3.5 Loyalist |
Well we aren't a single entity Gorbacz, so don't be so insulting. So reductive, two have become one for you now. You do realise we are separate people? Someone who really doesn't like a product and writes a negative review isn't immediately a troll for saying they didn't like it. To say so repeatedly is not exactly being welcoming.
To discuss the product, on tripping and other combat feats, I think core really made huge mistakes. Taking the attack of opportunity off the trip, the very useful feat in 3.5 is now weakened.
Greater trip is what improved trip used to be. And an extra feat to get there too. Somewhere a Fighter cries.
Power attack has also been changed, from -1 to hit, +1 damage (or 2 if two handed, to, in core what starts at -1, +2 (or +3 if two-handed). While there was choice and excitement behind the old power attack choice of penalty and damage to be inflicted, now the penalty is fixed, as you go up in level, the penalty slowly increases and the damage surges ahead. I do not like this at all, it is too much.
So, I throw a few more criticisms into the mix.
Gorbacz |
Well we aren't a single entity Gorbacz, so don't be so insulting. So reductive, two have become one for you now. You do realise we are separate people?
Nope, your posts are so similar that they blend together in my brain. Sorry about that.
To discuss the product, on tripping and other combat feats, I think core really made huge mistakes. Taking the attack of opportunity off the trip, when you have the feat says to me, the very useful feat in 3.5 is now weakened.
Greater trip is what improved trip used to be. And an extra feat to get there too.
Power attack has also been changed, from -1 to hit, +1 damage (or 2 if two handed, to a what starts at -1, +2 (or +3 if two-handed). While there was choice and excitement behind the old power attack choice of penalty and damage to be inflicted, now the penalty is fixed, as you go up in level, the penalty slowly increases and the damage surges ahead.
So, I throw a few more criticisms into the mix. And someone who really doesn't like a product and writes a negative review isn't immediately a troll for saying they didn't like it. To say so repeatedly is not exactly being welcoming.
That's a nice attempt at changing the topic, but I won't let you float with that. The reviewer we are talking about raised exactly two points, of which one was positive and the other one false. If somebody gives the book worst possible rating just for that, well, there's not much to discuss about.
And you're still showing that you don't exactly understand what the real problems with 3.5 rules were :)
3.5 Loyalist |
No, he made more than two points.
1) I really enjoy the class/cross class skill system (you have 3 ranks in all class skills, and after that its 1 point regardless of class or cross class)
2) They took Search and rolled it with spot/listen for perception nerfing one of the only nice utility skills for wizards though.
3) Also lets talk about grappling, as far as the rules go I can grapple THROUGH A WALL
4) or i can TRIP A GHOST. This was something that wasn't even broke in 3.5 and they took it and made it completely retarded. Did this even get playtested by competent players?
You seemed to miss that. Also not everyone writes long reviews, I would like him to add more, so he can discuss why it was a 1 for him and contribute to the discussion. Changing the topic? The topic is core.
Enlighten me on the real problems of the 3.5 rules?
Paul Watson |
No, he made more than two points.
1) I really enjoy the class/cross class skill system (you have 3 ranks in all class skills, and after that its 1 point regardless of class or cross class)
2) They took Search and rolled it with spot/listen for perception nerfing one of the only nice utility skills for wizards though.
3) Also lets talk about grappling, as far as the rules go I can grapple THROUGH A WALL
4) or i can TRIP A GHOST. This was something that wasn't even broke in 3.5 and they took it and made it completely retarded. Did this even get playtested by competent players?You seemed to miss that. Also not everyone writes long reviews, I would like him to add more, so he can discuss why it was a 1 for him and contribute to the discussion. Changing the topic? The topic is core.
Enlighten me on the real problems of the 3.5 rules?
Except points 3 and 4, as have been noted, are factually wrong. You cannot, by RAW, grapple through a wall, nor, by RAW, can you trip a ghost. It might make the case that the rules aren't well-layed out that he got that impression, but they are nonetheless not valid points because they are wrong.
Sebastian Bella Sara Charter Superscriber |
Okay, how exactly do the rules allow someone to grapple THROUGH A WALL or TRIP A GHOST?
