INTRODUCTION: The target of this post and its surgeons is to give a first feedback of the trials and the comments of my RPG (players and GM) community about the Paizo project “PRPG”.
Just because it can make sense (or not) for the reader, here are our “stats”. We are about 30 French guys & girls:
- 5 of us are 43 and more and play since 1980
- 12 of us are 28 an more and play since 1990
- 11 of us are from 13 to 20 and play since 2003 - 2006
Everybody played at least 30 times in D&D 3.5 rules and we are 6 to DMing it currently. Also most of us have played a lot of different RPG games from Runequest / ODD / Call of Chtulu to WoW & Warhammer.
On each feedback we will try to focus on a very small window of the trial / comments. Always, the revision of the rules set will be stated plus some relevant mention to chapters, ands so on. We also will verbatim Jason most meaningful sentences in regard of the trial and discussion done. We will not try to argue for or against. I will harshly give the score as: YES – NO – BOF (a French term expressing lack of interest or enthusiasm). Then, when useful and available, an alternative proposal discussed in between us and seeming interesting will be reported.
I don’t know if our efforts will last for a long time and if I will be able to post regularly and about the whole think… But at least we will try to pay our coin to this great challenge of Paizo.
The Races / Favoured Classes in ALPHA rev 1.1
Action = read the first pages of the rules and start generating characters of any race at level 1
”I wanted to make sure that it stayed true to the original vision of the game.”
- About all Races: adding + 2 for one more ability = NO
- Elves receive a +2 racial bonus on caster level checks made to overcome spell resistance. = NO
- Unnatural Beauty of elves = NO
- Orc Ferocity = BOF
“I wanted the Pathfinder RPG to clean up these rules, by streamlining in places …”
- About Keen Senses for Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Half-elves and Halflings = YES
- Elves receive a +2 racial bonus on Appraise skill checks made to identify the properties of magic items. = YES
- Half-Elves Adaptability = YES
- About all Races Favoured Class = BOF
This last one ask for a comment. Indeed no changes have been done by PRPG here but a lot of us (during feed-back) came with it needs to be. The core idea is that the Favoured Class linked to XP reward is just an old nasty idea to make the life harder for DM and its players. It should make a lot of more sense (from our discussion group) if Favoured Class is heavily connected to the races + classes archetypes.
So…
- Giving 1 HP bonus for any level a race spend in its Favoured Class = YES
…and we propose to drop all the other rules about favoured and XP.
But we thought that Human and Half-Elves should be more versatile in their choice (adaptability) an then we came with one list of favoured classes for them. They have not to choose one but rather to consider each of them at favoured. It means more possibility for HP bonus for the two races and it balances the lack of boost in their abilities.
- Half-Elves favoured list = Fighter, Rogue, Druid, Ranger and Sorcerer
- Human favoured list = Fighter, Cleric, Barbarian, Monk, Paladin
FIRST GENERAL NOTE ABOUT CLASSES:
“Far too many of the basic classes lose their lustre after just a few levels, leading most players to take a host of other classes or a number of prestige classes.”
To improve the interest of the core classes and to limit the min-maxing plague we have also start to discuss that:
- Only the four core classes can be multi-classed at will
- The seven other main classes can only be mixed once and only with one of the core four
- All the PC prestige classes can be added only to a single class, starting not before level 11, and must be then followed to the end.
These ideas are especially sounded (IOHO) when applied with the favoured class modification.
Our next post will be focused in Classes trial and comments.
Be creative
Just to have a link in this post for the Starting Hit Points comments which are located here
Very interesting comments, although there seems to be quite a bit of NOs listed. Curiosity asks- what were the main races and classes playtested? Were players happy with the creation process as prescribed at the onset (which additinal rules, like hit points, were to be used)? What, if any, were the biggest fixes or wishes about the system as it stands?
Very interesting comments, …
Thank you. We are by now just starting the tests. Our focus at the current step is in character creation and we will not really start to play before other classes will be disclosed by Jason. However, we are making a lot of comparisons with existing or past characters we generated by the hundreds – from OD&D to 3.5 rule sets.
…there seems to be quite a bit of NOs listedOur main standard for expressing our opinion are:
- the efficiency of the creation process
- the respect of some forever D&D clichés (Half-orc bard has to be a lame, 1st level wizard must be VERY weak, …)
- the way the characters (& NPCs) stay easy to handle and to advance
- the value of the “offer” for different options and flavours and if it is appealing for players
Then it leads to some NOs with PRPG… but not only ;-)
Just to put it on figures, lets imagine an Halfling wizard (sic!) with the PRPG race and the Double or even Racial HP rules… its HP will reached a total in between 10 and 14 hit points or more at first level. Something feels wrong in regards of the archetypes. It is possible to discuss points like this one in tomes. However, for us, it tastes like a major violation of our iconic faith in D&D so … NO.
Curiosity asks- what were the main races and classes playtested?
Honestly, we have not play-tested yet in a game session (as stated before). On the other hand we have created and checked any combination of Races / 1st level Single Core classes with different starting hit points rules. We have also created the iconic Dwarf Fighter – Rogue Halfling – Elf Wizard – Human Cleric at level 5, 10, 15, 20.
