If you don't mind me asking, what are you two looking for in a game and what problems do you see with the PFRPG?
I see Jason hopping around here every once in awhile talking to the people, trying out things. You have to remember he is just one guy, with alot of work to get done and does not have time to entertain every idea. The best we can do is try to present eachother and hopefully the designers with the clearist and most useful info we can muster. Alot of threads are bogged down in off topic conversation or too many ideas agrued for too long.
Let the thread die gather a good summery of what we all learned from it and repost later and we can continue to develope ideas with clear points that will help the team get things done faster. I have seen some ideas that can just be copy/paste into the pdf and done. Thats the stuff we should be working for. Also good test data very important that the idea we spend a month on doesnt blow up in our faces.
I may be alittle presumptuous, but this is what I feel the goal is here.
Seems like PFRPG isnt' for me. I don't like the idea that character concepts are established by the game designers rather than the players. That's what's turning me away from 4th ed. The game designers of PFRPG don't seem much different from the 4th ed game designers in this regard.
This isn't meant to be a criticism, just an observation that it appears that the PFRPG game designers have a design philosophy which, while it may appeal to others, doesn't appeal to me.
So, good luck and I'll be looking elsewhere.
I feel similarly. However, I feel that it is too early to make such a judgment right now, so I'll be sticking around until Beta before giving up.
As I said, "I don't like the idea that character concepts are established by the game designers rather than the players. That's what's turning me away from 4th ed. The game designers of PFRPG don't seem much different from the 4th ed game designers in this regard." For example, PFRPG is using hardwired specialist wizard abilities. I'm not interested in that.
Just for the sake of discussion, and not meaning to be accusatory or unpleasant..
It sounds like you'd like a system that offers more options from 'ground up', like True20 or the Hero systems?
On a related note...
I am not going anywhere, but I'm sympathetic to anyone who has difficulty getting into the more intense Alpha discussions. It takes special people to get in there and really shake the rules apart and hash it out.
I just don't have the time, and I don't 3.5 well enough to contrast various points without having my core books as a reference, and a lot of time. The best I can do (and am doing) is to use the Alpha rules and provide whatever general feedback I have.
That's nobody's fault..
But I hope no one feels disinfranchised because the Alpha Boards aren't their cup of tea. There's plenty of other stuff happening around here.
I'm not familiar with True20.
I don't know much about it, but it sounds like it might be something you'd like to look at...
My basic understanding is that it does allow for greater customization, but doesn't utterly abandon d20 gaming. That is, it doesn't go as far as Hero. It also imploys some logical caveats to make running it simpler (like experience).
A True20 fan might be able to elaborate more.
|
I sort of understand the compaint about a character being hardwired into a certain path, but I don't really see it with the specialist wizards. Those powers merely represent the very basics of an area of studies and replace the once per day bonus spell per level. The wizards spell lists have, in my experience, still been determinative of the character's real potential.
The solution, however, if you feel it is a problem, is to come up with a better system with more flexibility and suggest it. A possibility for two choices of 'specialist paths' has already been mentioned as being needed for necromancers and if you do it with one, why not all.
If the specialist had the option of picking from 2 or 3 abilities when they gain the next 'level' of school powers, would that fix the problem in your opinion?
Director of Games
|
If you don't mind me asking, what are you two looking for in a game and what problems do you see with the PFRPG?As I said, "I don't like the idea that character concepts are established by the game designers rather than the players. That's what's turning me away from 4th ed. The game designers of PFRPG don't seem much different from the 4th ed game designers in this regard." For example, PFRPG is using hardwired specialist wizard abilities. I'm not interested in that.
The thing to keep in mind here, everybody, is that my time is unfortunately limited. I am trying to keep track of these boards best I can, while still keeping up a quick pace on the next alpha release. Unfortunately, that means that some conversations have slipped past me and I rarely have time to reply to them all.
Your point here, though, is well taken. We have been rethinking a number of the design approaches that we have been taking. The hardwired abilities are just one of them. Without your feedback, these problems might go unnoticed. It may not change right away, but given time, I feel confident that we can make this the game that most folks want it to be. That said, I am not so optimistic as to believe that it will be the game for everyone. If it turns out not to be your cup of tea, my apologies and let me thank you for your input up to this point.
