Thanks a bunch for putting this together!
Search Posts
Playing the Playtest during Paizocon, I noticed that many of the classes (specifically the martials) had TWO class feats at level 1. So that bumps it up to 12 class feats for martials. (I'm sure the spell casters got some type of recompense or something)You mean like, I don't know, spells. ah constant armor, constant high hitpoints, and constant attacks = spells (limited yet powerful)
I like the idea of balancing the classes with 10 class feats, 10 skill feats, around 20 skill proficiency ranks. It makes sense than any hero would have an equitable amount of feats and skills.
it is not a blog about wizards, tho. It's a blog about familiars, which many people can get now (even a gnome fighter).I can see Hidden Paragon won't have rules making you impossible to see. But rather all the things that normally help detect them don't work. Someone with Legendary perception can still locate them (or lower ranks if lucky) but they can't just pop a True Seeing to automatically detect the Rogue. At least thats my hope. Lol, yeah, a further erosion of the wizard.
When you have a limited number of spells a day, they should have some benefit.Right. Gotta keep those casters as gods above the non-casters. Otherwise we won't be able to b$%*+ about how much more powerful the casters are.Maybe a wish will reveal him? It's always good when Rogues have more powerful magics than casters. Thank you for the response! You make good points, and I kind of get it, but something still isn't right in my mind. I get the entangle bit and with the stealth to a point. The wizard has lower hit points and cloth armor and poor weapons to be able to do those super powerful things 1-3 times per day when compared to the warrior or rogue with their higher hit points, superior armor and saves, and better weapons. I guess that gets to the auto succeed aspect you bring up. I'm starting to think that yeah with everything the wizard has given up for the limited number of times she gets to be "godly" it should work. If it is a questionable pursuit, then a warrior or rogue will always be a better class because they have repeatable attacks, defenses, etc. In addition to the 1-3 times a day, there is the built-in restraint of "did you prepare that spell?" I can't see myself memorizing see invisible unless I think I may be in the situation to need it. So, the "can't be seen by spells x, y, z is an double protection for that ability because if a wizard did have the thought to memorize that spell, then yeah, I do think it should work. On the other hand, if the rogue has chosen to use Hidden Paragon, why should it be revealed by the wizard's spell? My response would be because the wizard used a spell slot to prepare it. The wizard has given up defense or offense for utility. The rogue still has all of his or her defense and offense with the added bonus of utility. I think that is the bump for me. Wizards give up a lot to do what they do. They are glass cannons (in effectiveness, I'm not talking about blasting).
Right. Gotta keep those casters as gods above the non-casters. Otherwise we won't be able to b$%*+ about how much more powerful the casters are.Maybe a wish will reveal him? It's always good when Rogues have more powerful magics than casters. When you have a limited number of spells a day, they should have some benefit. Logically, just like a rogue's poison will take out a wizard, a wizard's magic should reveal a rogue. (And we won't talk about a rogue being able to poison all day long, maybe it should be limited like caster spells?)
I can see Hidden Paragon won't have rules making you impossible to see. But rather all the things that normally help detect them don't work. Someone with Legendary perception can still locate them (or lower ranks if lucky) but they can't just pop a True Seeing to automatically detect the Rogue. At least thats my hope. I'm trying to figure out if Paizo is moving to a rock-paper-scissor system. It seems like rogues are getting really, really powerful. The blog update is really great stuff for most, and wizards can get a talking cat?
Maybe a wish will reveal him? It's always good when Rogues have more powerful magics than casters.
No, a fighter should not have more skill points than a bard. The whole concept of a bard is extreme versatility. A jack of all trades. Fighters are extreme combat engines. The only way to balance them out is to make them poor in out of combat situations. Now if you say that a bard cannot reach legendary proficiency in as many skills I would be fine with that but there is no way a caster with genius intelligence should barely be equal to an average intelligence martial character for balance or relevance reasons. Intelligence has to count for something in this game. I agree with this idea that the skills and skills points should be pretty close across all classes. In addition, for the argument comparing spells to swords...spells are still a limited resource and now for the big picture: Big picture - the martial characters have higher hit points, better ways to mitigate damage and better armor classes. Wizards have well, their limited number of spells.
I agree and love the story/non-combat abilities! Give 3-4 per creature to guide me & surprise the players! LOVE, LOVE, LOVE it! This may be my favorite aspect of the overhaul so far!
Lol, no I honestly don't, but it seems like there is quite a strong anti-magic sentiment on the boards, like the grass is greener. I am starting to notice some patterns as a few particular spells are mentioned repeatedly, but can't really speak to the anger yet. That aside, why can't Paizo put up 2 or 3 options for how to handle magic? The groups could decide. Someone on the boards commented that Pathfinder was for dungeon crawling, and I thought really? Because the only ones who get to keep crawling are the martial / melee characters. Do they forget how to use weapons after a fight? Nope. Anyway crawling in cloth with a dagger really is crawling or hiding in the back and watching. Either or, I've never had a problem with the exploits people are naming. We always had casters who were out of spells and lame-ducks as the warriors and rogues carried the game. I do see the out of combat utility issue, but again, everyone should have more options. Ah, the anti-caster movement just really bothers me because it doesn't make sense.
