Tenbones's page

Set,

this might be true (about how EQ PvP. I was an EQ PVPer - it sucked). however, something to consider, the low-population of this game (4500 at launch) will make for a very small, very intimate community. It appears one of the things they're going for (and i'm holding my breath with anticipation that Ryan and co. can pull it off) is empowering the community with persistence and that includes policing itself.

And that's the rub - player entitlement is a two-way door as long as players who are violated can realistically get their perceived justice. So too should it mean that players that want to act like evil jackholes be able to do so - within limits<--- and there is the rub.

What *I* would like to see is Adventuring Groups be given as part of their charter - specific things they're "legal" to do. And by that I mean -

Explorers Charter - you can clear land and claim it. (this might be a default ability). Or they can get faster non-combat movement.

Bounty Hunter's Charter - you get an interface to pick up and collect bounties made by other people.

Assassins Charter - Perhaps for Evil groups who are immediately flagged in Lawful areas (meaning they have to sneak into such places) and they can assassinate another adventurer who is in a State of War with another adventuring group/guild. So in essence - let's say you're in a Settlement and you've agreed to declare war on another guild/Settlement - you could potentially hire Assassin-chartered players to pick off those enemy players. Just a thought. All assassins might be KOS to most other groups (making it challenging - to say the least).

Crafting Charters - Such players would get perks and bonuses for crafting.

Builder Charters - Members would get perks and bonuses for construction.

So you see where I'm going - this takes things beyond the "class" and skills system into a meta-gaming system that helps define the world and your role in it.

This entire thread is stupid. No business decision like this just happens out of the blue. It takes a lot of time to mull something of this magnitude over especially in a niche-market like table-top RPG's.

Lastly - why characterize Paizo as "lying" when all they did was make a business decision for themselves (and their fans) - not a personal attack on someone. Get over it.

I wish Paizo the best. And I'll likely buy Pathfinder and 4e and let my players decide with me.

In the interests of compatibility - I think you're right. However, there is a fine line in making *any* kinds of changes that require a review of the new version of the rules and playing an entirely new version of the game.

That said - the changes that desperately need fixing in 3.5 are

The AC system - easily fixable using a Defense Rating based on the relative skill of the class in question. In Iron Heroes it's a simple table that makes sense. You only get your DR if you're aware of the attack. Armor absorbs damage. Shields add to DR. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than the standard AC system. And once you use it for a session or so - you never have to refer back to it.

The Skill system - The skills need to be better defined and weighted to justify even buying them. Skill points if used, need to be better balanced. There are a LOT of ways to do this. The Pathfinder method I feel is the one of least resistance. I think it could be better than this - I prefer balancing the skills (merging some for example) and giving each class the same number of points to buy skills.Add Class Skill Groups that each class get extra points to put into to allow them to fulfill their roles better. Not penalize them by making non-class specific skills cost more.

Magic System - needs a total overhaul.

Combat - The general manuevers in combat need to be cleaner. Pathfinder's approach is better. Not sure if it's the way to go.

I've read the document.

Races - Love them. Has instant gratification with solid choices among all the races. The gimmicks are now useful. Excellent.

Classes - I haven't playtested it yet - but on paper I like what I'm seeing. Yes they are more powerful. Rather - they're more organized in ability. I *like* this. A lot. Granted I need to see the other classes, so far so good.

Skills - HRMMM. This is an interesting means of bypassing a constant complaint in my own campaigns. Not enough skills. Or the skills in 3.5 are too general/specific that they don't balance out in overall use in the campaign. I have used the Skill-Groups from Iron Heroes to help reslove this - and now my players are complaining that certain skills are simply too powerful to get around (Alertness for us - which with Pathfinder - it's virtually the same as Perception). The Pathfinder system is interesting - but it almost forces people to multi-class (which is not an issue but for some people it might be). I'm not sure how I like it. I think I'd prefer a re-work of the actual Skills themselves and readjustment of skill-points to various classes. Personally, I feel classes should not necessarily be the determiner of skills: rather there should be a general pool of specific trained/untrained skills - and certain classes get bonus points for skill-groups specific to their schtick.

For instance - Rogues would have access to a Rogue-Skills grouping where they could customize their Rogue as they see fit. If non-rogues buy into those skills it costs more. But ultimately everyone gets the same amount of General points. The current 3.5 system is too arbitrary. I know some people might say 'what's the difference?' I think the skills need to be reworked and re-organized to fit the points better. Until then - I think Pathfinder's method might be a simpler solution. But my gut tells me I don't care for it.