Back to work... release 2 is not yet finished.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
A True20 fan might be able to elaborate more.
In a nutshell:
1) True20 has 3 roles:
Combat Monkey
Skill Monkey
Power Monkey
2) In True20, Class Abilities and Powers are all reduced to Feats. Almost all are general feats that can be taken by any role, but the more martial feats can only be taken by the Combat Monkey, the Powers can only be taken by the Power Monkey, etc..
3) You get 4 feats at level 1, and 1 feat per level from there onwards. You use these feats to customize your character into whatever you want.
4) When you start you choose a Background (a Race for Fantasy games, a Occupation for Modern games).
5) It uses a damage save mechanic instead of hitpoints, and Defense scales at the same rate as offense. Basically it clearly divorces getting hit from getting hurt, unlike hitpoints that are a mishmash of luck, toughness, stamina, etc.., and AC that is a mishmash of toughness, armor, and abilty to dodge/block.
I can see (and appreciate) arguments on both sides of the coin.
On the one hand, having a really flexible class that is completely tailored by the player would be great - having all fighters be able to perform the same kind of "maneuver" at 1st level detracts from that.
On the other side of the coin, I can see that making a system more like GURPS, Grim Tales, or HERO would be a step in the wrong direction. D&D is D&D after all, and it really wouldn't be the same kind of game at all if you opened up that can of worms. And I'm OK with that.
Personally, I'd love to see the 4 core classes (+ maybe sorcerer) be the base plus options that could really tailor the class to however the player wanted them. I'd love to see something like 2nd editions Skills & Powers where I could start with a fighter, and buy the Barbarian "package" or the "Ranger" package and have those classes - OR, I could buy parts of each with points that I get at each level. That would be awesome. AND would still allow for complete backwards compatibility.
It's a pretty radical departure from the typical game. But I think such a thing might create the best of both worlds.
I really hope that nobody leaves at this phase of the game. There are a lot of ideas being thrown around, and that makes sense at this phase. I've gotten frustrated a few times myself, but that's when you have to take a break, do something else, take a deep breath, and figure out if you want to participate in a thread by thread discussion.
I've been frustrated by pure numerical evaluations, by analyzing aspects of the game in a vacuum without other systems with which the aspect will logically dovetail, and with people that have ideas that probably work well for them, but don't realize that the level of complexity that their idea might institute wouldn't be worth the change or might be off putting to other gamers.
That having been said, I can certainly see how number crunching can, and has managed to, point out problems or loopholes in the system. Some complex ideas have led me to think about why I liked a system that I thought should have been "it," and have moved me to change some of my thoughts on a given subject. A lot of people have good ideas, but not everyone is going to have the same idea at how to implement the kernel of that idea, and it may be implemented in a way that no one posits, but makes a lot of people happy.
I have wished that posters would slow down a bit on the theoretical and actually analyze some of the simpler parts of the system that are still question marks. Can you aid another on a CM? Do you get your weapon focus or weapon group bonus on a CM? Do clerics have the ability to prepare domain spells as normal spells now? These topics get buried quickly under threads about creating a new priest class that has never really existed in the game before, or if paladins should be other alignments.
I have wished that the theoretical stuff that isn't about what has already been released in Alpha would stay in the "general" area, and that the threads that have to do with Alpha published material would follow the format that Jason asked for (i.e. topic, section, page number) and that more people would post in the earlier threads on that topic. Still, even these discussions have yielded some interesting results. They are frustrating, they could be more organized, but they aren't useless.
In final analysis, people that think Pathfinder should just be a straight republished 3.5 with new art and a Pathfinder logo are going to be disappointed, and that people that want a d20 fantasy game that is less tied to the archetypes of D&D (but not 4e) are going to be disappointed. In the end, I think Pathfinder will be between the two, but a lot closer to the "straight 3.5" side than the "new paradigm" side.