Yeah, that review was pretty worthless. Saying "I found a loophole that doesn't exist and doesn't matter, yet is so important that I gave the product a 1 star review and didn't mention anything relevant to people who actually want to play the game and don't have the same ridiculous obsessions over minutiae as me" isn't really helpful. It just shows that you (a) didn't read the rules carefully enough and (b) are obssessed over ridiculous minutiae (i.e., OMG ELVES ARE ARROGANT).
The equalizer |
Can you actually post a decent argument? Hiding behind condescension and sarcasm is getting really repetitive. At least you've added a new touch of being mysterious. "And you're still showing that you don't exactly understand what the real problems with 3.5 rules were."
Well, why don't you elaborate then. Unless you'd rather maintain a position of dismissal, thus ensuring that you've won the discussion which hasn't even started, thereby reinforcing my earlier argument.
Gorbacz |
No, he made more than two points.
1) I really enjoy the class/cross class skill system (you have 3 ranks in all class skills, and after that its 1 point regardless of class or cross class)
2) They took Search and rolled it with spot/listen for perception nerfing one of the only nice utility skills for wizards though.
3) Also lets talk about grappling, as far as the rules go I can grapple THROUGH A WALL
4) or i can TRIP A GHOST. This was something that wasn't even broke in 3.5 and they took it and made it completely retarded. Did this even get playtested by competent players?You seemed to miss that. Also not everyone writes long reviews, I would like him to add more, so he can discuss why it was a 1 for him and contribute to the discussion. Changing the topic? The topic is core.
Enlighten me on the real problems of the 3.5 rules?
Thanks for making my point with the whole single entity issue.
I can't even comprehend point 2 - the whole utility skill for Wizards part is lost on me. Again, might be my brain deterioration showing.
Real problems of 3.5 rules, who boy. Hope TOZ will be around for backup.
Here's a few:
1. The disparity between casters (in particular, full casters) and martial classes.
2. Christmas Tree Syndrome.
3. Monks and Paladins are so crap that it hurts.
4. SoD/SoS/SoL spells dominate the game. Evocation spells are subpar.
5. CoDzillas > any martial class. At fighting. The thing martial classes were supposed to be good at.
6. Skill system blows (amount of skills + cross-class skill rules)
7. Classes are bland (as in "you get nothing at this level apart from +1 Ref, move along), zillion PrCs in attempt to remedy that leading to PrC bloat.
8. Trap Options (feats in particular. Deflect Arrows? Dilligent?)
Joana |
I can't even comprehend point 2 - the whole utility skill for Wizards part is lost on me. Again, might be my brain deterioration showing.
Search used to be Int-based, as opposed to Wis-based Spot. Wizards have Int as their primary stat; ergo, your basic wizard is now worse at searching than he used to be in 3.5.
Gorbacz |
Gorbacz wrote:I can't even comprehend point 2 - the whole utility skill for Wizards part is lost on me. Again, might be my brain deterioration showing.Search used to be Int-based, as opposed to Wis-based Spot. Wizards have Int as their primary stat; ergo, your basic wizard is now worse at searching than he used to be in 3.5.
That's an earth-shattering nerf for a class that can fix anything using spells, I admit. I think I'll go and drop my Core Rulebook review a star for this...
pres man |
3.5 Loyalist wrote:No, he made more than two points.
1) I really enjoy the class/cross class skill system (you have 3 ranks in all class skills, and after that its 1 point regardless of class or cross class)
2) They took Search and rolled it with spot/listen for perception nerfing one of the only nice utility skills for wizards though.
3) Also lets talk about grappling, as far as the rules go I can grapple THROUGH A WALL
4) or i can TRIP A GHOST. This was something that wasn't even broke in 3.5 and they took it and made it completely retarded. Did this even get playtested by competent players?You seemed to miss that. Also not everyone writes long reviews, I would like him to add more, so he can discuss why it was a 1 for him and contribute to the discussion. Changing the topic? The topic is core.
Enlighten me on the real problems of the 3.5 rules?
Thanks for making my point with the whole single entity issue.
I can't even comprehend point 2 - the whole utility skill for Wizards part is lost on me. Again, might be my brain deterioration showing.
Real problems of 3.5 rules, who boy. Hope TOZ will be around for backup.
