http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/faq
Grappling a monster no longer requires you to have a master's degree in combat rules with a minor in spatial mechanics.
Bards don't suck. Now they can make you die with laughter.
Monks don't suck. When they use flurry of blows they actually hit.
Paladins don't suck. Smite evil lasts until your target is dead.
Rangers don't suck. You really do not want to be a ranger's quarry.
Sorcerers don't suck. Bloodlines give you a host of cool powers and abilities.
While I understand the intent of the Pathfinder FAQ, this comes across as a bit insulting to people who enjoyed 3e. It feels very much like the 4e marketing campaign that insinuated that 3e was "un-fun." The language is a little harsh, particularly with the term "suck."
Chief Technical Officer
|
Hmm. That content was repurposed from our April Fool's Day "d21" press release, and really isn't appropriate anymore. We'll get it updated. Thanks for drawing my attention to it.
Hm . . .
The dice program allows d21s . . . coincidence?
You guys should have seen the draft Sebastian wrote...whew! Now that was insulting.
You guys should have seen the draft Sebastian wrote...whew! Now that was insulting.
Everything written by Sebastian is insulting...
Yeah, but guys... 1d38
This is why we can't have anything nice.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/faq
While I understand the intent of the Pathfinder FAQ, this comes across as a bit insulting to people who enjoyed 3e. It feels very much like the 4e marketing campaign that insinuated that 3e was "un-fun." The language is a little harsh, particularly with the term "suck."Grappling a monster no longer requires you to have a master's degree in combat rules with a minor in spatial mechanics.
Bards don't suck. Now they can make you die with laughter.
Monks don't suck. When they use flurry of blows they actually hit.
Paladins don't suck. Smite evil lasts until your target is dead.
Rangers don't suck. You really do not want to be a ranger's quarry.
Sorcerers don't suck. Bloodlines give you a host of cool powers and abilities.
Well, the language is a bit harsh (it was originally an April Fool's joke). Still, they do have their points:
I'm a great fan of 3e (in my opinion, d20 3e is the best game ever), but there was still room for improvement.
Grapple (and all the other manoeuvres) benefited from the simplification as the extra rolls and different mechanics didn't really add to the game. If you can make something works simpler without dumbing it down, go for it!
And some classes couldn't really pull their weight, which is bad if combat is an important part of the game, some classes were quite boring in that they didn't use their background, and so on:
Bards were weak. They could use the boosts they got. They don't really up their raw fighting prowess, which is okay, because they're not warriors. But the changes they got (bardic performance not being tied to music any more, bardic knowledge working better now, getting more spells, getting more abilities that enhance their loremaster and jack-of-all-trades roles, and all that) really strengthened the class.
Monks did have a problem with their attacks. "Flurry-of-misses" almost was the official title. They're warrior-y, so it makes sense that they get more warrior-y.
Paladins were kinda fun (except when the player was an idiot and abused the paladin's code to annoy everyone at the table, in the house, and across the street), but the few smite attacks didn't even come close to rival other classes' offensive capability (and if you're a warrior-type class, offensive capability does need to have a place). Now smite does the job: It puts the fear of god into evildoers.
Rangers had their deficiencies, too. They too are better warriors now, which is good, but their hunter and, well, "ranger" aspects got a boost, too. Don't piss off a ranger on his home turf.
Ans sorcerers? Come on, they was no sorcerer class in 3e. There was a poor variant wizard with a different spellcasting ability and less skill choices. Now, they have their own stuff. And better yet, that stuff is tied to what 3e was saying (with words, not rules) was where sorcerers come from (you know, the story with the fiendish dire bees and the awakened flowers)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Kae Yoss.
I still use D&D 3rd Edition, as both a player and a DM, and have no intention of shifting whole-hog over to Pathfinder. I would appreciate it if you did not support the wording that implies that my choice of game "sucks".
For the rest of it, much of what you see as a bug, I see as a feature.
Wow are people overly sensitive. It was supposed to be funny.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Wow are people overly sensitive. It was supposed to be funny.
The same could be said for the initial advertisements for 4th Edition. Humorous disrespect doesn't come off well in a company's official documents. Unless it's something like an April Fool's bit, which is where this text came from, and where it belongs.
|
Kae Yoss.
