining magic written with more flavor imo. When I read it's so boring I find myself falling asleep. As well the Versatile Performance ability of Bards needs a rewrite. At a certain point too many of them start becoming redundant. One has to always take the same ones to avoid duplicating the same skill.
Nathanael Love wrote:
I can respect that. While completely disagreeing that their is no flaw. 4E then 5E to me at least are the editions where both melee and casters can both contribute to the table. While previous editions had flaws as well. 3.5 then PF made it worse for martials IMO.
While I'm not a mod ladies and gentlemen let's not get this thread locked.
I see some influence of 4E when reading through 5E. Just rephrased differently. My opinion if they had no write the rules with a mmo vibe. I think 4E would have been more of a success. Then again it also shows how fickle gamers can be. A edition fixes most of the issues if a previous edition. Just not written in a style many liked. Followed by a edition which does the same thing written in a more famiar style yet no one says anything. Note I'm not saying it is or plays like a mmo.
Yeah the marketing for 4E was pretty bad IMO and I was not even bothered by the ads.
The thing is changing nothing or very little also has the potential to alienate fans as well. i cant see a huge amount of the D&D fanbasd spending 100$+ on another 3.5. rehash. Their simply no need IMO. A new edition would also alienate some fans as well yet offer new material as a incentive to buy it. Their too much choice in terms of D&D to simply do a reprint with errata IMO.
It probably is but I'm not going to lie and say that I knew about them.
New editions are always a trick thing to implement. Their will always be a certain segment of the fanbase that will be unhappy. No matter how little or too much is changed. at the same time a company should make sure that the current edition is still profitable. It's hard to find both a balance of offering new material and not alienating fans. While PF did it the first time around I can't see it happening again IMO.
I never said that those 3.5 variants were never ever played. Or that one was better than the other. From what I can see most if not of a significant amount of the fanbase stay with PF core. Or with 3.5. Usually because mistakenly they think it's broken, unbalanced or both. I have a DM who thinks 3pp is broken simply because another fellow player told him. How many players you know not counting yourself and those near you. That you know play the 3.5. variants or even know of them.
To use myself I had no clue who dream theater was. I never heard their music or even heard of them as a band until you told me about them. While I agree Justin Beiber is not as good as musician he probably is still better known than Dream Theater. Or to put it another way Steve Jobs found out the hard way that having the better quality computer. Means nothing when people are willing to buy the competition pcs simply because theirs would run any kind of software and not tied to that silly closed model approach that Apple had.
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Right because that never happens. (points to PF playtest). That never happens at all.
While I'm actually bored with Vancian casting. It needs to be in the game IMO. That being said the next edition should also offer a optional different type of casting system alongside Vancian. I see no reason for it to be Vancian and only Vancian at this point. As I said before a rehash is simply not going to sell as well. PF did because no one else was carrying the 3.5. Torch. With two existing versions of 3.5., 4E and 5E. I can't see a big enough gaming segment rushing to buy a edition that changes nothing or very little.
I think it's the opposite. Those who don't use PFS for their games actually play the game the way it's supposed to be played. If I was a rpg designer I rather hear feedback from those who use all the rules. Rather than from those who are more restricted in the rules they can use. It's hard to see what broken in a rpg if it never gets used. As well as what works.
Paizo could also do what Wotc did with 5E. Include elements of 4E. Yet repackage it in such s way as to be more acceptable to the fanbase. Which they kind of did with Pathfinder Unchained.
While I like to see a new edition. i know i'm in the minority on that end. I also think they can get more mileage out of the current edition for a few more years imo.
That being said another edition has to have a minimum of 50% new material for myself and my gaming group to even open the core. We have no interest in another rehash with better production values. Not just with PF any new version of rpg. It's why I passed on Earthdawn 4E. I see no reason to reinvest in the same material a second time.
As for backwards compitability unless their market research shows a significant amount of the fanbase use 3.5 materials at their tables. Then it should be. If not I see no reason too. More often than not at most tables I played in it's "No 3.5. Only PF core and no 3pp". Do some of the fanbase use 3.5. materials. Yes. I don't think it's that big a segment of the fanbase.
With 5E fixing some of the flaws of 3.5. I can't see a mostly unchanged edition doing as well. Again Paizo needs a reason to attract people to a the next version of the rpg. Same flaws no changes and some will question the need to switch let alone buy such a core book. If the caster/martial disparity still exists I might as well keep playing PF 1E. I think gamers need to look at the hobby as a whole and not just their own bookshelves.
As much as I like monsters. I can live without more bestiaries. I'm looking for more interesting and uniques monsters. What's the difference between a cave, hill, mountain or ravine troll anyway.
A updated equivalent of manual of the planes for Golarion.
Another campaign setting preferably not fantasy.
Steampunk setting or at the very least a book detailing how to run and create such adventures.