There may be rules that I don't like that the majority of others do like, and they may make it into the final product. I'm going to try to represent my opinions and those of my players, but in the end, Paizo has to do what is best for their long term survivability, which means making the largest number of fans happy. I want to participate, and have a voice in the process, and, when its over, I'll take a look and see what is standing after the smoke clears, and I'm betting I'll be pleased with the overall finished product, even if there are still a majority of people that don't see eye to eye with me that override my concerns when it comes to some aspects of the game.
These Paizo guys are pretty good guys. I don't think that the lack of comments or even the fact that they provide a "baseline" that might be too far or too tame to start out with is any indication that they don't really want our input, but rather, an attempt to really get discussion going on what does an doesn't need to be changed. I'm in, even if I do have to take my Prilosec from time to time when I get worked up. And even with the frustration, this is an absolutely wonderful community to be a part of.
I think in the end, people that think Pathfinder should just be a straight republished 3.5 with new art and a Pathfinder logo are going to be disappointed, and that people that want a d20 fantasy game that is less tied to the archetypes of D&D (but not 4e) are going to be disappointed. In the end, I think Pathfinder will be between the two, but a lot closer to the "straight 3.5" side than the "new paradigm" side.
First off, excellent post. Thoughtful and well-said.
I think that there might be less controversy around such matters if Pathfinder was more accurately thought of as an alternate "4E" or "4E the way you wished it were done." What I mean by that is that the tweaks and improvements of Alpha are akin to the jump from 3.0 to 3.5 and the "3.75" descriptor winds up being a "neither fish nor fowl" descriptor.
I don't like the idea that character concepts are established by the game designers rather than the players.
I don't see it really happening in PRPG.
Sure, Domains and Schools are fixed, but apart from that, things aren't more restrictive than 3e:
Fighters still get to choose feats freely (in addition to bonuses to attacks and armour - which are for the most part not limited to a single weapon or type of armour).
Rogues still have their stuff, and in addition they get to choose more tricks than before, which are chosen from a list.
Actually, I'd say that wizards and clerics aren't that much worse off than before:
Wizards actually get new abilities now, instead of another spellslot. And they don't have to give up their "forbidden" schools for good, they just lose some of their extra abilities on days they think they need a some spells from the off-limit schools. No restrictions, just choice and consequence.
And clerics lose a fixed list of extra spells for a fixed list of extra abilities. (And instead of having to choose between either, they get both domain powers now.)
Now, I don't say that I am against a list of abilities for spellcasters to choose from instead of having them a list of lists of abilities for spellcasters to choose from (provided it won't take up too much space), but I hardly think it's that much worse than 3.5, and I'd hardly accuse them on going 4e on us. There's worlds between what I've seen in Alpha and what I've seen about 4e.
|
Doesn't like fix abilities but he wants to specialize in a school of magic... how odd. Even in 3e it's fixed. :P
I personally loved the change to Wizards. They still get their extra thing, but instead of it being a 1 shot spell THAT REALLY DOESN'T HELP, it's an ability they can keep all day... it keeps the in game day from ending too soon.
[The] point here, though, is well taken. We have been rethinking a number of the design approaches that we have been taking. The hardwired abilities are just one of them. Without your feedback, these problems might go unnoticed. It may not change right away, but given time, I feel confident that we can make this the game that most folks want it to be. That said, I am not so optimistic as to believe that it will be the game for everyone. If it turns out not to be your cup of tea, my apologies and let me thank you for your input up to this point.
I'm very glad to hear that. Frankly, I've been largely tuning out these boards for a few days now, ever since I knew Alpha 2 was on the way.
I have several very specific suggestions that should keep a lot of the effect of the changes proposed in the Alpha without implementing them in the same manner, but I've been holding off spending the time to redo the parts of the system I care about because of the imminent arrival of Alpha 2.
Keep up the good work, and I'm looking forward to the next iteration!
Let's also keep in mind that this is an Alpha test, and may resemble nothing to the Beta test. What I like about Paizo doing this, is that it is an open play test and we players and DMs have direct input and thus influence in shaping the game. This was not the case for 4e.
I suggest sticking around with an open mind until we know what PFRPG is REALLY going to look like.
