Turkeycubes's page

Now that my groups have finally passed the midpoint of the playtest I can say that I've got some serious opinions. Here's the short version. Paizo wanted to make magic items more diverse and push players to make tough choices about how they wanted to use their slots.

The problem, as I see it, is that Paizo moved all the factors and ended up with a real mess.

Resonance was supposed to limit slots, but Paizo applied it to consumables. So only healing items were practical. Instead of fixing resonance to only apply to permanent items, Paizo has dropped it. So that's the end of resonance.

But the other half of the issue is that most of the items are rubbish. How is it possible that staffs are less useful than wands????

(Minimum fix on staffs, allow wielder to cast spells in the staff at any level they have [hightened] slots for.)

All this effort, and the only items that anyone really wants for their characters are the ability boosts and the weapons and armour. There's a few other items that are usually useful, but in the end all we're left with is the same situation with radically less powerful items. (I'll not rant about the shocking lack of wild Druid's items ATM)

With the proficiency system making tiny bonuses into huge advantages (though that is being partially corrected in the final version) there is little hope that we won't have exactly the same spread of magic items in this edition as we had in the last.

The last part is the control system of rarity.... In a thousand years of history the only certainty is that the best ideas get popular. So claiming that great magic items, spells or formulae are simply rare is just silly. If it's useful, it will be used. If it's popular it will be mass produced. If it hard to produce, it will be expensive.....

Economics never lie. Please Paizo, give this some real thought.

I'm finding that the way DC's are generated doesn't seem to reflect how easy it is for higher level characters to accomplish mundane tasks. Playing "The Mirrored Moon" it's clear that setting all DC's reletive to the PC's level isn't the way to go.

I'm playing a 9th level Druid, so searching a hex of forest should be easy, right? Nope. Even with my survival maxed out at 17 it's a near impossible roll. If this is sensible narrative, then most druids would spend levels one through eight completely lost in the wilds. The idea that anyone other than a druid or ranger could ever cope in a hex map would therefore be rediculous.....

The upshot is that searching doesn't make sense on a sliding scale DC. Infact, my thinking is that DC's should only EVER change if NPC'S or campaign forces make the search harder. Filling the forest with illusions, moving the search to another plane, or tracking enemies near or above the party level would certainly up the DC. But just because you're running a 9th level adventure doesn't mean that every step of the way need be a 9th level challenge.

I've found that my players get a lot more enjoyment out of their levels when I remind them of all the things that used to make trouble. Quickly searching a section of map that used to take days to complete is an excellent way to show them how far they've come.

I strongly believe that DC's are something that GM's need to balance in the moment. Using the provided charts, decide on a DC that reflects the abilities of the player. Playing the piano is far easier for a piano player; and searching the forest isn't a challenge for a character in tune with it.

I'd love to see your thoughts!
Thanks!

I've been mulling something over since August, waiting to see if Paizo would take it further than ditching signature skills. Why stop at such small differences in proficiency?

Let's expand the mechanism to add some real differences between characters! In this variation I would assume all characters to start at untrained, but have the option to be incompetent in order to focus their efforts elsewhere.

Below I have listed the expanded range of proficiencies. I do not believe this will effect balance. Characters should absolutely be excellent at some things and rubbish at others.....

Incompetent: You have avoided this sort of ability throughout your life, whether by fear or scorn you have no interest in these pursuits. You may choose any proficiency to be incompetent to gain 1 skill increase of your choice. (Proficiency=Level-6)

Untrained: No practical experience (Proficiency=Level-4)

Competent: Practice without formal training (Level-2)

Trained: Proficiency equals Level

Expert: Focused training and extensive experience (Proficiency=Level+2)

Master: Clear insight into the finer points of these abilities (Level +4)

Prodigy: Exceptional skill and talent
(Level+6)

Renowned: (Level+8)

Legendary: (Level+10)

In addition, I suggest that players add an extra skill increase as determined by their intelligence modifier. Divide 20 by the modifier, rounded down; so a character with a +3 Int Mod would get one more skill increase every 6 Levels.

Each PC would get one free proficiency increase to be applied to anything they choose at each odd level. Yes, this would replace the class ability proficiency progression!

Lastly, remove all level restrictions! Release the One Trick Ponies!!! Lol

I look forward to hearing your feedback!

Putting aside the vestigial scimitar proficiency, Paizo started out with a clear eye on bringing back the big Druid abilities while keeping them balanced. Some have moaned about the lose of spell casting while in Wild shape, but they might not realize that Druids could never do that for the first 30 years of (TTRPG's). But I have been excited to see some effort to give back the great druid powers, by forcing characters to pick where to focus.

I would suggest that all forms scale up to 9th; giving different spells some flavour focus. Maybe insect form could have the best AC with a spell turning ability at high levels? Animal form could give access to Were Forms with a conditional bonus to your AC, and/or options to call a pack of the form you assume. Wild Morph should have a horns/antlers options with a charge attack.... Ferocious form should give more access to Dire Animals and Magical Beasts. Pest form should give access to swarms that run off the Druid's HP total as a temporary pool.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head, so please let's hear your own ideas. Remember, strict efforts to balance everything lead to a fairly boring game. But having options that amount to important tactical advantages give players far more interesting ideas of how to play their abilities.

I'm totally puzzled by this change to the rage ability. A flat check with a cumulative 25% chance to come out of rage each round after the first? If you want to make rage seem more uncontrollable, than give a flat check of 4 to come out when the player wants. If they come out of the rage, they are fatigued 1. If not, every round you fail to hit under the check the check increases by 4 and the fatigued condition increases by 1. So if in round 4 you role under 16 you're barbarian would be out of rage, but fatigued 4. If you want to keep a limit on rounds of rage (and nothing more out of control than endless rage) then start the checks automatically on the last round of a given rage. Thoughts?

I get that developing a game system is tough, it's why most of us just find a system that mostly works for us and then maybe make a few house rules. I've played and GM'd for a long, long time. Generally, finding a group to play with once per week is about as much as most people have time for. So it's a little tough that so many changes come down the pipe from players who have time to blast through the whole playtest in a month.

Some of the changes are solid, and mostly I'm surprised that they didn't get picked up before going to print. Its not cool to sell a hardcopy that you never intended to be accurate for more than a month. At a minimum most of us would like a single unified PDF of the book to download whenever you change things. Putting in the work of editing your book for each change might help you slow things down long enough to get things right. I've enjoyed Pathfinder for 10 years and I want to see this new edition become even better!

The problem with RPG's is that player and GM experience is the biggest factor in playability. Rules as written are the beginning of learning the game, not the end. There need to be more debate and understanding about why things have been changed. I like resonance! A high magic world can still have fewer magic items and less usable versions. I agree that spending resonance for potions is too much, same for scrolls, and maybe consumables should have a longer duration so players can buff up before heading into danger. There's clearly room for some change, but what I'm seeing is that this version of the game is heading into the same crowd-sourced hot mess that first edition became. There should be a cost to getting a character to do what you want, but that cost is better served by teaching GM's to be open, flexible and able to handle unbalanced parties. The best adventures of literature never include a balanced party.

Paizo, please stick to your guns a little longer. Spend more time publishing explanations and contextual suggestions for your rules rather than just changing them. Help new players and especially GM's understand how they might find roleplaying solutions to their complaints. Just dropping more rules as written to give the people what they want will just make for more of a mess.... And maybe some of you remember how many 2nd edition ad&d books were sold that were mostly about flavour, and not loaded with new classes and feats? There's a market for RPG books that are actually about roleplaying!

I hope you agree, and thanks for the great times paizo!