Pathfinder RPG: A Power-Gamers Dream


Alpha Release 1 General Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought Pathfinder was going to be a role-players dream – it turns out, I was wrong.

OK, it’s now very clear/obvious that the P-RPG will be catering to Powergamers, Minmaxers, Rules Lawyers, and WoW fanatics.

hell, I play WoW too- (So my problem is not with WoW - I love the game!)

But WoW is not D&D – it’s a video game.

D&D is a role-playing game.

Stop trying to mix the two –

If I want to play WoW, I can turn on my computer, and have a blast powering-up and destroying everything in my field of view.

If I want to play D&D, I’ll invite some friends over to hang out, have fun, laugh, and *role-play* (not see who can build the most powerful character, min-max everything, or argue over rules).

I’m all for over-powering through *supplemental* books, but when you make the *core* book overpowered you give the DM no choice but to run a power focused game.
Any player (whether a powergamer or not) in his right mind is not going to like all those pretty little power-ups, just house ruled away from him.

When the power ups are in *supplemental* form, you can just not allow that book --- “core book only” – The DM will get *much* less flack.


1) Jason has never played WoW. Seriously, he gets offended when someone asks him to (*cough cough* like me *cough cough*).

2) You're aware that this is an Alpha and, as such, we're doing a great deal of flinging ideas at the wall to see what'll stick, right? The 1.1 document shows that we're moving away from some of the more radical ideas. Pathfinder RPG will be no more a "power gamers" game than 3.5 was/is.

Liberty's Edge

gig-gilf wrote:


When the power ups are in *supplemental* form, you can just not allow that book --- “core book only” – The DM will get *much* less flack.

Personally...it doesn't feel overpowered. It feels like the player's have more options and I like that. As far as the DM getting flack...that's up to the group not Paizo. I will houserule, allow/disallow various options, and don't care about the flack. This is not something that Paizo can solve with its core rulebook.

Thanks,

Scott

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

The accusation that the Pathfinder RPG is heavily influenced by WoW raises the interesting question of what the influences on the 'feel' of the game actually are.

It seems that one of the design goals for Pathfinder is to maintain some degree of continuity with the feel of 'classic' D&D (whatever that particular loaded phrase might mean).

From a business perspective, this is a sensible move as it helps to differentiate Pathfinder from 4e (which seems to be a more radical departure from the past in many respects).

But what does it mean in practice? What kind of mood or atmosphere does the Pathfinder RPG attempt to evoke? Does it lean towards an 'old-school' feel, or is it aiming for a more contemporary approach to fantasy? Does it lean towards sword & sorcery (Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Michael Moorcock) or the high fantasy of Tolkein and his imitators?

Is it OK for the game to absorb some influences from anime and MMORPGs? Or are people implacably opposed to this idea?


unless youve come straight from 2nd ed, your a bit confused. this is all about backwards compatibility and the mess WOTC left at the end of 3.5. for gods sake use your 3.5 core PHB if you wish.
(I would like to add that my anti-rules lawyer girlfriend took a look at rogue and was thrilled with the fun rogue abilities gained at early levels, it really sparked her imagination, and she HATES having to know rules^^.)

playtesting is going to look alot like rules lawyering but actually this is the ACTUAL place to be doing it, not at your table.

I personally hate the wizards "peep show" approach to discussion with players. you can complain, we generally wont hear you, and we will try to hook you with fragments of "juicy" information. who ever conceptualized 4th ed didnt talk to me at ALL.

Pathfinder is much more healthy, if you can actually come up with a creative idea that can streamline mechanics and highlight drama, speak it. the table is open. naysaying without solutions just doesnt work.


Joshua J. Frost wrote:

1) Jason has never played WoW. Seriously, he gets offended when someone asks him to (*cough cough* like me *cough cough*).

He doesn't know what he's missing -- it's a blast to play! :)

2) You're aware that this is an Alpha and, as such, we're doing a great deal of flinging ideas at the wall to see what'll stick, right? The 1.1 document shows that we're moving away from some of the more radical ideas. Pathfinder RPG will be no more a "power gamers" game than 3.5 was/is.

Well, this is what I was hoping, but it still (even with 1.1) seams very slanted to powergaming and min-maxing.

There's a real slant towards... well the Fighter/Wizard/whatever is not powerful enough when compared to the Cleric/Druid/whatever..... so let's *power-up* the Fighter/Wizard/whatever -

How about we fling ideas at the wall to power **down** the Cleric/Druid/whatever. (or whatever was overpowered in 3.5 – which there are lots)

It really seams like the P-RPG is powering things *up* to be equal across the board --- how about powering things **down** to be equal across the board?

DMs get much less hassle when they can house rule power *into* the game, rather than house rule power away.


well unfortunately there is more thing to power down than to power up. it just about compatability. we can fix the fighter,bard,rogue or we can fix the cleric,druid,beguiler,dragonshaman,warblade,savant,etc

the tweek to the cleric and wizard in 1.1 didnt really power them up, just gave them a different spin (as far as I can see)

Liberty's Edge

gig-gilf wrote:
DMs get much less hassle when they can house rule power *into* the game, rather than house rule power away.

I just don't see the problem. A DM is going to get rules hassle and will have to make their own decisions about house rules. I just don't see Paizo intervening in something that is essentially about play style, or relationships.

Thanks,

Scott


....and where in the world do you go to complain on a message board, and the first response is from A MEMBER OF THE COMPANY?

Joshua J. Frost (Director of Sales & Marketing), 40 minutes ago Reply
Iconic Wizard avatar

1) Jason has never played WoW. Seriously, he gets offended when someone asks him to (*cough cough* like me *cough cough*).

