|
This is turning into some crap flavor wise at a rapid pace. Uber munchkin.
Just my 2 cents, please don't roast me.
Fuji: it's hard to have sympathy for you (for what I suppose is going to be a big "roasting") when you start off being so snarky.
I really think you should reread the design goals again so that you can understand what they are looking to do. In regards to your complaint, one of the stated design goals was to add options. One of the perceived problems was that some classes "lose their luster after just a few levels," and to that end I think a lot of the level by level power boosts are designed to make certain classes more appealing. I see nothing mentioned in the design goals where Pathfinder is supposed to be, in your words, a "source-book for a GENERIC fantasy RPG."
|
I disagree wholeheartedly. High magic or not, most of the classes reach a point where Prestige classing is just more fun. Wizard being the first and foremost of those classes followed closely behind by fighter.
Speaking of fighter, ever play a high level fighter? Swing, hit, damn didn't do enough damage. Swing, hit, damn didn't do enough damage. Swing, miss. Swing, hit, finally... 2 damage. Swing, hit, damn didn't do enough damage.
I believe one of the design goals is to modify the core classes to be appealing to players throughout 20 levels, to avoid the idea that a character should take levels in a prestige class because they are so much more powerful than the basic classes. Combine this with the concept that they want the game to be as backwards compatible as possible, and the only viable solution appears to be adding power and abilities to the basic classes. Unless, of course, you have another solution.
I believe one of the design goals is to modify the core classes to be appealing to players throughout 20 levels, to avoid the idea that a character should take levels in a prestige class because they are so much more powerful than the basic classes. Combine this with the concept that they want the game to be as backwards compatible as possible, and the only viable solution appears to be adding power and abilities to the basic classes. Unless, of course, you have another solution.
I don't think I could agree more with this statement. you know something is wrong when the newer "base classes" are worth taking all the way to lvl 20, or at least it gives you a serious moment to consider the consequences of doing so. While the base classes of the PHB, it really is a forgone conclusion that you WILL PRC out as soon as you can.
But, from what I'm seeing now with PF, it gives pause to consider all the options of what you may be losing out on.
|
|
Whether it's a good GAMING decision is a matter of preference; whether its a good MARKETING decision is obvious - it's not; it appeals to less people by design.
I couldn't disagree more. Paizo is appealing to more people because they are having a hand in shaping how it's going to turn out. I can't recall any game system that has such a high input from future customers as to what they want in a game that won't officially come out for another year. Customers who are already very familiar with the base system (3.5), who know what the weaknesses are, and have very concrete ideas for what should be changed to make the game more fun than it already is.
Already more than 15,000 people have downloaded the Alpha tests; pretty good for a game system that's supposed to become obsolete in a couple of months. If every one of them buys the rpg at $50 a pop, that's $750k at release time. Not to mention the entire module, adventure paths, and sourcebook line that is generating cash and fan interest based on the Pathfinder world right now. I would say it's marketing genius, actually.
Wait a second, I think a missed a memo somewhere but since when has D&D been mid fantasy, much less low fantasy. D&D 3.5 is and 4e will be high fantasy, all D&D incarnations have been high fantasy. If you are looking for a lower powered system you are looking in the wrong place. As for Pathfinder not being generic, I don't really see, that it seems pretty generic to me.
|
|
But that's all beside the point - I'm not arguing that low fantasy, mid fantasy, or high fantasy is more fun or fundamentally better than the other. I'm saying that Paizo wants me to replace my 3.5 core books with Pathfinder. The option that they provided me means playing high fantasy ONLY. That is a HUGE fundamental difference and will ultimately drive away a segment of their potential market.
I think this is the part where we just don't agree. I don't think Paizo wants you to replace your 3.5 core books (or any other 3.5 books for that matter); they're simply giving people an option to continue using their 3.5 material with a current and vibrant system that's supported by Paizo. Hence the design goal of keeping Pathfinder backwards compatible to 3.5. While I personally disagree that a game system that's not continuously supported is a "dead" system, for a lot of people that's not the case.
The problem is that 3.5 books won't be available any more from WOTC. So Paizo had a decision to make; either reprint the same old same old, or tweak the system with rules changes that many people have houseruled over the years anyway and attract customers to a system that is different from the original 3.5 core, but not so different that it's unrecognizable or usable with already existing sourcebooks. I don't know about anyone else, but there's no way I'm plunking down $50 for another reprint of 3.5; there better be some creative changes to what the game is going to be before I buy it, and so far it looks like they are delivering in spades. While I've already pre-ordered 4th edition, I'm actually more excited about Pathfinder, even though the changes will be less fundamentally different than 4th, basically because there is so much input from people to create it.
I also disagree that this is strictly high fantasy. It's possible to ignore or strip out many of the proposed changes anyway. Or, you can just play 3.5 as written. The thing is, the reason why a lot of people are along for the ride is a) they have input on making the game, and b) there will be a unique standalone game that can still be used with 3.5.
|
|
Wait a second, I think a missed a memo somewhere but since when has D&D been mid fantasy, much less low fantasy. D&D 3.5 is and 4e will be high fantasy, all D&D incarnations have been high fantasy. If you are looking for a lower powered system you are looking in the wrong place. As for Pathfinder not being generic, I don't really see, that it seems pretty generic to me.
Uh, yeah, what he said.
uh, adding powers and abilities that fit flavor wise with a mid-fantasy (not high, not low) generic setting.
If this is a viable alternative, give some examples. What type of abilities do you consider to meet this description?
Need more power? PrCs that's what they are for.
It was mentioned somewhere that yet another design goal is for prestige classes to be comparable in power to regular classes. There is evidence that this was how they were originally intended all along, that they were to provide character alternatives rather than an increase in ability, but for whatever reasons they did not end up this way.
