|
Now we're loading every class at every level with tons of abilities and even Rogues are casting spells? Screw it ... just start playing Ars Magica then !!!
I sort of thought the same thing when I was first reading through the rogue abilities, specifically, but then a while later I thought just don't take the abilities (or feats, or whatever) you don't like and ... there you have it ;)
Edit: so long as there are enough viable other options, that is. I don't mind a proliferation of feats or alternate class/race options, so long as a) they're balanced and b) you can more or less pick and choose as you like.
I think there's a number of things I don't expect to hear of ever again once beta 1 is out.
I also noticed that everything seems much more powerful, Races as well as Classes. The skills, which were suppused to be more balanced, are still off kilter, especially the example (Perception
vs. Linguistics). I am a little worried about converting monsters to be equal. It seems that if I started playing this I would have to give up on my 3.5 investments the same as if I played 4.0.
I am also bothered by the lack of Driuds, Barbarians, Monks, and the like. The new classes, while very variable don't look as though they could fill my favorite niches.
Two of the biggest complaints abuot 4.0 where monetary and munchkinism and Pathfinder doesn't seem to fix it. I just don't know.
|
I also noticed that everything seems much more powerful, Races as well as Classes. The skills, which were suppused to be more balanced, are still off kilter, especially the example (Perception
vs. Linguistics). I am a little worried about converting monsters to be equal. It seems that if I started playing this I would have to give up on my 3.5 investments the same as if I played 4.0.I am also bothered by the lack of Driuds, Barbarians, Monks, and the like. The new classes, while very variable don't look as though they could fill my favorite niches.
Two of the biggest complaints abuot 4.0 where monetary and munchkinism and Pathfinder doesn't seem to fix it. I just don't know.
The other classes are coming later. Jason only had so much done when the announcement was made.
Systems don't fix munchkins, slaps upside the head do. Heh just kidding.
Systems don't fix munchkins, slaps upside the head do. Heh just kidding.
Quite true Alex, and well put. Smite the little bastards!
|
|
I haven't had time to completely go through the pdf but I can see what the OP is mentioning. Races, classes are beefed a bit more than their 3.5 counterparts thru ability modifiers, class features and hit die. However, from what I've seen I'd say it looks good. Enough of a boost but not unbalancing so. It makes the classes, races more helpful and should encourage less dependence on a host of magical items that has a tendency to plague some 3.5 games. If by comparison take a look at Iron Heroes. Characters in Iron Heroes are boosted for the same reason to foster less dependency on magic items (and yes granted that specific game is trying to emulate low magic, old fashioned sword and socery a la Conan). All in all I'd much rather have abilities come from character's classes or races than a menagerie of trinkets accumulated from dungeon-crawling. An emphasis on the character's ability rather than one's equipment is welcome. (and yes I'm aware that was one of the stated goals of 4e but it is a good goal nonetheless)
"Well this is quite the little arms race ..."
That is my overall impression of Pathfinder RPG. *snip*
I agree with your sentiments here to a certain extent, but i think the main thing to try to keep in mind is that despite all the assumptions we may be making about PRPG Alpha the true test will be play-testing it.
Sure certain aspects may look clunky or unbalanced at first glance but if you actually play it, is it more or less fun than 3.5?
Once you find out your answer to that question, post it, and post the reason you feel that way.
I just think until we actually play-test and try some of these changes out we arent really being fair with our feedback.
Once we can back-up our feelings on specific changes with how it actually affected our games, pros and cons, then we will actually be doing something far more constructive than pointing our finger at something and saying "I dont like that."
I understand how you feel. I think that the power creep is meant to give extended the optimal adverturing time. I never saw that as an issue before I started running the AOW adventure path. More than once the PCs were in positions where resting was not an option and I had to adjust things to give them that downtime or I was looking at a TPK.
I am hoping that magic items will become less of a focus and that the creep is balanced out by that fact.