I think it is far far far too early in development to even consider the possibility of abandoning Pathfinder RPG as a possible replacement for 3.5. It has been what...about a month or so. And as pointed out, Jason is one man (and from his comments and putting up with all of us, a prince among men).
I myself am excited about all the changes in the system i have seen so far, even ones i did not really agree with wholly (as anyone from the bonded item thread could tell). But I am going to wait until the Beta release and most likely the final edition before I decide if i am going to go with Pathfinder or make due with what 3.5 books i have.
I think everyone at Paizo is doing a fantastic job with the development of the Pathfinder RPG, Setting and Adventures. We are lucky to have a company that is this responsive and interactive on those subjects. Few companies are open to this level of input on their products.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Count me as one who did not like the hardwired wizard specialist abilities AT ALL. Every evoker getting the same abilities just stinks in my opinion. What if I want to be a freeze specialist or a light specialist or a force specialist? But I, no matter what, get a spell from the electricity group instead? Just not flexible enough.
Count me as one who did not like the hardwired wizard specialist abilities AT ALL. Every evoker getting the same abilities just stinks in my opinion. What if I want to be a freeze specialist or a light specialist or a force specialist? But I, no matter what, get a spell from the electricity group instead? Just not flexible enough.
I would personally like to see most of the energy spells become just that and eliminate the Energy Substiution Feat but NOT the Energy Mixture Feat...instead of ray of frost or fireball had energy ray (energy subtype) and "sphere of (energy subtype)". Include the Energy Mixture option but require that the caster know both versions of the spell. To cast a "sphere of sonic fire" (Ball of Resounding FLame" for those who like more colorful spell names) you would have to know both "sphere of sonics" and "sphere of fire" to use the feat.
Regarding hardwiring options, some of that is necessary. And it is a tricky thing between too much and too little. Too much and you straighjacket characters. Too little and you end up including so many options that each class takes a chapter unto itself.
I think Jason is doing the best he can to listen to all of us while still working on the game deisgn itself as well as add options and yet keep the core classes from becomming too complex and cluttered with options. Already there was mention of changing the evoker ability to be any energy.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
Seems like PFRPG isnt' for me. I don't like the idea that character concepts are established by the game designers rather than the players. That's what's turning me away from 4th ed. The game designers of PFRPG don't seem much different from the 4th ed game designers in this regard.
This isn't meant to be a criticism, just an observation that it appears that the PFRPG game designers have a design philosophy which, while it may appeal to others, doesn't appeal to me.
So, good luck and I'll be looking elsewhere.
C-ya.
Being specialized in a school doesn't have to give you fixed abilities.
Yes, it does. If you're a necromancer, you have fixed abilities tied to necromancy. If you're an abjurer, you have fixed abilities tied to abjuration. Just because the fixed abilities aren't the same for every class doesn't mean they're new;
Count me as one who did not like the hardwired wizard specialist abilities AT ALL. Every evoker getting the same abilities just stinks in my opinion. What if I want to be a freeze specialist or a light specialist or a force specialist? But I, no matter what, get a spell from the electricity group instead? Just not flexible enough.
If you want to be a freeze specialist, you take an ice prestige class, like Frost Mage from Frostburn. If you want to be a force specialist, you take a force prestige class, like Argent Hand. General specialization first, then specific specialization; complaining that you can't specialize in a specific subschool or specific descriptor right off the bat is silly, if only because such spells may not be available to you until quite a few levels later. If you play a conjurer, and you want to specialize in teleportation spells, you can't seriously tell me that you want to have your conjurer abilities give you teleportation effects at level one.
If anything, an electricity effect is a good choice for an evoker ability. If you want to play a force specialist, you can throw around a lot of Magic Missiles; if you want to be a frost mage, you can throw around a lot of Rays of Frost. But if you want to be an lightning mage... well, I can't recall any first-level electricity spells.
I can't recall any first-level electricity spells.
Shocking Grasp :)
Orb of Electricity, Lesser...
I'm actually going to be a little snarky here.
If you're saying Pathfinder isn't for you at this point, that its going the way of 4e, and you want nothing of it, I have a hard time seeing you as being anything but short-sighted and close-minded. Sorry, but for me personally, thats the honest truth. You aren't a bad person, you are just strong willed, opinionated, and you made a quick judgement.
