I don't know if this question has been asked before but what design principles have been followed when developing this game? Is this a question that Paizo staff can't answer, and if not why not?
I'm asking you these questions because you have asked for quite a bit of feedback from people but haven't elaborated on why you have made these design decisions in the first place. It's interesting that you want comments about the game but haven't elaborated any further than you have about your decision making process. In the Alpha rules you briefly talk about things like more hit points (which most posters agree with) but what about the bigger changes in the game? for instance:
1. Why did the team change the skill point system and have you been surprised by the response?
2. What were the thoughts behind the new Combat Feat rules? Why were chaining feats created? Did you expect the strong backlash that you have received?
3. The classes. Why did the designers feel that all the classes needed a boost? Most people agree that they did, but what were the throughts behind things like rogue talents and domain powers? Plus, considering that clerics are already regarded as one of the most powerful base classes why did they need to be even better?
4. Why change the turning rules? Was it simply to give clerics more healing or was there something more to it?
5. Why change the grapple rules? We know that the grapple rules needed to be changed, but what made the team decide on the CMB?
6. Why did the XP rules need to be changed? In the team's estimation, what was wrong with the original system?
Some of these questions have been answered in a piecemeal approach, but not in any concerted way. Perhaps if people knew some of the reasons you changed things they would be more likely to agree with you. Then again, it might not make any difference. At the very least it would give us an insight into the minds of people like Jason, Mike, James and Erik.
So, how about it?
Director of Game Design
|
Well, unfortunately, I do not have the time to go into the thinking behind every decision we made, I can go over some of the questions you posted here.
1. The skill system was changed to streamline them from the GMs perspective. Skills can be a real headache for GMs and this system attempted to address that issue. I was a bit surprised by the backlash, but not too much. We are currently revising the system.
2. The thought here was to give a cinematic flavor to combat, allowing combatants to flow from one maneuver to another. Considering the response, there is a change in the works here as well. I would note that issues 1 and 2 here are perhaps the most contentious in the whole document and we are moving to fix both of them.
3. The classes did need a boost. Most stray off into pclasses as soon as they qualify or take multiple classes to garner valuable abilities. We wanted to make it more of a choice. You can gain some significant abilities by investing in another class, but we wanted the base classes to remain an tantalizing option. As for which class is the most powerful, I think if you ask 11 people, you will get 11 different answers.
4. These rules were changed for the reasons presented on page 44. We needed to give the cleric the ability to actually cast his spells, instead of just converting them in to healing.
5. We went with the CMB to unify the mechanics for a number of similar abilities. Fixing up the grapple rules was high on my list of problems to fix.
6. Because the existing XP system is not open content. We went with this system to eliminate the need of a nasty XP like the one from the 3.5 rules set.
Hope that helps.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
1. The skill system was changed to streamline them from the GMs perspective. Skills can be a real headache for GMs and this system attempted to address that issue. I was a bit surprised by the backlash, but not too much. We are currently revising the system.
I should probably discuss this over in the Skills section, but it does address a larger issue of PC vs. NPC/Monster design. As a player, when working on my PC, I personally want a lot of minute details to tinker with to get that character just right. With skills for example, I like having skill points to fine tune idiosyncrasies and such.
HOWEVER, as a GM when designing NPCs and monsters, I have entirely different goals and just want quick and dirty. I do not want a lot of minute details to tinker with. That's one thing I like about the 4e design philosophies I've heard - they decided to break the NPCs and monsters must follow PC creation policy. The policy seemed like a good idea on paper, but in practice, I've found my goals are so completely different with PCs and with NPCs that using the same rules either makes PCs too simple or NPCs too much of a burden.
So I'd recommend going the route of not having NPCs and monsters follow PC creation rules. You don't necessarily have to go as far as 4e went (but maybe you want to), but I think having a separate set of rules to govern creating NPCs and monsters would be ideal. Trying to get one tool to fit two different purposes will leave someone unhappy. Skills are the most obvious example, but that design philosophy could yield other benefits as well with NPC/monster work.
Well, unfortunately, I do not have the time to go into the thinking behind every decision we made, I can go over some of the questions you posted here.
