Lich Loved and Dragon Snack, I actually agree. I regret the amount of venom that I had allowed to seep into my previous post, and I apologize to the posters that it was targeted at. I still personally hold true to the sentiments of it, because, well, life is suprising. It is entirely possible that, given a chance, Pathfinder will be exactly the experience desired by those who currently are loosing interest.
I suppose it comes from my personal perspectives regarding seeing things through till completion, "try it you might like it", and an unfortunate exposure to copious amounts of close minded and short sighted thinking in my earlier years which led to a fair share of actual, literal, tragedies. I suppose I am now somewhat phobic of that sort of mentality, and I react to in kind.
Regarding 4e, I've always known that I was going to try it. I also have been very certain that I won't like many parts of it, mostly the setting/fluff. I may "cannibilize" a significant portion of it back into my personal 3.6 rules. Same as what will happen with Pathfinder. I don't expect to use much of the pathfinder setting, but I like many of the mechanical changes I have seen so far.
Anyhow, again, I apologize for my vitrol earlier. Everyone's choices and opinions are their own, and I, like everyone else, should respect them regardless of my own perspective.
|
First, I wasn't being snarky. I'm rarely snarky. I usually go straight to rude, and progress to condescending. My response to your post was actually quite polite for me, as is this one, just in case you wondered. When I decide to insult you, you'll know it... trust me.
Now... about your character concepts that don't work in pathfinder.
What you're saying now is you can still build them, but you don't want to, because they don't make optimal use of the specialist abilities.
That's fine, and certainly your choice. I personally don't think that not using the specialist power is going to cripple a character. Some of the higher level stuff is pretty strong, but you can get by without it, or for that matter, don't play a specialist. Then, the 'universal specialist's abilites are extra and so you don't need them anyway. Your concepts should work just fine.
|
|
Nah...
What I'm saying is "It's not the game system's fault if you're so intractable that, rather than accept that no gaming system is going perfectly simulate exactly every single thing that anyone wants to play, you choose to play a subpar character, or get pissy and stomp off, rather than try to work with/around the system."
Now... now I'm getting snarky.
It's like you're being purposefully obtuse. "I want it my way. Why can't I have it my way? You're not making it my way. Why isn't it my way?"
The answer to these and many such questions is thus:
You're not designing the system. If you choose to do so, you can comment on the Alpha rules, and possibly the designer will take your needs into consideration and make some minor modifications to his vision of the system. But, and you can quote me on this, until YOU write a game system, YOU will never have it exactly your way.
And with that, I'm not posting again for a while. Once I get to the point where everything I read annoys me, it's time to take a break.
|
Forcing powers onto a class and balancing the class with those forced powers takes options away.
This is a *huge* issue with that...other edition. I do not want 3.P to head in the direction of balance to the degree that choice (and I mean real, meaningful choice) is eliminated.
It seems clear to me that having a toolbox of possible choices for each class/subclass/what have you would be far harder to balance than fixing the abilities of the classes and balancing those fixed abilities against one another. But if I had to choose, I would take the flexibility over the balance any day of the week.
Director of Games
|
Alright everybody.. lets drop the tone here. And while we are at it, lets drop talking about the tone. If you want to debate this issue, fine, but please do so in a polite manner, posting up your thoughts instead of bashing others.
Thank you.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Hmmm. Let me see if I understand the gist of this thread.
LillithsThrall dislikes the "general turn that Pathfinder is taking", and K. David Ladage dislikes the rigidity he perceives the general classes to be, am I correct?
While I respect your opinions, I am finding it difficult to agree with your (as I see them) assessments that the classes need to be even more customizable and modifiable then they appear at the moment. Having played D&D since the Expert blue-box and 1st Ed AD&D, I do rather clearly remember the bad-old days of the end of 2nd ed AD&D.
Does anybody here remember the mess that was the Players Option books? (Gods, the memory makes me want to headdesk, but I really can't afford to replace my keyboard at this time!) THAT was the ultimate in D&D class customization, and it was... really, REALLY wretched.
