Character Creation
This went fairly well. I received no complaints about the broadening of skills to encompass redundant or ‘little use’ skills with a few notable exceptions.
I had a player (the Wizard) looking for a Profession, based purely on role-playing (farming of all things) and complained it wasn’t available after the first session was over. This floored me, as it patently isn’t true. I’m going to review this with the player and point out that they can still have a Farmer Profession if they wish.
The Wizard also winced at having to choose two schools to exclude in order to gain their school power. This was a brief struggle, with the other players chiming in that it wasn’t meant to be an easy choice for the Wizard. I think this played out well though and became vindicated, because once in practice, the Wizard loved their transmutation telekinetic fist once actual play started. More on this below. (I also like the parallel with how the Runelord’s practice magic, but this may be a coincidence).
I stated to the players the Chained Combat Feats were possible for PCs and NPCs until Jason Bulmahn took them out of the playtest. The players acknowledged this but stated so long as they had the autonomy to choose their own feats (which of course I have given them), they’re not going to go out of their way to select Feats that might be chainable. Instead they said they’re going to select what they think is tactically smart for how they want to play. As much as I want to test the chained feats, and still possibly might with NPCs later, the players have rejected them in the only way they can. They’re ignoring them. I don’t see this as an act of childish pique; they genuinely seem to think they weren’t worth the trouble.
Actual play- the Wizard:
The Wizard loved their new toys. There was a sense of excitement with the new options. The player made quick use of the School Powers (the telekinetic fist). The player was happy that they were using ‘magic’ to fight the goblins, and were still retaining slotted spells for more desperate or important attacks. A nice side effect to that was since the telekinetic fist had a 30’ range, the wizard was staying just outside of melee. So long as the melee fighters were spread out to run interference, the likelihood of the Wizard getting off a spell without incurring A.O.O’s or having to make a Concentration Check was higher..
In one case, a goblin fled, and the Wizard broke out the Magic Missile spell, due to it’s greater range and lack of miss. Instead of firing that spell off right away, the player was able to deploy just when that was the best weapon available under the circumstances.
The bonded item (in this case) was met with much enthusiasm.
Actual play – the Cleric (of Sarenrae)
The player was skeptical of the ‘Turn’ Heal (and we all pretty much agree that this effect needs a new name). Not that it was disadvantageous to them, but that it was too lenient and would unbalance the game in their favor.
Once we got into combat that concern was removed. The awkwardness of potentially healing your enemies makes sense once you actually play it. The ‘Turn Heal’ is not intended for combat, but for in-between encounters. However, instead of saying that it can’t be done at all during combat, the rules allow it with all the inherent potential hazards. This actually puts the tactical decision making upon the player, rather than have the rules “dummy proof” the game play. There are cases when you could use the “Turn Heal” in combat:
1. Out of the 30’ range,
2. If you think that the combined might of the PCs could bring down a monster faster, if they can just hang on for another round. Balancing their damage output in one round versus their enemy.
3. It might keep another player going long enough to retreat out of melee-
These scenarios might make it tactically worth it to heal everyone in nthe 30' burst radius including the enemy. The “Turn Heal” puts that decision in the hands of the Cleric, rather than protect the player from a bad choice.. My Cleric and I could not see that until we actually played it out.
The player commented that the turn heals did not seem to unbalance the game, and that it took more than one “Turn Heal” to bring the party up in hit points to a noteworthy level at Level One. Conversely more slotted spells were retained through a series of encounters, and it was agreed that the ability to spontaneously cast healing spells had actually become *more* valuable, because it wasn’t assumed that was what the Cleric would be doing that in the first place.
I, the GM, have to remember that the players are capable of little more healing now. I had Father Zantus giving a free heal (as a 4th Level Cleric) after the first two goblin fights, when I really should have had the PC Cleric do it. That left the Cleric primed for the fight against the mounted Goblin Commando, rather than having the party be a little worn down naturally from having fought three goblin encounters in succession. The new Clerical Healing could change the pacing of the encounters since the Cleric lasts longer.
General Play Test comments
It’s hard to see the differences at first level!
We played the first scenes of Runelord's Chapter One, up to but not including the Shayless Vinder encounter. That includes the first two goblin encounters, saving Aldren at the North Gate, and ferreting out Gresgrut from out from under the Barret home. The goblins, having relatively low hit points, were not attractive targets for stunt fighting by the players (unfortunately). They opted to just kill them rather than play with them. I hope to see that shift a little as the antagonists become a little tougher.
I hope to get into the CMB’s and other skills (with Ven Vinder the boxing shopkeeper, with Aldren while boar hunting in the Tickwood Forest, and Tstuto) in our next sessions.