My hope is that spell descriptions encourage creativity on the caster's part and have less focus on dice and numbers. Spells shouldn't just be about numerical effects. Let the GM & players decide, maybe let the dice decide. Either way when I read a spell description and see a +1 to (fill in the blank here) it really does suck the imaginative idea out of spells. Honestly, most people have their own ideas of how spells should work, so let the RPG groups decide. Sure, groups will be different, and so what is wrong with that? Nothing, unless you are doing tournaments. Paizo could sell tournament guides for those that need numbers for nuances.
Will there be a retooling of the Pathfinder (Paizo) website to mesh the community and game materials (similar to that other 5th edition RPG)?
This post is right. Nothing needs to be changed. As a GM, let them use any of those tactics. Announce they've won and 5 minutes later get up and leave. Go to a group that is interested in the story. But seriously, magic is the answer to magic problems. As a GM you can do anything. Your scry doesn't seem to work. You don't have to give a reason! It just doesn't work in this case. Or you teleport - into an illusion and are crushed to death by a falling room trap. Oh, no roll needed, unless you are a giant. Seriously, you should be able to clang off fun and interesting ways to deal with any party that wants to try stuff like this. In short, mess with them back. From a story perspective, make it so that if they use tactics like that, they've missed critical information and have no done something that will be seen as a crime by X, y, z, pick something that will be fun. Anyway, I understand the OP concern, but the game isn't the problem. In fact, fewer rules and specifics in these type of situations allow the GM to run the type of game they want (players like to use rules against GM's).
Oh, boo hoo. The most interesting thing they could come up with for a high-level fighter was "you're numerically a bit better at blocking a very specific type of...Yeah, the previews have not been very comforting for casters, I hope we don't end having PF martial edition.Personally, I love it. You still get more powerful as a spellcaster, you just don't outstrip everybody who's not a spellcaster just by levelling up. One of the biggest problems in previous editions was the "quadratic Wizard, linear Fighter" issue, where a Fighter levels up and only gains a single increase in power, while a Wizard that levels up not only gets new, more powerful spells, but every single other spell they have also gets more powerful. Fighters go 1, 2, 3, 4, while Wizards go 1, 4, 9, 16. This is a problem, and removing automatic spell power scaling fixes that in a big way. In practice, what this likely means is that mages will use their highest level spell slots for their show-stopping, battle-ending magic that can be used a few times a day, and then focus on using their lower level slots for more utility effects and the like. I'm a big fan of this approach.It does contribute towards the 20 minute adventuring issue. If I can only cast my good blast like 2-3 times a day then I'm always a lv1 wizard. To be honest Arachnofiend, I think the shield mechanics and weapon talents sound pretty fun. The rogue preview was neat, and the cleric has some neat new things to play with too! The equipment and weapon changes sound neat. Really, I'm pretty excited about most of what they have revealed, but, for instance, even in the weapons post, the switching items in your hands stuff...so a wizard can carry a staff or cast spells...I see it as another nerf for cloth-wearing casters.
Personally, I love it. You still get more powerful as a spellcaster, you just don't outstrip everybody who's not a spellcaster just by levelling up. One of the biggest problems in previous editions was the "quadratic Wizard, linear Fighter" issue, where a Fighter levels up and only gains a single increase in power, while a Wizard that levels up not only gets new, more powerful spells, but every single other spell they have also gets more powerful. Fighters go 1, 2, 3, 4, while Wizards go 1, 4, 9, 16. This is a problem, and removing automatic spell power scaling fixes that in a big way. In practice, what this likely means is that mages will use their highest level spell slots for their show-stopping, battle-ending magic that can be used a few times a day, and then focus on using their lower level slots for more utility effects and the like. I'm a big fan of this approach.It does contribute towards the 20 minute adventuring issue. If I can only cast my good blast like 2-3 times a day then I'm always a lv1 wizard. ChibiNyan is 100% right, and this is why the whole nerf-cloth-wearing-casters movement needs to be very careful. Sadly, it would appear that the developers are fairly far down that road already. The fact that cloth armor was not mentioned in the armor update is an implied communication that the attention is on the melee players. The melee players get nice new attributes even while rogues and warriors can poison and swing their swords all day long (and even craft magical weapons and perform rituals!)...Not true for the wizards. I still have a wait and see attitude, yet my attitude is getting very skeptical.
I was like "Theater of the Mind?" Oh...that's how we play. No minis no maps. I could see using both, but probably won't switch to maps and minis...I'm too lazy for all that. I could see using a map for a particular event, but in general, I tend to agree with the OP, you mind can't do two things at once. Either it's imagining the scene or figuring logistics on the map. Less questions with a map I guess. We do use pictures at times though, maybe a quick map to give an overview? Does using a map lead to less creative thinking? Ah, either way, we'll keep TOTMing it, I just wing the rest if a map is really needed.
