I've split up each section so hopefully it's easy to read and for the dev's to find the bits they want. I've also marked some points with a "!" if they're something we felt was worth pointing to/suggesting. Also I've tried to acknowledge our biases and not comment on things that we didn't use unless we particularly like/disliked them. Finally there's not much in-game information, as I've tried to keep focused on reporting our experiences with the system.
Peace,
tfad
***
Books Used: Aside from the core books we also used the following books without any compatibility issues. As such, the group believes that Paizo has so far met with their goal of backwards compatibility. Expanded Psionics Handbook, Manual of the Planes, Epic Level Handbook, Stronghold Builder's Guide book (WotC), Oathbound: Domains of the Forge (Bastion Press), Portals and Planes (Fantasy Flight Games).
Races (p.4-): In a word; Awesome! Whilst changes to the core races were not strictly necessary, the results are good. The races feel more unified than they did previously and some of the weaker choices got a nice boost.
Favored Class Sidebar (p.7): This was a concern for one of our players. The complaint was that if a character gets more HP for taking a level in their favored class then the racial stereotypes are enforced a little too mechanically. The complaint also claimed that as a rule it does not make too much sense - why should an elven wizard be tougher than a dwarven one, for example. It also gives an extra boost of power to the Human, who will almost always get this bonus. It's not a game breaker, but we agreed that maybe it should be placed in the DMG portion of the Pathfinder RPG and come with some sort of explanation that the DM can work with players to create a culture and favored class for their character at the beginning of the game. Although then the reward becomes a little more than a multiclass deterrent. Perhaps this should say that the bonus is to be added after your constitution modifier has been applied to the HD roll. This way low rolls can become less crippling if they happen several level ups in a row.
! We noticed that by increasing the power of the core races, a lot of LA+1 can now be played without the adjustment. Additionally some of the less powerful LA+2 creatures can be reduced to a +1. We gave our Asherake (Oathbound) player the +1 adjustment which he was quite happy with, and leveled up as a result. We felt this was a real triumph as the Pathfinder races have increased compatibility by opening up all of those LA+1 races we didn't try (for fear of losing a caster level!).
Classes (p.8-): Including the NPCs we actually tried all of the classes presented in the Alpha, although not all of the Wizard schools. Again - brilliant. I've broken our comments down, below.
Domains (p.9, p.49-57) & Schools (p.16, p.46-49): The main thing here is that the domains and schools now have a much bigger impact on the game and the character. One extra spell per level per day is not as evocative as unique powers. No one in our group plays a non-specialist Wizard, so in many ways, we were biased towards liking these changes. However the important thing is that the changes seem balanced, certainly more balanced than 3.5 - especially for the 'weaker' schools where previously Diviners might waste higher level bonus spells on True Strike just because there was guaranteed to be no time to cast Legend Lore that day.
Orisons (p.10) & Cantrips (p.17): Yes! Does not break the game in any way and really helps keep the magic users as magic users all day. Although we didn't try it out, we felt this could be especially useful to the bard.
!Perhaps offering Bards Prestidigitation as a free action could help make them more showy and add a flourish to their actions. As the spell doesn't really do anything we didn't think it would be game breaking and would just add to the fun. Yeah - we're a bard biased group!
Starting Hit Points (p.11): We've never had a problem with starting HP in 3rd edition. If anything the problem is when you don't roll enough (below average?) at the higher levels. The favored class sidebar (mentioned above, p.7) helps with this.
Fighter (p.11): Very nice! No problems with this at all - the fighter has needed a boost for a while.
! We applied the same class ability progression as the Fighter to the Psychic Warrior. The results were balanced and we had no problem with this at all. Another victory for backwards compatibility!
Sneak Attack (p.13-14): Although our game did not actually include any sneak attacks being made, we have never had a problem with sneak attack being used against undead (shoot the brain!) and golems (get 'im in the gears!). The problem we have had has been with the feat improved feint. The rogue can beat every else in damage output with a sneak attack - that feat lets them do it all the time. It doesn't feel right when players who want to be a hand-to-hand damage dealer pick the fighter and then get outclassed by the rogue. This was a bit of a concern now that power attack (see below) has been powered down; the fighter's only chance of keeping up with an improved feinting rogue. But no problems with the changes made to sneak attack.