I still use D&D 3rd Edition, as both a player and a DM, and have no intention of shifting whole-hog over to Pathfinder. I would appreciate it if you did not support the wording that implies that my choice of game "sucks".
I actually didn't have a problem with the advert, whether it were used on April 1st or after.
But then, I never got my knickers in a twist over the WotC 4E campaign, either.It should be possible to point out flaws in a product without its users taking it personally. I was actually relieved to see that these flaws had been acknowledged. I could say "Oh, thank God; it's not just me, then?".
Pointing out that some of the classes weren't fit for their intended purpose (or, in shorthand, 'they suck') doesn't mean that the whole game 'sucks', or that its players 'suck' for being deluded enough to play it.
Just as a roomful of critics pointing out that Ringo Starr's drumming 'sucks', doesn't have any bearing on the writing and playing ability of Lennon, McCartney and Harrison, or the enduring legacy of their material.
I still use D&D 3rd Edition, as both a player and a DM, and have no intention of shifting whole-hog over to Pathfinder. I would appreciate it if you did not support the wording that implies that my choice of game "sucks".
Well, I can only please one person a day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good, either :P
But seriously, I feel I have to come over to your place and piddle in your soup now, because you do take things quite seriously.
I did say that the language was a bit harsh. And Paizo did say that it was an April Fool's joke.
If you cannot live with the fact that I do not sharpen my pitchfork and go murder everyone at Paizo over the wording, that's quite unfortunate. For you.
For the rest of it, much of what you see as a bug, I see as a feature.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion.
So am I.
Those classes did suck. Pathfinder did make them better. In my opinion, that's a hard truth.
I would never consider those faults features. What's a feature about a sorcerer that is a class variant in disguise? What's a feature about monks that cannot hit people?
I rarely saw most of those classes in use. The power-gamers stayed away from them because the other classes worked so much better. And the role-players stayed away from them because they saw that using inefficient stuff isn't really roleplaying, and that other classes and class combinations made a much better job at the jobs those classes were supposed to be good at.
Now, with the new classes from Pathfinder, I'm seeing those classes being used. By both roleplayers and power-gamers. For me, that's a clear indication of the fact that those weren't features, they were bugs. And now they've been fixed.
It should be possible to point out flaws in a product without its users taking it personally. I was actually relieved to see that these flaws had been acknowledged. I could say "Oh, thank God; it's not just me, then?".Pointing out that some of the classes weren't fit for their intended purpose (or, in shorthand, 'they suck') doesn't mean that the whole game 'sucks', or that its players 'suck' for being deluded enough to play it.
Right on!
I still think that 3e is the best RPG there is. And Pathfinder is the best version of 3e. 3e is head and shoulders above a lot of games, but Pathfinder is head and shoulders above 3.0 and 3.5. While 3e as a whole doesn't suck, there's certainly parts of it that do.
Paizo saw the games problems and did a great job of fixing those problems, without making it a different game. Some things probably didn't go quite far enough to be as good as they could have made them, but I think that's okay, because I did want to keep the game the way it was.
As for "it's not just me": I did notice some of the things myself before PF came out. For some, I had to see how much better they could be to see that there were problems before.
And for some problems, the big eye-opener was the change I saw in general player behaviour: Stuff I only later noticed was never used by anyone, and which I have seen repeatedly now.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Those classes did suck. Pathfinder did make them better. In my opinion, that's a hard truth.I would never consider those faults features. What's a feature about a sorcerer that is a class variant in disguise? What's a feature about monks that cannot hit people?
Ask an honest question, and you'll get an honest answer.
Regarding grappling and combat maneuvers, there are two ways to defend yourself: be lithe and quick and agile (like Jet Li's Monkey King, or be stolid and resistant (like Fezzig from Princess Bride). The 3.5 rules have separate rolls to cover these two options. The Pathfinder Combat Maneuvers rules try to synthesize these into one roll, and it is klunkier and more opaque.