And since Pathfinder is D20 SRD-based, it is FAR more customizable than, say, Castles and Crusades, which eliminates the Feats mechanic (D20's biggest customization feature) in favor of old-school "all fighters are X (and only X), and all wizards can Y (and only Y)" school of thought.
|
Does anybody here remember the mess that was the Players Option books? (Gods, the memory makes me want to headdesk, but I really can't afford to replace my keyboard at this time!) THAT was the ultimate in D&D class customization, and it was... really, REALLY wretched.
I do remember - I even tried tu use them for a campaign, then I tried to forget - thank you for making me remember...
I'ts not that I don't like class customization (I play the german RPG DSA - having a 300+Pages Book only for character creation can be a pain...) but it schouldn't be forced on an existing system, at least not if that system schould prevail. And as far as I understand the intention of the PFRPG is to keep the working system of 3.5 D&D, not to create a new System that is makes the scores of sourcebooks as useless as 4th ed. does.
|
|
That's like saying that you don't like fire because you got burned once.
Bad implementations shouldn't be confused with bad game design philosophy.
No, it isn't. Actually I more often than not look forward to changes in the game systems I use (as I wrote, I tried to use the Player Option Rules back then), I looked forward to 3rd ed., I looked forward to 3.5 and I looked forward to 4th ed. Even now, after I decided to sick to 3.5 for my running campaigns - and probably for most (high fantasy) camaigns in the near future I still consider buying 4th ed. to try it out. But I really like 3.5 - it sure isn't erfect, but it covers much of what I consider enjoyable in high fantasy roleplaying. I do not play it because it is D&D or because I don't know any other rpgs, but because I like the mechanics and the flavour it enables me to put into my campaigns (I mostly DM). Plus, I have plenty of material that I haven't used yet and I do not intend to put all those books in a cellar shelf yet.
As I tried to put forth in my posts I do think the decision of paizo to publish PRPG has something to do with them as well as many of their customers who post on these board liking 3.5. They'd rather do a few tweaks on these mechanics then to change to an entirely different system like 4th ed. seems to be. So, changing the rules so much that they will appear as an entirely system, too, would as far as I understood their intentions, not be what they want.(sorry, reading the post it sounds a little awkward, but I havent't slept for a while and english isn't my native tongue - but I hope I made my point clear without reading to much in the intentions / posts of others).
|
|
That's like saying that you don't like fire because you got burned once.
Bad implementations shouldn't be confused with bad game design philosophy.No, it isn't. Actually I more often than not look forward to changes in the game systems I use (as I wrote, I tried to use the Player Option Rules back then), I looked forward to 3rd ed., I looked forward to 3.5 and I looked forward to 4th ed. Even now, after I decided to sick to 3.5 for my running campaigns - and probably for most (high fantasy) camaigns in the near future I still consider buying 4th ed. to try it out. But I really like 3.5 - it sure isn't erfect, but it covers much of what I consider enjoyable in high fantasy roleplaying. I do not play it because it is D&D or because I don't know any other rpgs, but because I like the mechanics and the flavour it enables me to put into my campaigns (I mostly DM). Plus, I have plenty of material that I haven't used yet and I do not intend to put all those books in a cellar shelf yet.
As I tried to put forth in my posts I do think the decision of paizo to publish PRPG has something to do with them as well as many of their customers who post on these board liking 3.5. They'd rather do a few tweaks on these mechanics then to change to an entirely different system like 4th ed. seems to be. So, changing the rules so much that they will appear as an entirely system, too, would as far as I understood their intentions, not be what they want.
(sorry, reading the post it sounds a little awkward, but I havent't slept for a while and english isn't my native tongue - but I hope I made my point clear without reading to much in the intentions / posts of others).?? How does any of this follow from what I wrote?
I mean, I agree with practically everything you just wrote and have said so in this thread. 3.5 is a great system - or at least it started out being a great system and can be restored to that. Feats were designed to give classes flexibility. They (feats,...
Sorry - Misunderstanding!
