| ruemere |
(warning: very imho)
Having read the alpha rulebook, I would like to provide short feedback by ranking its content against design goals stated in introduction. As this is not a playtest information, it may be actually not much of use to seasoned designer, however, someone's feedback may hopefully clear some confusion I felt while reading.
Improve the game
My current view of the 3.5 version is that addition of any new content increases game complexity. It looks to me like a consequence of game model - long list of possible choices at higher levels coupled with numerous dice rolls throughout round. It's not that the game is hard to manage, it's just that the number of steps one has to take to get through a task is way too big.
Most painful aspects of current version off the top of my head are: iterative attacks, number of spells available to memorize, resolution of actions affecting multiple targets (area affect spells, mostly), resolution of actions with multiple situational conditions (invisibility vs attacks, sneak attacks vs flanking, cover vs concealment adjudication), save or die effects vs party specialization.
Looking at alpha rules, I have notead, that while some mechanics were simplified, the authors usually tried to add more options and ended up actually increasing the complexity, for example:
- new racial traits (Dwarves - Pathfinder 10, 3.5 4),
- fighter specific feats become fighter specific class powers, fighter gain new class powers,
- skills gain new applications (more text, more things to learn),
- new feats seem to be mostly combat oriented,
- at least one feat seriously affects game balance (Turn Elementals),
- there is already mention of conversion - read: the game loses compatibility with 3.5.
Improve the game, summary:
Alpha version of Pathfinder mostly adds complexity, increases personal character power and will probably require that GMs convert their material to new (though similar) game system.
This is definitely not an improvment in my opinion. Thumbs down.
Add options
Combat mostly. Non-spellcasting classes mostly. See above.
Very nice approach to manoevuers and much better grapple rules.
Interesting, but at the cost of added complexity and disruption of current gaming balance.
It's not really thumbs down, though, since there are actually new options and there are definitely new nice things to do for characters now.
So, given that this is an alpha version, half-hearted thumb up.
Compatibility
Conversion already mentioned. I know it's a daunting task, but if you want to retain compatibility, to win the people already into 3.5, you need to do the same better yet stick to already existing system balance. Otherwise, game masters and players, dreading the C. word, will be reluctant to, ahem, convert.
Thumbs down.
Is there a hope for me, yet?
Having criticized a bit, I would like to offer some constructive notes on possible (though still very personal) approach to Pathfinder.
- Build upon current 3.5 but strive to remain within current game balance.
In short, the people should be able to recognize familiar stuff immediately, the game master should not be forced to convert anything and generally, avoid power creep at all costs.
As a rule of thumb, if through use of new abilities, Pathfinder fighter easily 3.5 fighter, something is lacking.
- Dynamic, use-activated abilities over static benefits
Simple benefits of "x adds to y" are not fun. Wizard hurling a fireball gains more in-game satisfaction then fighter looking at his character sheet and noting that his armor bestows some additional armor class points.
In my opinion, combat manoeuvers are the way to go, instead of various "gain bonus u at level z" powers.
- Dynamic, use-activated abilities kept within reasonable number
Let the tomes of spells/skills/items burn on funeral pyres. Let the players use only a few abilities from their arsenal. Generally, Guild Wars had a great idea of limiting the number of available skills to 8 out of hundreds known. That way you can adjust your class-specific combos, build interesting concepts but during combat rounds you don't waste hours pouring over every available skill and spell.
Hybrid sorcer-wizard type of solution would be the best way to go:
- you can learn any ability within your class given some reasonable effort on your side,
- you can use only the abilities you actively train (for example, fighter can use only 8 of his powers at full ability, and all others at some minimum effectiveness, and retraining in the use of abilities takes a few days, so at any time, his arsenal is kept to reasonable minimum, yet he may - given time and effort - change it).
- your trained abilities are available without use limit (or at once per encounter limit) - no resource tracking necessary.And, of course, I would highly suggest doing the same to spellcasters.
- Add new content without breaking/nullifying the old
Probably use of new classes would be in order, since they would be playable in a different way. However, again, the benefit would be enormous - all 3.5 material available at will.
- Replace broken/flawed/overcomplicated mechanics with equivalents
It's already happening (witness new grapple rules), but it would be nice the same happening to some of the things listed at the beginning of the article.
There. I said that. Hopefully, no one felt offended by my rather direct words.
Hopefully, someone will find something insightful in my humble opinions :)
Whatever you think, I honestly applaud the general course Paizo is taking. I'm a PcGen user, and to me OGL is the only rational way to go. GSL, as it seems to be written, is likely to become a bit of a corporate bid for control over current market - clumsy and damaging in the long run... just like it was with my beloved setting of Scarred Lands.
That's why, whatever you do and wherever you go, I hope to be able to follow (even if only just to post a few comments).
Regards,
Ruemere