1. The skill system was changed to streamline them from the GMs perspective. Skills can be a real headache for GMs and this system attempted to address that issue. I was a bit surprised by the backlash, but not too much. We are currently revising the system.
2. The thought here was to give a cinematic flavor to combat, allowing combatants to flow from one maneuver to another. Considering the response, there is a change in the works here as well. I would note that issues 1 and 2 here are perhaps the most contentious in the whole document and we are moving to fix both of them.
3. The classes did need a boost. Most stray off into pclasses as soon as they qualify or take multiple classes to garner valuable abilities. We wanted to make it more of a choice. You can gain some significant abilities by investing in another class, but we wanted the base classes to remain an tantalizing option. As for which class is the most powerful, I think if you ask 11 people, you will get 11 different answers.
4. These rules were changed for the reasons presented on page 44. We needed to give the cleric the ability to actually cast his spells, instead of just converting them in to healing.
5. We went with the CMB to unify the mechanics for a number of similar abilities. Fixing up the grapple rules was high on my list of problems to fix.
6. Because the existing XP system is not open content. We went with this system to eliminate the need of a nasty XP like the one from the 3.5 rules set.
Hope that helps.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Thanks for those replies :). I wanted a clear answer for each and I got them. I also didn't realize that the current XP system was not Open Content (then again it doesn't become an issue unless you are putting a new system together).
Keep up the great work.
Mr. Bulmahn You have done a remarkable job on the Alpha release and to have Alpha 1.1 out within a week is really nice.
Thank you for answering Phil L's questions as I had some of those questions as well.
Thanks again, Dave
3. The classes did need a boost. Most stray off into pclasses as soon as they qualify or take multiple classes to garner valuable abilities.
Interesting assertions. You're making three separate assertions here:
1) That the power levels of the (core?) classes in 3.5 are not powerful enough.
2) That players opt to choose to have prestige classes instead of a pure class a majority of the time
3) And that #2 is because the core classes are flawed.
Taken together they're interesting, because:
1) I prefer playing a pure base class over having a PrC...because I feel it dilutes the power level of the base class.
2) I had believed that people had a preference for PrCs because:
a) They are new and exciting.
b) Prestige classes can provide a specific flavor that makes a
character unique. The "Mourner" prestige class is a favorite of
mine in this regard.
3) Some PrCs (and some new 'base' classes) are as written, more powerful than they should be. And there isn't any specific guilty parties there, both Wizards and Third-party authors have "over-cool'd" some of their favorites. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has never been my feeling that the core classes were too weak as a whole. Saying so seems definitionally contradictive...if ALL the classes are too weak, what is left to compare them to?
I suppose the monster CRs...if that is the case, is it the classes that are at fault, but our ballpark measurement of how tough the challenges are?
The power level of a class is hard to judge. Power level is extremely situational. Any given character or group of characters could apparently be weak, but in the right situation or a moment of clever tactics and they completely kick ass. And the reverse is true. You have an uber character or group of them, but bad tactics (or great tactics of the enemy) could still pummel you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't had a chance to review the core classes in pathfinder in detail, but I would be cautious: This is one of those areas where significant changes could dramatically reduce compatibility with 3.5.
I read elsewhere that a design goal is that if I'm running a pathfinder module for my 3.5 gaming group, it will work. If there are significant changes to the core classes...I doubt that will be the case. Not without tweaking. Or a extra page or two in the module that says "If you're running 3.5, you'll need to reduce the class levels of Brunhilde, Henry, and Jack, and reduce the hit dice of the Gorgon..."
Well, unfortunately, I do not have the time to go into the thinking behind every decision we made, I can go over some of the questions you posted here.
Jason - As others, I had questions concerning the "Why?" behind many of the changes.
I appreciate your attentiveness in following these forums AND responding to our posts and questions.