2) You're aware that this is an Alpha and, as such, we're doing a great deal of flinging ideas at the wall to see what'll stick, right? The 1.1 document shows that we're moving away from some of the more radical ideas. Pathfinder RPG will be no more a "power gamers" game than 3.5 was/is.


SneaksyDragon wrote:

well unfortunately there is more thing to power down than to power up. it just about compatability. we can fix the fighter,bard,rogue or we can fix the cleric,druid,beguiler,dragonshaman,warblade,savant,etc

Well, no one said creating a new RGP was going to be easy.

It's very evident from these boards that: some people want more power, and some people want less power.

We can have BOTH: Start with your vanilla (low-powered basic) "Core" book.... and then add all the cherry, hot fudge, butterscotch (high powered - options) through "supplements" you want to customize your fun.

But don't make high-powered standard issue - once the hot fudge is on... it's a b!+@# to get it off.

....and the kids *ain't* gonna like seeing all that hot fudge just scrapped right off :)

Dark Archive

gig-gilf wrote:
Well, this is what I was hoping, but it still (even with 1.1) seams very slanted to powergaming and min-maxing. There's a real slant towards... well the Fighter/Wizard/whatever is not powerful enough when compared to the Cleric/Druid/whatever..... so let's *power-up* the Fighter/Wizard/whatever - How about we fling ideas at the wall to power **down** the Cleric/Druid/whatever. (or whatever was overpowered in 3.5 – which there are lots) It really seams like the P-RPG is powering things *up* to be equal across the board --- how about powering things **down** to be equal across the board?

While I think gig-giff's point could have been accomplished with a greater deal of respect and gentility, I think there is a legitimate point to be made here. Agreeably, powering up to a certain extent does allow for some interesting "wiggle room," as David Noonan noted in the last WotC podcast; that is, under the 3.5 style, races in particular had to either be equivalent to the races in the PHB or start at a level adjustment. I think that the racial powering-up is fine, but I agree that if any changes need to be made to the class power levels, it is a downward change.

Again, though, I think it's really important to remember that this game still has more than a year and a half before it is released. That's a whole lot of time to make changes, and we should all be grateful that we have been involved in the testing and development of this game, which is much better treatment than other notable companies have offered. I think in return we can offer our understanding and support of this company, and not expect an immediate or near-immediate turnaround in changing the rules.


SneaksyDragon wrote:
....and where in the world do you go to complain on a message board...

It's not a complaint.

It's my opinion.... just like you have yours.

I'm giving my feed-back.


gig-gilf wrote:


Well, no one said creating a new RGP was going to be easy.

Conceptually, I think you're missing the mark of this project. I don't believe that the goal is to create an entirely new RPG... but rather to make some needed changes to 3.5 that will still allow you to use your various supplements and things that have already come out with relative ease.

I see this as more of a tweak to 3.5 to correct some of the problems, streamline some things, and generally balance some of the core classes that have been left in the dust due to the various supplements. For example, why play a wizard, when you can play a warlock? Or, why play a wizard past level 3, if you can get into a prestige class?


I think with a number of things have actually been powered down. Things like power attack, and the new clerics are significantly less powerful, if I am reading it right.


great I love feed back!^^ I specifically think ALL the 3.5 books should have there place on our shelves, including the 3.5 PHB. the style of game you seem to want to run works perfectly with what WOTC gave you (its starts of light in the beginning and gets progressively thicker, allowing you to tell the bartender to "stop" whenever you want to)

I feel that the Fighter,Rogue,wizard should not be shown up by the Beguiler, Warlock, and Dragon shaman, THe core classes are to dear to me to see them relegated to being the low powered option. A Fighter should be as wonky in melee as any 1st to 20th level class, this is my opinion and works well with what Pathfinder is trying to do.

On the other end I have always been about nerfing the cleric, druid and ranger. (cloistered clerics all the way!)


SneaksyDragon wrote:
I feel that the Fighter,Rogue,wizard should not be shown up by the Beguiler, Warlock, and Dragon shaman...

I feel the same way - I love the core classes.

I like how the P-RPG listed the different XP progression... maybe they could do something like that for character advancement in the core book.
Like; Low-Powered character advancement, Mid-Powered character advancement and High-Powered character advancement? - don't know, just an idea-

Dark Archive

Power is a relative thing. The power level may seemed to have jumped up, but we have yet to see the rest of the game. That makes it impossible to decide if the PCs are more powerful or not.

From what I seen, the PCs are neutral in power gain, and my have lost in relative power. Clerics and Wizard have lost a good chunk of their late game power, by trading Domain spells and specialist bonus spells for some early game power, where everyone seemed to think they were weak. Clerics lost 1 spell for levels 1-5. Fighters gained, but everyone knew they were the weakest of all the classes. Rogues gained a little, but outside of level 1 auto-pick for skills, no-one has complained about them.

And other places the PCs may lose a little power. The gain a feat every other level may seem to benefit the PCs, until you realize that it applies to monsters as well, and monsters have far more HD than PCs. That means the monsters will gain more feats than the PCs and thus have a small advantage.(Moreso than 3.5)

Then there is what we haven't seen. Jason is going to go over the Monster Manual and update it to the Pathfinder RPG. There are several changes that means the has to update the stat blocks and when he does, there may be changes. I wouldn't be surprised if he decided to boost some monsters, or lower the CR on others. Either way, the PCs face harder monsters for their level, resulting in a lower relative power level.

And lastly, the reason why the base classes are getting changed is to make them worth taking over 20 levels. Why take 20 levels of cleric when you can take levels in Thaumaturgist and gain full casting AND class features? Or why take 20 levels in wizard when you can take Loremaster or Archmage and gain full casting and class features? These aren't splat-book PrCs these are OGL PrCs found in the DMG. These classes in of themselves make the point that Jason wants which is that there should not be no reason for you to stay in your base class. You will ALWAYS be weaker in 3.5 if you stay in your base class while others take PrCs. That IS class imbalance and should be addressed.

