fuji257's page

Complete Warrior (and other books) has lots of feats, abilities, etc. that could have been used to buff up the fighter/barbarian without getting goofy. Same for Complete Scoundrel/Adventurer for the Bard or Rogue.

Rogues casting spells and Barbarians dealing elemental damage and all these other crazy powerups seems a bit off. Pathfinder is starting to shape up like some random groups house rules and less like an actual replacement for good solid base for 3.5. It's like we're getting two 4th editions and 3.x is truly dead.

I'll hang in 'till the end and try it, but have little interest in playing with an ultra powered core rule set.

If this is a viable alternative, give some examples. What type of abilities do you consider to meet this description?

They are supposed to be the pro's, not me. I'm not trying to write their material, just stating my opinion. Tons of 3rd party material exists that give the "old" core classes new spins without being so over the top, it can and has been done already. I could give examples, but this is already being side tracked into what constitutes "high fantasy" versus "mid fantasy" blah blah blah and that's not the point of discussion.

Here's where you are mistaken. Prestige classes were not intended to be more powerful than base classes. They were intended to provide players additional character options, abilities, and general flavor in developing their character. The fact that most ended up being at a higher level of power is just one of the ways in which WotC failed to follow through/changed their own design objectives (however you personally want to look at it; both are valid points of view).

PrCs became a way to power up, exactly because D&D core lacked really high fantasy options. Problem solved. They also fulfilled a way to "provide players with additional character options, abilities, and general flavor in developing their character" as you put it. They are not mutually exclusive.

Wrong again. Pathfinder is being designed specifically so you don't have to replace your 3.5E material. There have been three primary reasons given for the development of these rules; to improve upon the basic game, to provide a rules source for new players once the 3.5 books are no longer available, and to provide content that supports and is compatible with the existing 3.5 game once WotC halts producing such products.

And they COULD do all of those things and provide a core rulebook that appeals to more than just a high magic audience. But they've chosen to ignore certain market segments.

You (and others) keep telling me all their goals in designing Pathfinder RPG and I can read myself and already know that - you're missing my point.

"The Pathfinder RPG is designed with backward compatibility as one of its primary goals, so players will continue to enjoy their lifelong fantasy gaming hobby without invalidating their entire game library."<---from Paizo.com

My game library does NOT consist of ultra high powered options galore, and thus, using Pathfinder RPG as core for my library would not be an option. Sure my library would not be "invalidated" per say; so long as I'm willing to completely change my game style.

Let's pretend there are two car companies: FORD and CHEVY.

FORD makes hatchbacks and only hatchbacks.

CHEVY makes parts for those hatchbacks; so many in fact that you could nearly build your own hatchback out of CHEVY parts.

FORD tells CHEVY they can only continue to make stuff for said hatchbacks IF they agree to certain conditions.

CHEVY does not agree to these new conditions and announces they will be producing their own hatchbacks from now on - so all your old stuff is still good and when your old hatchback goes bad or you cannot find one they'll have one ready to go.

Then CHEVY promptly produces an SUV.

YOU may like an SUV - - because for YEARS you modded the crap out of your hatchback to an SUV anyways (and that's fine) but some of us like hatchbacks.

There you have it. The Official crappy internet car analogy.

I couldn't disagree more. Paizo is appealing to more people because they are having a hand in shaping how it's going to turn out. I can't recall any game system that has such a high input from future customers as to what they want in a game that won't officially come out for another year. Customers who are already very familiar with the base system (3.5), who know what the weaknesses are, and have very concrete ideas for what should be changed to make the game more fun than it already is.

Already more than 15,000 people have downloaded the Alpha tests; pretty good for a game system that's supposed to become obsolete in a couple of months. If every one of them buys the rpg at $50 a pop, that's $750k at release time. Not to mention the entire module, adventure paths, and sourcebook line that is generating cash and fan interest based on the Pathfinder world right now. I would say it's marketing genius, actually.

You're arguing against a phantom. I never stated anything negative about the open nature of the alpha test and its openness. I agree that that is a good decision, marketing and otherwise.

They are marketing the idea that people should replace a generic mid-fantasy game with a campaign specific high powered one. Two fundamentally different things that appeals to two different markets (of course there is some cross-over, neither market being mutually exclusive).