Maybe for you that judgement will be right, and Pathfinder really isn't for you. Maybe it will be wrong, and you will have made the decision in uninformed haste.
Actually, right or wrong, you have made the decision in uninformed haste. You have seen literally less than half of the pathfinder ALPHA rules. Most of which are undergoing revision for the 1.2 Alpha release. Which will then undergo further revision, until the Beta, and then more, for the final release.
You have turned up your nose at Pathfinder like a small child turning up his nose at food because it "looks" bad while its being cooked. Why don't you try to wait until its actually cooked, arranged, servered, and most of all, tasted before passing judgement on whether or not its "for" you?
I apologize that I took such an agressive tone in this post, but I feel dancing around this obvious concept is pointless. This is the ALPHA. Paizo, in a bold manuver, is designing an d20 system rpg WITH the player community. It is our privilege to HELP them do it. And when its done, some will say "Its not for me". And it will be true, because they gave it a shot. But you will not be one of them, because you formed an opinion without full knowledge. I will most likely embrace the end result, and love it well. To those who won't, I will say "Sorry we couldn't get what you wanted in there. We really did try!" But to you, I will have nothing to say to, because you didn't try. You just left.
I am apparently having a poor day today. In the interest of keeping the Paizo Boards a dissimilar entity to the WotC boards, I will try to restrict myself from adding any further negativity or agression to them past the contents of this post. I'm going to go read a book and cool down. Laters all.
Being specialized in a school doesn't have to give you fixed abilities.Yes, it does. If you're a necromancer, you have fixed abilities tied to necromancy.
I can see what LT means: Your abilities might be fixed on necromancy, but they don't have to be the same necromancy abilities for everyone.
On first level, all Alpha necromancers gain Grave Touch, which is basically something that is best against living creatures (as it uses cold damage - something a lot of undead are immune to) and makes people unable to stabilise (something undead don't need, either).
While I say he shouldn't get a summon monster ability or something, there might be variants, for example:
Skeletal Servant: You gain a skeletal servant that is made up of bones of various creatures. It has the abilities of a skeleton with a CR equal to half your necromancer level. It grows as you advance in level, adding more bones to itself.
This would be for the kind of necromancer who likes having undead around. Another way for this kind of necromaniacs would be to give them rebuke undead.
Touch of Quietude: Would do 1d6 +1/2 level damage, but only against undead, and they'd have to save or be effectively paralysed for a round. Or something.
That would be for those who deal with undead where deal means they fight them.
I don't know whether something like this is feasible (would take a lot of space), but I personally wouldn't mind at all. More options = more good.
Being specialized in a school doesn't have to give you fixed abilities.
I can easily make five different kinds of summoners or enchanters or any other specialist - or at least I can in 3x.
I think you're exaggerating a bit here: All the 3e specialists had was an extra spell slot. More of the same.
I wouldn't say that 3e evokers are that much more versatile than Alpha evokers just because they can cast Burning Hands, Magic Missile AND Shocking Grasp instead of just two of those.
Alpha specialists as they are now just don't get to choose what to do with their extra slots. It's not that much worse. On the other hand, they no longer have to give up 2 schools for good, as they can still use those spells (though they do lose their special power on any day they do).
Again, I'm not saying that more flexible lists of school/domain powers is bad, I just say that the current lists aren't as bad as you say
Remarkable, really, considering that 3x's flexibility, itself, is nothing to boast about (the rigidity of the game system is why we have 10,000 prestige classes). - though, to be fair, that has to do less with the original 3x system and more with the perversion it grew into over the years.
Actually, I'd say that as far as D&D goes, 3e is as flexible as it gets. I grant you that I don't know the first edition rules, but I doubt that they allowed all the stuff 3e does. 2e was chock full of restrictions and "can't be done" stuff, a lot of which was done away with in 3e, and 4e is going back to forcing lots of stuff.
Sure, there are still some nonsensical rules and restrictions in 3e, and I hope Pathfinder hunts them down and kills them (for example: multiclassing restrictions for monks and paladins, feats that are open only to one class, the flat 10% chance to stabilise while dying...), but the game has come a long way.