Here's a few:1. The disparity between casters (in particular, full casters) and martial classes.
2. Christmas Tree Syndrome.
3. Monks and Paladins are so crap that it hurts.
4. SoD/SoS/SoL spells dominate the game. Evocation spells are subpar.
5. CoDzillas > any martial class. At fighting. The thing martial classes were supposed to be good at.
6. Skill system blows (amount of skills + cross-class skill rules)
7. Classes are bland (as in "you get nothing at this level apart from +1 Ref, move along), zillion PrCs in attempt to remedy that leading to PrC bloat.
8. Trap Options (feats in particular. Deflect Arrows? Dilligent?)
I hope you are not suggesting that PF corrected most of those issues are you? Some of those PF didn't even touch and still has, others they made a half-hearted attempt to fix (e.g. say 6 spells of level are really powerful, and you nerf 2 of those, the other 4 are still really powerful and players will just choose those instead), and still others they just done a shell game (base and PrC combos are bad, but lets create a bunch of archtypes they are basically the same end goal). Not that it is really the designers fault, they were ham-stringed by their own goal of trying to keep some backwards compatibility.
The equalizer |
"1. The disparity between casters (in particular, full casters) and martial classes." Inequality in what sense? casters being able to do so much more than martial classes or the other way round. Assuming this is what you are getting at, SR and DR may be the main slowing points for casters and martials. With most spells, SR stops it flat regardless of what the spell can do. With DR, melee attacks do less damage etc. But its not all about damage, something with DR 15 but is grappled then pinned is in a bad way as the rogue sneak attacks away and the spellcaster hits it with ranged touches (no dex to touch AC in this instance). The list goes on with trip/bull rush and about a hundred other things.
"2. Christmas Tree Syndrome." Not sure what you're getting at there. Do elaborate.
"3. Monks and Paladins are so crap that it hurts." Monks are not crap. They are the only base class to start with the best save progression for all three saves. Get a bonus feat at first level and the variant version of two-weapon fighting (flurry). Not to mention evasion/improved evasion/ wholeness of body etc. On top of all that a modest d8 hit die. Nice array of abilities all spread out, not quite like the barbarian and fighter which pushes for specialization. Once again, this falls back to skills and feats picked for the monk. Any player who spreads feats and skills around without really specializing really gets rogered later on so its not just limited to the monk class.
Paladins get their celestial mount, add charisma on attack and level to damage during smite. Also, immunity to fear. Something no other base class has. The smite has the problem of not working on non-evil creatures. Then again, I question a paladin who is smiting neutral and good-aligned creatures instead of evil ones. Their spellcasting is limited since they already have the d10 hit die and good bab progression. Understandable given a class shouldn't get too much too quickly.
"4. SoD/SoS/SoL spells dominate the game. Evocation spells are subpar."
Not sure what SoD/SoS/SoL stands for. Do spell it out.
"5. CoDzillas > any martial class. At fighting. The thing martial classes were supposed to be good at." Again, what are Codzillas?
"6. Skill system blows (amount of skills + cross-class skill rules)."
Agreed. The skill set in 3.5 was really broken down. Pathfinder has made it better by condensing them into fewer skills. I like this change as stated in my review of the core rulebook.
"7. Classes are bland (as in "you get nothing at this level apart from +1 Ref, move along), zillion PrCs in attempt to remedy that leading to PrC bloat." Disagree with you there regarding blandness. Aside from slight boost to a save each level, there is also hit points, skill points and base attack. On top of all this, may gain an additional ability like greater rage. New abilities aren't given every single level but that should be how it is to ensure a class isn't too overpowered. Either that or specific and weaker abilities gained every level makes sense like the warlock. Assuming PrC refers to prestige class, the classes are there as areas of specialization. The fact that there are so many of them just means more options when choosing. That would be more preferable to 6 or 7 prestige classes which pretty much are 2-3 times more powerful than base classes. A base class shouldn't be necessarily weaker than a prestige(just thought I'd point that out). It comes back to classes being strong each in their own way (base or prestige regardless during comparison)and feat selections as they gain levels.
"8. Trap Options (feats in particular. Deflect Arrows? Dilligent?)" What about them? There are those in the players handbook and then there are those in other sources. I recommend getting the tome of feats 1-3. You'll realise there are alot more options than what is in the players and almost anything can be done with them.