Also, what specifically feels like WOW?


I do realize that the characters are a bit more powerful... I've told my DM that from the start, but I don't think that they are terribly too powerful. In fact, I believe that Paizo made the character classes of an existing game a bit more useful.

I also get offended when people ask me to play WOW... I don't go for a game that not only expects me to upgrade my computer, buy a game at the store, AND THEN pay them as much as one would pay for a dial up account each month just to play a game that I bought in the first place... especially one that does not let me play when I want offline.
(Yes, I understand that this would hinder with the continual build.... but I'm still not sold)

Really, I think they would get more accounts.. their real money maker... if they just offered the game itself for free... they could stick cds of WOW in post offices and check outs, just like AOL did a few years back... it would give us another outlet for those CD Christmas tree ornaments that were sort of popular for awhile.


You're forgetting something:

Paizo CANNOT power down any classes except the ones from the PHB and (IIRC) the psionic base classes. Those are the only classes that are Open Gaming Content. Paizo is not even legally allowed to MENTION dragon shamans, warblades, beguilers, dread necromancers, or any other non-OGL class in a product.

They have no choice but to power up the weaker PHB1 base classes.

Scarab Sages

hallucitor wrote:

I do realize that the characters are a bit more powerful... I've told my DM that from the start, but I don't think that they are terribly too powerful. In fact, I believe that Paizo made the character classes of an existing game a bit more useful.

I also get offended when people ask me to play WOW... I don't go for a game that not only expects me to upgrade my computer, buy a game at the store, AND THEN pay them as much as one would pay for a dial up account each month just to play a game that I bought in the first place... especially one that does not let me play when I want offline.
(Yes, I understand that this would hinder with the continual build.... but I'm still not sold)

Really, I think they would get more accounts.. their real money maker... if they just offered the game itself for free... they could stick cds of WOW in post offices and check outs, just like AOL did a few years back... it would give us another outlet for those CD Christmas tree ornaments that were sort of popular for awhile.

9 million accounts isn't enough????

I never played WoW, I knew all the B-net kiddies would invade it...

I did play EQ, DDO, SWG, and CoH. Pathfinder isn't a MMORPG, 4e is a MMORPG...or more like a MMOG...

I like that they are balancing the Core classes, compare a Fighter to anything in the Tome of Battle.

Better yet, try to take a fighter/wizard and have them fight one of those Tome of Battle classes...

Sovereign Court

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:


Better yet, try to take a fighter/wizard and have them fight one of those Tome of Battle classes...

I've done this, a well built gish still beats the ToB based classes. It was still a very interesting series of fights though. Way closer than a fighter vs a fighter mage. A gish can still nova better than a tob class*.

However, my swordsage really shone after 3 or 4 hard encounters and the eldritch knight started having to conserve spell slots. But that's the 15 minute adventuring day for ya.

*This was high level play, 16-20. I could see it playing out differently at levels 8-12.


Overall, I like the changes. The improvements to the fighter are good (but I still want some good testing to make sure). I am less thrilled about some of the changes to the domains and specialist schools. Namely, the 2nd level abilities.

The 1/day spells from the schools are fine and lay out with the bonus spells i the 3.5 rules. The 2nd level abilities need to be changes IMHO. I do not mind the 1/2 x level per day uses, I would just rather the spells be utility spells.

For example, replace the 2nd level Evocation ability with floating disk instead of magic missile and the 2nd level transmutation ability with feather fall instead of enlarge person.

I would aim at doing the same with some of the domains.

Scarab Sages

Thraxus wrote:

Overall, I like the changes. The improvements to the fighter are good (but I still want some good testing to make sure). I am less thrilled about some of the changes to the domains and specialist schools. Namely, the 2nd level abilities.

The 1/day spells from the schools are fine and lay out with the bonus spells i the 3.5 rules. The 2nd level abilities need to be changes IMHO. I do not mind the 1/2 x level per day uses, I would just rather the spells be utility spells.

For example, replace the 2nd level Evocation ability with floating disk instead of magic missile and the 2nd level transmutation ability with feather fall instead of enlarge person.

I would aim at doing the same with some of the domains.

Actually a list of 1/day spells of a similar type would be good.

Cast 1/day from the following list: Feather fall, enlarge, reduce

or

Cast 1/day from the following list: Floating Disk, Magic Missile or burning hands.

Not 1 of each, but give more flexibility to it...or make it a 1 time choice.


I think it is accepted that characters need more power at low levels and high levels and are fine at mid-levels. If the aim is for compatibility with your huge stack of 3.5 books, then it easier to power up low and high levels of a few weaker classes.

Ask yourself this question seriously, "If it IS all about having FUN WITH FRIENDS at the gaming table, then why must the game be HARDER FOR PLAYERS?"


I think that the possibility for min/maxing can be present in just about any RPG that is out there. I believe that it depends more on the players then on the rules. I am fortunate in the fact that the group I am DMing for only has one player that is prone to that and we have even been able to tone him down some. The rest of us are there to role play and have fun.

I showed the Alpha 1.1 to my group last night and they were really excited about it. My one player that is currently playing a Rogue/Assassin, who often feels that her character sometimes lacks the ability to really aid the party, was thrilled by the new rogue, and asked jokingly if she could convert her character to the new rules. I am considering it, but may wait until we have the changes to the other classes so as to be fair to my other five players.

Just my thoughts.

