|
Hi brave and listening Paizo folks. There are so many threads about first impressions I wasn't sure where to begin. I don't want a long running text but I want to let you know what initially jumped out and smacked me from my first Alpha read-through.
RACES: Tickled Pink. I have NO complaints. Getting an extra +2 bonus does mean all +0 LA races from other sources should no doubt also get some additional +2 ability bonus to some score as determined by the DM. No big deal.
CLASSES: Not Sold yet, as in the changes seem quite radical, and until I playtest it my concern is they overpower all other core classes from the basic 3.5 rules set and related sourcebooks. That's seems just a power surge problem that is not necessary. There are some articles on the WotC site once about "dead levels" which had some interesting powers to fill in the levels that didn't power-up the class so much.
SKILLS: On The Fence, but about to be tickled pink. I opened SWSE and the skill system struck me as the greatest thing since sliced bread. But "oh, how I would hate to see this for D&D!" I said at the time. However the rules are clear, make sense and will be easier in making NPCs. I THINK I like deleting skill points. Needs testing.
FEATS: Tickled Pink. They make sense regarding the new rules so far and read clear. Nice new additions, too. No complaints.
COMBAT: Best Chapter Evar. CMB has me Tickled Pink. Totally usable right now and will see playtesting this coming session. Easiest integration, thumbs up.
SPELLS & MAGIC: On The Fence. I see some neat additions, like making specialist wizards more, well, special. Domain changes means fiddling with previous Domains from other sources, which doesn't sit to well with me. But on the other hand, those Domains sure cover wide ground. THANK YOU for not adding or deleting from lines of spell stat text. The updated descriptions make sense to take advantage of the new rules, that's fine and makes sense.
RUNNING THE GAME: Not Sold yet, but also just "eh". As in what game have I been playing for the past 5 years that I have NOT had any issues at all building encounters using the system as is or with creature CR's to party power? So this system is fine, but strikes me as: same thing, different number fiddling. XP also strikes me as odd, as the system I use is fine, I don't know how this is superior. But it changes because the Pathfinder classes are more powerful? That leads me back to classes, which is why I wasn't sold there either.
Basically I give the document a B-. Really my concerns are with character level and therefore compatibility with previous books' power levels, which, if off, is just a headache waiting to happen. Otherwise the combat chapter is right on the money. Feats and Spells also are heading in the right direction.
Thanks for listening. More as I playtest in the coming weeks.
-DM Jeff
|
|
I think what sells the XP section is that its a combination of diversified(different progressions based on group preference for leveling speed, which is often a point of debate) and simplified. Adding up XP at the end of a session is genuinely easy now. Not just because it does the division for you, but because however many party members are in the group it evens things out. No more looking at three hundred divided by seven and figuring that they each get 43xp(after rounding of course).
Also, having a bit of range for each number of players means that its less likely having an NPC(or occasional player) join up with them for a session that is going to be harder will mean they get severely undercut with xp. If you have 4 players you get the same amount of xp as if you had 5 players. However in 3.5 adding a fifth person means that you get a noticeable chunk of xp less, especially on the fights that are tougher(and thus give out more XP.)
|
|
Adding up XP at the end of a session is genuinely easy now. Not just because it does the division for you, but because however many party members are in the group it evens things out. No more looking at three hundred divided by seven and figuring that they each get 43xp(after rounding of course).
That makes sense. Easier in this case is better, and I can see it adapting quite easily.
-DM Jeff
I too am worried about balance issues, all the classes are a bit more durable, that's not too bad, and the extra racial stats and changes to hlaf-breeds are all doable, but the classes just seem that bit more powerful than existing 3.5 core. Which I don't know I like, I could be wrong, and obviously this is alpha, but I hope the classes end up balanced with the re-released monsters, and easily translatable for power,etc. with existing books, tohguh admittedly I use mostly core now, and am planning to use mostly just core Pathfinder RPG, I know alot of people will want it to be easy to power scale thier monsters into the game, and I want this to work financially aswell as as a game mechanic.
|
At first I was worried about class balance too. Especially because the wizard got upgraded and the sorceror didn't, when it was already the more powerful class. But at the back of the pdf they say that they'll upgrade the rest of the core classes in an update soon. I don't think they can do the non-core classes though if they aren't in the srd.
|
|
I don't think they can do the non-core classes though if they aren't in the srd.
Right, that's my real only concern. If my next group has a Pathinder Barbarian, Wizard, and Ranger, will the Warlock and Spririt Shaman working alongside them from non-OGL sources pale in comparrison to them? That would be uncool.
-DM Jeff
|
|
the wizard got upgraded
I'll be honest. I'm not really seeing this, and I've seen references to it in several places. Can anyone explain to me the great boost in power wizards got?
From my perspective, it looks like they sacrificed versatility for reliability - basically a wash. I admit that the d6 hit die is nice and all, but specialization doesn't get you an extra spell slot anymore, so you can't pick and choose between the things you want to add - you just get a fixed spell-like ability instead. Doesn't that largely result in a null shift in power? What am I missing?