Liz Courts Contributor |
Please note that there's a whole forum dedicated to Pathfinder RPG rules discussion, where you can discuss each of your points in better detail.
Pathfinder Loyalist |
This book is in print and new players dig it. I recommend the Pathfinder Core Rulebook not only for for those who are looking for enjoyable gaming but also for anyone who wants to use it to encourage new players to join the RPG gaming community. Other systems are fine too, but the Pathfinder Core Rulebook in particular really appeals to new gamers. To quote one of these new gamers when he thought about what character to create in this high fantasy RPG, "I can do anything!"
3.5 Loyalist |
With 3.5, and the great customisation offered by feats, one could already do anything, make any build, focus on any conceivable speciality.
But I can't disagree about the appeal to new gamers, it sure has it. As for doing anything, making any conceivable thing, need to go beyond core to find those rules, feats, prestige or base classes. Also, lol Doppelganger.
Kthulhu |
As you can't grapple through a wall (unless you just have a poor DM), and you can't trip a ghost (unless your DM doesn't know the rules), his claims that the rules are broken and poorly playtested seem to be the result of a misunderstanding, to say the least. I wouldn't be dismissive of his opinion, but I would not take it as a valid complaint either.
I see it as a symptom of over-codification. When a system becomes as over-codified as 3.X/PFRPG has become, people start to assume that if they can't specifically find a rule saying that something is NOT allowed, they assume that it is allowed. Even if it's moronic, like being able to grapple someone from the other side of a wall.
Gorbacz |
"1. The disparity between casters (in particular, full casters) and martial classes." Inequality in what sense? casters being able to do so much more than martial classes or the other way round. Assuming this is what you are getting at, SR and DR may be the main slowing points for casters and martials. With most spells, SR stops it flat regardless of what the spell can do. With DR, melee attacks do less damage etc. But its not all about damage, something with DR 15 but is grappled then pinned is in a bad way as the rogue sneak attacks away and the spellcaster hits it with ranged touches (no dex to touch AC in this instance). The list goes on with trip/bull rush and about a hundred other things.
"2. Christmas Tree Syndrome." Not sure what you're getting at there. Do elaborate.
"3. Monks and Paladins are so crap that it hurts." Monks are not crap. They are the only base class to start with the best save progression for all three saves. Get a bonus feat at first level and the variant version of two-weapon fighting (flurry). Not to mention evasion/improved evasion/ wholeness of body etc. On top of all that a modest d8 hit die. Nice array of abilities all spread out, not quite like the barbarian and fighter which pushes for specialization. Once again, this falls back to skills and feats picked for the monk. Any player who spreads feats and skills around without really specializing really gets rogered later on so its not just limited to the monk class.
Paladins get their celestial mount, add charisma on attack and level to damage during smite. Also, immunity to fear. Something no other base class has. The smite has the problem of not working on non-evil creatures. Then again, I question a paladin who is smiting neutral and good-aligned creatures instead of evil ones. Their spellcasting is limited since they already have the d10 hit die and good bab progression. Understandable given a class shouldn't get too much too quickly.
"4. SoD/SoS/SoL spells dominate the game. Evocation spells are subpar."
Not sure...
Now, there's an old rule: you don't tear apart a door that's already open.
So, Equalizer/3.5 Loyalist. Take a few moments out of your time and browse WotC forum archives, EnWorld/GiTP/BG and perhaps most of all, the always newbie-friendly The Gaming Den and familiarize yourself with critiques of 3.5 ruleset. Each of my points was elaborated in extensive length over the last 8 years of 3.5ed life, and I really see not much point in discussing game mechanics with somebody who doesn't know what CoDzilla or SoS stands for, since we basically are not going to understand each other. Also, I see no point in copy-pasting several years worth of discussion, so there we go. Thanks! :)
gbonehead Owner - House of Books and Games LLC |
... I really see not much point in discussing game mechanics with somebody who doesn't know what CoDzilla or SoS stands for, since we basically are not going to understand each other. Also, I see no point in copy-pasting several years worth of discussion, so there we go. Thanks! :)
A shame. I have no idea what they mean either (though I was able to guess on SoD), but then again I don't really care so I guess that explains it :)
(and now I have to go look. curse you!)
pres man |
Gorbacz wrote:... I really see not much point in discussing game mechanics with somebody who doesn't know what CoDzilla or SoS stands for, since we basically are not going to understand each other. Also, I see no point in copy-pasting several years worth of discussion, so there we go. Thanks! :)A shame. I have no idea what they mean either (though I was able to guess on SoD), but then again I don't really care so I guess that explains it :)
(and now I have to go look. curse you!)