DJ

Grand Lodge

gig-gilf wrote:

There's a real slant towards... well the Fighter/Wizard/whatever is not powerful enough when compared to the Cleric/Druid/whatever..... so let's *power-up* the Fighter/Wizard/whatever -

How about we fling ideas at the wall to power **down** the Cleric/Druid/whatever. (or whatever was overpowered in 3.5 – which there are lots)

It really seams like the P-RPG is powering things *up* to be equal across the board --- how about powering things **down** to be equal across the board?

Theres one major flaw with scaling down other classes to match the weaker ones. backwards compatibility.

by adding a few extra feats or abilities to fighters or sorcerers its easy to add those things to NPCs in 3.5 modules. By taking away a druids wildshape, or messing with the clerics spells it becomes alot harder to manage.

scaling down also affects rules supplements in a major way too by making the core classes weaker you also put more emphasis on the newer classes such as Duskblade or warlock making them the new kings of the hill. all of a sudden no-one will be playing any core classes because they just don't cut it.

Now does this make it any less of a roleplaying game? absolutely not!

D&D has a rules bas and that rules base is designed from a game point of view, while there are rules to enhance roleplaying you can still play the game without the battlemap and miniatures (something that 4e fails on) nothing in the PRPG changes that so far.

While I personally hope that they concentrate on slim-lining some of the complex rules a lot more than they have I don't feel like I have lost any role-playing potential from my games by using these rules.

One last comment on the WoW comments, people do not roleplay in WoW for two main reasons, one the game is designed to be played solo, not as in don't group with anyone but as in you are alone in a room with just your computer and a can of coke this leads to selfishness because you want to always be doing something and since you don't know the other people in your group (unless you play with RL friends) interacting outside the needs of the game is not easy to obtain.

Second is the High End expectations of the game, the rush to the next level or the next big raid forces people to look at the quickest way to gain that. Why? because when you announce you have leveled to your group you get instant praise and recognition. Something you don't get playing Never Winter Nights.

WoW can be a roleplaying game but only IF you want it to be.


What it comes down to is this...the fighter in particular has been in need of a power boost since the D&D Basic Box Set. Especially when compared to the cleric and wizard. The pure spellcasting classes have had a serious edge power wise over non-caster and hybrid casters in pretty much every edition of D&D from the start. The combat feats of 3rd and 3.5 took some steps to correct this but they really fell short in the end.

Also part of the boosting is to make core classes as attractive as any prestige class or multi-classing options. And i personally haertily applaud this design precept in Pathfinder. Paizo is taking steps that I feel really should have been taken after 3rd edition instead of the simple patching done that came to be called 3.5. To me the steps Paizo is taking are the next logical evolution of the D&D game not the utter reinvention of the system that WotC is doing with 4th edition.

-Weylin Stormcrowe


Bradford Ferguson wrote:
Ask yourself this question seriously, "If it IS all about having FUN WITH FRIENDS at the gaming table, then why must the game be HARDER FOR PLAYERS?"

I totally agree.

I don't understand why so many posters seem to think that nerfing the classes will result in better roleplaying.

I'm running a RotRL campaign where all of the players (except the cleric) are using classes from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved. They wanted to play a group of chivalrous knights, and the martial classes from Arcana Evolved looked like fun. Part of the fun comes from extra powers and abilities and the fact that there aren't many "dead levels". They are definately more cabable, but Arcana Evolved comes with a slightly adjusted XP chart.

But just because the PCs are a bit more capable doesn't mean my players are roleplaying any less. If anything, they are roleplaying a bit more as the extra abilities give them more ideas about how their characters would act.

As others have mentioned, if you try to stop the crazy power merry-go-round, you totally break backwards compatibility with other 3.5 books. Are you going to start nerfing the monster too (especially the newer ones)?

And the idea that Paizo should release an RPG with 100% weak "core" classes and then come back with a "power gaming butterscotch supplement" is just lame. No offense, I like butterscotch. On ice cream. But I don't think Paizo needs to make an extra book so that a few hypothetical arguments at the game table can be avoided.

Once they release the rules, I don't want Paizo to spend all their time writing rules supplements, I want them to go back to writing content. The content that I'm too lazy/busy to write on my own. That's what I pay them for.


The root cause of powergaming is the players not the game system...well Rifts and Exalted are probable exceptions...but is it power gaming if all your advesaries are just as tough as you are?

Back to the thought, controlling power gamers is up to the game master and whatever pet 800 pound gorillas he has more than it is the rules system. As for roleplaying, a good player can solidly roleplay a deity level character and still not be a power gamer. Power gaming isnt about the power level of the game as about the focus of the players becoming the quest for more and more powerful items for their own sake. That can happen in a game where all the players are squirrels and chipmunks if you are saddled with powergamers. Going after powerful items to overcome an adversary who is astronomically more powerful than you are is not power gaming to me...it is the best option. And the quest for that item can provide amazing roleplaying options itself.

In the end the only thing that stops powergaming is good players and a good game master.

-Weylin Stormcrowe

Sovereign Court

Micheal F wrote:
Once they release the rules, I don't want Paizo to spend all their time writing rules supplements, I want them to go back to writing content. The content that I'm too lazy/busy to write on my own. That's what I pay them for.

Hear, Hear I for one will be glad when the PFRPG is done, but at the same time I am glad they are taking thier time to get it right instead of rushing the publication.


Quijenoth wrote:


Theres one major flaw with scaling down other classes to match the weaker ones. backwards compatibility.

by adding a few extra feats or abilities to fighters or sorcerers its easy to add those things to NPCs in 3.5 modules. By taking away a druids wildshape, or messing with the clerics spells it becomes alot harder to manage.

Actually, it's much easier to update something by crossing things out than adding them in.

