Skill Simplification? This is NOT 3.5!!!!!!


Alpha Playtest Feedback General Discussion

51 to 100 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Aaron Goddard wrote:
My intention isn't to be uncivil to the people on this forums, its an attempt to bravely stand up for the old skill system, so that people previously afraid to speak will come forth. Somebody has to be the first.

In my experience people on this board are never afraid to stand up and speak out against changes they dislike. So speaking up is not really a defense to blazing out of the gate in your first post flaming the design team. I hope that as you have time to cool off and explore the boards you will see that civil discussions do get heard.

Sovereign Court

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wow...didn't even bother reading your opinion after a title like that - good luck to ya!

I like the new skill system.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Chris Mortika wrote:
The same is true with a lot of other highly-valued abilities: Trapfinding and Disable Device, Intimidation and Bluff, Jump and Tumble. The design team for 3rd Edition split them into enough skills to allow "skill monkeys" to be better at them than other characters. (In this way, Zynete, the more highly-prized skills are more expensive.)

Yeah, I thought a little about that as I was posting, but I thought going on that tangent would have me working on the post for another half an hour.

But I think that it at some level, went from allowing skill monkeys to be better at them to making it so that is was pointless for anyone else to bother investing in them. I think that having them combined still leaves the skill monkeys in a better position so that they can actually be trained in doing several things rather than having to learn to do the same thing in multiple ways.


Chris Mortika wrote:

Opinion 1: Every time someone says "clerics and fighters need more skill points" or "we need to arrange things so that when we take ranks in Listen, we're also taking ranks in Spot", what I hear is "we need to all be as good at the skills we want as rogues are".

Opinion 2: D&D is a game where you should never quite be satisfied with your current character. There should always be feats that you would really like, equipment that's out of your reach, and --yes-- skills that you'd love to be better at.

*clapclapclap* Wow, my thoughts exactly (well, yours is more articulate) - especially #1. That's what I hear, too.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Chris Mortika wrote:

<Snip>

Is this a good thing? Well, it's a thing.

When they're distinct skills, the additional cost allows the rogue, who has skill points coming out of her ears, to be substantially better at stealth, because she can afford ranks in both Hide and Move Silently, whereas other classes either need to devote heavy portions of their skill point allotments to stealth, or simply fall behind the rogue.

The same is true with a lot of other highly-valued abilities: Trapfinding and Disable Device, Intimidation and Bluff, Jump and Tumble. The design team for 3rd Edition split them into enough skills to allow "skill monkeys" to be better at them than other characters. (In this way, Zynete, the more highly-prized skills are more expensive.)

Two free opinions, worth what you pay for them:

Opinion 1: Every time someone says "clerics and fighters need more skill points" or "we need to arrange things so that when we take ranks in Listen, we're also taking ranks in Spot", what I hear is "we need to all be as good at the skills we want as rogues are".

Opinion 2: D&D is a game where you should never quite be satisfied with your current character. There should always be feats that you would really like, equipment that's out of your reach, and --yes-- skills that you'd love to be better at.

Interesting opinions. I've found it actually benefits everyone, Rogues as much.

I've wanted to play cat burgler types. I look and go "hmm, ok, balance, climb, disable device, hide, jump, listen, move silently, open lock, search, spot, maybe some knowlege local and gather information, slight of hand to show he was a pickpocket first..."

Too many options, not enough skill points. My cat burgler doesn't even have a good chance of knowing what's valuable, can't talk his way out of being caught, can't tell if it's a set up or not...

Now with Pathfinder's skill set, Balance and jump go into acrobatics (Or in my version, Climb and Jump go into athletics) Move Silently and Hide go into stealth) Spot Listen and Search (the latter I disagree with) go into perception, and Open Lock is folded into disable device. Now I can get bluff to feint past the guard, sense motive to tell if my contact's a member of the Watch, Diplomacy to get info on the place, and/or appraise to know what's worth taking.

More importantly, breaking my rule*, it gives those rogue wannabes (spell thief, ninja, shadowsworn, spellstalker) finally enough flexibility to be able to focus their skills, then use their magic to compliment their roguish talents.

*I try not to take splatbook stuff or third party arguements into a discussion of Pathfinder

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Chris Mortika wrote:

Opinion 1: Every time someone says "clerics and fighters need more skill points" or "we need to arrange things so that when we take ranks in Listen, we're also taking ranks in Spot", what I hear is "we need to all be as good at the skills we want as rogues are".

Opinion 2: D&D is a game where you should never quite be satisfied with your current character. There should always be feats that you would really like, equipment that's out of your reach, and --yes-- skills that you'd love to be better at.