SOD = save or die
SOS = save or suckSOL = save or lose(?), S**t out of Luck?
CoDzilla = Cleric or Druid -zilla, the view that clerics and druids in 3.5 were overpowered monsters.
Vic Wertz Chief Technical Officer |
3.5 Loyalist |
To discuss the product again, what do we think of the layout and size?
Putting my own thoughts first, it is a little too big and unwieldy, as a pdf or as a single text. I've seen players have to wait around as one after the other goes through multiple sections, back and forth, to be able to get in the game (and this was with multiple copies).
What I think would have been better would be for the core to be in two texts. Not the old players, dms division, but instead the larger thorough rule book, and a smaller almost pamphlet containing classes, character generation, feats and a small description of skills, with a few examples of genning a character step by step. Make it 40 pages max. Last thursday a new player who was trying to level up his dwarven paladin was confused utterly for many minutes. It was too large and too spread out a text for a beginner.
TriOmegaZero |
I think the basic rules for playing should be a small softcover book, while the more indepth rules for running should be a larger hardback. I think the 3.5 PHB from the Player's Kit was the best purchase I ever made, and would be perfect if it were slightly smaller for new players. The PF CRB has never seen use at my table, mostly because of the huge size of it. And the PDFs are horribly slow on my iPad and Macbook.
wraithstrike |
To discuss the product again, what do we think of the layout and size?
Putting my own thoughts first, it is a little too big and unwieldy, as a pdf or as a single text. I've seen players have to wait around as one after the other goes through multiple sections, back and forth, to be able to get in the game (and this was with multiple copies).
What I think would have been better would be for the core to be in two texts. Not the old players, dms division, but instead the larger thorough rule book, and a smaller almost pamphlet containing classes, character generation, feats and a small description of skills, with a few examples of genning a character step by step. Make it 40 pages max. Last thursday a new player who was trying to level up his dwarven paladin was confused utterly for many minutes. It was too large and too spread out a text for a beginner.
As a beginner I had trouble with the 3.5 phb, but with the chapters in roughly the same order and some experience under my belt I don't think the book size is the issue.
That does not mean I would rather not have two smaller size books, but for different reasons. Some rules were snipped(explanations shortened), and if I had played 3.5 I would be using them incorrectly. I would rather pay the extra money for the clarity. I am of course assuming two books would have cost about 30 bucks a piece.
gbonehead Owner - House of Books and Games LLC |
I think the basic rules for playing should be a small softcover book, while the more indepth rules for running should be a larger hardback. I think the 3.5 PHB from the Player's Kit was the best purchase I ever made, and would be perfect if it were slightly smaller for new players. The PF CRB has never seen use at my table, mostly because of the huge size of it. And the PDFs are horribly slow on my iPad and Macbook.
I'm with you entirely. But has anyone out there purchased the SORD? That, along with spell cards, goes a long way towards avoiding lugging around that monstrosity.
Once Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic are out, I'm going to work on a project to create single documents for each of the classes - it'd be cool to print-on-demand them, but I'd have to finish them first :)
Always wanted a feat compendium too, but they get out of date very quickly.
Vic Wertz Chief Technical Officer |
To discuss the product again, what do we think of the layout and size?
Putting my own thoughts first, it is a little too big and unwieldy, as a pdf or as a single text. I've seen players have to wait around as one after the other goes through multiple sections, back and forth, to be able to get in the game (and this was with multiple copies).
What I think would have been better would be for the core to be in two texts. Not the old players, dms division, but instead the larger thorough rule book, and a smaller almost pamphlet containing classes, character generation, feats and a small description of skills, with a few examples of genning a character step by step. Make it 40 pages max. Last thursday a new player who was trying to level up his dwarven paladin was confused utterly for many minutes. It was too large and too spread out a text for a beginner.