If you say, "Ok wild shape just lets you turn into ordinary (non-dire) animals now", you can pretty much play as you always play an adventure as you always have, just with the nerfed version. If however, you have to add 5 different new class abilities to an NPC fighter, that's a problem and requires you to probably go in and change the entire stat block, attack bonuses, damage bonuses, etc. That sucks and pretty much breaks backwards compatibility.

To keep things as simple as possible, you're best actually not adding new class abilities or taking them away, but rather changing the reference to something else. An NPC stat block has a bunch of abilities that are nothing more than pointers to the PHB. Any spell or class ability says "Look this up in the PHB". You want those pointers to be valid, but what they point to is entirely mutable. So if you change what "wildshape" means, the druid's statblock still says "Wildshape", it just means something different now because the mechanics are altered.

And thats IMO the most important thing about backwards compatibility, I should be able to play an adventure written for 3.5 without changing anything in the adventure. The adventure itself can play differently, but I shouldn't require dramatic changes to the adventure itself. Adding lots of new minor abilities, like what was done to the fight is really going to be a problem for backwards compatibility, as are changing some basic feats, like toughness, because that means a global monster update.

Instead, the easily Backwards compatible issues to fix, like broken spells should have been addressed first. I'm not sure why Paizo is wasting our time with just a few "cute" modifications to races and classes that are explicitly not backwards compatible. We can live without that garbage. Why not start by toning down the cleric and druid's spells/abilities?


There is also the fact that if you bring clerics, wizards and druids down to the fighter level the people who play those classes will complain about. People complain about things being taken away but are less likely to complain about being given things. So it becomes a better idea to boost the classes that are lacking rather than reduce the classes that are more powerful. The same goes for core races.

Personally, I am very happy with the changes to races and classes i have seen so far from Paizo. The races are much closer to being equal as are the classes. Some people will say things arent equal in real life why should they be in the game. This isnt real life, it is...a game. And in my view as a player and past game master, everyone should start out on the same even ground...anything after that is up to the player.

-Weylin Stormcrowe


Swordslinger wrote:
Instead, the easily Backwards compatible issues to fix, like broken spells should have been addressed first. I'm not sure why Paizo is wasting our time with just a few "cute" modifications to races and classes that are explicitly not backwards compatible. We can live without that garbage. Why not start by toning down the cleric and druid's spells/abilities?

Toning down the cleric and druid is less backwards compatible than adding stuff to other classes and races. The entire history of 3.5 and the OGL is based on a foundation of power creep. It's hard to sell rules books without power creep. Modules and 100% fluff background, maybe. But rules aren't going to sell unless they add to the fun, and most people equate more and/or different capabilities with more fun.

In my opinion, the folks who whine about power creep should be indifferent to backwards compatibility, because they shouldn't have bought many books over the years. I will admit I'm not an expert on the contents of all the 3.5 and OGL content out there, but it seems that the stuff that gets talked about and/or actually used has power creep in it.

Bottom line, I don't think there is any point in talking about Nerfing any of the classes in the PRPG. It's unlikely to be good business move for Paizo. They are going to sell more books if they try to adjust balance by adding to classes instead of subtracting from them.

If you think the core classes are too powerful, you can nerf them all you want if you're the DM and you can find enough people willing to play a low powered campaig. But I don't think "anti-power gamers" are a majority of Paizo's potential market for the PRPG. So I wouldn't count on a lack of power creep in the final product.


Michael F wrote:


Toning down the cleric and druid is less backwards compatible than adding stuff to other classes and races. The entire history of 3.5 and the OGL is based on a foundation of power creep. It's hard to sell rules books without power creep. Modules and 100% fluff background, maybe. But rules aren't going to sell unless they add to the fun, and most people equate more and/or different capabilities with more fun.

I don't think you know what backwards compatibility means.

BC means that you can take any product from an older edition, like 3.0 or 3.5 and then use it in the new edition. It has nothing to do with relative power levels or power creep.

In fact, a new edition can change around the power levels a bit, so your druid may run differently in PF than 3.5, but if it's BC, you shouldn't have to change anything on your character sheet. That means that basically the spell names and feat names stay the same (though they may have different effects). Your attack bonus, hit points, saves, damage, and so forth don't change either. So your sheet still has wildshape 3/day and trackless step on it, though those abilities may not be what they used to be. But your character is in all ways backwards compatible in that you can play him in the new game without running any sort of conversions.

As far as if nerfing things is a good design move, I'm not sure, depends on the community of PF, though from what I've seen of D&D, powergamers are in the minority. I think PF is better off trying to sell to casual games instead of die hard powergamers. A powergamer's game is going to just turn off new potential players and take the product downhill. Most people want a balanced product I think, not one where the DM has to constantly worry about players exploiting broken loopholes or overpowered abilities. PF's major selling point is going to in fact be to lazy gamers, those who don't want to learn the new 4E system. And the lazy gamer is happy with a system that fixes the loopholes and runs the same system he's used to in a smoother fashion without total system rewrites.

There's really no incentive for a powergamer to purchase PF anyway. 3.5 is already a power gamer's dream. There's no sense spending more money on PF, since it'll be tougher to find a DM and players, and if you're looking to break a system and dominate the game, might as well just stick to 3.5. There's really no good reason for a powergamer to shell out more money for this product.

The majority of people interested in PF are looking for some problematic ability fixes without creating an entirely new system like 4E.


Gonna have to side with swordslinger, this is not about larger numbers is about simplifing the game and allowing players to put down the books and get to roleplaying. I admit that I sit down sometimes and "shop" for new stronger abilities and intresting build combos but the fact is that 3x as it is has become a monster that cannot be tamed without a move like this. The second I looked through pathfinder i decided that this will be my new system, that i can finally not care about what class im taking if you can make it worth it to me to stick it to level 20.