I tried to clear my (earlier) points - especially that I thought some osters (not pointing at you!!!) imo misread the intention of the PFRPG -unfortunatly in the same post I wanted to state that I wasn't afraid of changes just because the failed to deliver once - as I thought you implied. Sorry, I wasn't looking at you through the course of my post!
Its not about what it doesn't get, its about what it does - opportunity cost and all that. You do understand that when a class is balanced with other classes and you, then, refuse to use one part of it, you are no longer using the class in a balanced way, right?
I'm not five, you know.
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 think that this board is a good thing, for just this reason.
I've probably made about 50-60 suggestions in different threads, but I don't expect them to really get more than consideration at best. It's the considering here that I'm looking for, and it makes the process entertaining to me.
To be honest, I'm really glad there are people who don't think like me on many of the issues, because in the end a ton of the concepts being laid out aren't things that will sway me one way or the other as far as a whole system goes.
A good example of this for me is 4th Edition. There are certain things that will change my style of play that I just cannot get around. Things like the 45% save mechanic, the radical change in monster strat, set grouping mentality + rolls of both encounters & players, the universal build-map for all classes, and the fact I cannot readily convert any old material in a meaningful way are truthfully the reasons why 4th doesn't have me excited.
Things like if the skill system will be points or buys isn't a breaking issue for me. A few extra powers here or there for balancing effect isn't a breaking issue for me. People disagreeing on the internet isn't a breaking issue for me.
|
|
Did anyone suggest the possibility of reconstituting the 3.5 core wizard class in Pathfinder? One of my players was saying that he wasn't thrilled with the PRPG wizard and the solution we plan on using is that both classes are allowed in the game.
I have pretty much decided I won't be using the Alpha 1.1 replacement for Specialization... I'll stick with the 3.5 material for that. If I want a funky power I can use over and over, I'll give out one free Reserve feat, or something. :) I prefer 3.5 specialization, and I'm not sure it needed to be changed, to be honest. I have to wonder what the point of it was... I know there had to be some reason to change it, but I wonder what issue it was that was being addressed with the change.
There are a few threads on this, though, already, in another forum.
The problem (at least in this thread) is about hardwired characters, specifically the Wizard and Specialization.
First off, I think it important to note that we are talking about the Wizard, which since 3E has been shown as the book learned magic user, as compared to the Sorcerer. Perhaps after looking at the Pathfinder Sorcerer, we’ll see that the design concept was in fact to create a more hardwired mage with the Wizard. They all went to school (or Mentored, or some such), and so all learned similar things.
I’m really looking forward to what Jason and Paizo are going to do with the Sorcerer. And maybe they will be more your cup of tea.
But personally, I really like the new Specializations and Domain rules. I like the fact that they both have common threads; it creates a unity to the classes. And I would point out that being able to use spells from the opposed school gives far more flexibility to the former version of the specialized Wizard, since they were even more limited by the spells they couldn’t ever use. It also Specialist Abilities, and wonderful 1st and 2nd level abilities, which vastly improve the Wizard in general, since running out of spells at low levels is a bad thing. Also with his new system, Jason has done some of the work for me. My Enchanter doesn’t have to use a spell slot on Charm Person, because he gets 1 per 2 caster levels. Awesome. I would have memorized that spell at least twice anyways.
And if you truly hate the way specialization works, there is an easy fix. You could always say any spell that can only be used 1/day can be replaced with any spell of the same school of magic.
And finally, I would also like to point out that in many ways all dnd spellcasters are hardwired. You have nine levels of spells (or less, depending on your class). Within those spell levels, there are, I don’t know, 20 spells each. And yes there are plenty of additional spells created in many books, but there is still a list that you must pick from. Add to that, you have to choose what spells you know each day and that’s it. Picked the wrong spells today and you’re out of luck.
Compare this to the freeform spell casting of Mage, or Ars Magica, or even Talislanta and you feel very controlled and hardwired. I’m not saying that dnd is better or worse, but when your playing dnd, you have certain expectations. The limitations of magic are one of them. (For the record, check out Ars Magica. That might be the game for you.)