I think doing that would have been a horrific mistake. As wraithstrike pointed out, two books would cost much more than one, and increasing the cost of entry would have dramatically slowed the adoption rate of the game.
And we are aware that it's not especially easy to learn from; I think the 3.5 rulebooks had a similar problem, though. And as Gorbacz pointed out, that's a problem that the Beginner's Box is designed to fix.
Gorbacz |
3.5 Loyalist wrote:To discuss the product again, what do we think of the layout and size?
Putting my own thoughts first, it is a little too big and unwieldy, as a pdf or as a single text. I've seen players have to wait around as one after the other goes through multiple sections, back and forth, to be able to get in the game (and this was with multiple copies).
What I think would have been better would be for the core to be in two texts. Not the old players, dms division, but instead the larger thorough rule book, and a smaller almost pamphlet containing classes, character generation, feats and a small description of skills, with a few examples of genning a character step by step. Make it 40 pages max. Last thursday a new player who was trying to level up his dwarven paladin was confused utterly for many minutes. It was too large and too spread out a text for a beginner.
I think doing that would have been a horrific mistake. As wraithstrike pointed out, two books would cost much more than one, and increasing the cost of entry would have dramatically slowed the adoption rate of the game.
And we are aware that it's not especially easy to learn from; I think the 3.5 rulebooks had a similar problem, though. And as Gorbacz pointed out, that's a problem that the Beginner's Box is designed to fix.
Yeah, I'd take one book for 50 USD ahead of two books for 60 USD any time.
Are |
Yeah, I'd take one book for 50 USD ahead of two books for 60 USD any time.
I wouldn't. In fact, I'd pay 40 USD or more for each book if the Core Rulebook had been split into two books instead. I find the book far too unwieldy to actually use at the table (flipping through, passing around, and such), and reading it without resting it on a table is also pretty difficult with its current size.
In fact, if the Core Rulebook was reprinted pretty much as-is, but split into two, I'd buy both of those immediately even though I already have the book. Simply because it would be much more convenient to use.
The layout and contents of the book are awesome though :)
ShinHakkaider |
Yeah, I'd take one book for 50 USD ahead of two books for 60 USD any time.
Same here.
It's the same reason that I passed on the latest edition of both GURPS and HERO SYSTEM. Both of them used to be just one book with all of the rules you needed to create a character and run a game. Then they split them into two books at $40 a piece? Screw that. I prefer the single Pathfinder book.
These days I'm workin' from my iPad and before that I was working from the PF Resource Document on my iPhone. But my players dont have an issue with finding or using the PF book at our table.
Adam Daigle Director of Narrative |
As a player, GM, and designer, I quite like everything being in the same book.
Sure it took a few adjustments to flip to the right page right off the bat, but I've saved hours of gaming and game design minutes from switching books to flip instead of just flipping in one book over the last couple years.
wraithstrike |
Now that I think about it you can print the book if you have the pdf as two separate books. The site.
Lulu can combine pdfs into one pdf. Of course the lock on Paizo pdfs may not allow manipulation. If that is the case I am currently out of answers.
3.5 Loyalist |
Vic Wertz wrote:Yeah, I'd take one book for 50 USD ahead of two books for 60 USD any time.3.5 Loyalist wrote:To discuss the product again, what do we think of the layout and size?
Putting my own thoughts first, it is a little too big and unwieldy, as a pdf or as a single text. I've seen players have to wait around as one after the other goes through multiple sections, back and forth, to be able to get in the game (and this was with multiple copies).
What I think would have been better would be for the core to be in two texts. Not the old players, dms division, but instead the larger thorough rule book, and a smaller almost pamphlet containing classes, character generation, feats and a small description of skills, with a few examples of genning a character step by step. Make it 40 pages max. Last thursday a new player who was trying to level up his dwarven paladin was confused utterly for many minutes. It was too large and too spread out a text for a beginner.
I think doing that would have been a horrific mistake. As wraithstrike pointed out, two books would cost much more than one, and increasing the cost of entry would have dramatically slowed the adoption rate of the game.
And we are aware that it's not especially easy to learn from; I think the 3.5 rulebooks had a similar problem, though. And as Gorbacz pointed out, that's a problem that the Beginner's Box is designed to fix.
