ConanM's page

Players, unless they cheat and read and memorize the modules before you run them, do not know what an item looks like until you describe it to them. So anyone can do what I do, find a card that looks cool enough to be the item, and then give it the name and powers description of that item and use the card you decided upon.

Now if you have only 1 or two decks, there may be a problem, but when you have most or all of the decks finding something good enough is pretty easy.

When the game provides a number of iconic items - some of which have quite specific descriptions - then I disagree. Paizo produces both products, if they are going to call the deck "the Kingmaker Item deck" then it is only reasonable to expect the deck to contain said unique items.

Looking through the deck, a lot of the items don't even casually match what is described in the books. For all there is, it could have just been any random mix of 54 items. Nothing about the deck convinces me that it is "carefully chosen" nor does it suit the game.

If I have to change the tone and description of the items from the game to match the cards - then I see that as a failure on Paizo's part at producing what they have advertised. This wasn't advertised as "generic item cards" it was specifically advertised as "Kingmaker Item Cards."

On that count, it is a failure IMHO. Pretty pictures is not sufficient. I could have handled if it wasn't a perfect match for every item - but when we're talking about very specific descriptions provided - I would have expected items to match those descriptions.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable here.

Wolf Munroe wrote:

What are the two holy symbols in this deck?

I know their names are just "holy symbol" but knowing which gods they are for would be nice, I think.

Ultimately doesn't matter, I'm buying the deck either way. But just seems like might be nice to have listed.

We don't list them because these cards are intended to be usable for setting other than our own, and the second you add setting-specific proper names, you start driving some people away.

But if you're using our campaign setting, they'll work nicely for Gorum and Erastil.

While the cards are attractive, they seem to lack a lot of practical use to me. If you're going to limit the number of cards (as you have to) it would have been better if every card mapped to a unique magic item in the campaign and then the spares fill up the gaps.

As it is, I found that this deck lacks nearly every plot focused magic item in the first book barring the Stag Lord's helm - and even then the description doesn't fully match.

What about the significant and specifically detailed ring from the Barbarian's Cairn in the first adventure - with the eel and frog motif? This kind of stuff is why I bought these cards and there wasn't anything that remotely matched that description.

All in all, this deck seems more likely to confuse players rather than help them. I would have also preferred a card that lists the suggested pairings. Otherwise, why call it the Kingmaker deck.

This is first item deck I've ever bought, and I was sufficiently underwhelmed that I'm not likely to buy any more. It just seemed a random assortment of items that had no direct link to the campaign.

I bought it in the hopes that it would help my management of items easier. However with only 54 items and very few matching actual items in the campaign - it was, IMHO, a waste of money.

I certainly feel that the 'power creep' is a good thing.

Paizo clearly have a high adventure tone in mind for the Pathfinder setting, and the standard 3.5 set up is a bit underpowered. Remember that Rise of the Runelords should be seen as a litmus of the kind of scale of adventure that Paizo is aiming for.

If this is the case, based on how hardcase that campaign is - a little power creep is needed to give the players a fighting chance.

I'm almost inclined to say drop the -2 and just give half elves and Humans an additional feat/ability/skill/benefit. Of course that moves closer to the 4e approach, which may not appeal to some pathfinder fans.

As I mentioned in the playtest forum, I think that currently the system is still too *underpowered* to meet up with the class requirements. I suggested that Paizo introduce the "+1 to two seperate abilities every 4 levels" that SAGA uses.

All in all, as others have said - if you feel that +2/+2/-2 is too high powered, just go for a lower point buy to sort it out.

I certainly think that Paizo shouldn't get rid of it. It has made the races much more interesting regarding the class choices to take.

Conan

I rarely have these problems with attributes. I let my players decide what their attributes are. It is THEIR character after all, and all I have to do to compensate is maybe up their equipment to increase AC, up their HP, and maybe up their key combat attributes above normal.

In other words, I am the DM and I can do whatever I want/need to do in order to balance the encounters. So allowing my players total control over their PC's attributes (in the 3 to 18 range, + racial mods) makes my players happy, and is easy for me to compensate for. Plus their characters are always as effective, or ineffective, as they wish for their character to be.