I can’t fault someone for making a version of a 3E Specialist Wizard and giving me a specific spell to cast. It didn’t bother me when I played a Cleric and got one of two specific domain spells, it doesn’t bother me here.
I'll be honest that I am having a lot of difficulty following what issue here is exactly. I really need specifics and/or examples for comparison.
In any case, I am glad that we have realised that Pathfinder Alpha is our chance to say something about the system that is emminently workable, is fun and doesn't requre to retcon our campaigns.
PS: If anyone wants to spell this isuse out for me, I would be grateful. I have been playing D&D for some years now (more than I care to remember, acutally), but I am having some issues with this one (snark unintended; I really don't see it).
|
I've probably made about 50-60 suggestions in different threads, but I don't expect them to really get more than consideration at best. It's the considering here that I'm looking for, and it makes the process entertaining to me.
I've also made a bunch of suggestions, and read a bunch of reactions to them, which has only helped me figure out which of my notions are tweakable and which are kinda bupkiss.
It's like a game design laboratory around here, with a hundred or so 'experts' (in what makes the game fun for them, if not specifically game designers, which is sometimes *more* important than game design experience, IMO) offering free consultation on how to make the game faster, better balanced, offer more versimilitude, spice up races & classes, target spells that 'break' the game if used in certain ways, etc.
Gosh, that was a long sentence.
|
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.
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.
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.Its not about what it doesn't get, its about what it does - opportunity cost and all that. You do understand that when a class is balanced with other classes and you, then, refuse to use one part of it, you are no longer using the class in a balanced way, right?
And, for the record, I didn't say that having classes and levels is a bad thing. Flexible classes are possible. I've specifically said that I don't want DnD to be turned into a game system like Heroes (fifteen ways to do fire is going overboard).
So i guess your not going then?
|
|
The most clear example, I think is the necromancer.
How many different kinds of necromancers can you name - ranging from the academic undead hunter to the lord of the undead to the odd woman who speaks to the dead?
Just kind of brainstorm for a minute.
Once you've done that, read over the special abilities the necromancer specialist gets hardwired for them in PFRPG. Then, go down the list you just created and ask how many of these special abilities you have no use for if you are a necromancer of type x.
Most of those necromancer examples you state weren't very viable necromancers in 3.5. Clerics made much better lords of the undead than necromancers, so this one actually got more viable in PRPG. The odd ghost talking woman also sounds more like a sorcerer than a wizard. Maybe alpha 2 has to offer something in this direction. Concerning the academic undead hunter, necromancer weren't that great in that field either. There weren't very many anti undead spells in 3.5, so the best way to create such a character might be a cloistered cleric with the sun and repose domains.
The most clear example, I think is the necromancer.
How many different kinds of necromancers can you name - ranging from the academic undead hunter to the lord of the undead to the odd woman who speaks to the dead?
Just kind of brainstorm for a minute.
Once you've done that, read over the special abilities the necromancer specialist gets hardwired for them in PFRPG. Then, go down the list you just created and ask how many of these special abilities you have no use for if you are a necromancer of type x.
I have though about it and retyped this post about a dozen times now :)
I can see your point that the Necromancy School abilities is geared towards a certain type of Necromancer: one who goes 'mwahahaha! Animate Dead!'
I can also see how there is an underlying arguement of 'well, if you want to play an Undead Hunter, play a Cleric or Paladin, or take a prestige class' which I believe is what is grating on you; herein lies the 'enforced role' that must adhered to if one wishes to play Pathfinder RPG.
Would I be right in stating that I think that it may be less to do with the rules in their current form and more to do with that you are simply tired of feeling you need to powergame just to keep roleplaying? Just asking is all; no snark.
Of course, I can only speculate and offer a course of action based on that. The best thing to do would be to stick around and offer as much input as you can and make the game you want. Even the SRD had variant rules. Perhaps Pathfinder does too. I for one would like to see spell points instead of [flamewar]VANCIAN MAGIC![/flamewar] ;)
The most clear example, I think is the necromancer.
How many different kinds of necromancers can you name - ranging from the academic undead hunter to the lord of the undead to the odd woman who speaks to the dead?