Yes, but what if 60 USD is actually more useful for players? A small added extra to help the new, and speed up character generation. We'll have to see how this beginner's box goes.
wraithstrike |
Gorbacz wrote:Yes, but what if 60 USD is actually more useful for players? A small added extra to help the new, and speed up character generation. We'll have to see how this beginner's box goes.Vic Wertz wrote:Yeah, I'd take one book for 50 USD ahead of two books for 60 USD any time.3.5 Loyalist wrote:To discuss the product again, what do we think of the layout and size?
Putting my own thoughts first, it is a little too big and unwieldy, as a pdf or as a single text. I've seen players have to wait around as one after the other goes through multiple sections, back and forth, to be able to get in the game (and this was with multiple copies).
What I think would have been better would be for the core to be in two texts. Not the old players, dms division, but instead the larger thorough rule book, and a smaller almost pamphlet containing classes, character generation, feats and a small description of skills, with a few examples of genning a character step by step. Make it 40 pages max. Last thursday a new player who was trying to level up his dwarven paladin was confused utterly for many minutes. It was too large and too spread out a text for a beginner.
I think doing that would have been a horrific mistake. As wraithstrike pointed out, two books would cost much more than one, and increasing the cost of entry would have dramatically slowed the adoption rate of the game.
And we are aware that it's not especially easy to learn from; I think the 3.5 rulebooks had a similar problem, though. And as Gorbacz pointed out, that's a problem that the Beginner's Box is designed to fix.
Why not tell the players to not go past chapter X for the purpose of leveling up? It seems to me that the player section is in the front, while most of the DM related stuff is in the back.
Are |
One other consideration is that many groups would only need 1 copy of the DM-section/book, while they would need (or at least want) multiple copies of the PC-section/book. For instance, when we played 3.5, my group maintained 1 PHB for each player, but only 1 DMG in total. The total cost for our group would increase if we were to do the same with the CRB (so the cost for us is actually higher than it was before).
Edit: I hope I don't come off as too negative; I love what Paizo has done with the rules of the game, and I love all the other books they've created so far. The Bestiary is much more useful than the MM was, for instance, and the artwork is far more inspired throughout all of the books.
It's just that this decision to put everything into one big book was a big turn-off point for me when deciding whether to switch to PF. I almost decided to simply stick with 3.5 for that reason, since I had poor experience with huge books from the past (the Ptolus book, for instance). They're just not userfriendly, and I end up almost never actually using the book, purely because of the size. This is also the reason why I will never buy the upcoming complete Tome of Horrors book, even though I would love the updated monsters.
Vic Wertz Chief Technical Officer |
Bruunwald |
Wicht wrote:As you can't grapple through a wall (unless you just have a poor DM), and you can't trip a ghost (unless your DM doesn't know the rules), his claims that the rules are broken and poorly playtested seem to be the result of a misunderstanding, to say the least. I wouldn't be dismissive of his opinion, but I would not take it as a valid complaint either.I see it as a symptom of over-codification. When a system becomes as over-codified as 3.X/PFRPG has become, people start to assume that if they can't specifically find a rule saying that something is NOT allowed, they assume that it is allowed. Even if it's moronic, like being able to grapple someone from the other side of a wall.
This was from the outset, my greatest complaint about 3.x when it came out. It seemed clear that the creators of the game were indulging the worst of the minutia-loving, rules dependent literalists. I knew it would end badly, and it did. And still does. You still see people thinking just what you've said here. If it isn't specifically spelled out and over explained, then the only possible interpretation is the one I came up with to:
1. Break the game.
2. Prove my ridiculous point.
Demonskunk |
I have a question concerning spells:
Spells seem to do really little damage for their limited cost, and I was wondering if you add anything to spell damage?
I recall in the beta version of pathfinder that you added charisma to spell damage as a sorcerer? I don't recall, but it'd be nice if that was the case...
Demonskunk |
the Vital Strike feat:
I'm confused as to how often you can use vital strike. is this an every turn thing, or a once per encounter thing? it seems pretty powerful to be able to use it every turn.
I think I'm correct in my thinking that it replaces any extra attacks you have with extra damage on the one.