D&D is, by nature, codified and "restrictive" because it's based on levels and classes. Those formalised advancement rules do have their advantages, though, and I for one would say that if D&D adopted a free-form approach like WoD (or maybe even a hybrid like Legend of the Five Rings), it wouldn't feel like D&D to me any more.
People should be able to express their concerns freely without being attacked for them.
And not everyone has the time to commit to a game system and then hope for the best even when early signs show otherwise. Some people have to practice risk management with their time because their time is a scarce resource.
You are right here.I will say we do need people around who pick the system apart. Look at the changes made to 1.1 all from feedback. and it seems like the skills have undergone a changes back to skill points as much as I dislike it myself .I think you should stay and see what alpha 2 looks like.I myself like the move away from x/day stuff I have always hated it pools looks like they give the players more options .So I ask ya give it a look and give your feedback.oh and do look into true20 you'll prob like it .And mutants and masterminds if you haven't good system there my fav for superheros and it can be used for anything really its what true20 came from.
Oh and as for being compared to todays systems yes it should that being said taking it to far away from 1e makes the same mistakes 4e does and loses some of its essence .D&d has its own feel and should not be something its not there are plenty of systems for open ended classless systems. Pathfinder at its core is D&D and the design team seems to know that the changes I have saw keep in line with it's essence but move forward at the same time.
|
|
The Pathfinder designers are really on a tiger here.
On the one hand, they appear to be crafting classes that are *less* rigid and restrictive than core 3.5 or 4E classes.
On the other hand, they've got to compete with those of us who have read Unearthed Arcana and seen a dozen Alternate Class Features and have five years worth of supplementary material that *vastly* opened up the rigid core classes to be customized and built to suit individual choices.
Can the Pathfinder core classes be more open than not just the 3.5 classes, but also those classes modified by the thousands of pages worth of product that have come since? Gosh, I'd be amazed. I think it would unrealistic to expect that, although I would prefer for the Pathfinder core classes to be built in anticipation of modification, so that when 'Alternate Class Features' start showing up, it's *expected,* and not something exciting and new so much as, 'Yeah, a lightly-armored Fighter option, I was looking for that.' or, 'Cool, a Necromancer-who-hates-undead, just what player X wanted.'
Each and every option doesn't have to appear in the core class, only a sentence somewhere that says that, 'Most members of Class X have these abilities.' and leaves room for variants and alternates and regional / racial / cultural tweaks in later products.
To me it comes down to set classes and set ability's ,classic races ,having the feel of history .As to what mechanic you have to have to have that essence .Spell slots,vancen magic,saves, non magic fighters set class ability's,save or die..yes it has its ,being able to look back at older editions and understand it and not be lost because it works so different that its really a new game .place.Bards,druids,fighter,cleric,rogues,rangers,wizards LG paladin's,at the lest must be core Barbarians,monk and sorcerer also have there place.
There are more but at its pure essence to really feel like D&D to me it must have those things.
|
|
OK - fixed abilities for secialist wizards might be a concern in building up "personalized characters", - but I don't think they are forcing the character in a single direction more then 3rd ed. did. The wizard - as far as I can see it gets these abilities IN ADDITION to the custom abilities (aka feats). While I would love to see alternate power trees for wizards I think they need not to be of rimary concern while developing the new rulebook.
Also I hope everyone keeps in mind that pathfinder is supposed to be compatible to 3.5 - while that doesn't mean there can be no different rules / classes / powers etc. it does mean that it schould mean only minimal efford to converse 3.5 material to pathfinder, and I cannot see this when classes are too radically overhauled (similar to true d20 or by operating only from 4 core classes).
|
Just so this is clear, I was working under the assumption that the game designers were listening to the people here.
My issue was that there is a very vocal contingent of people on these boards supporting the hardwired approach to character concepts. That being the case, it was a logical conclusion that that was the direction the game was going.
I'm glad to hear that its not.
I'm VERY glad to hear that its not.
I agree with your view, LilithsThrall; I want to see more open-ended specialists as well. If you find something you don't like, post it. It will eventually be read by those that matter and the view considered.
|
Being specialized in a school doesn't have to give you fixed abilities.