The only part of the Alpha rules we're not using is the experience table. For simplicity we’re advancing levels when the Adventure Path calls for it. Though I am anticipating a future problem, possibly, as the Wizard definitely wants to craft.
The party consists of a wizard, rogue, cleric, and a magesmith (I’m using a modified Duskblade, and all Alpha Test applicable conversion rules). I wish I didn’t have the magesmith, but the player was really looking forward to it and has worked hard to make the Duskblade as ‘Golarion’ as possible. There’s a limit to how much autonomy I’m comfortable taking away from the players for the sake of playtesting. Next session I’m expecting the final player to join the rest, playing a barbarian.
Final Comments from the Players
They liked the Alpha Rules better in actual play. The Cleric specifically said that it still “felt like DnD’ to him, which was a concern. Many have indicated that they might like 4th Edition, but they have a hard time seeing it as DnD from what little they know. They didn’t have that same reaction to Pathfinder RPG after this first Session. It still felt like DnD 3.5 to them.
***************
Oy.. now new Release notes are available, posted while writing this report!
Exciting to hear (or read) Watcher. I'm slow in my ability to put together a playtest for this (next week actually). It's good to see what to expect. I'm going to run Hollow's Last Hope, I'll post the results when it finally happens.
I certainly enjoyed reading your report on how it went. I haven't had a chance to playtest anything myself. Thanks!
|
Watcher, I'm glad you have time to post "Actual Playtest Notes". I won't actually be able to run any of the Pathfinder Adventure paths until November. And I'm sure most folks posting about the ruleset aren't actually using them either.
Interesting about the "Turn Heal" sounds like great fun in use. My first thought was that it was just to much power creep.
Keep up the good work.
Well, the good news is, they've taken away the chainability of the Cobat Feats - that should make your players happy!
Thanks for the report!
:) You're welcome. I just can't model rules very well without playing them.
The 'Turn Heal' definitely makes more sense in practice than it does on paper. There's a tactical side to it that makes for interesting gameplay, and if you made it selectively heals only your allies you would be unbalancing the game because the value of spontaneous casting would be lost.
It was good to see a Wizard player excited, active, and effective in a first level combat scene. They dropped Necromancy and Divination, I wonder if that will be a trend, or just for this player.
Thank you for taking the time to put up these notes. I was also interested to see the thoughts on the new turning. I'll be using the new version for the first time on Monday and am very interested to see how that plays out.
I ran a limited game last Saturday with about the same results.
The cleric really dug not converting a single spell for Cure Light Wounds and the wizard was as or more potent at dispatching goblins as the fighter.
Thanks for this Watcher. I think the Paizo guys will be interested in seeing actual play test results too.
I’d be interested to see anyone doing a mid or high level playtest.
I hope to get there eventually! This second group is going a little faster than my original group (which is still going strong, but they're up in chapter Three right now- they didn't want to disrupt the AP by switching rules halfway through).
I was really tired Tuesday night, so it was a fairly short session. I'm thinking we'll dig into the meat and potatoes of 1.1 next session. I really want to play with the CMB's.
My cleric is already excited about being able to use both Domain Powers.
I forgot to mention that Orisions went over well, having them at will didn't seem to unbalance anything and made the Cleric seem a little more 'mystical', since being able to do something magical at will is a step away from Vancian magic without actually leaving Vancian magic at all.
Update from April 1st.
In case I hadn't mentioned it I have:
Human Cleric 1st
Elven Wizard 1st
Dwarven MageSmith 1st (using a Duskblade template)
Human Rogue 1st
*******************
This session saw us add a Shonati Barbarian. Not much to say here, the player hadn't read the background material or the Alpha rules. This group is not meeting for another two weeks, I hope to get this one caught up.
The Wizard player begged and pleaded to re-start their Wizard as a Universalist. Then they begged and pleaded to keep some of the Universalist crafting benefits if they took one of the Schools. I declined, and told the player they had to choose between a School or the Universalist as they were written. The player chose the Universalist. Why? The player cited the crafting bonus was too good for them to pass up.
I was hoping to try out the CMB's with Ven Vinder against the Barbarian, but he chose to flee rather than get caught up in fistacuffs or possible criminal charges. :(
The group went through the Glassworks. They were much more effective than my traditional 3.5 group. I asked what they felt the difference might be. To a player they pointed out that they actually had a Wizard at first level, and the Color Spray spell had been unusually effective for two combats in a row (goblins rolled terrible saves), plus the Wizard was able to attack and help defeat goblins with the Apprentice's Hand.
The Wizard remarked that even though Apprentice's Hand doesn't scale in level like other school powers, they still felt it was useful. However, I think the Wizard is going to be disappointed if the Crafting Rules don't live up to expectation.