I was never a fan of the earlier editions 'keep 'em down on the farm' mentality and I'm glad 3.0 got rid of it. I expect heroes to be fairly powerful people in many different ways. I certainly don't see Pathfinder as escalating any sort of arms race; it rebalances and adds as needed.
|
"Well this is quite the little arms race ..."
That is my overall impression of Pathfinder RPG.
When 3rd Edition first came out I was dismayed at how 2nd Ed. Kits (which I never liked) evolved into Prestige Classes that seemed to offer almost every character access to magic spells.
Then all the Power Gamers started complaining about balance and dead levels and this class is weak compared to that.
It seems the solution is always to give more power to the guy who seems weakest rather to take from the guy who is most powerful.
Now we're loading every class at every level with tons of abilities and even Rogues are casting spells? Screw it ... just start playing Ars Magica then !!!
I won't be converting to the Pathfinder RPG. It is too much of a power-gamer arms race for me. I'll be sticking to 3.5 with my house rules and drawing inspiration from it, but no more.
Just wondering if anyone else had this feeling.
Rez
I disagree, but there's an easy way to get what you want out of a game even under the new rules: Ban all magic items and item creation feats. Completely. Same with all healing magic. Use only NPC classes. Then use the slow advancement tables and +3 encounters. Oh, and be sure none of these restrictions apply to the bad guys. Load them up with 3x normal wealth in magic items that all explode for 6d6 force damage in a 500-foot radius (per item) when they're killed. And make new characters start as level 0 apprentices regardless of what the player's previous XP total was. You'll have the gritty, high-PC death DM-power-trip game you want. Me, I think I'll keep playing with PC classes and letting my players enjoy feeling like epic heroes. It's one thing to nerf your PCs down to a level where they likely die twice a session, but when you start demanding that I do the same thing, that's when I get annoyed.
I was never a fan of the earlier editions 'keep 'em down on the farm' mentality and I'm glad 3.0 got rid of it. I expect heroes to be fairly powerful people in many different ways. I certainly don't see Pathfinder as escalating any sort of arms race; it rebalances and adds as needed.
I think the problem arises, if you don't only improve fighters or bards, but if you also make wizards and clerics more powerful. To get the weaker classes at a same level with them, they would become almost unrecognizable.
Viable approach for a new d20 game, but one of the basic assumptions of PFRPG was full compatibility. You can't have both.
Ban all magic items and item creation feats. Completely. Same with all healing magic. Use only NPC classes. Then use the slow advancement tables and +3 encounters. Oh, and be sure none of these restrictions apply to the bad guys. Load them up with 3x normal wealth in magic items that all explode for 6d6 force damage in a 500-foot radius (per item) when they're killed. And make new characters start as level 0 apprentices regardless of what the player's previous XP total was.
There are too many NPC classes, though -- everyone should play a commoner.
Seriously; things like magic item distribution and the list of prestige classes allowed are completely under the DM's control. If the DM doesn't like it, it doesn't exist in that DM's game, period.
There's clearly some core race/class power upping in what we've seen so far from Pathfinder. However, I think this is OK and desirable for several reasons.
1. The goal is 3.5 compatibility, and all the subsequent 3.5 races and classes were more powerful than the core ones. So a small boost to core is just fine. Right now, for example, as a wizard in 3.5 you're a chump if you don't prestige class. It's nice for sticking wih a core class (or race) is of comparable power level. Yes, if they were creating a whole revision from scratch they could "down the power" of everything; but that's mot possible in this case.
2. Remember we haven't seen everything. esp. how magic items are treated. Right now in 3.5, most of your bonus comes from these and not innate abilities. Boosting the innate abilities may be a counterbalance to reducing dependence on magic items, which would be welcome.
Perhaps.
I hope Paizo take this opportunity to decrease the dependency on magic gear. By upping the classes, decreasing the assumed wealth, Paizo can keep the power level constant.
The focus on items slows down high-level prep time and increases the power curve IMO. I believe 4e addresses this, it would make sense for Pathfinder RPG to do the same.
|
|
Perhaps.