From my perspective, it looks like they sacrificed versatility for reliability - basically a wash. I admit that the d6 hit die is nice and all, but specialization doesn't get you an extra spell slot anymore, so you can't pick and choose between the things you want to add - you just get a fixed spell-like ability instead. Doesn't that largely result in a null shift in power? What am I missing?
Specialist wizards no longer HAVE to give up schools. General wizards have the spell like abilities too.
I'll have a better post when I can more thoroughly digest and playtest the material. So far, it seems like aces.
My main dread was that the psion was missing. I was hoping that since Paizo was jumping the gun and giving the fans a treat early, that this would include my favorite class. So, I guess I'll have to wait for WotC on this one in another year or so?
I'd ditch the Fly skill as "n/a." I'd figure someone who has access to fly would become as familiar with it as humanoid to walking. I'd just have as a given that a mage/ cleric with that skill does so in the spare time, perhaps learning the subtleties before even attaining the spell in the first place. (i.e. upon attaining that ability, the caster has just mastered the basics)
XP Chart
I like the idea of the DM picking how tough or easy he wants his campaign to be.
Ive never liked the idea of class switching without penalties, so I might adopt the idea that single class characters stay on the easy path, but if they switch to a new class, they move to medium xp, then if they want another jump, they move to hard xp.
GM
I don't think they can do the non-core classes though if they aren't in the srd.Right, that's my real only concern. If my next group has a Pathinder Barbarian, Wizard, and Ranger, will the Warlock and Spririt Shaman working alongside them from non-OGL sources pale in comparrison to them? That would be uncool.
-DM Jeff
I may be wrong but my understanding is that the Pathfinder RPG is not being designed to be used with the 3.5 system but as a replacement, so you are naturally going to find problems when you throw in your Warlock, Spirit Shamans, Hexblades....
I think what they want is for you to be able to use your Pathfinder APs and modules with either PRPG or 3.5, and to be able to convert 3.5 monsters and NPC from one to the other but they do NOT intend to use PRPG with say, Tome of Magic.
I may be wrong Jeff, they have not said this precisely on the threads I've seen. But, GOD, there are so many.
If you want to play d&d with a totally overhauled magic system maybe you should be looking at 4e? Personally I'll stick with Vancian spellcasting, thanks.
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
You know that 5/2 is less than 3 attacks per round, right? 5/2 is 3 one round and 2 the next, 5 every 2 rounds.
|
From my perspective, it looks like they sacrificed versatility for reliability - basically a wash. I admit that the d6 hit die is nice and all, but specialization doesn't get you an extra spell slot anymore, so you can't pick and choose between the things you want to add - you just get a fixed spell-like ability instead. Doesn't that largely result in a null shift in power? What am I missing?Specialist wizards no longer HAVE to give up schools. General wizards have the spell like abilities too.
Actually they do, they have to choose 2 forbidden schools, but have the flexibility of using those spells if they REALLY need to, if they do, then they lose their specialist abilities for the day.
Reread the section.
The core classes under PfRPG actually make you want to possibly make a level 20 fighter or wizard instead of getting a PrC or cross-classing. Compare the P-core classes to the new classes from ToB...Those are balanced.
XP Chart
I like the idea of the DM picking how tough or easy he wants his campaign to be.
Ive never liked the idea of class switching without penalties, so I might adopt the idea that single class characters stay on the easy path, but if they switch to a new class, they move to medium xp, then if they want another jump, they move to hard xp.
GM
Oh that's an interesting idea. Or possibly if they break the preferred class then they move to the next chart, this would also work for adding levels to ECL equivalents.
Actually they do, they have to choose 2 forbidden schools, but have the flexibility of using those spells if they REALLY need to, if they do, then they lose their specialist abilities for the day.
No, they only lose the bonus when they prepare spells from prohibited schools. They don't lose access to any of the level-based abilities.
I hope the core melee won't be in the dumpster again and the druid and cleric are toned down a bit.
Also, I've houseruled a system that bases combat manuevers on saves instead of hit-to-hit, which I would like to see, but I certainly like the new idea better than the old one.
It's based on a combat modifier number that we came up with fairly easily...we made it the same thing as spell progression only based on attack leveling.
For example, the strong progression levels in combat modifier number like the wizard does spells, so at 5th level a Ranger or Fighter has a modifier of +3 and then adds the relative ability score for what we have worked out. AoO's are still there without the feat, and the feat also adds +1 to the Combat modifier making the feat more useful. Weakest progression gets the equivalent to Ranger/pally progression, Middle gets Bard spell progression, and strongest gets Wizard/Cleric.
So basically lets say trip was VS RFLX... for this 5th level Ranger with the improved trip, his number would be 10+Combat Mod+ability+misc...lets say he has a strength (or dex...made optional feats for dex as well) of 16....this would be 10+3+3+1= 17. The DC of the save would be 17 and then add the modifiers for size and whatnot to the save.