I can easily make five different kinds of summoners or enchanters or any other specialist - or at least I can in 3x. Remarkable, really, considering that 3x's flexibility, itself, is nothing to boast about (the rigidity of the game system is why we have 10,000 prestige classes). - though, to be fair, that has to do less with the original 3x system and more with the perversion it grew into over the years.
Wait... so you're saying that your 5 different summoner or enchanters hinge on a single additional spell per day? And the lack of that one spell keeps you from building the guy you want? Hard to believe, but I'll take you at your word.
|
|
Actually, right or wrong, you have made the decision in uninformed haste. You have seen literally less than half of the pathfinder ALPHA rules. Most of which are undergoing revision for the 1.2 Alpha release. Which will then undergo further revision, until the Beta, and then more, for the final release.
You have turned up your nose at Pathfinder like a small child turning up his nose at food because it "looks" bad while its being cooked. Why don't you try to wait until its actually cooked, arranged, servered, and most of all, tasted before passing judgement on whether or not its "for" you?
With all due respect, Black Bard, this mimics what pro-4e people were saying about 4e to those of us that *hated* the few changes we saw. If LilithsThrall really doesn't like an aspect of the rules, then that is the way that it is. One does not have to "wait for the good parts" if what has been seen thus far is deal-breaking. You do not need to wait for a builder to finish building your house if he mentions in passing that he is strongly considering there will be no bathrooms in the place when he is finished.
In fact, I hope everyone that sees "deal-breaking rules", even if there is just one rule that falls into this category, comes forward. This way the designers can get an honest count of the people that hate the approach and then make a decision to move on from there. In some cases the approach may be revised, in others it may be left in but people need to be able to safely express what will break the deal for them no matter where in the design process we are.
On the other hand, I encourage LilithsThrall to stick with the process and give it a chance, because we are only in the Alpha phase, and the most radical of the concepts are being tested now. There is very clear evidence that Jason will listen to his customers as he moves forward and those things that many find unpalatable will work their way out of the system.
I feel much the same way. I'll be honest, I have been avoiding Paizo because of the all the proposals for radical changes. Change for change's sake turns me off.
With all due respect, Black Bard, this mimics what pro-4e people were saying about 4e to those of us that *hated* the few changes we saw.
So closely, in fact, my sig at ENWorld actually includes the quote "I don't need to actually see the meal to dislike the smell coming from the kitchen".
I hope everyone that sees "deal-breaking rules", even if there is just one rule that falls into this category, comes forward. This way the designers can get an honest count of the people that hate the approach and then make a decision to move on from there. In some cases the approach may be revised, in others it may be left in but people need to be able to safely express what will break the deal for them no matter where in the design process we are.
On the other hand, I encourage LilithsThrall to stick with the process and give it a chance, because we are only in the Alpha phase, and the most radical of the concepts are being tested now. There is very clear evidence that Jason will listen to his customers as he moves forward and those things that many find unpalatable will work their way out of the system.
Here's my biggest problem. There are so many things that are deal breakers for me that it seems like a insurmountable list (there are some things that I definitely like though). I have too much stuff going on in RL to take the time to sit down and write out the list, especially if it's going to be lost in the din of everyone on the message boards clamoring for even more "radical change!"...
I like 3.x. It needs tweaks, not a complete rewrite.
I'd argue that rpg design theory has learned a lot since the hoary days of 1e. 3e should be compared to other systems that exist today, not just systems that existed in the past. Comparing the Ford Pinto to a Model T when discussing reliability and comfort is stacking the deck.
I say it can still hold its own.
Having levels and classes isn't necessarily a bad thing. Different strokes and all that.
Wait... so you're saying that your 5 different summoner or enchanters hinge on a single additional spell per day? And the lack of that one spell keeps you from building the guy you want?Ignoring your snark, I don't believe I said that.
You actually did: You said that in 3e, you can build those 5 different summoners, but in Pathfinder, you can't. The only thing the Alpha specialist doesn't get is that one extra spell. So that one spell slot must contain the essence of versatility you miss in Alpha.