A feat/spell compendium
A series of books on environments. The Wotc environment series of books remain some of my favourite.
Just a Guess wrote:
Pretty much. Unlike Casters who list a spell when hit. Martials just take damage. No negatives from taking damage.
Not to mention expect poorly edited books from Palladium. I don't from Paizo.
In the context of the game it makes sense for the class to have soap. When Rifts first was released. The world was pretty much post-apocalyptic. Soap being in short supply could be traded for something else. Now that they turned the world into one that is slowly recovering from a apocalypse. Not so much. Even then when I look at my Rifts books I see myself wanting to play so many of the classes. Pathfinder 80-90% of the time most new and old material joins the "not worth taking as a player let alone the paper it's printed on" pile.
As for caster and martial disparity. It's the other way around imo. Caster have a more battlefield control. Some spells are broken. But they also can lose their spell by taking a single point of damage. No concentration checks. The save DC vs magic are a joke they barely go up in level. So that even a regular person has a good chance to save vs magic. Add to that the majority of the spells have poor range. Requiring the caster to be either very sneaky. Have decent system or at least spell mastery. Or be in the middle of combat. The running joke with Rifts is that the casters to compete with Martials need to carry guns. As the guns have better range than most spells.
The reason why I play PF more is that it's popular in my area. Easy to find players and more importantly while the rules for Rifts work they are imo a clunky annoying mess.
Bill Dunn wrote:
To be fair though their are some fans of the company that can be just as bad. Constructive critcism or not your not allowed to say anything negative about the company. While I don't always agree with how some of the negative critism is said. I do understand. For the most part it's comes from frustration. If the community is asking for new material to be both balanced and worth taking for a player. We keep getting either options that are too strong. Or simply not worth taking. So far beyond a few exceptions. I have not used most if any of the new material in the later books.
Their errata process leaves much to be desired. So far I'm seeing nothing that changes my impression that they don't like martials. Or they go to far and the material joins my list of what I'm never ever going to take as a player. Or what truly is a problem simply gets ignored. Even when many people point it out to them.
I can blame people for leaving or being more vocal. I don't reward any company with praise when they keep making the same mistakes. I'm not the only one that feels that way I'm sure.
It is frustrating though. I'm not saying they have to cater to our whims. There a point though where you ask, beg and plead. Yet the feedback is ignored. Speaking for myself if a company rpg or not. Keeps repeating the same mistakes. I don't give them praise. It's not to say I don't enjoy the game I do. I don't see why one can't be both a fan and be critical of them as well.
I have mixed feelings.
The large amount of options. Arctypes, feats etc. the more the better IMO.
The art in the books is very evocative though I wish they would hire more artists.
3pp even if some will never be allowed at my table.
I like Golarion for the most part. So
What I dislike:
A unwillingness on the Devs part to find the proper middle ground when it comes to new material. Either it's too strong. Not worth taking. Or was a decent option to take at first then became nerfed after. I don't see why we can't have both effective crunch and flavour.
Some of the fans who are both unable and unwilling to accept that some fans simply don't agree with some design decisions. I can both like and be critical of a rpg company. As long as one is respectful about it. I believe in telling people what they need to hear not what they want to hear. This is after all a forum to discuss topics. Not a echo chamber where I and others have to say only positive stuff about Piazo.
high leave play can slow the game down yet IMO that was a problem with earlier editions.
I don't like how much of a say PFS had in the errata process.
Well if the design team would stop making the same mistakes. They would be given more praise instead of criticism IMO. If they want to repeat the same errors with errata over and over. Why would they be given praise. If they want less criticism they can improve how they do errata. If not why should I or anyone else give them a free pass on criticism. One does not reward a diabetic with praise if he keeps eating food with lots of sugar. Why are rpg developers different.
In Exalted defence if does say from the start that the players are going to be powerful. It's not a rpg where a first level character starts wearing only a codpiece while carrying a rusty dagger. Do attacking all surprised means gamers reading the book are simply not paying attention IMO. Rusts on the other hand if it ever gets a revision could be a decent set of rules. Too bad they allowed anything and everything including the kitchen sink in terms of new rules and classe.
That being said after suffering through all the nerfing in PF. Sometimes it's refreshing to play a rpg that routinely tosses balance outside the window IMO.
That's the thing though. It's not just the ACG or its errata. It's been a pattern for quite awhile. Either options are too strong. It not worth taking. Or nerfing to the point it's not worth taking. Absolutely no middle ground IMO. I don't think it's that hard to make a feat/class/ class feature both worth taking and not too powerful.