In retrospect, I think the player was using the Apprentice's Hnad to make Ranged Touch Attacks (like they did with Telekinetic Fist the session before when they had a Transmuter Wizard), which is not what the Power says.. I will have to watch that next session. This is the downside of learning new rules.
I reiterated, "Does having a Wizard at the start of the Campaign make that much of a difference?" They felt 'yes', but normally no one is willing to do it.
Well, the good news is, they've taken away the chainability of the Cobat Feats - that should make your players happy!
Thanks for the report!
:) You're welcome. I just can't model rules very well without playing them.
The 'Turn Heal' definitely makes more sense in practice than it does on paper. There's a tactical side to it that makes for interesting gameplay, and if you made it selectively heals only your allies you would be unbalancing the game because the value of spontaneous casting would be lost.
It was good to see a Wizard player excited, active, and effective in a first level combat scene. They dropped Necromancy and Divination, I wonder if that will be a trend, or just for this player.
Just as a question...the dropped classes only refer to the bonus power and not all the powers..correct?
I'm not sure why your player would cringe in picking them if he's done it before, because the drawback is less drastic.
Just as a question...the dropped classes only refer to the bonus power and not all the powers..correct?
I'm not sure why your player would cringe in picking them if he's done it before, because the drawback is less drastic.
That's a good point. I can only reply that the Wizard player seems to enjoy his School powers a great deal and is loathe to give them up. Or, he's misunderstanding the rules. That's a real good point, I'll have to make sure that he understands the rules.
That's also noteworthy because in the second session, he changed to the Univeralist despite not getting the bonus ability. He might not be understanding.
Thanks for the observation David!
This is a cross post from a couple days ago, but the other post doesn't seem to be getting much attention. So I have reposted in the thread that I already started specifically about my playtest.
***********************
There has been other threads on the Hand of the Apprentice ability in the archives, after doing a search.. But I can't find a definitive clarification, only opinion and conjecture.
And there's nothing wrong with that, it does help, but I want to get these issues on Jason's radar for consideration. I'm skipping most of the play test in favor of addressing the Hand of the Apprentice, except for these brief comments:
GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE RULES AFTER THEY'VE SAT WITH THE RULES FOR A FEW WEEKS:
We're doing 1.1 RAW, and it's going pretty well. The group was divided in reaction to the news that the skills were changing back to a hybridized system in Version 2. About half were relieved to hear it, a few were disappointed. Notably it was the rogue, with subconscious mini/max tendancies, who was disappointed the most.
**************************
HAND OF THE APPRENTICE ISSUES
Can it be directed through squares of allies, and actually occupy the space of an ally to attack a monster in the front?
Here was the scenario: 5' wide hallway, with the rogue and cleric in front facing goblins in a line. The mage is behind the other two players. He sends his long sword forward to strike at the first goblin. That suggests that the long sword is occupying the same square as the rogue. We saw arguments for and against any penalties. Ultimately I ruled no penalty, but everyone would like clarification.
- Not able to flank, threaten foes, or gain AoO's, there seemed to be a precedent that the object doesn't occupy real 'space', in the context of tactical game mechanics.
- The counter point being firing into melee gains penalties, why not the remote control direction of a melee weapon? What about squeezing, or should another player be able to maneuver in the same square as the weapon?
- Spiritual Weapon doesn't make much of a precedent here, as that is a spell, and doesn't require concentration.. where Hand of the Apprentice is not exactly a spell, the weapon is physical, and attacking does require concentration.
This discussion came up in actual game play. Again, I opted for no penalty till we got clarification, but we were all unsure.
Other questions that came up as a result: Can you use Feats? Can the weapon be batted away or grabbed via a Disarm attempt? If it can be interacted with via a CMB action, would the CMB for the wizard be adjusted since INT is the modifier for controlling the weapon?
Again, spells like Spiritual Weapon didn't offer a clear precedent due to the unusual nature of the ability.
Thanks!
This is a cross post from a couple days ago, but the other post doesn't seem to be getting much attention. So I have reposted in the thread that I already started specifically about my playtest.
***********************There has been other threads on the Hand of the Apprentice ability in the archives, after doing a search.. But I can't find a definitive clarification, only opinion and conjecture.
And there's nothing wrong with that, it does help, but I want to get these issues on Jason's radar for consideration. I'm skipping most of the play test in favor of addressing the Hand of the Apprentice, except for these brief comments:
GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE RULES AFTER THEY'VE SAT WITH THE RULES FOR A FEW WEEKS:
We're doing 1.1 RAW, and it's going pretty well. The group was divided in reaction to the news that the skills were changing back to a hybridized system in Version 2. About half were relieved to hear it, a few were disappointed. Notably it was the rogue, with subconscious mini/max tendancies, who was disappointed the most.**************************
HAND OF THE APPRENTICE ISSUES
Can it be directed through squares of allies, and actually occupy the space of an ally to attack a monster in the front?