Generally speaking, 1st Level PCs in D&D are substantially better than their NPC fellows, but not too far removed. That's a feature of the fantasy settings I want to emulate in my games. Before he was a grand hero, Taran (from Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles) was an assistant pig-keeper. First Level PCs in Pathfinder are substantially more powerful than their D&D counterparts, every race and particularly every class. Most spell-casters can keep detect magic running as an at-will ability; good-aligned clerics can heal an enormous amount of damage in a day. If I were to want beginning characters that powerful, I'd have them start at 2nd Level. ( Hell, man, I'm still fond of requiring wizards to take hours (if not temporary Constitution damage) if they want to identify objects found during an adventure.)
During the playtests, I saw a myriad of posts complaining that classes didn't have enough hit points, or skill points, or weren't special in some ways. People complained that rogues couldn't hurt undead, or clerics had to spontaneously turn spells into healing, or --as you say-- monks couldn't hit, paladins had to be judicious with their smiting, wizards' familiars were inconvenient, barbarians weren't exciting enough, rangers weren't versatile enough, bards were too weak, fighters were too weak, sorcerers were too weak, everybody was too weak. Take a look at the list there in the FAQ, Kae Yoss. If all of those classes "suck", then maybe the problem isn't in those classes.
If you cannot live with the fact that I do not sharpen my pitchfork and go murder everyone at Paizo over the wording, that's quite unfortunate. For you.
Oh, cut it out.
When the 4th Edition wars were erupting on these boards, I wandered around, suggesting strongly that people on both sides of the kerfluffle keep a civil tongue, and I made a particular point of reminded the 4th Edition advocates that choosing to stay with an earlier edition was not "the losing side", that people are still playing AD&D, Fantasy d6, and other games which are no longer being published, still having a good time doing so, and still not "losers".
I now find myself arguing the same position with the Pathfinder advocates. It's a nice game. It's not the game I'm interested in playing, but I admit that's a matter of taste. I have enough respect for you and your opinions to forbear popping up around the site calling out "Pathfinder is broken! Aah!" I expect you to reciprocate.
Vic said, right up there, that the disparaging text in the FAQ was a mistake. Let's take him at his word.
First Level PCs in Pathfinder are substantially more powerful than their D&D counterparts, every race and particularly every class.
Well, let's see:
I'd let myself be talked into agreeing that some of those classes get something resembling substantial in bad light. But you'd have to bribe me heavily before I'd agree to "especially every class".
And we have those NPCs, with their NPC classes, who sometimes got as much as a 1st-level boost or even more so than some of those PC classes.
Hell, man, I'm still fond of requiring wizards to take hours (if not temporary Constitution damage) if they want to identify objects found during an adventure.)
Well, one man's fond memory is another's crappy rule.
Take a look at the list there in the FAQ, Kae Yoss. If all of those classes "suck", then maybe the problem isn't in those classes.
But it is. Those classes definitely sucked. They're definitely better.
Or what did you mean?
Before you answer, remember that you're the one who is against insulting people.
Oh, cut it out.
I'll get my scissors.
When the 4th Edition wars were erupting on these boards, I wandered around, suggesting strongly that people on both sides of the kerfluffle keep a civil tongue, and I made a particular point of reminded the 4th Edition advocates that choosing to stay with an earlier edition was not "the losing side", that people are still playing AD&D, Fantasy d6, and other games which are no longer being published, still having a good time doing so, and still not "losers".
So?
I now find myself arguing the same position with the Pathfinder advocates.
What does that have to do with this discussion?
It's a nice game. It's not the game I'm interested in playing, but I admit that's a matter of taste. I have enough respect for you and your opinions to forbear popping up around the site calling out "Pathfinder is broken! Aah!" I expect you to reciprocate.
Well, your expectations shall be disappointed.
Except, of course, I never popped around the site calling out "3e is broken! Aah!"
But if you were just exaggerating, and what you in fact mean that if I have anything negative to say about 3e, I should be silent, then I feel encouraged to bring up my negative opinions about 3e as often as I could.
Because I'm not insulting anyone, I'm not insinuating that those who play that game are losers, I'm just expressing my opinion about a ruleset. A ruleset I like a lot, which I have repeatedly said so.