Not to mention house ruling should never be something used to sell a rpg. I think all of us as members of the hobby sometime or another house rule. Many of us prefer to use RAW. It's why I buy a the rpg in the first place. Try selling a new car and then telling people that the brakes need work. The tires need to be rotated etc. good luck selling it. It's not so much the errata. So much that their no middle ground. No finesse. Either something remains too strong. Or becomes not worth taking. Rarely is if both effective and worth taking IMO. Paizo errata process reminds me of a scene from the movie Armaggedon. When the Russian cosmonaut picks up a big wrench. Then says " this is how we fix things on MIR station" and begins to randomly swing and smash his wrench.
They keep making the same mistakes. Why should some of the fans give them a free pass. Get the errata process right or expects the complaints to continue.
It too easy to say the debs are human when mistakes happen. Once, twice, three time. After that it's simply making the same mistakes over and over. I respect the debs. I'm no longer giving them a free pass on repeating the same mistakes anymore. Either we get new material that is either too powerful it not worth taking. Their seems to be a adamant refusal to find any mide ground. Errata is even worse. Either what needs to be fixed is ignored. Or nerfed to almost being useless IMO. A good example is Divine Ptotection. What was a strong feat perhaps too good. Is now almost worthless IMO. A DM would either have to give it to me for free. Or I need to be payed at least a six figure amount before I ever added to my character sheet. It's frustrating really.
As for the play tests agreed they are a farce. A feel good PR thing for the fans. The debs can and will ignore any of the play tests if they ready have a set idea in mind of what a class should be. I actually like Mythic. The main issue for me never using it is that Mythic enemies don't scale properly with players.
Here's to hoping that paizo takes note of the new feedback on their possibly rushed errata, which was prompted by guilt/feedback from their rushed book, and slowly and carefully craft improvements that make real differences and are not arbitrary or without necessity.
At this point I don't think they ever will. They should be making effective errata with their eyes closed imo. With the exception of Mark. Their is a adamant refusal to find some sort of middle ground when it comes to designing new material. Same with errata. Either something is too good. Or nerfed so much as to not worth taking imo. It's almost impossible to get something is both good yet not too game breaking at the same time. Their also doing nothing to dispel the notion that martials can't nice things either imo.
It's not 2009 anymore. Only so many times I'm willing to give free passes on the same mistakes from devs. I'm not giving up on PF. Far from it. I am giving up on the devs to gives us new material that is worth using in my games. While were at it simply admit once and for all that PFS has a big hand in what gets incorporated into errata. At this point Paizo is not fooling anyone. It's very frustrating because it seems like they almost never listen. Which is why I don't waste my time with playtests or compiling errata. What's the point really.
While I still may allow some 3pp. I will make sure to add the caveat you mentioned in my post. It will make it easier and fair.
As both a player and DM I can understand not being happy about having to change a pc. Yet at the same time if I'm allowing the pc to keep his current share of treasure. As well as a rebuild I think it's more than fair. What caused me to ask him to leave was that he had to build the pc his way and only his way. No exceptions. Game breaking or no he wanted that kind of pc. No two ways about it. He did not help himself with asking to use 3pp even when I said no to 3pp the second time around. Finally while I encourage players to give feedback getting what amounts to be a lecture on why I'm a bad DM and person for not allowing his build. Simply because he would in his games. Ended up being the final straw. Feedback is one thing. Giving me a lecture on how I run my game is another.
139. The " you agreed to allow my character at the start of the game. So you can't disallow it later" even if it's overpowered may ruin the entire campaign. I had a player who built a character using 3pp and by tweaking Herolab to make it legal. I allowed at first but eventually it was too powerful and unbalanced. I spoke to the player and told him to make something else.
Apparently the player could and would only play that particular character concept. Eventually I had to ask hm to leave. Yes did I agree at the beginning to allow the character as is. Which I admit was s mistake on my part. Was I going to allow one player to ruin a entire campaign and everyone else fun no way. Not to mention when the resident optimizer sends you a email saying " are you insane that build is too powrful". Then chances are good it is.
Which leads me to
Paizo doesn't really understand stand the subtle art of nerfing. They identify a problem, then say "F%&! everything!" and make it as worthless as possible so they never have to touch it again.
Agreed and seconded. Their seems to be a adamant refusal to find the proper middle ground with the debs IMO. Either a option is too strong. Or it's not worth taking. Or so badly nerfed it's not worth taking. As well as doing nothing to remove the image that martial a cant get nice things IMO.
True but I expect that from Catalyst games. I sure as hell expected more from Paizo. I wanted to eventually buy a used second printing. I'm not even going to do that because they needed stuff that did not need to be IMO.
After a point though their will be a saturation point with aps imo. How many Aps does a person really need before it's just easier and cheaper to build one own. I can see new fans to the system buying aps at least at the start. By the time one has 10 aps. Unless one is gaming twice a week at least one is never going to be run out of Aps to run. Aps are also a investment as well. 120$+ not everyone can afford that.
Your right about the SRD. I would have made neither version free. If I owned the ip "buy the books their no free lunches from me" . That's just me though.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Absolutely. While making sure no one else can for better or worse.