So to me, these character point arrays are the real problem. Get rid of them. Quit being attribute control freaks. Let the players build their character. Your the DM. You can easily alter encounters to keep them challenging, no matter what the players do.

That's an interesting approach - and I can see it working for some people. I'm sure my group would be very responsible with that.

But I don't think it is in spirit with what a number of gamers want - and it is for them that we need to work out how to have a decent set of guidelines that that DM can then say 'we're removing this element for my game' etc.

Conan

Set wrote:

Or, use the +1 to 2 stats option, *but* get rid of stat-enhancing items. (Girdle of Giant Strength, yeah, it adds a flat +X bonus to Str checks or whatever, but doesn't actually change your Str attribute.)

Now this... this I can live with. Personally, I'm not a big fan of stat boosting items myself either. If they were ditched from the game I could agree with +1 to 2 stats... Although I would actually prefer +1 to 1 stat even in that situation but... *shrug* I've never seen what ever increasing ability scores really adds to game play anyways.

I think the thing to remember is that as your PCs increase in ability, so too do their opponents. There is a disparity in the core 3rd edition stats that begins to skew the battles towards the creatures. The solution was the magical items system - but given the new Pathfinder rules for how items are allocated based on mental or physical traits (which I happen to like) - but while this does provide a much needed limit on what magical enhancement you can get - it also means that there is a continual lessening of ability.

While I have no problem with some people preferring a tougher game with a "gritty" feel - I get the impression that this is not the default Pathfinder tone. Certainly not from the art or other mechanical changes to the system.

Edit: Of course at this point in time creatures are designed with the assumption that characters have certain stats at higher levels and thus now it's sort of written into the game.

This is not entirely correct. For one thing, Pathfinder has very little in the way of creatures or properly tested altered monsters based on the Beta rules. So this argument doesn't have much grounding. Another thing to note is that this levelling issue has been a constant problem for the d20 system - hence so many different OGL systems trying alternate ways to deal with the problem.

That Pathfinder has changed the abilities of classes, but isn't actually providing the resources to properly utilise those abilities needs addressing. Creature design is somewhat lacking as an argument due to the current system being predominantly based on an old Dragon article from what I can see. It is new and needs testing. Which means it is not bound into the game system yet at all.

Edit2: And the changes that stat boosters will be nuked from the game is slim to none so we're back to square 1.

As I mentioned above, Pathfinder already has a system in place that lessens the effect of stat boosters. So this remains an issue that can't just be dismissed as "too late to change."

Conan

I think perhaps my previous post (well 3 posts up anyhow) was a bit oblique.

The problem the OP speaks of is not an issue with ability scores, the real problem is with the classes themselves. Having some classes with Multiple Attribute Dependencies and others with only a single primary attribute is the real problem. This is something we should all raise a stink about when the discussion shifts to classes.

To make an effective XXXX you need (in order of value):
Bard: CHA, INT, DEX, STR
Paladin: STR, CHA, WIS, CON
Ranger: DEX, STR, WIS, CON
Wizard: INT... that's really IT
Cleric: WIS... again, nothing else
Druid: WIS... 'nuff said
Sorcerer: CHA..

Sure the cleric and druid are even more effective if they have some other stats to help them in combat but really they can get by with just WIS.

Oops... another long winded post. Sorry folks.

Thanks for that list. You overlooked the Monk - who is also a MAD class. *chuckle* I like that shortening.

While resource management is important, as a character shouldn't be good at *everything* there is also the trade off that they shouldn't be held back from being effective at what they want to be good at. As the list above shows, some classes don't require their stats as spread out as others - and that is a problem.

I do think that providing +1 to two abilities every four levels (and it has to be two different abilities) will benefit MAD classes while not hindering or giving the SAD classes any advantage. But it still wont help the initial build.

It is a real issue that has been around since 3rd ed was published and has never really been addressed.

Conan

Why not just use what is in the book and playtest that?

If after you play several sessions the party thinks that the abilites were too low, then report it.

Because we have, and that is why I've brought up this issue. From our initial playtest experiences, it seems to me that this is a problem that will become more and more apparent as PCs level up.