My hats off to you and the rest of the Paizo staff in this regard. I have several of you post over at the EN World (www.enworld.org) forums as well. (Erik Mona and Joshua White come to mind)
It is very refreshing to me - as a fan, a player and a customer - to have that level of interactivity. I know that Paizo is a business, and must be ran as one, but I truly feel as if you all are "Gamers running a Business" and not "Businessmen selling Games"
|
3. The classes did need a boost. Most stray off into pclasses as soon as they qualify or take multiple classes to garner valuable abilities.Interesting assertions. You're making three separate assertions here:
1) That the power levels of the (core?) classes in 3.5 are not powerful enough.
2) That players opt to choose to have prestige classes instead of a pure class a majority of the time
3) And that #2 is because the core classes are flawed.Taken together they're interesting, because:
1) I prefer playing a pure base class over having a PrC...because I feel it dilutes the power level of the base class.
2) I had believed that people had a preference for PrCs because:a) They are new and exciting.
b) Prestige classes can provide a specific flavor that makes a
character unique. The "Mourner" prestige class is a favorite of
mine in this regard.
3) Some PrCs (and some new 'base' classes) are as written, more powerful than they should be. And there isn't any specific guilty parties there, both Wizards and Third-party authors have "over-cool'd" some of their favorites. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has never been my feeling that the core classes were too weak as a whole. Saying so seems definitionally contradictive...if ALL the classes are too weak, what is left to compare them to?I suppose the monster CRs...if that is the case, is it the classes that are at fault, but our ballpark measurement of how tough the challenges are?
The power level of a class is hard to judge. Power level is extremely situational. Any given character or group of characters could apparently be weak, but in the right situation or a moment of clever tactics and they completely kick ass. And the reverse is true. You have an uber character or group of them, but bad tactics (or great tactics of the enemy) could still pummel you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't had a chance...
Hi Faelin (and whoever reads this),
I totally agree with you. Several other posters (including me) uttered similar opinions in other threads - this is the first time I see an official response by Paizo.
I downloaded and read alpha 1.1: Tester comments on skills and combat feats were addressed. No changes to base class "power level", though.
Personally I don't feel that base classes suffered dramatically from prestige classes. Some prestige classes are overpowered, but you could just declare them illegal and call it a day.
I can't follow Paizo's reasoning why *all* classes are to be empowered. Quite the opposite: alpha 1.0 already stated quite clearly, that you have to empower all of your 3.5 monsters, too, in order to keep the game in balance.
Some people reasoned: Players ought to get new feats, spells etc. at each level. Others complained: 3.5 high level play is too complicated.
I don't see how handing out even more feats, spell like abilites etc. at low levels is going to simplify high level play. But obviously I am not expert enough to understand the "big picture".
Anyway I won't comment the new alpha and beta versions any more. Too much seems to be already "hewn in stone". Paizo already seems to be pretty sure about the general look of PRPG - i.e. including the substantial changes mentioned by you. Comments and objections are welcome - if they don't touch these base assumptions of Paizo's.
So apparently I will have to stick to 3.5 - although I really looked forward to a streamlined (i.e. not powered up) 3.75. And if the backwards compatibility should turn out to just encompass the stat block format, it would be sad, but then I'd have to look for other adventures.
The ironic thing is: Paizo proclaimed this to be the continuation of 3.5! Looking into the testing threads I only seem to see those who want to see a strongly changed game system with only superficial resemblance to 3.5.
- Günther
|
Director of Game Design
|
Hey there all,
We do spend a lot of time reading through the majority of the threads on these boards. While I do not have the time to comment on all of them, I have been weighing a number of the comments and concerns against some of my base assumptions.
I think it important to note that while there is some amount of upgrading here, many of the base classes are just not as attractive or powerful as the hundreds of other options that have come out since the release of 3.5. It is important to note that I am not trying to "keep up with the jones's" here. Instead, I am working to give the base classes a bit more staying power and to make the choice less than automatic (although I realize this is not always true, it frequently is). This, of course, does not apply universally to all classes. Some are closer to where they need to be as far as power balance. Wizards and clerics, for example, get a bit of a boost at low levels, but otherwise are very similar in power to their high level counterparts. There were some upgrades across the board (hp and feats), but these generally have a smaller impact across the span of a character.