Just kind of brainstorm for a minute.
Once you've done that, read over the special abilities the necromancer specialist gets hardwired for them in PFRPG. Then, go down the list you just created and ask how many of these special abilities you have no use for if you are a necromancer of type x.
I just had another thought: Can a spell-like ability be used to Counterspell?
I want an elegant, flexible set of rules - one in which the character concept is much more up to the player and GM than the game designer. PFRPG could get a great deal closer to that idea than it currently is.
Fair call. I do not wish you to think that I am pushing you away, but I would dearly love for you to check out True20, specifically the True20 Companion.
True20 has been mentioned on this thread previously, so I would like to reiterate that. Three classes, Warrior, Adept and Expert. The True20 Companion gives you the an added dimension of customising these classes or building them from the ground up. You can call your character a necromancer, a warlock, or whatever you want, as long as your power and feat selection reflects what you want. You can mix and match abilities from each class and create exactly what you want right from first level. Some people have used it to design games in all sorts if genres, including Star Wars.
True20 (and Mutants and Masterminds) has its basis in D20, so it is quite intuitive, however it has been said that the power descriptors can be somewhat vague, so some things may be left open to interpretation by the DM. (I personally play a lot of Mutants & Masterminds, so I don't have a problem.) There has been a lot of True20 conversions of PF and other material, so this may be the game for you.
Though True20 is not for everyone. A number of people are not comfortable with the freedom and openness of the game, or that the game has only three basic classes. In addition is that to run existing 3.5 products, conversion is needed and that puts some people off too.
As much as I love True20 and its versatility, I prefer Pathfinder because it is possible to run existing 3.5 material RAW.
True20 has been mentioned on this thread previously, so I would like to reiterate that. Three classes, Warrior, Adept and Expert. The True20 Companion gives you the an added dimension of customising these classes or building them from the ground up. You can call your character a necromancer, a warlock, or whatever you want, as long as your power and feat selection reflects what you want. You can mix and match abilities from each class and create exactly what you want right from first level. Some people have used it to design games in all sorts if genres, including Star Wars.As much as I love True20 and its versatility, I prefer Pathfinder because it is possible to run existing 3.5 material RAW.
Yeah, there's a lot of good in true20, with it's primary virtue the flexibility you allude to. I wasn't all that familiar with it until last summer. Since then I've really come to appreciate its potential.
The stat blocks in particular are a lot easier to manage than in most other systems.
While requiring more work than using the pathfinder books as is doing a true20 conversion still gives you access to the great world Paizo is building. Definitely something to consider for the folks who want to go in a different direction mechanically but still want to keep buying their monthly pathfinder :)
Hi, Im Sunderstone and I love Paizo and its fans.
wtb Chocolate Chip Cookies! pst
Now back to WoW for abit.
?? How does any of this follow from what I wrote?
I mean, I agree with practically everything you just wrote and have said so in this thread. 3.5 is a great system - or at least it started out being a great system and can be restored to that. Feats were designed to give classes flexibility. They (feats, that is) have been greatly under developed though (when the WotC designers wanted a new concept, they created a new PrC instead of a couple of feats and that's what has led to the current problems in the game - in the beginning, PrCs were suppossed to be more about campaign flavor - like a special group for the King's elite bodyguard). I don't want a new system. I want the strengths already inherent in the existing system to stop being ignored and to be capitalized upon.
This I can agree with wholeheartedly. I have a DM who'd almost never allow PrC's and if you wanted to take a particular PrC he'd convert the abilities to Feats and let you pick those instead. I loved PrC's when they were first introduced. Then, as more books came out I became more and more disappointed in what was offered.
While I don't completely agree with the initial post (I mean the reasons behind it, obviously I agree when something doesn't jive with you, you have to be on your way) I can see the point of the feats being underdeveloped. It seems, to Paizo's credit, that they seem more interested in developing interesting feats for the game than developing PrC's which is one thing that I like thus far about their products. But given too many options for the classes ultimately breaks the backwards compatibility... well, it's been said before.