I think you guys are missing my point.

The original poster said that the PRPG is bad because it added some capabilites to some of the core classes, among other things.

I disagree.

I think there is nothing wrong with adding a few extra abilities to the Fighter, for example. If the changes balance the Fighter against all of the other classes (base, splat books, whatever) then I think this increases backwards compatiblity because a pure fighter is less likely to be overshadowed by some exotic prestige class combination or new maneuver. Therefore, a player with a pure fighter is more likely to agree to play PRPG at all, and purchase the books. Someone who plays something exotic shouldn't be threatened by extra abilites for a fighter unless the new fighter far exceeds their current class, so they have no disincentive to play PRPG.

himwhoscallediam wrote:
Gonna have to side with swordslinger, this is not about larger numbers is about simplifing the game and allowing players to put down the books and get to roleplaying. I admit that I sit down sometimes and "shop" for new stronger abilities and intresting build combos but the fact is that 3x as it is has become a monster that cannot be tamed without a move like this. The second I looked through pathfinder i decided that this will be my new system, that i can finally not care about what class im taking if you can make it worth it to me to stick it to level 20.

I think you're contradicting yourself. It appears that the reason you want to play PRPG is because the power creep of the core classes has made all the stuff in the 3.5 splat books less neccessary to stay "competitive". That's my whole point. It sounds to me like you're more willing to play a fighter in PRPG than in 3.5 because you know that you won't be overshadowed if someone else at the table is using a splat book, and you also know you're not giving anything up by not bothering to comb through the splat books "shopping". I would argue that the PRPG figher is more backwards compatible with 3.5 than the orginal fighter from the PHB, because the new version has a power level closer to all the other classes out there.

Swordslinger wrote:


I don't think you know what backwards compatibility means.

BC means that you can take any product from an older edition, like 3.0 or 3.5 and then use it in the new edition. It has nothing to do with relative power levels or power creep.

In fact, a new edition can change around the power levels a bit, so your druid may run differently in PF than 3.5, but if it's BC, you shouldn't have to change anything on your character sheet. That means that basically the spell names and feat names stay the same (though they may have different effects). Your attack bonus, hit points, saves, damage, and so forth don't change either. So your sheet still has wildshape 3/day and trackless step on it, though those abilities may not be what they used to be. But your character is in all ways backwards compatible in that you can play him in the new game without running any sort of conversions.

I think I understand what backwards compatibility means. And I think it does have something to do with relative power levels and power creep. Because power level is part of compatibility. If a class is low-powered compared to all the other classes available in 3.5, why would anyone play that class? And if an NPC has levels in the "nerfed" class, you've just lowered the challenge of the encounter. So if everyone is playing other 3.5 classes, you will have to give a boost to any NPC villains who got "nerfed"

If I sit down and find out that my character class got the nerf treatment, I will likely do one of two things: make a new character from a non-nerfed class or leave and play a different game. I have less incentive to agree to play the new system. How is it compatible if some potential customers are driven off? Lent is over, I'm not going to agree to give up class abilities because "it's good for me." Not when most other classes in the 3.5 world don't have to give up anything, and started with more.

I think your idea of backwards compatible is way too strict. You are suggesting that in order for things to be backwards compatible, you can't change the names of the feats and skills, only the definitions? So that you don't have to change anything on your character sheet or the NPC stat blocks? Zero conversions? I'm sorry, but I think you have set the bar way to high for Paizo.

I've said this before in other posts/threads. If all you want is to fix a few rules loopholes and spell descriptions, it's not worth creating a new game and publishing a new 300 page book. What you want is the 3.51 rules errata, a free 20-page pdf.


Well competitive edge is important, I mean it kinda gets boring if your friends are powered through the roof and you have to take your strait build and meet monsters set to their level of power. So people shop and kind of go over eachother. I would like to reduce the escalation between players and get everyone into similar levels of usefullness to the party.

What I see happening is the core classes being adjusted to all be at the same level of power for their own field. The greatest thing I have seen though is a reason to be a 20th level anything.


himwhoscallediam wrote:

Well competitive edge is important, I mean it kinda gets boring if your friends are powered through the roof and you have to take your strait build and meet monsters set to their level of power. So people shop and kind of go over eachother. I would like to reduce the escalation between players and get everyone into similar levels of usefullness to the party.

What I see happening is the core classes being adjusted to all be at the same level of power for their own field. The greatest thing I have seen though is a reason to be a 20th level anything.

I agree. The problem with trying to undo any of the power creep that has happended before by removing power from the core classes is that it's no longer any fun to play those classes alongside anyone playing other more powerful 3.5 classes. And it's no fun to go against 3.5 challenges designed for the original 3.5 power range. If it's not fun due to a mismatch in power levels, and I think that's a compatibility issue. I think people will be less likely to want to play the system.

It's too late to try and undo the power creep in 3.5. Cat's out of the bag, Horses have left the barn, Train left the station.

So any changes Paizo makes to the classes and races are not likely to be in a lower power direction. No one's going to be encouraged to adopt the new system if they have to remove powers to convert. If you get to add a few powers, you probably won't complain about the work. The DM may have to adjust things, but in my experience, you always have to adjust things as a DM.

Paizo probably has more flexibility to power down individual spells or simplify grapple rules, stuff like that. No one is likely to be surprised or complain if they make changes to restrict Wish and Polymorph.


Michael F wrote:


I agree. The problem with trying to undo any of the power creep that has happended before by removing power from the core classes is that it's no longer any fun to play those classes alongside anyone playing other more powerful 3.5 classes. And it's no fun to go against 3.5 challenges designed for the original 3.5 power range. If it's not fun due to a mismatch in power levels, and I think that's a compatibility issue. I think people will be less likely to want to play the system.