As I stated, I think 15pts for a standard game is alright. I think the better solution is to provide +1 to two different ability scores every 4 levels - as per SAGA. This allows better balancing of classes and allows groups to still play with various levels of starting ability scores.

I feel that just giving more points at the beginning means that characters risk becoming too samey. It's not about getting lots of ability scores at high bonuses - but to get the necessary scores at reasonble levels without forcing a player to cut too low on their primary scores.

Conan

Well, the SRD is still available online. And for the most part, monsters aren't going to be changed very much for Pathfinder.

Firstly, I'm always strongly against relying too heavily on the SRD. I think a PDF supplement of core animals and templates for summons/familiars/animals is a good idea.

If Paizo wants to keep the 3.X system (or their variation thereof) alive, a creatures book or stats for creatures in the core rules is going to be a must. That's the point of playtesting - it shouldn't be reliant on the people playing to already have those books or be willing to download the SRC and convert the creatures themselves.

I guess I'm not satisfied with "there are sources to draw on." I would like to see Pathfinder treated as a complete product and line in its own right, and I suspect Paizo has a similar viewpoint. :)

It's not like I'm expecting to log in tomorrow and see a creature manual PDF. I'm more making an observation - again from our game - where the lack of stats meant that there was scrambling around to find a book with stats and then convert those over.

Just making an observation as to how things could be improved for ease of play and playtesting.

Conan

Okay, I see where you are coming from. You're getting extra feats now, and more ability scores at first level, and a bigger distribution of class skills. So the +1 ability score every 4 levels seems small. I don't agree, but I see your point now.

It isn't merely extra feats - special abilities in classes are much broader in the range of abilities they apply to - meaning that players are needing to spread their points out more than in traditional D&D.

Now this works okay early on, but as you level up, the points bonuses at every fourth level mean that not all your special abilities remain useful, and start to become less effective. I'm suspecting to the point of uselessness at higher levels.

This happens because a player will either have to spread their point bonuses out - which makes them useless benefits. Or they have to focus purely on one stat (which was kind of the expectation of 3.5) - which leads to the character losing overall effectiveness in favour of a single stat.

Given that most classes now have two primary stats and two secondary stats - it seems to me that rather than pumping more points into the first level, a more logical benefit is to have two +1s per fourth level. Because this allows the PC to still pump up one primary stat, while also being able to boost the second primary or one of their secondaries.

Doing it this way means you still can have your 8s and 9s, your secondaries are still lower and you get the benefit of your chosen Primary stat.

From the playtests I've seen, the old system was flawed the moment the other classes came out - Monks, Swashbucklers, Bards, Swordsages, Crusaders, Warblades... a lot of classes are weak choices because of it. It also punishes multiclassing as well.

Most other systems seem to have abandoned it in favour of more bonuses, and I think there is good reason for it.

Like I say- going +1 on two ability scores every four levels doesn't create the +2 in every ability score character. Boosting initial point buy does. Hence I propose this over raising standard point buy.

I'm interested in why you think having +1 in two ability scores every four levels isn't a good idea.

Conan

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your criticism seems to be founded on a desire to build characters that are good at everything. Classes should be playtested using the elite array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 (which, incidentally, is the "standard fantasy" point buy for Pathfinder of 15 points).

For example, to make an "effective" bard, you can have Str 8, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 15. How is that "bad"? Not effective in melee, fine. Decent ranged ability and defense. 7 hit points at 1st level. Good skill points and a +1 on bardic knowledge. No special wisdom bonus, fine. Good ability to perform and cast spells. Room for improvement with level increases to scores.

Sorry, but it really grinds my gears when players complain if they don't have a +2 modifier in every stat.

EDIT: Standard point but in PRPG allows 14, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12. In other words, way above average ability for your race.

Those spreads sound reasonable. I will have to look into it.

As I said - I am basing this off our playtest experiences. We have made the change over to beta and it seems that our group of experienced 3.5 players are having an inordinate number of TPKs and near TPKs during Rise of the Runelords now.

At level 7, I would have expected more competence than we're seeing. But it could even out after more playtesting. Just stating an observation that it seems that as you level up, the ability boosts cause PCs to become unbalanced, and *less* effective overall.