I hope Paizo take this opportunity to decrease the dependency on magic gear. By upping the classes, decreasing the assumed wealth, Paizo can keep the power level constant.
The focus on items slows down high-level prep time and increases the power curve IMO. I believe 4e addresses this, it would make sense for Pathfinder RPG to do the same.
The problem is, magic weapons & armor (cool things like flaming swords, or returning daggers, or armor that can blend into the shadows) are REALLY expensive. I'd almost like to see it made possible to have it be possible to have a +0 returning dagger or +0 leather armor of shadows. Why does there need to be that cost-including +1 in there before anything else gets added? I'd like to see it made easier for players to get their hands on some fun toys without upsetting the applecart. But I'd rather see Paizo Err on the side of keeping close to 3e.
The other classes are coming later. Jason only had so much done when the announcement was made.Systems don't fix munchkins, slaps upside the head do. Heh just kidding
Good news and good joke.
I also want to remark that I don't think making everything more powerful is necessarily bad, just that it doesn't seem to mesh well with 3.5 monsters. Personally more power brings out my chaotic maniac side, or as certain BadCon (local gaming convention) attendees know, my only side.
Does a rogue being able to cast a 1st level spell really bother you that much? At the cost of two feat-ish things?
No, I just think they have to much feat-ish things.
|
The main reason for a power jump for classes with only a handful of benefits is in fact to make them more commonplace. For years people have complained on the WotC forums that fighters needed more to sort out the 4 levels change or 2 levels dip.
How many people honestly take wizard at level 1 when they decide play a 10/10 rogue/wizard? I bet almost none! The 8x4 skill points as a first level rogue and 6 hit points over 4 are far to huge a bonus to ignore. (hmmm thats got me thinking but will save that for another thread)
By providing better core classes you reduce the need for prestige classes to "fix" them, instead turning prestige classes into flavored additions to your campaign. You shouldn't consider a 5 fighter/5 cavalier the only way to make a good 10th level fighter, that should be built within the fighter class itself. However a 5 fighter/5 purple dragon knight does have flavor and should be encouraged.
The core game classes were not perfect and as the game has expanded this realization became more apparent. WotC chose to come up with new classes to replace them but decided very soon that 4e was their only hope to correct the mistakes.
The main reason for a power jump for classes with only a handful of benefits is in fact to make them more commonplace. For years people have complained on the WotC forums that fighters needed more to sort out the 4 levels change or 2 levels dip.
How many people honestly take wizard at level 1 when they decide play a 10/10 rogue/wizard? I bet almost none! The 8x4 skill points as a first level rogue and 6 hit points over 4 are far to huge a bonus to ignore. (hmmm thats got me thinking but will save that for another thread)
By providing better core classes you reduce the need for prestige classes to "fix" them, instead turning prestige classes into flavored additions to your campaign. You shouldn't consider a 5 fighter/5 cavalier the only way to make a good 10th level fighter, that should be built within the fighter class itself. However a 5 fighter/5 purple dragon knight does have flavor and should be encouraged.
The core game classes were not perfect and as the game has expanded this realization became more apparent. WotC chose to come up with new classes to replace them but decided very soon that 4e was their only hope to correct the mistakes.
I agree. I don't view this as power creep so much as a nice patch. Not strictly necessary, but a relief all the same. I think it's pretty safe to assume we all agree that 3.5 D&D has seen some major power creep since its inception. This leaves the base classes looking a little lackluster (a Bad Thing, in my opinion). Further, in the years since 3.x release, the game designers and game players alike have realized that some things, which seemed like a good idea when the edition was released, aren't quite as good as expected. Swift and immediate actions were added. Concepts about play balance changed. There's been a massive step away from some of the more traditional elements of the game. Although said elements may hold a nostalgiac power for some (not whippersnappers like me), the "fact" (as decided by popular opinion) is that they aren't as fun as some of the new concepts which have emerged.