It's too late to try and undo the power creep in 3.5. Cat's out of the bag, Horses have left the barn, Train left the station.

No it's not. I mean not really. The majority of power problems come from the core. I'm not sure what "other 3.5 classes" people are referring to. Most of the good ones are casters, so by fixing the core spells, you fix all those other casters at once.

Now there are a few crazy go nuts extra spells like wraithstrike and shivering touch, but really if your DM allows those, then he should be warned he's in for a world of cheese.

Michael F. wrote:


Paizo probably has more flexibility to power down individual spells or simplify grapple rules, stuff like that. No one is likely to be surprised or complain if they make changes to restrict Wish and Polymorph.

Actually that's exactly what I'm proposing. Like I said, the druid's abilities will still say wild shape, but wild shape just won't be as good.

I'm not proposing changing the wizard or the druid, I'm proposing changing their spells and their abilities.


Swordslinger wrote:
Michael F wrote:


I agree. The problem with trying to undo any of the power creep that has happended before by removing power from the core classes is that it's no longer any fun to play those classes alongside anyone playing other more powerful 3.5 classes. And it's no fun to go against 3.5 challenges designed for the original 3.5 power range. If it's not fun due to a mismatch in power levels, and I think that's a compatibility issue. I think people will be less likely to want to play the system.

It's too late to try and undo the power creep in 3.5. Cat's out of the bag, Horses have left the barn, Train left the station.

No it's not. I mean not really. The majority of power problems come from the core. I'm not sure what "other 3.5 classes" people are referring to. Most of the good ones are casters, so by fixing the core spells, you fix all those other casters at once.

Now there are a few crazy go nuts extra spells like wraithstrike and shivering touch, but really if your DM allows those, then he should be warned he's in for a world of cheese.

Michael F. wrote:


Paizo probably has more flexibility to power down individual spells or simplify grapple rules, stuff like that. No one is likely to be surprised or complain if they make changes to restrict Wish and Polymorph.

Actually that's exactly what I'm proposing. Like I said, the druid's abilities will still say wild shape, but wild shape just won't be as good.

I'm not proposing changing the wizard or the druid, I'm proposing changing their spells and their abilities.

Spells and mages are not the only thing that can become unbalanced I have seen rogues that get an extra +12 attack for just tumbling and fienting (which is what a good rogue should be doing in combat) that stack eldritch blast and sneak attack. Then theres the warrior builds that stack all of these redunant systems to make aweful monsters of a character. I think I may be the last human in DnD sometimes, kinda like "I am Legend" sort of thing going on. Because if you trade one level you can get +14 to different stats and a ton of abilities. Oh and the grappler, the guy how takes a wolf familiar and tries to custom build it into the best part of the party. I can go on but I am starting to rant, most of these problems are players taking their need for attention out through this game. So, really the problems that need to be addressed here are combing out abilities and making systems compatible and interconnected.

I think every class will get better in its own way, be it adding abilities or removing useless ones. If you look at what they are trying to do with cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard youll see that these classes got stronger. I feel that we will see this happen to every class and I for one welcome it.


ok, i had a question in mind, then i found this thread, maybe it belongs here.

someone seems to think the Classes in Alpha1 are more powerful that those in PHB, and ofc it is obvious to see, that, at the same LEVEL, Alpha1 has more options/power/whatever.

something occured to me, tho... i had a look at the XP tables, and noticed that a PHB character with 190,000 xp is lvl 20, while a Alpha1 with the same XP under FAST progression is lvl 12 !

not sure if this has been noticed before...

now, since it seems for the moment that the XP rewards are still the same, i'm assuming that lvl 12 Alpha1 character are going to face the same (or prolly a bit easier) dangers than a lvl 20 PHB party?

good luck with that...

side-question: let's say i play Rise of the Runelords using the Alpha1 rules, Fast-paced XP progression.
PHB party would end the series at lvl 15 (105,000 xp)... does it means my Alpha1 party will find themselves facing THE runelord at lvl 11?

The Exchange

Delazar wrote:

ok, i had a question in mind, then i found this thread, maybe it belongs here.

someone seems to think the Classes in Alpha1 are more powerful that those in PHB, and ofc it is obvious to see, that, at the same LEVEL, Alpha1 has more options/power/whatever.

something occured to me, tho... i had a look at the XP tables, and noticed that a PHB character with 190,000 xp is lvl 20, while a Alpha1 with the same XP under FAST progression is lvl 12 !

not sure if this has been noticed before...

now, since it seems for the moment that the XP rewards are still the same, i'm assuming that lvl 12 Alpha1 character are going to face the same (or prolly a bit easier) dangers than a lvl 20 PHB party?

good luck with that...

side-question: let's say i play Rise of the Runelords using the Alpha1 rules, Fast-paced XP progression.
PHB party would end the series at lvl 15 (105,000 xp)... does it means my Alpha1 party will find themselves facing THE runelord at lvl 11?

No. The XP gained from monsters has also been adjusted to a base amount, not a variable that depends on party level.

It has been explained that the Fast Advancement will be very close to the same as current 3.5 advancement. So a 3.5 character and a fast advancement PRPG character should both reach 20th at roughly the same time.


Fake Healer wrote:


No. The XP gained from monsters has also been adjusted to a base amount, not a variable that depends on party level.
It has been explained that the Fast Advancement will be very close to the same as current 3.5 advancement. So a 3.5 character and a fast advancement PRPG character should both reach 20th at roughly the same time.

ok, thx for clarifying.

so, if i play RotRL with Alpha1 instead of PHB, the players will actually have an advantage?

it's not a bad thing, just trying to get it straight.