Rogue Talents (p.14): Very nice! 5/5! Works fine!
Wizard Hit Dice (p.15): More so than the rogue, the increase in HP for the wizard was greatly appreciated.
! For the sake of backwards compatibility (Designer Notes: Class Hit Dice, p.18), we think it would be better as a rule to increase the BAB or HD of the class, rather than reduce the other one. This was important when looking at the Expanded Psionics Handbook - increasing the BAB of the Soulknife and increasing the HD of the Wilder. We tend not to use classes outside of the core/xph set, but this change greatly helps bring these two SRD classes up to the power level of the others.
Arcane Bond (p.16): Our diviner took an arcane bond; a glass eye! We were a little unclear on the rules - "can be used once per day to cast any one spell the wizard knows". What exactly does this mean? We chatted about it and came up with two interpretations. 1) spells in spell book and 2) spells memorized. I found both answers here on the message boards, so we discussed it as a group. We decided that whilst neither choice was game breaking we went with spells memorized as it fit better "in universe". We saw the bonded object as a linked to the wizard, not a link between the wizard and their spell book. The diviner used his eye straight away (so as to gain the most options of what extra spell to cast) and cast disintegrate from behind at a Sea Hag - fun!
Skills (p.21-31): Argh! Yes and no for this one! 2/5! The compiled list is very good - well done. Rolling some skills into others makes good sense. We couldn't see Tumble on the list, but it appeared to be covered by Acrobatics.
Table 5:2 Skill Check Bonuses (p.21): We did not like this at all. Skill points are a great part of the 3rd edition system and should not be removed (insert quick acknowledgment of bias). Our complaint breaks down into two points. 1) Why change something that doesn't need changing? Yes - the alpha system works mathematically but it is really necessary to change the system? Complaints that skill points are too complicated aren't really washing with our group - we've never had a problem. Also as a DM I've never had a problem with NPC's skill points. What does the NPC need/have for background? Write that up at an appropriate level. We felt that those complaints were probably from groups who stick to the letter of the rules rather than have fun within the rules. 2) It's impossible to not be the best you possibly can be at something now. This is important for both roleplaying and mechanical reasons. The best example we can offer runs like this.
A few games ago an NPC Epic level Bard died 'off screen'. It was a moving moment for one PC (paladin) who was quite attached to him. As a result she decided to put some skill points into Perform(Story telling) to keep telling some of the stories the bard shared with her and to honor the dead by telling a few of her own. The awesome roleplaying was backed up by the mechanics as the paladin was now an apprentice level story teller. Upon leveling up, the paladin put more points into the skill and got better at it. Under the Pathfinder Alpha system this would've lost all of the impact as she suddenly became the best story teller she could've been and would not be getting any better unless the skill became a class skill.
Carrying on from this point, our group rarely keeps the same skills 'maxed out' above a certain level. Once your character can succeed at hitting most of the DCs, unless the skill is a core part of the character, we enjoy spending all of those points elsewhere. Usually on things related to the in game experiences of the character. E.g. after a crazy horse chase chariot battle, putting ranks into ride.
Also the Pathfinder system makes it impossible to play 'against type'. You cannot play a wizard with only a few ranks in knowledge skills, or a ranger who has only ever been camping once. You can with the skill point system so in this instance the Pathfinder RPG is removing options instead of giving the players more. Bad move.
! Please put some base charioteering DCs in with the Ride skill descriptions for Pathfinder RPG!
Swim Skill (p.21): Swim a DEX skill? We assumed this was a typo - it really is a STR skill (doesn't DEX do enough already?).
Deception & Diplomacy (p.23-24): We use these skills every game and you've nailed it. Awesome! Please do not change these any further for the Beta.