Thus, the "balance" point, and to a degree the very conception of what balance within the game is, has shifted. D&D 3P appears to be seeking that balance, restoring the core classes as options which are appealing to everyone at every level. As others have said, this is only Alpha version. I'm confident that there's going to be a lot of changes between here and Beta, and between Beta and the final product.
All that being said, I must admit that I'm not a huge fan of all the changes. Amongst other things, some of the school specialization abilities strike me as off, I think the Combat feats need a major overhaul, and I don't know if I like the new skill system yet. But I definitely see the reasoning behind all of these elements, and can't help feeling a bit excited about the options they present and creativity they represent. I think the best thing we can do is to read the rules carefully, think them over, playtest them, and tell the designers here at Paizo what works and what doesn't, what's fun and what's not. When August '09 rolls around, then we can make a final judgement.
|
|
Systems don't fix munchkinsI'm putting this in my sig.
Seriously, munchkins will continue to munchkin, regardless of how supposedly seamless the most recent game design is (and you'll notice taht we've been hearing about games being "unbreakable" since 3e). Design the game with the assumption that the players are adults who will make their own decisions. Stop trying to "trick" them into making the choices that you want them to make. It's a much better design philosophy.
For years people have complained on the WotC forums that fighters needed more to sort out the 4 levels change or 2 levels dip.The Wizards fora are dominated by munchkins in denial. They complain about anything that isn't as powerful as they think it ought to be. At every gaming table there's one player who can't get it through their thick skull that deliberately exploiting stupid loopholes is really dumb way to play this game. The Wizards fora is a daily convention of all of those people. They're not bad people. They're having fun in their own way. I say, live and let live. But dear Bob who art in Heaven, please stop designing for them.
Awww you're making me blush.
You see I have to deal with this on a fairly regular basis. I have a couple of younger friends, mid 20's who take a perverse glee in finding and exploiting D&D loopholes. They think it's amusing, I think it's childish and unimpressive. Oh and in case you're wondering, biggest loophole problem, spells. The smarter munchkins go straight for spellcasters. You can go nuts with them. Go look at the Really broken things thread if you don't believe me.Some people can't seem to figure out just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I mean wizards doesn't even playtest their stuff. There are a ton of loopholes written in over the years it's not even hard these days.
It takes awhile but even munchkins will come around. My players know that if they push it they're just asking for a beat down. The tallest blade of grass is the first to get cut and i'm going to enjoy doing it.
We'll see how amusing that is.
|
|
For years people have complained on the WotC forums that fighters needed more to sort out the 4 levels change or 2 levels dip.The Wizards fora are dominated by munchkins in denial. They complain about anything that isn't as powerful as they think it ought to be. At every gaming table there's one player who can't get it through their thick skull that deliberately exploiting stupid loopholes is really dumb way to play this game. The Wizards fora is a daily convention of all of those people. They're not bad people. They're having fun in their own way. I say, live and let live. But dear Bob who art in Heaven, please stop designing for them.
couldn't agree with you more but their point is still valid. The only way WotC think they can fix something is by throwing more rules at it yet if you look at all the other companies that have attempted to redesign 3.5 the result has been the same, change the core mechanics.
The main reason for a power jump for classes with only a handful of benefits is in fact to make them more commonplace. For years people have complained on the WotC forums that fighters needed more to sort out the 4 levels change or 2 levels dip.
By providing better core classes you reduce the need for prestige classes to "fix" them, instead turning prestige classes into flavored additions to your campaign. You shouldn't consider a 5 fighter/5 cavalier the only way to make a good 10th level fighter, that should be built within the fighter class itself. However a 5 fighter/5 purple dragon knight does have flavor and should be encouraged.
The core game classes were not perfect and as the game has expanded this realization became more apparent. WotC chose to come up with new classes to replace them but decided very soon that 4e was their only hope to correct the mistakes.
I am rewritting this because my computer messed it up last time. My computer's fault, not mine (eyes dart side to side)!!