It sounds really cool! I wonder does this matter to wizards? They have lost spells and now everyone else has cool weapon tricks they can use all the time. Is this rebalancing casters swinging too far the other way?
Everything in the game is getting a nice revision. Spellcasting needs to leave Vancian behind and do something innovative. I'm pretty excited about so much the designers have shown. If they stay with Vancian, I'll just make my own homebrew, sad, but true.
+1 for arcanist casting!
I generally did not like swashbuckler/gunslinger grit/panache. I can understand them for spellcasters as it consolidates a bunch of X times per day abilities. But I really don't want it on non-spellcasters as it removes yet another point of differentiation. We've already made all classes full BAB classes, let's not go completely ridiculous. Maybe melee will have stamina points. Performing cool martial abilities will tire the rogues and fighters?
"A wizard walks up to some goblins and functionally kills them all with a color spray, but a fighter has to hack and risk injury one at a time." Eh, that can happen a few times a day... if the spell is prepared. A fighter can hack and be protected by armor all day. A rogue can skill and poison every fight. A caster has to hold a few spells and decide when to cast them. I really am on the opposite side of the fence. From my perspective as a GM, stick-carrying, cloth-wearing casters are easily dealt with. They are powerful for a moment or two, but then fade quickly as the rogues and fighters carry the battles for the majority of the day. I'm thinking about the game as an imaginative story experience. Others are seeing this as a min/max number crunching exercise. I suspect that is where the rift on casters starts to widen. I am hoping the casters have a way to contribute more consistently incident to incident.
Yeah, I would be up for something different. It looks like warriors and rogues are getting spiffed up nicely (access to alchemy, rituals, and poisons too!!); I am hopeful that casters will feel fresh and exciting too.
Very interesting idea! I often feel like casters have a similar problem, it's either cast the spell and help or save the spell and hide. That's not a lot of fun either. Maybe unique combat options could be made for int. casters. You only have a staff, but you've learned how to do this to help, etc.
I hadn't really thought about the difficulty for new players joining the game. Fair enough.
It may be too late, but should there even be classes? If there is going to be a redesign, how about opening the system to allow people's imaginations to really run? The class system still boxes people into roles. It seems like systems have danced around it some, but What if there were skill strands based on attributes from which people could learn? Just like you only have so much time to learn so much, you can be great at one or two skills or mediocre at a few? Maybe characters could get investment points for particular strands based on primary attributes - intelligence is your primary attribute - you get points for intelligence based skills, same for str, wisdom, dexterity, etc.
Thax I agree, prepare and expend feels clunky. It has never made sense other than as a game mechanic to me. I would like to see spell points, at-wills or really anything else. I'm also hoping that spell descriptions encourage and emphasize imagination and creativity, not just a die number for an effect. We usually only play characters in the levels of 1-6, and martial characters are usually the meat and potatoes of most confrontational / dungeon style adventures. The wizards hide in the back hoping not to die once the few spells for the day have been cast (maybe I'm misunderstanding the imbalance points).
You are right that I really was only thinking about combat, not utility style spells. I wasn't aware that modules had changed to give a few encounters a day. I respect the manage your resources statement, which makes sense. I don't think we've ever played over 5th level either which changes spell power too.
Time has come to start messing about with RPG's with my kids. I am a supporter of Pathfinder and haven't really followed what D&D has been doing (because of endless edition rollout fatigue). I did look at their basic how to play rules and noticed on casters, at-will spells, encounter spells, and daily spells. Wow cool! Finally, it's not sitting around holding back spells or having to quit for a day because all spells were cast. I know that is an over simplification, but I that active style for casters appeals to me. Have I missed something in the Pathfinder rules that would allow for the at-will, encounter, and daily powers style of play? Has anyone attempted converting this system to the casters in Pathfinder?
I just came across this thread after posting the desire for Paizo (I put it under the Paizo products board) to publish some modules for kids 12 and under. Maybe if we get enough people to post support they would explore the idea of putting a few of them out a year?
I was thinking this morning that I would really like to get my kids gaming. They are of the imaginative age and would love the Pathfinder game, but I don't have time to craft adventures for kids under 10. I am wondering if the folks, who have made such great products for teens and adults, have considered making a module line (maybe 4 a year) for kids 12 and under? They could follow more predictable story lines kids might recognize, but also at a pace that would match younger attention spans? Possibly they would allow a variety of play settings so kids could gradually be exposed to the versatility of the character classes and the mechanics of the game. Ideas: 1) A woodlands help the fey adventure
Just tossing it out there. I would be willing to buy adventures specifically designed for parents to run with their kids. Not implying they would need to be sanitized and free of violence, just of a different complexity and pace and maturity. (edit: I added detail to the subject title.) |