At first level, there is no issue. At seventh level - it is beginning to look like not enough. I should note, I did find a similar issue with latter classes in 3.5.

Conan

I'm not out to create a character that is good at everything - but with the current point buy system and the balance of abilities for each class - a character *seems* to be unlikely to be able to utilise all their special features.

Like I said, it's still too early for me to be certain, but I do think that if a company plans to have a point buy system - they need to make sure that it is feasible to build the character.

In the case of a bard - you need Cha for your abilities. Int for your Knowledges and Spellcraft (without a decent Int, you're wasting your bardic knowledge) You need Wis for skills like Sense Motive, Perception - which are useful bardic skills. You need Dex to ensure a reasonable AC and ability in the event of being caught in a fight and being pinned while the other PCs are trying to get to you.

Now these don't all have to be at the same level. As I see it - Cha and Int primary, Wis and Dex secondary. But to be able to get a reasonable bonus on your secondaries, the current system prevents a reasonable bonus on your primaries. There is just one ability too many.

Looking through I've also noted that the Monk seems to be in the same situation. Primary Dex and Wis, Secondary Str and Con.

Sure, you can roll dice - but my query is regarding the effect of point buy and how to improve characters via that system.

If you raise points, then you just get over all better characters. I'm not proposing that. I'm proposing that you keep point buy so that you still get the same lower spread of scores - but as you level up, it balances out *on your two primary ablities.*

The original classes were more designed to have one primary and two secondary.

I also think that dismissing this altogether in favour of rolling dice is really missing the point of playtest discussions. I'm not saying it must be this way, I'm proposing the idea to see if it is feasible. And if people have noticed a similar trend or not.

Conan

This one is still in the testing phase. But looking over the stats required from classes now, many classes require a number of good stat scores to be effective.

Many of Beta's fixes seem to make most classes reliant on more than one or two strong stats. However, the standard point buy is simply too low to balance this out.

Now I need to play a bit more with more classes to see if this is an issue only for classes like Bard (which, from what I can see, needs Dex, Int, Wis and Cha - with at LEAST Int and Cha to be nearly equal in level for an effective support Bard) or if it is more prevalent.

Considering the other changes, is it such a bad idea to introduce a +1 bonus to two ability scores every fourth level rather than just one. Given the high adventure focus of the Pathfinder setting and scenarios - I have found that the default system is just a tad underpowered compared to the goals and opposition presented.

Like I say, I need to play this out a little more to see - but it is feeling that even with lowering some stats to -8, the balance is still preventing characters from being properly effective in their class.

I'm not suggesting aiming to give a character 18 in two or more ability scores - rather, providing an incentive to be a bit more jack of all trades without needing to raise the level of point buy. (Which I feel is lacking more balance than providing +1 to two abilities every four levels.)

As it stands, a player will rarely place their +1 in anything other than their primary stat. With the number of abilities now used by each class, this is going to skew PC balance and effectiveness at higher levels - requiring more magic item buffs rather than developing the PC.

I genuinely think that this addition would go a long way towards helping balance out PCs while also providing characters that match up closer with the implied setting and tone of Pathfinder.

Conan

Here is my second issue. Creatures.

While the monster creation rules are a good idea and an easy way to handle monsters without requiring a huge book, basic familiars and summon creatures are a problem.

Basically without having the Monster Manual, the Beta rules are seriously lacking due to having powers that create creatures for which there are no stats for.

Are there plans to rectify this with the final publication? It's not a big issue, but one that occurred to me during play. I thought about how people who don't have access to the MM for 3.5 would be able to handle those particular abilities.

Conan

Hi Paizo team,

I have three key issues that have become apparent while playing using the Beta rules - and I wanted to discuss them individually. The reasoning being that some of my thoughts might not be as desired as others - so to make sure that the good ideas don't get lost with the not-so-good, I'm going to discuss each individually.

Firstly - an Index. The beta rules are a pain to use in actual playtesting due to the lack of an index. With the number of changes to combat, magic and general status effects - it can be very time consuming to flick through the book for rules.

I figure the hardback will have an index, but is it possible to produce a downloadble PDF Index listing for the beta rules. This will make playtesting and general playing a lot easier. Especially when using the print version in play.

Conan