I think the skills that have been combined, by and large, consolidate rogue and ranger skills more than most.

Bards now need more than one performance type and still need knowledge ranks. The consolidation of Concentration and Spellcraft is the only major consilidation I see affecting them - I see bards as a wash.

Fighters gain almost nothing from skills consolidation, and at 2 skill points, they're hardly skill monkeys, even high intelligence human fighters struggle for skill points.

Wizards and Clerics get a little consolidation - most notably Concentration and Spellcraft. The lack of consolidation in Knowledge for them, however, keeps a very attractive class of caster skills expensive...clerics are further limited by the unlikeliness of high Intelligence and few skill points. Wizards are a little better off in that regard, but Knowledge can really eat up his skill points.

And druids gain the same caster consolidation of Spellcraft and Concentration, but they also now to have to invest ranks in Fly if they take alternate forms - and they've always had more skill points, though I'm not sure why they needed them.

Overall, I think the skills consolidation make the skill monkey trait for classes MORE important - because it makes skill monkeys even better at a wider variety of skills than their counterparts. YMMV.

Edit: Drat! I've been ninja'd!

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Matt, Jess, I can see your perspective.

I'm still thinking in a 3.5 mindset, where characters start with quadruple skill points. A Rogue has at least 32 skill pints, and can get two ranks in 16 skills.

That might not be an option in Pathfinder.


Chris Mortika wrote:
And, for what it's worth, you haven't seen that game. All you've seen are the Alpha documents, which are intended to include all the wild and revolutionary ideas that Jason thinks might be fun enough to use.

This isn't directed solely at Chris, but I've seen this stated quite often on these boards, and almost always to someone who is complaining that the Pathfinder rules will not be 3.5. What is the meaning of that statement? Is it to suggest to the complainer that there is a chance that certain rules will return to a pre-Alpha condition? If so, then it is misleading. Does anyone really believe that the things that have changed will be changed back to 3.5? No, of course not. While the final rules may not be the same as the Alpha rules, they will also certainly not be the same as 3.5 as well.

The only meaningful reason it would seem to me to say the above statement is when someone gets too excited about a given change, much like the Alpha 1 max-min skill system fans. Reminding those people not to get their hopes too high would be valuable. Telling someone that is already upset about a change, that things could change still more isn't very constructive, unless you intend on trying to decieve them into thinking it will change back.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Chris,

One of the things I would note though, is that in 3P with the skill system, that same rogue, at 2nd level, would have had 16 skill points. Which he could place in 16 different skills, and if those were class skills then it would be like having 4 ranks in each(so its like he spent 64 points in 3.5, when at 2nd level he would normally only have 40).

With the pathfinder system, you start out just a hint behind, but the bang for your buck grows much more quickly until you have put ranks in all your class skills. Then it grows at a comparable rate. Technically you still are further ahead with pathfinder due to the even cost of cross class skills, which lag a bit behind in how many ranks you can have in them until after 3rd level, at which point pathfinder pulls ahead again.

-Tarlane

Scarab Sages

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

In my playtest, the players really like the new skill system, including those who have generally shied away from 3.x. They also like the fact that there is no penalty for cross classing , and instead a bonus for picking skills associated with a particular class.

If my players are happy, then this GM is happy.


Aaron Goddard wrote:

Please consider dropping the simplified and boring skill system!

You LIED when you said PAthfinder would be 3.5, with the retarded simplified skill system its just as bad as 4th edition.

I do NOT want to only have to roll one check in order to detect a rogue, I want my bloody Spot AND Listen checks. I want characters who may be good at spotting but bad at listening is that so bloody wrong? I shouldn't be allowed to get 10 bloody ranks in spot, listen AND apparantly now smell, taste and touch just by spending 10 points, that should amount to 50.

And changing fly to a skill?
All I have to say to that is Javhol mein fuher!

And NO I am NOT a troll, this is really what I believe.

Point is, Paizo PROMISED to stick to 3.5 and they seem to have LIED!

Oh boy,sound like a little kid who´s father has taken his toys away.You might want to consider that it is just a simple game we´re talking about.Nothing else really!

I don't get why people get sooo freaked out with things which are so not important.Really isn't there something you can complain about?The Iraqwar or whatever?Don´t like Skillsystem?Don´t use it dear:).

Spoiler:
Stick with 3.5:)

Besides that you might want to consider your language.

Cheers buddy (the mighty mighty Jules):)

Spoiler:
Please don´t feel insulted by what i wrote.You may just take it into consideration.


Yes, my first post was a knee jerk reaction I had during the course of reading the Alpha pdf and I apologize for the haste at which I vented my anger at seeing the new skill system.