Fly Skill (p.24-26): Yes! We loved this skill and it is presented well. In most of our games, someone likes to play a flying race so this new skill covers some of the questions that have come up over the years. However it should be based off of either STR or DEX. This is because there are a lot of different flying races/monsters out there for the 3rd edition rules and some of them are stronger than they are dexterous. Choosing which ability to base the skill on will offer both greater backwards compatibility and more options for the PC. Think Dragon vs. Humming Bird. Plus how cool would it be if your mage found Ogre Power Gauntlets and started using them to launch himself into the air?!?!
! You've taken a step in the right direction with the Fly skill; now please, please, please bring back the 3.0 Scry skill! It made so much more sense than a will save in 3.5 and offers the same magical depth the fly skill does.
Perception (p.28): See our comments on Deception and Diplomacy above.
Spellcraft (p.29-30): It was interesting to roll concentration in with Spellcraft, and we're sure that Sorcerer's everywhere will be thanking you. However - how does this work with the Expanded Psionics Handbook? There are some nice new uses for the skill in the book and now it seems as if the skill does a little too much. Not a big problem but worth thinking about.
! Our suggestion is that the problem with the 3rd edition skill system is that there is no easy way to make cross class skills class skills. At every even level, as per the progression chart on p.9), we suggest that the character receives either 4 bonus skill points or can make a single cross class skill a class skill. This will offer more skill points to PCs (addressing the common 'not enough' complaint) and give them a chance to pick up new skills as they adventure (and address the complaint that cross class skills are not worth it).
Feats (p.32-39): We used quite a few of the new feats and had no problem with them. We were quite happy with the new power attack and the alpha 1.1 removed our main concern of all those 'must've used feat X in the previous round' rules. Most importantly we loved the new progression - a feat every other level is great!
Combat Expertise (p.32): Not really worth taking now as a feat. This is a real shame as it was a group favorite for all classes from level 3 and up. We understand that it needs to be reworked to fit in with the new (and improved) Power Attack rules, but now it is pants. It would work better if it was the same as 'two handed power attack' all the time and offered twice your intelligence bonus to AC for one times the penalty.
Deadly Aim (p.32): Awesome! The circle is now complete....
Turn Outsider (p.33): We loved the idea of this feat and have been using something similar from a 3rd party book for some time. However we decided not to use it in our Alpha play test because we couldn't figure out how the feat works with the new turning rules! RAW it reads like it would heal outsiders with the positive energy. That combined with the fact that most outsiders will make their Will saves very easily, it looks like a poor choice. Could we get some clarification on the rules?
Dazzling Display (p.36): Used it in game and it worked well! A great addition to the fighter's bonus feat list too.
Cover (p.40-41): Very tricky to work out without minis. As a group that doesn't use minis, this was tricky - especially when a ghoul was hiding 'in the 3rd dimension', hanging above a door on the opposite side. There was nothing wrong with the old cover rules, so this change was not welcomed by us. However we can see that if you were using minis that this might be a little easier. Why not include both charts/rules systems in the Pathfinder RPG?
C.M.B. (p.40-): Yes! 5/5! Please keep this in!
Grapple (p.42-43): We got the rules a bit wrong at first, probably due to horrible confusion and the knee jerk reaction to 3.x grapple checks. However the new system is solid and stops the abuse and complication the old system was prone to. Well done!
Broken Condition Sidebar (p.43): We didn't get a chance to test this but liked the look of it.
Turn Undead (p.44-45): Awesome! The system works simply and quickly, much better than the previous rules. I put undead into the adventure just to test these rules and we were all happy with the results. Also, the group had no problem with thematically filling the area with a wave of energy, and mechanically healing both allies and foes.
! I know there has been a lot of discussion about this one on the boards, healing foes in the turning area. Our group felt a feat would be most appropriate, excluding a number of foes in the area up to your WIS bonus.
Identify Spell (p.58-59): Loved and used the new version. No problem with balance and stops the PCs from having to waste XP on the spell. Also helps a PC who wants to play the 'sage' type character.
***
Big thanks to Paizo for continuing with 3.x, keeping the spirit of D&D alive and for inviting us all to take part in this open playtest!
Hi all!
I'm the Paladin player mentioned briefly above.