Druid: I got nothing
That makes two of you, LOL. Poor Druid, in his Nerf™ animal suit and no new toys. Plus you can't share arcane spells with your companion anymore as a multiclassed Druid until you take Arcane Heirophant, that's the one that makes me sad.
EDIT:
Why aren't you publishing 4th Edition products?
We believe that 3.5 rules better allow us to tell the kinds of stories that our customers enjoy. Since our staff loves the 3.5 system and the 30-year traditions that underlie it,
...snip...
Further, many of our customers have invested thousands of dollars in 3.5 products from Paizo and other companies, and we believe there is little reason why all of those products should go to waste. The 3.5 rules are an excellent adaptation of the original rules that started the tabletop RPG hobby, and allow us to tell the sorts of stories we've been enjoying our entire lives.
Those have got to be the 2 most well explained reasons/answers to the 4E question that I've ever seen. Nice work.
Good job on the update -- much more appropriate now that we're no longer in April. ;)
|
Before he was a grand hero, Taran (from Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles) was an assistant pig-keeper. First Level PCs in Pathfinder are substantially more powerful than their D&D counterparts, every race and particularly every class.
First, I must say I am a big fan of the Prydain Chronicles and must give you points for using them as a point of reference. However, I always pictured Taran, in gaming terms, as a 0 level commoner who worked his way up to grand hero.
And while you do have a point that 1st level PF PCs are more powerful than their D&D counterparts, they are not in comparison to their PF NPC counterparts, which really should be the measure of power.
I will say I do like the changes that have come about in the PFRPG, but all editions of D&D (from the initial three mini-book boxed set to 3.5) are thoroughly enjoyable to me. Each edition had its own house rules, as I am sure PFRPG will have over time. With that said, however, there were several aspects to the listed classes that were adjusted in the house rules to make those classes more playable (bards, monks and sorcerers, specifically in 3.x). As my friends and I play more in the mew system, we very well may adjust out some of the aspects of the new versions of the classes to better suit our tastes.
It really all just boils down to personal taste in play style and that is one of the best things about these games; the rules are fluid and can be changed by those using them to better fit the way they play the game.
Yeah, but guys... 1d38I'd rather have a 38D than a D38.
Those would be some moobs.
I'd rather have a 38D than a D38.Those would be some moobs.If they were on an inexperienced gamer, would they be noob-moobs?
I'm sure I've heard that used as a perojative in some online game.
Those would be some moobs.I'm sorry—the card says "MOOPS."
That's clearly a typographical error.
I'm sorry—the card says "MOOPS."That's clearly a typographical error.
No, actually I'm pretty sure that it's proper terminology for the attack rate of a bovine bard. We are talking about the bovine bard card, right?
Bovine bard? Would that be Moozart? I heard that he composed some very good Moosic. Wasn't he responsible for Brahmas Lullaby?No, actually I'm pretty sure that it's proper terminology for the attack rate of a bovine bard. We are talking about the bovine bard card, right?I'm sorry—the card says "MOOPS."That's clearly a typographical error.
Are you going to milk that joke much longer? Because that one's a bull.
Mooooving right along...
Mooooving right along...
I'm surprised at the amount of humor I can find just grazing threads..
Mooooving right along...I'm surprised at the amount of humor I can find just grazing threads..
As long as it's the right brand of comedy.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
AN UPDATE TO THE IMPORTANT REVOLUTIONARY MESSAGE ABOVE. IN ADDITION TO THE FLAGGING OF PUNS, THE NEW REGIME OF PAIZO PLEDGES TO INSTALL THE TOP SECRET TECHNOLOGY KNOWN AS "THE INTERNET JIMMY-PUNCHER," WHICH WILL BE USED TO CAUSE SEVERE PAIN TO THE GROIN OF ANYONE WHO VIOLATES THE NO-PUN RULE.
FREEDOM!!!!
Who's gonna pony-up for such expunsive technology?
Who's gonna pony-up for such expunsive technology?
We could hold a pund-raiser.
It seems overly punitive to punsters. Maybe just because the pony's feeling puny?
I am sorry that my horning in on the subject caused such consternation, but I will behave now... You have me buffaloed.
You had a steak in this thread. Don't let yourself be cowed.