I'm saying that Paizo wants me to replace my 3.5 core books with Pathfinder.
You're wrong. Pathfinder is being designed specifically so you don't have to replace your 3.5E material. There have been three primary reasons given for the development of these rules; to improve upon the basic game, to provide a rules source for new players once the 3.5 books are no longer available, and to provide content that supports and is compatible with the existing 3.5 game once WotC halts producing such products.
They are supposed to be the pro's, not me. I'm not trying to write their material, just stating my opinion.
You're right, they're the pros. They know how to do what they need to do, and what will or won't work. Maybe show a little trust that they will actually do their job.
Tons of 3rd party material exists that give the "old" core classes new spins without being so over the top, it can and has been done already. I could give examples, but this is already being side tracked into what constitutes "high fantasy" versus "mid fantasy" blah blah blah and that's not the point of discussion.
Yes, tons of 3rd party material has been released to change these classes. However, the problem of most people feeling the need to move into prestige classes, due to the increased power provided by them, remains. This concept is what Paizo is attempting to get rid of in Pathfinder. They want playing a single character class to level 20 to be a viable option, one that doesn't result in a character that is not as strong as it could have been if multiclassed.
PrCs became a way to power up, exactly because D&D core lacked really high fantasy options. Problem solved. They also fulfilled a way to "provide players with additional character options, abilities, and general flavor in developing their character" as you put it. They are not mutually exclusive.
You miss the point; they're not meant to be a way to "power up". This is something that Paizo is keeping in mind during development of Pathfinder.
And they COULD do all of those things and provide a core rulebook that appeals to more than just a high magic audience. But they've chosen to ignore certain market segments.
Once again, you sound like you know more than they do. You started your post by stating that they're the pros, not you. Yet here you are making statements about what would be a better choice in this matter.
Listen, it's pretty clear you've already made up your mind on this matter. It sounds as if you decided, even before starting this thread, that Pathfinder was not for you. It doesn't even sound as if you've tried the new rules, just read them.
Pathfinder is not going to be 3.5; Paizo never claimed it would be. They simply claimed it would be backward compatible, and based on the play test reports that are popping up, this goal is being achieved. They also knew that this game would not be for everyone. However, I urge you, try the rules before condemning them.
I've been debating this issue internally since Alpha 1 came out, and I recently came to exactly the same conclusions that fuji came to.
I thought initially that Pathfinder was going to be a simple rule revision to 3.5 to iron out the hinky points, do some rebalancing of exploits, and fill in some blanks left when you take away the non-OGL parts of 3.5.
Instead of rebalancing things to make the power levels of 3.5 more even and balanced, the Alpha has bumped up those power levels significantly. Maybe they are more balanced at these new levels (though I remain skeptical on many points), but you can't get around the fact that the level numbers mean something entirely different in Pathfinder than they did in 3.5.
Any existing 3.5 material cannot be picked up and played "out of the box" with Pathfinder; you have to do conversion work. Maybe its less difficult conversion than switching things over to 4.0, but, all good intentions to the contrary aside, changing what the labels for power levels mean almost by definition changes the feel of the game.
Its comparable to what would happen if suddenly everybody who graduates high school were awarded a masters degree and everybody who completes four years of college was given a doctorate. The implications and meaning of the title "Doctor" would be drastically different than it is today.
I don't think fuji meant that Pathfinder is shaping up to be a bad game; its just that its not the game it was originally billed as.
At least, that is the way that I feel.
Playing 3.5 edition Dungeon Magazine adventures with SRD-only, honestly "rolled up" characters, is pretty rough. I know because I've run quite a few of them, I don't allow non-core sources, and my players have suffered many deaths and a few TPK's as a result. If these were adventure paths (Paizo's bread and butter) instead of the one-offs added to a larger campaign, the games would have ground to a halt as a result of character death spiral.
Paizo can no longer use the splat books. NPCs and monsters with class abilities can't be tweaked to the high end of their CR like they used to be. Further, Paizo can't use the monsters in Monster Manual II and III that are over-powered for their CR compared to the SRD monsters. None of that stuff is OGL so it's suddenly off-limits to Paizo. All they're left with are the weak core classes, the DMG prestige classes, and the SRD monsters.
Meanwhile, players can still use all the old crap they've always used. They can still prestige class themselves to high heaven and exalted deeds themselves to invulnerability. The net result would be, if Paizo continued with 3.5 using nothing but the OGL, far less difficult and memorable adventures.
So this "new" rpg is, essentially, Paizo's attempt to re-even the playing field between DMs, players and, most importantly, designers/writers.
One way to think of the up-powered classes is that really they're just up-powered monsters, since so many 3.x style monsters have class levels, especially in Paizo products.
I'm not saying this is good or bad...my initial reaction was similar to yours. But the limited play-testing I've done has (so far) shown that the game is still *almost* as difficult as it's ever been. I can only speak to level 1, though.
|
|
If I may offer my own observation: I too, at first thought the new core classes were "way too powerful". I let it go through Alpha 1 and yesterday created a few characters with Alpha 2.
It's perception because it's different, but the cleric, barbarian and fighter I rolled up were not really that far off from a regular 3.5 class at all. Oh, sure, little tiny differences that add flavor a a little edge but nothing game breaking. So my cleric can cast a few extra orisons each day. That's not harming anyone!
Once I was done, I looked back and realized the Pathfinder classes aren't really much more powerful than the 3.5 core, just a little more fun to create and interesting once completed. I felt like I had more to work with, but that it didn't create some new power curve.
So I offer that while my view was like the original posters, it has calmed once I tried it. I'm running a playtest this Sunday and may have more thoughts.
-DM Jeff