Anways, you have a good point and I am coming around to the idea that the new power levels are good. However, I do believe that some easy (easy meaning I don't have to make it up by hand) conversion method is needed. Without it I have just invested so much money into 3.5, I doubt I can move up. I will probaly just take a few Pathfinder RPG ideas and include them as house rules.
|
|
"Well this is quite the little arms race ..."
That is my overall impression of Pathfinder RPG.
When 3rd Edition first came out I was dismayed at how 2nd Ed. Kits (which I never liked) evolved into Prestige Classes that seemed to offer almost every character access to magic spells.
Then all the Power Gamers started complaining about balance and dead levels and this class is weak compared to that.
It seems the solution is always to give more power to the guy who seems weakest rather to take from the guy who is most powerful.
Now we're loading every class at every level with tons of abilities and even Rogues are casting spells? Screw it ... just start playing Ars Magica then !!!
I won't be converting to the Pathfinder RPG. It is too much of a power-gamer arms race for me. I'll be sticking to 3.5 with my house rules and drawing inspiration from it, but no more.
Just wondering if anyone else had this feeling.
Rez
Nope, not really.
I have no problems with this at all, has anyone started playing with 1st level characters lately?
Every time I start a new campaign I reminded that 3.5 really only "works" from about 4th level through 12th level. 1st level characters are too fragile and 13th level characters are too "wonky".
I for one think the power creep makes perfect sense especially if you combine it with the slower XP progressions.
I mean wizards doesn't even playtest their stuff. There are a ton of loopholes written in over the years it's not even hard these days.
I have a ninja/sorcerer in my Age of Worms game that sneak attacks with ray of enfeeblement. It is allowed bt the RAW (Complete Arcane). I have allowed it largely because the group is undersized and he is playing a kobold. Actually the entire group is non-standard (archivist/savant and battle dancer for the other two players).
I would not allow it in a different game, but he has not abused it to much in this game (he can't with all the undead they are facing).
|
Well, when I DM a game for my son, he has fun. He likes playing powerful characters. When he begins to 'power creep' I just simply give him and his group a challenge that saps them of a lot of their gear and never pull punches with the player deaths.
Also, by the time they're facing an Ancient Blue Dracolich and her horde of gnome militants, the fact their rogue can cast spider climb does not ruin the game.
|
|
I think there's a number of things I don't expect to hear of ever again once beta 1 is out.
I think the crux of this . . . and why I'm so interested in Pathfinder . . . is because while Paizo is publishing it, the company is doing much more in making it be OUR game as opposed to Paizo's. If it's a power game, it's because Paizo was listening to us. (Not like WotC, who made its decisions behind closed doors.)
|
I agree to some extent Rez, Due to the nature of my players (casual gamers who for the most part don't even own their own books) I would much prefer a far simpler game system with lower power levels at all characters. I know this is one of the audiences 4e is supposed to be targeting but I just don't see it in the stuff released so far.
That said, if one of the goals of the products is compatibility with 3.5 then you cannot significantly reduce the power levels or the complexity of the game. The power creep with the wizard and the cleric are concerning to me but the changes to the rogue and the fighter much less so. What I would really like to see is a significant reduction in the complexity of some of the classes.
-- Dennis
|
Races: I was surprised by the changes to races - I thought we might see a slight boost to half-elves and that would be it.
Classes: I think the main problem is this:
Trying to eliminate the "15 minute adventuring day" with powers for mages and extra healing.
Then trying to boost everyone else to be balanced with wizards and clerics.
Skills: They've simplified first, now they can balance.
Feats: All about trying to help the fighter keep up.
And it might not help that they get so many complaints about APs being too lethal...
I disagree with you Rezdave, I think they are making the core races on par with all the races that came out after 3.5. Level adjustment is wonky. Getting rid of that mechanic makes the game simpler for a significant group of gamers.
I like the changes to the classes, Helping the fighter keep up , more options for the rogue, and the healing/Turn undead for clerics has been fun in both of the games I have played so far.
Playtest it! It changes your perspective when you see thing work or crash in a game.