I have been tweaking the save adds because +4 per size category is MASSIVE for saves, so I marked it down by 1 to start out with...changing it to 3 (along with the dwarven stability). We ended up changing it back because not all the bigger creatures have excellent Reflex saves, so obviously I still have some indecision on it. 4 legs instead of 2 also changes things...
This should seem like a pretty familiar mechanic, because it's basically how spells work...pretty simple.
This does however add a totally new dimension to the fighters because they can now exploit saves like the caster can, giving them alot more to do with a simple change in mechanic.
Spells and Magic - I like what I see. I want to see more. Let's get rid of Fire/Forget casting.
I'd like to see this too. Or at least alternate rules for a new method for daily spell use. In my campaigns, I've gotten rid of the cast and forget method. When a wizard learns a new spell, he knows how to cast it. Period. Instead, I prefer the idea that the casting of spells is mentally exhausting. The wizard can only cast a certain number of spells per day without being mentally drained.
I've messed around with a couple work arounds. I've allowed the PC to cast any spell he knows per day equal to the amount he would have normally memorized. We really didn't have any issues in those games, but my players don't play wizards very often. I also see how this makes the sorceror a bit obsolete.
I've also wanted to create rules for what may happen if a wizard attempts to cast spells after the daily allotment is gone, or he is exhausted. However, I've never had the time.
|
|
I think what they want is for you to be able to use your Pathfinder APs and modules with either PRPG or 3.5, and to be able to convert 3.5 monsters and NPC from one to the other but they do NOT intend to use PRPG with say, Tome of Magic. I may be wrong Jeff, they have not said this precisely on the threads I've seen. But, GOD, there are so many.
I beleive you are right, but there is not enough time to read all threads! I get what you are saying. PRPG may not work too wekk with Compelte Mage or Magic of Incarnum but basic stats of an adventure and monsters, traps and the like will be compatable with. That's valid. It still goes against one of the main concerns of many fans, however, that they will have a load of books they can't use anymore, and I don't think Paizo will intentionally try to invalidate them.
-DM Jeff
EDIT: Aha! Found it!
More importantly, the Pathfinder RPG is completely backwards compatible with the mountains of game books that everyone already owns.
|
|
Oh that's an interesting idea. Or possibly if they break the preferred class then they move to the next chart, this would also work for adding levels to ECL equivalents.
I agree, these classes are more balances out against Book of Nine Swords classes which is fine. Warlocks are cool and all, but it won't bother me if they fall short, many of the splat book classes are underpowered anyway.
It still goes against one of the main concerns of many fans, however, that they will have a load of books they can't use anymore, and I don't think Paizo will intentionally try to invalidate them.
Paizo can't improve Core 3.5 without some old stuff becoming less desirable.
Fighter is weak compared to ToB class. Fighter is suppose to be good but it's not anymore.. fix it.
Wizards run out of things to do. Fix it, sorry Warlock.
Clerics shouldn't only be able to heal and turn low level undead. Fix it.
RACES: Sold, sold, sold (with one pettifogging exception). The race descriptions and powers give them enough flavor without being overpowered. I love the idea of working in the dwarven greed as a game mechanic. One thing, though -- couldn't y'all consider changing the Gnome's favored class back to "illusionist," where it had been since the dawn of time (or at least 1e)? :P
CLASSES: Not completely sold. Some of the classes (rogue, I'm looking at you!) seem a bit 4e-ish to me.
SKILLS: On the fence, although I like the pruning of the skills tree and unifying certain skills into one.
FEATS: Not impressed. On some of them, it seems to be more tools for powergamers, min/maxers and other assorted character overclockers to make the perfect Godzilla fighter. Particularly when they can be used once every other round. And when one of them scores an autocrit, perhaps once every three rounds (not a threat, mind you but "just roll critical damage"), that is made of pure, weapons-grade broken, in my opinion.
COMBAT: Sold! I hope that people at the Prestidigitators of the Pacific are kicking themselves good and hard for not thinking of Buhlman's elegant, even beautiful, grapple and unarmed combat system. That one is going into my game as soon as possible.
SPELLS & MAGIC: Fence-sitting. I'm not too fond of the school/domain powers (particularly the high-powered ones, and giving mages, IMHO, the power to cast wish once a day out of the blue is like giving a woodchuck and atom bomb, and with a lenient [or worse, careless] DM could be the rule that launched a thousand Waldorfs.) The revamped spells aren't too bad.
RUNNING THE GAME: Mostly OK, but I'm not completely understanding the XP table -- it could have been made a little clearer. Also, I'll decide on the number of monsters in my own encounters, thank you very much. :P
EXPERIENCE: Thouroughly sold on the XP progressions -- It's the answer to my prayers, and a system that is going to be enacted as soon as we get back to the EttRoG campaign in a few weeks. XP in 3.5 was just too fast. I had PCs levelling (even when going by the book) nearly every session, and not after the DMG's 13 encounter benchmark.
I might adopt the idea that single class characters stay on the easy path, but if they switch to a new class, they move to medium xp, then if they want another jump, they move to hard xp.
Interesting - please post to let us know how this works out if you use it!
Thanks!
tfad