Here was the scenario: 5' wide hallway, with the rogue and cleric in front facing goblins in a line. The mage is behind the other two players. He sends his long sword forward to strike at the first goblin. That suggests that the long sword is occupying the same square as the rogue. We saw arguments for and against any penalties. Ultimately I ruled no penalty, but everyone would like clarification.
[list]
Not able to flank, threaten foes, or gain AoO's, there seemed to be a precedent that the object doesn't occupy real 'space', in the context of tactical game mechanics. The counter point being firing into melee gains penalties, why not the remote control direction of a melee weapon? What about squeezing, or should another player be able to maneuver in the same square as...
Oh wow. My player is a Universalist as well, but has only tried his Hand of the Apprentice in one encounter, against a constrictor snake that nearly killed him. These questions haven't come up in my game yet, but will, most likely this weekend. I would argue, at first, that the ability grants flanking bonus, but it seems that argument would slippery slope into it being granted a threat range and AoO, and I'm not sure how I feel about that.
This is going to bug me all day. I hope we can get some clarification on this.
Oh wow. My player is a Universalist as well, but has only tried his Hand of the Apprentice in one encounter, against a constrictor snake that nearly killed him. These questions haven't come up in my game yet, but will, most likely this weekend. I would argue, at first, that the ability grants flanking bonus, but it seems that argument would slippery slope into it being granted a threat range and AoO, and I'm not sure how I feel about that.
This is going to bug me all day. I hope we can get some clarification on this.
:D
Hand of the Apprentice is not to be sneezed at, my wizard is using to great effect in most combats as reserving his spells... Making him last longer than '15 minutes a day', as the saying goes. And weilding a longsword and applying INT bonus to damage, he's contributing fair damage when he hits.
The description doesn't say that the weapon can't flank, but since it can't definitely threaten.. then logic dictates it probably can't flank.
My biggest concern is space and crowded conditions.. because again, if you fire into melee with a ranged weapon, you suffer penalties. Spirtual Weapon doesn't open this can of worms because it's defined specifically, and it's described as an energy spell effect that requires no concentration (unless you re-direct it, and then it's only a move action).
I'm willing to accept that it doesn't crowd when in a space with another PC, but whether or not to have penalties while in the midst of occupied squares in combat deserves some thought.
Director of Games
|
The hand of the apprentice cannot flank. This will be clarified. The item must occupy a space, but if it is three size categories smaller than a creature, it can occupy the same space. Generally, I would rule that daggers and other small light weapons could occupy the space of a Medium creature, but other weapons could not. This is, of course, a GM call.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
Hand of the Apprentice is not to be sneezed at, my wizard is using to great effect in most combats as reserving his spells... Making him last longer than '15 minutes a day', as the saying goes.
Watcher I could kiss you for saying that. Now only if the dopes in those threads would actually play the game. ;)
I'm willing to accept that it doesn't crowd when in a space with another PC, but whether or not to have penalties while in the midst of occupied squares in combat deserves some thought.
We've been applying penalties in our game... Whether you go around or over with the sword, it's still movement. We also don't threaten or allow AoO with it.
Watcher I could kiss you for saying that. Now only if the dopes in those threads would actually play the game. ;)
Thanks!
Seriously, I have a Cleric of Saranrae and a Univeralist Wizard, and by taking advantage of Domain and School Abilities they are lasting much longer. The Wizard still only has a couple spells, but Color Spray is a whole lot handy and valuable when you can save it for just the right moment, knowing that you can still attack at range (without a crummy crossbow). If playtest wizards and clerics aren't taking advantage of those new abilities.. they're not going to see the difference.
Kitchen Ninja had a post that the board wouldn't allow me to reply to.. but I saw where his clerics still thought of themselves as healbots.
*My* so-called 'healbot' is tossing around fire bolts (from the Fire Domain) and never having so much fun playing a cleric before.
The hand of the apprentice cannot flank. This will be clarified. The item must occupy a space, but if it is three size categories smaller than a creature, it can occupy the same space. Generally, I would rule that daggers and other small light weapons could occupy the space of a Medium creature, but other weapons could not. This is, of course, a GM call.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thanks for the clarification. I know for a fact that this issue would come up on Sunday and I'd have to either make a ruling on the fly (which would have probably allowed it flanking and then slippery sloped into other things) or stopped the game for several minutes while we discussed (always dangerous in my games as that leads to long tangents instead of game play).