In general, I love the new Alpha rules. They make a lot of great revisions, do a lot to smoothe over gameplay, while maintaining the flexible feel of 3.x.
The post above is a great summary of our gaming experience, and I'll just go ahead and talk about a few of the points that specifically apply to my experience.
None of us liked the new skill system for the reasons given. A twentieth level fighter shouldn't suddenly be as good a musician as a fifth level bard immediately after taking the skill. And while I understand I may be in the minority in finding it hilarious when I'm playing a sorceror with nothing in Knowledge Arcana, and that most players would never turn down someting "free", I enjoyed taking the skill points I would have had to spend on that skill and putting a few here, a few there, and developing a smattering of unusual abilities at low levels. My sorcerer ended up as a passable sneak, survivalist and tattoo artist, for the cost of a few points here an there spread across a number of levels.
Again, I understand that some people feel it's more complex than needed, or that I could have achieved the same goal with my sorcerer by simply choosing those skills as I levelled up, but I really feel that this system doesn't allow for as much variety. The choice to become extremely good at a handful, or marginally proficient at a plethora, isn't available here.
Also, I was the player concerned about the hit point for favoured class issue. This is because I really like playing against type - gnome barbarians, dwarven thieves, etc. - and I think I'd feel a little cheated that other players were being "rewarded" for playing with type, while I have to "pay" for choosing a different class.
Though I want to note - since I'm clearly in danger of coming off as some crackpot gamer who wants to play inept social outcasts! :p - I don't think it's a game breaking issue, and I'd be lying if I didn't admit I really liked the sudden boost those extra hit points gave my human paladin in our playtest.
I'm just a little worried that people dithering over classes will go ahead and default to the "stereotype" due to the extra HP incentive, even if they'd rather play another class.
Regarding some paladin specific issues, I love the new turning rules. The fact that I have to make a judgement call and choose whether or not to risk healing my enemies in the vicinity is totally worth the fact that I now have yet more powerful healing at my disposal, as well as a far simplified way of dealing with undead. It's a tactical decision, and one that I think fits thematically with what I feel turning "should" be. So that gets two thumbs up from me.
I'm not against tfad's suggestion that a number of foes equal to a character's WIS modifier can be excluded from the positive energy, but there again, I'm perfectly happy with the ability as it stands.
More healing and a cool in-game effect is more than worth the price of having to choose where and when to unleash it a little more tactically.
Finally the feat that lets you choose to turn outsiders. I'm a HUGE fan of this conceptually, but there really needs to be some clarification on the damage rules. Do you unleash something other than positive energy (in which case, is the healing effect lost)? Do you unleash positive energy but in this instance it's harming the named type of outsider?
As read, it seems that it heals the outsiders (unless they're also vulnerable to being damaged by positive energy), but allows a chance to make them cower in fear.
If that's he case then the feat isn't worth taking as tfad notes. Because all you'd be doing is healing your enemies who'd have a fairly good chance at resisting your attempts to cow them. Dazzling Display would be a much better choice, in that instance!
Oh - which reminds me - I was also the player who took Dazzling Display and it's AWESOME! :)
Excellent job, tfad! I couldn't agree with your post more! Everything you've covered jives with our group as well.
Great minds think alike, chief.... Great minds....
;P
Seriously - thanks for taking the time to read it all.
Peace,
tfad
Most of my players liked the bonus hit point for favored class, although one wished that there was a non mechanical, or at least non combat related way to encourage this. I think you can "justify" the extra hit points by saying that the races is more comfortable in that role, so they can defend themselves a bit better because of their ease of use, I guess.
My group agreed that you can drop a lot of LA +1 races down to "even" with the new races for Pathfinder.
My players, for the most part, like the new skill system, but the major complaint is that you can't be "OK" at something.
As far as backwards compatibility and psionics, wouldn't concentration's functions for psionics fall into Psicraft, just like concentration's functions for spellcasters fall into Spellcraft?
I'm running with Turn Outsider damaging the outsider in question, since one of my player's cleric has taken it (but not used it yet). I'll switch the mechanics if this proves not to be true, but I agree the wording could be clearer when it comes to this issue.