I believe one of the design goals is to modify the core classes to be appealing to players throughout 20 levels, to avoid the idea that a character should take levels in a prestige class because they are so much more powerful than the basic classes. Combine this with the concept that they want the game to be as backwards compatible as possible, and the only viable solution appears to be adding power and abilities to the basic classes. Unless, of course, you have another solution.

uh, adding powers and abilities that fit flavor wise with a mid-fantasy (not high, not low) generic setting. Need more power? PrCs that's what they are for. Let's go to the other extreme - Iron Heroes? Is it boring? Is it no fun?

But that's all beside the point - I'm not arguing that low fantasy, mid fantasy, or high fantasy is more fun or fundamentally better than the other. I'm saying that Paizo wants me to replace my 3.5 core books with Pathfinder. The option that they provided me means playing high fantasy ONLY. That is a HUGE fundamental difference and will ultimately drive away a segment of their potential market. Whether it's a good GAMING decision is a matter of preference; whether its a good MARKETING decision is obvious - it's not; it appeals to less people by design. You can always up the power with things like PrCs or expansion books but trying to tone things down requires way too much effort when its high magic at the core.

Fuji: it's hard to have sympathy for you (for what I suppose is going to be a big "roasting") when you start off being so snarky.

I really think you should reread the design goals again so that you can understand what they are looking to do. In regards to your complaint, one of the stated design goals was to add options. One of the perceived problems was that some classes "lose their luster after just a few levels," and to that end I think a lot of the level by level power boosts are designed to make certain classes more appealing. I see nothing mentioned in the design goals where Pathfinder is supposed to be, in your words, a "source-book for a GENERIC fantasy RPG."

Please then, cut the sympathy; I just love being snarky ;)

D&D is *the* "generic" RPG. I've heard groups refer to M&M, Gurps, et all in the context of "let's play some D&D" - - it's synonymous with role-playing. Paizo says they are offering replacement.

The replacement is turning the core classes into something completely different (I won't say munchkin, but high magic is suitable). The changes now poorly reflect a generic setting. The WoTC core books had a little flavor, but it easily stripped out. Pathfinder takes its flavor (high powered/high magic) and infuses it down to the bone.

I gather from your comments you don't have a problem with that - - and thats cool; I'm happy for you (really not being snarky). But I disagree and this is the place for feedback. The core books have always been kept low flavor and have avoided high-power (and low fantasy) at the extreme ends, saving such stuff for Campaigns books, expansions etc. It is my opinion that that's the ONE consistent thing that's kept D&D as the number one fantasy RPG all these years and thus making it the generic RPG of all time.

And I don't recall the farmboy class in any core books I've seen, nor would I propose it. <---snarky but true

Wow. I was *really* excited about Pathfinder; the whole Rogue doing spells thing really sounded a little off, but I let it slide . . .

Now the Barbarian is power mad . . .

This is turning into some crap flavor wise at a rapid pace. Uber munchkin.

I can see the sales pitch already:

"Stan Lee re-imagines Dungeons and Dragons . . ."

I hope they tone things down bit and think about what product they are launching here. I thought Pathfinder was SUPPOSED to take the place of D&D core for folks who wanted to stick with a 3.x rules set . . . it'll sure be tough to use Pathfinder RPG as a source-book for a GENERIC fantasy RPG when the core classes are effectively super heroes.

Hate to be so negative . . . it seems like an excellent product and of the highest professional quality. Just not a product that fills the niche I thought it was supposed to be filling: an updated generic fantasy 3.x source-book. Just my 2 cents, please don't roast me.

Psionics should always be an optional component of the rules. I always use them and love them dearly, but much like the Presidential race it is an extremely polarizing issue.

I would love to see Psionics support, and Psioncs content in future products/adventure paths. It is open content, look at the SRD.

More Psionics!

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=387873

I'm throwing together a base class that captures the flavor of Psionic powers (classic only; empathic, telepathy, telekinetic).

Just a Class, no extra system needed.

Check it out and let me know what you think.

I don't know much about second wind or healing surges. But I would like to see a way for PCs to heal more without a cleric.

My players seldom play clerics. They tend not to like the idea of a church or gods bossing them around.
As a result, they end up buying lots of healing potions and wands.I think that's kind of a cheesy solution.
So I'd like to see a (limited) way for PCs to non-magically recover HP.