Feats- Iffy. The class-section does a great deal to alleviate another issue I personally have with 3.5, that is Feat acquisition. The system in 3.5 almost forces characters to be cookie-cutter in concept. The Class section for Pathfinder helps a LOT in alleviating this. What I *dislike* about the Combat Feats is the round-by-round pre-requisite manuevers. Negative. Big red flags (for me). It caters not to having choices round by round, but potentially paralyzing the game due to lack of choice AND players not being satisfied when all that setup come to nothing on a miss or some form of interupt. Do not like. Do not want.

Combat - Okay... here's where I might take some arrows from the crowd. I think, *personally* Pathfinders changes in order to streamline combat misses the mark completely. Granted, I realize they're not trying to get away from 3.5 entirely, but there are certain mechanics that simply do not work well that Pathfinder simply does not address (and again I realize they did not intend to apparently - but they are changes I feel D&D needs that 4e may not address either).

Embracing simplicity - these systems are:

Iterative Attacks - GET. RID. OF. THEM. They are a headache for new players. They are a whip for specialized players who dual-wield and have unarmed combat with a small gauntlet in one hand and a foot to kick with, and a kama in the other. The point is - just give players another attack at full bonus every +5 BAB. And bring back the 3/2 iteration.

BAB = +1 - +4: 1 attack per round
BAB = +5 - +9: 3/2 (two attacks on round one, one on round 2)
BAB = +10 - +14: 2 per round
BAB = +15 - +19: 3 per round
BAB = +20: 5/2

I know people will groan - but I swear to you, I've used it in my campaigns to replace the spreadsheets my players use for their Bonus Matrixes to HIT on iterative attacks based on which attack routine they want to use... and it sped up gameplay 1000-fold.

Also - get rid of the extra-feats relating to dual-wielding. Just allow one single off-hand attack with Two-Weapon Fighting and the regular rules. Why? Because if you allow people their full attack routines despite movement (to make up for the fact they generally have fewer attacks) it balances it out. Yes that means you can more than 5-foot step and do a full routine of attacks.

It's easy. It's elegant. It can be done. (and I'm actually doing it. My players love it... of course monsters get it too.. heh.)

CMB - I'm iffy on it. I will have to test it out. It looks... okay.

Armor Class - Yeah another sacred cow to kill. Let me preface this by saying the fact that nothing was really done (that I've seen) to address this WHILE all of the classes (especially the melee classes) have been statistically and racially buffed is a bad sign. The AC system is mathematically HORRIFYING. The abstractions of what Armor IS vs. what it's supposed to do is nowhere close to being reflected in 3.5. Yeah yeah you can say "Well HP is also supposed to be part of it as it's a reflection of blah blah blah blah... /barf" and what it gets down to is this:

AC is meaningless if it's not improved. Statistically - by 10th level most melee characters will be tagging everything they swing at well past their "Challenge Rating" (/snicker). With the buffs to the races and classes in Pathfinder - this issue is magnified. I could recommend a combination of possibilities. But DR and Avoidance needs to factor in here somewhere in a big way. Armor absorbs damage. It doesn't make you harder to hit. Yes, HP is an abstraction, but that doesn't mean people think of it that way when they play. When you get hit - you get hit. And it doesn't matter that your Swashbuckling Fighter wearing no armor has 150 HP - he's supposed to be nimble and fast and impossible to lay a hand on... but you just got hit by someone inferior to your skill. Why? Because your AC sucks, and his to-*hit* bonuses say so along with that "10" he rolled. Tag. You're it.

As it stands - I use the Iron Heroes Defense Rating plus Armor as DR. If Pathfinder wants to really make solid changes to the system without requiring people to buy an entire new set of books - they need a system similar to this. Sticking with the same old same old broken AC system... well you get just that. If you're cool with it - have at it. I'm just saying here is an opportunity to really make a stab at it that is worthwhile.

Spells and Magic - I like what I see. I want to see more. Let's get rid of Fire/Forget casting. Let's make Specializing BEEFIER and more worthwhile. If you want to be a universalist caster - fine. But make being a specialist SPECIAL. It's the right direction - but it needs more, in my opinion.

I *want* Pathfinder to be special and stand out from the 3.5 system and from 4e as well, but not so far that 3.5 players need to burn their collections. I do not think the changes (and keep in mind - I'm just using the systems above as examples - not "how it shoud be" unless it's your cup of tea). I believe that making small changes are good - but why not make the big changes and make it better? These systems I've pointed out CAN be made while still requiring very little conversion from 3.5. In fact I know they can all be done on the fly without hardly any book reference. Certainly no more than it will take to pick up the Pathfinder PHB and glance it - which is what most people will do initially anyhow.