As far as backwards compatibility and psionics, wouldn't concentration's functions for psionics fall into Psicraft, just like concentration's functions for spellcasters fall into Spellcraft?
Yeah - but the two skills are the same thing due to the transparency rules. Concentration is a lot more important for psionic characters than magic ones as the skill lets them do new things. Really, I think the fairest option, now I've had a chance to think about it, might be to roll the extra concentration uses into the Autohypnosis skill.
Any thoughts?
Peace,
tfad
Hmm, could you give an example of where psicraft might fall short for concentration? (SNIP) To my simple eyes, it would seem that psicraft could easily sub for concentration, but I'd like hear more thoughts. Timmy!
Yo!
I don't have my full whack of books to hand, but there are two things floating around in my head regarding this. It's not so much 'fall short', it's more 'is there anything that Psicraft can't do?'
1) Focus - Given how much can be done with a psionic focus, it seems unfair that access to all of these abilities are would also be rolled in with Psicraft. As the rules stood, pre-alpha, concentration was only helping with casting in tricky situations. It was nice to have an extra use for the skill and meditating and concentrating seems really 'psionicy'. However, rolling concentration in with psicraft is comparable to (I think) rolling 3 or more skills into one uber skill. It plain does too much.
2) Expending Focus on a Concentration check - You can spend your focus at any time to 'take 15' on any concentration check. It seems unfair to suddenly allow psionic characters to apply this bonus to any Psicraft check. That's a huge bonus if you're using, for example, the complete's Erudite class, or a multiclassed Sha'ir. Also if you're using the Psicraft/Spellcraft dueling rules, suddenly a psionic character always (okay, 75% of the time) automatically wins. That's quite a lot of 'backwards compatibility damage control' that's suddenly become necessary. And it will start to get very, very messy if you say that the 'take 15' bonus can only be used on Psicraft, depending on what use of the skill you are rolling for.
Having looked at it, I think that these 'extra uses' of concentration are best rolled into the Autohypnosis skill. It has a lot of 'kooky' uses and being able to 'take 15' on the checks is not as drastic a change as it is on Psicraft.
Hope that all makes sense - very tired!
As an aside - what do you think of the Mantra feats put out by Dreamscarred Press? Awesome feats - should be a core mechanic of psionics - and another example of one too many uses for Psicraft, if the concentration skill is rolled in with it.
Peace,
tfad
TfaD, thanks for your info. I run a non psi game so this is cool to read.
I actually like Concentration as a skill. I applied it to more classes, giving a +2 bonus to d20 rolls when used successfully. I used it with a iajutsu stuff from OA for fighters, a bonus to roguey things for Rogues, a bonus to spellcraft stuff for mages and Clerics. I also used it with the ritual warrior from Arcana Evolved.
My group and I group are still figuring out the CMB grapple thing, making it more complicated than it is. But the half orc was able to get Grelm Hammerlock into a headlock and is now trying to depants him in the Travellers Rest inn (Haunted Forest adventure).
Well, those are excellent points, and now that I think about it, I see no reason why Concentration couldn't {shouldn't} be added to the Autohypnosis skill. I whole-heartedly agree, psionics needs to retain its "mental" flavor, and your suggestion is quite appropriate.
Thanks! - Flavor is important, in a lot of cases more important than 'balance' as you are usually (at least in our games) in character a lot more than you are in combat. I think that even if Paizo never touch Psionics, us fans will still be able to keep using what we already have.
I've never even heard of Dreamscarred, but will definately check it out.
You can get them HERE and they are well worth checking out. Their mechanics are sound and show an understanding of the system that further WotC products don't (I'm looking at you Complete Psionic). The fluff stuff is good too - I'll admit not to everyone's cup of tea but certainly makes for an interesting read. I hate to say it but it looks to me like Gibson wrote something based on that floating island from Sonic 3/Sonic & Knuckles. But, you know, in a good way. ;P The new classes are a bit hit and miss though. Their PDFs are seriously cheap - give them a go.
thanks for your info
Welcome and well met!
Peace all,
tfad