Have any player do a an advanced heal check (Skill)

DC 10 = Heals Con Modifier hit points
DC 15 = Heals 1+Con Modifier hit points
DC 20 = Heals 5+Con Modifier hit points
DC 25 = Heals 10+Con Modifier hit points
DC 30 = Heals 15+Con Modifier hit points

Make a Food/Water and a First Aid kit mandatory items for this check or without give them a -5 on the check (a good neck rub can only go so far you know). This is a 10 minute action that cannot be assisted and the person doing the Heal check cannot be distracted.

Adjust DC's as you see fit. This has worked well for me as is. I'd say a group of adventures who don't like clerics taking a Skill Focus(Heal) Feat would be a good idea anyways.

As an aside I love Action Points as a DM and Player. Our group really doesn't have any issues with them. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if they didn't make it into core though. But I'll be using them either way.

I'm curious as to why Psionics being left of core makes sense in light of giving the Rouge an option to cast spells (Major Magic, Minor Magic pg 14 PfRPG Alpha).

That is absolutely ignorant. Psionic fans being told that Psionics won't be addressed in core and at the same time adding major FLAVOR BUSTING abilities to a classic core class that would OBVIOUSLY be better handled with some minor Psionic abilities. Mechanically speaking, some minor Psionic powers, or minor Psionic feats as an OPTION for a Rouge (or Bard for that matter) would be NO DIFFERENT; but FLAVOR-wise it fits like a glove.

We *REALLY* don't need MORE casters in core. I mean, seriously - you say your listening to fans; has ANYONE requested either MORE casters or casting abilities kludged on top of traditionally non-caster classes? I've never heard or seen such requests in any discussion group I've taken part of (maybe I'm wrong?).

If you REALLY insist on ignoring Psionics for core and MUST power up the Rouge, at least limit his spells (see how silly that sounds) to the "Mind Affecting" school instead of allowing Wizard spells carte blanche. Flavor - flavor - flavor.

As far as dying goes, how about this:

Once you go below 0, you make a Fortitude save. If you fail, you're dead. If you save, you stabilize but you're still below 0 and unconscious. You make a save every round until you die or stabilize.

Is that too simple? Basically getting rid of some negative hit point range. This also brings up the scenario that someone could be "left for dead" but stabilize and heal naturally and come back later in a campaign.

THANK YOU. YES.

Simplicity is where its at. That's perfect IMO. Very brief, it makes sense, and an article describing it is not required.

Making Action Points standard wouldn't hurt anything either.

Ken Marable wrote:

I'm curious to hear about 3rd party options as well. It's clear that the rules are open, but I'm wondering if there's been any thought as to compatibility claims. Being able to use 3P rules is one thing (and thank you for not closing it off!), but actually informing customers of that is something else entirely.

This is on the list to talk about this week. We'll figure something out that I think will make everyone happy. Of course, there can't be any Pathfinder RPG products until GenCon 2009, so we have a tiny amount of time. :)

-Lisa

I would hope instead of reinventing the wheel like WoTC chose to do with their deceptive OGL and D20SL, a simple currently existing license could be used.

It would be lovely to see RPG companies compete on the QUALITY of their work and the production VALUE of their products and not big pissing contests on who thought of what minor variation of XYZ first. Any licenses that restrict RIGHTS already held (Like OGL or D20SL) just shows the company in question is afraid of the former scenario and would rather have overpaid lawyers fight about the latter.

http://creativecommons.org/license/

For the fun of it I tried making up a "Pathfinder" version of the psion. Here's what I came up with

That's pretty cool.

Although, I've always wondered why must a separate system be put into place for Psionics to begin with? This separate system seems to be the only source of problems people have with Psionics.

Some thoughts:

1. Loads of "Mind Affecting" spells already exist in core. It seems a new base Class or two that took advantage of those could replace the trouble of adding a whole new system.

Adding some new/different Psionic Feats to round out anything missing, like the Mindblade ability or what-not.

or

2. If the Magic system were moved to a "point" based, or the Psionic system were moved to a "slot" based either or - most problems would also vanish.

It seems to me, with a little effort, everyone could be accommodated without adding any complications.

or

3. Another alternative approach would be to incorporate a system for Psionics *MECHANICALLY* similar to the Binder in Tome of Magic (albeit with huge flavor changes). This way a Psionic Classed Character could do some low level stuff at will, some medium stuff every five rounds, and some high level stuff like once per day. Although this contradicts my previous thoughts about having separate systems, this mechanic has proven solid mixed in with Core; unlike the current Psionic system which seems to cause lots of troubles.

With all that said; I'd love Psionics addressed in the core rules - one way or another.