I'm pretty sure your assumptions about leveling are incorrect. We had to use a different XP system as the one in the PHB is not open under the terms of the OGL. We'll be adjusting XP rewards from monsters to match the new XP system so that (and Jason can correct if I'm wrong) if you're running on the normal XP path, you'll level up at the same rate as the basic design philosophy of 3.5: 12-14 encounters per level.

Liberty's Edge

Joshua J. Frost wrote:
I'm pretty sure your assumptions about leveling are incorrect. We had to use a different XP system as the one in the PHB is not open under the terms of the OGL. We'll be adjusting XP rewards from monsters to match the new XP system so that (and Jason can correct if I'm wrong) if you're running on the normal XP path, you'll level up at the same rate as the basic design philosophy of 3.5: 12-14 encounters per level.

I don't think this is right. A CR 1 encounter is worth 400 XP, or 100 XP per character in a four person party. The Fast level advancement lists level 2 at 1300 XP, so that's where you get the 13 encounters = one level progression. The Medium progression requires 20 encounters, and the Slow requires 30. THis seems to hold on through higher levels as well.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Seems right to me consider a lot of low level monsters aren't CR1, you need to have multiples of them.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Argh.

Backward compatible does not "well, just cross out the stuff you don't like."

Backward compatible means that you can use old stuff, because it has not been invalidated by new stuff.

Personally, I don't care if the "old school PHB fighter" is weaker than new classes. So what? If you care about that, don't be a fighter.

What I definitely cannot accept is changes to fundamental aspects of the game. Fighters don't have funky armor advancement. Rogues can't sneak attack constructs and undead. Using Spring Attack doesn't prevent you from using Cleave or Dodge.

While I completely applaud the goal of creating a 3.5-compatible game, I only do so if it's actually a 3.5-compatible game. Changing the classes and feats doesn't make them compatible, it makes them incompatible.

I would be really curious how many of those that laud all of these changes are players looking to play with these awesome new powers versus DMs who will have to deal with all of these changes to the system.

Ironically, almost all of this could be avoided by presenting all of these nifty things as either new feats, as completely new classes, or as alternative class features. Why do we have to screw with fighter? Why not present the Varisian Mercenary instead? Why destroy the rogue class? Why not provide Fatal Flaw as a feat available to rogues that lets them find defects in non-living creatures, thus getting a sneak attack on constructs and undead?

Anyways, I'm hoping that Alpha 2 scales back the torrent of changes, and I'm really hoping that the boards will be revamped slightly to provide both a forum for people who want to propose even more house rule suggestions without choking the Alpha playtest boards with them.


gbonehead wrote:

Argh.

Backward compatible does not "well, just cross out the stuff you don't like."

Backward compatible means that you can use old stuff, because it has not been invalidated by new stuff.

Explain to me how it isn't still compatible? While alot of changes have happened its still compatible.

gbonehead wrote:

Personally, I don't care if the "old school PHB fighter" is weaker than new classes. So what? If you care about that, don't be a fighter.

So people shouldn't be able to build there heavy armor wearing Fighter who concentrates on THF or TWF better than others (Sure the Fighter can't but play along)?

gbonehead wrote:


What I definitely cannot accept is changes to fundamental aspects of the game. Fighters don't have funky armor advancement. Rogues can't sneak attack constructs and undead. Using Spring Attack doesn't prevent you from using Cleave or Dodge.

So.......no interesting options, no fixes to broken classes then? Plus did it ever make sense that Sneak Attack couldn't affect Undead and Constructs?

gbonehead wrote:


While I completely applaud the goal of creating a 3.5-compatible game, I only do so if it's actually a 3.5-compatible game. Changing the classes and feats doesn't make them compatible, it makes them incompatible.

Once again prove how the changes make PRPG incompatible.

gbonehead wrote:


I would be really curious how many of those that laud all of these changes are players looking to play with these awesome new powers versus DMs who will have to deal with all of these changes to the system.

DM who likes most of the changes (in theory, fighter still sucks and Wizard and Cleric are still over powered, Rogue is awesome,all the races are awesome (Though Human and Dwarf are a little to strong),and NPC creation is now sped up due to the new skill system). And time till you say this game is only for Power Gamers in 5....4.....3....2....1

gbonehead wrote:


Ironically, almost all of this could be avoided by presenting all of these nifty things as either new feats, as completely new classes, or as alternative class features. Why do we have to screw with fighter? Why not present the Varisian Mercenary instead? Why destroy the rogue class? Why not provide Fatal Flaw as a feat available to rogues that lets them find defects in non-living creatures, thus getting a sneak attack on constructs and undead?

Because the old ways were full of so many holes a new fix was needed, whether this is 4E (Which I'm looking forward to)and PRPG (which I'm all so looking forward to).

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Bradford Ferguson wrote:

I think it is accepted that characters need more power at low levels and high levels and are fine at mid-levels. If the aim is for compatibility with your huge stack of 3.5 books, then it easier to power up low and high levels of a few weaker classes.

Ask yourself this question seriously, "If it IS all about having FUN WITH FRIENDS at the gaming table, then why must the game be HARDER FOR PLAYERS?"

I don't think this is "accepted" at all. I don't accept it and, judging by the post, nor does the original poster.

Harder is about the challenge. It's not a competative game, it's about challenging the players for the fun.


Um, how many full classes did WOTC release in 3.x?

Now of those classes, how many were stronger than core-only druid, wizard, or cleric? (Sorceror are seen as the redheaded stepchild of the 4 main spellcasting classes on WOTC's own CO board)

I know of only two.

The archivist and the artificer (and both require a bit of cheese to best maximize unlike say Druid taking the obvious Natural spell feat)

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 1 / General Discussion / Pathfinder RPG: A Power-Gamers Dream All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion
Please Change Half-Orcs