Having had a coffee and a few hours spent writing up NPCs on the bus route from my job interview (creating monsters whilst the faces and names of my PCs are in mind soothes me so), I feel that I am now capable of explaining what I meant when I referenced the Nazi party.

Nazis are known for their fanatical devotion to conformity and for their tyrannical oppression of all who dare to resist the establishment’s flow of change. Star Wars Sagas and Dungeons and Dragons are all moving towards the sort of game that 4th Edition is supposed to become. Wizards of the Coast’s tactics have so far been unsavory and draconic in nature.

When I heard that Paizo would be sticking their middle finger in the faces of Wizards of The Coast by sticking to 3.5, I was needless to say delighted that they were not choosing to conform to the new standards, that they were going to stand firm in the face of tyranny. But when I finally read the alpha rules I was shocked and appalled to see the word “perception skill”, for when I read it I knew that Paizo had in fact caved in and changed one of the things I felt was fundamental to the 3.5 rule set, and that is separate skills for separate actions.

Essentially, I saw this decision to use 4th Editions logic that a man with one eye should take a penalty to his ability to smell and taste as a ridiculous adherence to conformity and change for the sake of keeping the Establishment happy.

The part that triggered my decision to cement my association between Nazism and the move towards melting everything together was the fly skill; so now a dragon the size of a jumbo jet can just spend skill points and turn on a dime? So now a Pixie that’s level one with no skill points to spare (due to having a 4 intelligence) has to move 15 feet to turn? I have no idea what the logic is behind the Fly Skill, but I can see a lot of problems with it already. If a dragon wants to improve his flight ability, what was wrong with taking a feat from the Draconomicon to that effect?

Furthermore, who has 50 points to spare? A 10th level rogue sure does, especially human ones who carry around a potted Dryad Tree and a roll out bed. Rogues are as has been said, skill monkeys; and of course I mean monkeys in the awesome sense, not in the pejorative sense. Fighters aren’t known for their skills and neither are sorcerers. This oversimplification seems to me like an attempt to make people who chose fighters and then later complained they weren’t as stealthy as a rogue happy.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook Subscriber
Aaron Goddard wrote:
The part that triggered my decision to cement my association between Nazism and the move towards melting everything together was the fly skill; so now a dragon the size of a jumbo jet can just spend skill points and turn on a dime? So now a Pixie that’s level one with no skill points to spare (due to having a 4 intelligence) has to move 15 feet to turn? I have no idea what the logic is behind the Fly Skill, but I can see a lot of problems with it already. If a dragon wants to improve his flight ability, what was wrong with taking a feat from the Draconomicon to that effect?

Though I hesitate to reply to anyone who can equate game designers with nazis I think it might behoove you to consider that a person or animal born with wings probably has a racial bonus for the fly skill.


Aaron Goddard wrote:
The part that triggered my decision to cement my association between Nazism and the move towards melting everything together was the fly skill; so now a dragon the size of a jumbo jet can just spend skill points and turn on a dime? So now a Pixie that’s level one with no skill points to spare (due to having a 4 intelligence) has to move 15 feet to turn? I have no idea what the logic is behind the Fly Skill, but I can see a lot of problems with it already. If a dragon wants to improve his flight ability, what was wrong with taking a feat from the Draconomicon to that effect?

I wonder how flying vermin will be effected. Being mindless, they don't have skills. Of course, as suggested a racial bonus could be added, but at that point it starts to look like putting a band-aid on a hemoraging wound.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Aaron Goddard wrote:
Point is, Paizo PROMISED to stick to 3.5 and they seem to have LIED!

No, they didn't say they'd stick with 3.5, they said they'd be compatible with it. There's little here that requires a lot of conversion work.

Further, the combination of Hide and Move Silent is pretty much the same as the combination of Two-Weapon Fighting and Ambidexterity.


All I can really say is this:

Jason Buhlman = Pol Pot

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook Subscriber
pres man wrote:
I wonder how flying vermin will be effected. Being mindless, they don't have skills. Of course, as suggested a racial bonus could be added, but at that point it starts to look like putting a band-aid on a hemoraging wound.

Makes you wonder how minnows manage to swim?

Racial bonuses are not 'a band-aid.' They have been a part of the skill system sense the beginning. Every auquatic creature gains a racial bonus on the Swim Skill. It makes sense that all aerial creatures would gain a bonus for flying.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Wicht wrote:
Aaron Goddard wrote:
The part that triggered my decision to cement my association between Nazism and the move towards melting everything together was the fly skill; so now a dragon the size of a jumbo jet can just spend skill points and turn on a dime? So now a Pixie that’s level one with no skill points to spare (due to having a 4 intelligence) has to move 15 feet to turn? I have no idea what the logic is behind the Fly Skill, but I can see a lot of problems with it already. If a dragon wants to improve his flight ability, what was wrong with taking a feat from the Draconomicon to that effect?
Though I hesitate to reply to anyone who can equate game designers with nazis I think it might behoove you to consider that a person or animal born with wings probably has a racial bonus for the fly skill.