Its a tricky process. There are literally thousands of ideas on these boards, and there is no way I am going to manage to please everyone. A lot of my time is spent managing expectations in this regard. I hope that you understand this. This is an open playtest after all, not an open design.
Thanks for your feedback, and I look forward to hearing more from everyone.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Its a tricky process. There are literally thousands of ideas on these boards, and there is no way I am going to manage to please everyone. A lot of my time is spent managing expectations in this regard. I hope that you understand this. This is an open playtest after all, not an open design.
Well said, Jason. It is good to see that there is someone behind the project with a clear vision. Otherwise I get the feeling it would end up looking like a confusing amalgamation of forum ideas in attempt to please everyone.
|
Jason, thanks for the feedback.
I'm surprised, pleasantly so, by your statement that based on feedback from your customers you are already considering changes to something as fundamental as the skill format. Managing an ever changing flow of customer feedback will be challenging, but I really appreciate the commitment to creating a game that the players want.
|
|
Hey there all,
We do spend a lot of time reading through the majority of the threads on these boards. While I do not have the time to comment on all of them, I have been weighing a number of the comments and concerns against some of my base assumptions.
I think it important to note that while there is some amount of upgrading here, many of the base classes are just not as attractive or powerful as the hundreds of other options that have come out since the release of 3.5. It is important to note that I am not trying to "keep up with the jones's" here. Instead, I am working to give the base classes a bit more staying power and to make the choice less than automatic (although I realize this is not always true, it frequently is). This, of course, does not apply universally to all classes. Some are closer to where they need to be as far as power balance. Wizards and clerics, for example, get a bit of a boost at low levels, but otherwise are very similar in power to their high level counterparts. There were some upgrades across the board (hp and feats), but these generally have a smaller impact across the span of a character.
Its a tricky process. There are literally thousands of ideas on these boards, and there is no way I am going to manage to please everyone. A lot of my time is spent managing expectations in this regard. I hope that you understand this. This is an open playtest after all, not an open design.
Thanks for your feedback, and I look forward to hearing more from everyone.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Hello Jason,
Thanks for this really extensive answer of yours.
I see your point that you generally feel that base classes grew suboptimal choices for players due to more "attractive" prestige classes. I still prefer the alternative to just change the 'cause of evil' (PrC) or declare it invalid, but that decision seems to be made.
So on a different topic: .
Another goal demanded by many players was ro make high level PCs more playable (I.e. Less complex). Unfortunately the increase of feats and abilities in base classes looks counterproductive for this goal of high level play 'facilitation'.
Here is a rough proposal to fix that problem (assuming that you want to keep on powering up base classes): Don't hand out more feats, but more powerful feats instead which functionally build upon existing feats and make their weaker 'ancestors' superfluous or just make the feats increase, similar as sneak attack gradually improves..
Players who like to have a multitude of feats at hand can keep on doing so. Especially new players could prefer to choose a certain 'flavour' of feat and keep on improving in them, though. I admit that it could turn out to be difficult to avoid overspecialization and overempowerment of PCs that way. But you could really decrease the complexity of high level play (and I mean especially high level npcs and monsters with many feats).
The biggest advantage, though: it is optional because players decide whether they want to apply 'standard' or these new 'evolutionary' feats.
I imagine DMs preferring the new form - it keeps beefing up 3.5 monsters to PRPG CRs easier e.g. By offering certain standard npc feat packages/ feat paths which help to *quickly* bring npcs and monsters up to date in relative 'feat power'.
You see what you managed: Yesterday I announced my withdrawal from alpha discussion and here I am back. You persuaded me that it is better to try to improve as much as possible (and be it to avoid the worst :p).
Thanks for your effort to explain your reasoning even if I disagree with you on some points. Consider my silence on other subjects like skills in alpha 1.0 as full agreement, though.
Cheers,
Guenther
We need to make the base classes 80% *more interesting* and 20% *more powerful*. It's the interesting that will keep people in the class, not the raw power gain.
Bingo!!
For me personally, I'd take an ability that's fun but only mediocre in power over a boring but potent +X to some Y. A pure plus bonus might be more powerful, but I don't game for the math, I game for the fun. :)