Were players happy with the creation process as prescribed at the onset
Do you know any player which is not happy in creating a PC when he wants to enter a game ? ;-) More seriously, we appreciated some streamlining things like skills. However, the common feed-back at the end was it should be improved again and some comments were expressed in that way (see my posts). I will come back with a more dedicated feed-back for any of the core classes in a future post.
What, if any, were the biggest fixes or wishes about the system as it stands?
We don’t pretend we can fix anything – that’s the Jason job isn’t it ? we are only gamers ;-))
About the wishes… Yes we have (a lot I’m afraid !) and just a few are below :- the skills system can certainly be streamlined a little bit more (we will come back on it in a later thread)
- the entire 3.5 game system can be a little bit more shaken and changed without lateral damages (we guess...)
- PRPG should avoid to push again the limits in adding more power, more option, more more ! (player and DM can do it, that’s their job !)
- keep the rules simple (or simpler) so that the fun is bigger !
- and a lot more whishes …
I take the opportunity to link this message to the post about The classes play test here
Be creative
the respect of some forever D&D clichés (Half-orc bard has to be a lame,
Why? Why should my character concept be gimped like that?
Why? Why should my character concept be gimped like that?
... no offense please ! I like the Barbarian Berserker Halfling with its double pan racial weapon too ...
Be creative
Why? Why should my character concept be gimped like that?... no offense please ! I like the Barbarian Berserker Halfling with its double pan racial weapon too ...
Be creative
That...doesn't answer the question.
But yeah, Halfling Barbarians are awesome
Halfling Barbarians are awesome
"T... t... t... totally."
Ridolfin - No offense intended here, but I am curious about the reasons behind the yes/no/i don't care (bof?) decisions. I imagine from Jason's perspective it's better to know the reason why something is a "no" rather than to just know that your group said "no". If you know why something isn't working, it's easier to fix it (or to decide that the perceived problem isn't a big enough problem to justify reworking things).
It sounds like this wasn't based upon any play testing, but just a group of people talking over things that they like/don't like based upon how prior games worked.
My group has done that with both Saga Edition and 4E... before they came out, based upon a few bits that were released early. It turned out that with Saga, many of the things we said "no" to in a knee jerk fashion without actually playing the game at all weren't problems. The lack of iterative attacks was something that was heavily criticized, but hasn't been a problem in actual play.
Be creative.
This comment, particularly at the bottom of your post about not changing D&D cliches... made me laugh! You want creativity so long as what you view as being a D&D cliche don't change. So, no creativity then.
"T... t... t... totally."
Hey ! Does it mean you don’t like my points guys ?
I am curious about the reasons behind …From Jason's perspective it's better to know the reason why something is a "no" … If you know why something isn't working, it's easier to fix it (or to decide that the perceived problem isn't a big enough problem to justify reworking things).
We were just assuming a vote can also be straight forward useful for Jason. It is the way it works for the politicians who are ruling our real life or am I wrong?
When we (me and my buddies) think we have detected a flaw we say ‘NO’ but it is very often a question of feeling. It is especially sensitive for us because we have many different people in my gamers circle – and even girls (just kidding!) – who gives their opinion. We never had a global unanimity.So, because we prefer to work in compromising than in expressing extremes viewpoints, we feed-back once for the group. But it means also we cannot argue a lot by respect for the different friends – and even girlfriends ;-) – who will be betrayed if I do it.
The only case I propose a comment is when our group discussion about a point was so passionate that we tried to find an alternative. Sometimes NOs are not in that class.
I agree that it should be nicer to find a way to help Jason more. However, it is his job to find the best rules – which means for us, the rules which are able to reach the largest and fairest compromise from the community. He is here just like a politician. If he is good he will have his seat like these magic GG and DA had in their time. For sure he can read the comments and choose what is fine and what is not but if everybody requests his attention for each opinion he is very likely he will not be able to do his job properly.
It sounds like this wasn't based upon any play testing
I made it clear in my posts from the beginning. We have not started a game session so far. And you are right, we do talk together about the rules, just like in this forum.
You want creativity so long as what you view as being a D&D cliche don't change. So, no creativity then.
I know many movies, novels, songs, people, animals which are creative in respecting some codes or standard or way of life or instinct.
But, to be honest, I’m very interested in Half-Orc Bards, Barbarian Halflings and so on. They are the true challenges of the game in regards of role playing. So please don’t whisk me, me the poor old French guard of the D&D museum. Perhaps I will change my comment in “Be funny” … Do you get the points there ?Be funny ;-))
Why? Why should my character concept be gimped like that?the respect of some forever D&D clichés (Half-orc bard has to be a lame,
You misquoted me, here...I didn't write it. I think, though, that the general feeling is that when a new character concept isn't in line with the standard "favored class" ideas, people try to compensate for it to justify it and make it appear legitimate. Since I'm not the OP, I'm not sure, but I agree that character creation should be a lot of freedom- that's why _I_ play!