How right you are.

BTW. Racial bonuses are in Alpha 3.
Alpha 3 wrote:

Special: Creatures with a fly speed receive this skill for free as a class skill. They also receive a bonus (or penalty) on all Fly checks depending on their maneuverability.

Creatures with clumsy maneuverability take a –8 penalty on all Fly checks.
Creatures with poor maneuverability take a –4 penalty on all Fly checks.
Creatures with good maneuverability get a +4 racial bonus on all Fly checks.
Creatures with perfect maneuverability get a +8 racial bonus on all Fly checks.
Creatures without a maneuverability rating are assumed to have an average maneuverability and take no penalty on Fly checks.
You cannot take this skill without a natural means of f light or a reliable means of f lying every day (either through a spell or other magical manner, such as a druid’s wild shape ability).

So a pixie with an average (for a pixie) 14 DEX who spends 1 point in Fly has a skill modifier of +10. The Fly skill does not require a distance to turn only that a flying creature maintain a minimum speed. Not sure I agree since the pixie flies more like a hummingbird than an eagle. To turn 90 degrees our pixie faces a fly check of 15. 75% chance of success.

Oh and well, actually pixies bottom out at 5 INT...
WotC in Savage Species wrote:

Starting Ability Score Adjustments: –4 Str, +4 Dex, +2 Int,

+2 Cha. Pixies are physically weak but make up for it in
other areas

Dark Archive

Since our newest member decided they had to voice their severe displeasure with the skill system by calling everyone at Paizo a fascist nazi liars in an attempt to make their opinion carry weight, I figured I needed to comment. I won't make any inflammatory remarks and in the space of one paragraph negate everything they said by just casting my vote in the exact opposite direction. Because if enough feel the new skill system is great, it will stay the way it is. Then our new poster will yell some more and eventually make a derogatory enough slur against someone he gets banned. So without further adue, my thoughts on the skill system....

I think the skills as changed in PFRPG are awesome and should be kept the way they are!!!! I have made my voice heard, and more to the point, I didn't have to call my fellow posters liberal politically correct butt kissers or the Paizo design team fascist nazi liars to do so.


Oh joy! Is it my turn to scream hard and funny?

FIRST OFF LET ME SAY I LIKE YOU ALL!!!!!!

I LIKE PATHFINDER AND PAIZO!!!!!!

I LIKE EVERYONE READING THIS!!!!!!!

I LOVE THE PATHFINDER SKILL MECHANICS!!!!!!

I LOVE MORE SKILLS NOT LESS, BUT ITS NOT A DEAL BREAKER, USE OLD SKILLS, SPLIT CONSOLATEDED AND MOVE ON!!!!!!!!!

NAZI IS A LOADED WORD AND SHOULD RARELY BE USED TO DESCRIBE SOMEONE, AS A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN I KNOW HOW MUCH IT CAN HURT!!!!!!

I LOVE HOW WE AT THIS BOARD DIDN'T JUST BECOME A FIGHING MOB BUT TOOK THE ISSUE ON CIVILY!!!!!!!

THIS PLACE IS THE COOLEST, AND I SAY THIS WITH A REALLY PISSED OFF VOICE!!!!!!!!

Note: Rem & Stimpy in case anyone was wondering.

P.S.
OH YEAH, I JUST SAID SOMETHING IN GERMAN AND HAVE NO IDEA WHAT?!!!!!!!!

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

When Chris Mortika wrote:
And, for what it's worth, you haven't seen that game. All you've seen are the Alpha documents, which are intended to include all the wild and revolutionary ideas that Jason thinks might be fun enough to use.
pres man then wrote:
What is the meaning of that statement? Is it to suggest that there is a chance that certain rules will return to a pre-Alpha condition? If so, then it is misleading. Does anyone really believe that the things that have changed will be changed back to 3.5? No, of course not. While the final rules may not be the same as the Alpha rules, they will also certainly not be the same as 3.5 as well.

Actually, yes, that is my understanding, pres man. We're play-testing. If something in the Alpha rules doesn't work, if people don't understand it, if it leaves itself open to loopholes and abuse, if it turns out to wreck backwards capabilities --the most obvious examples are the skill system from Alpha 1, Combat Feats, and possibly the change to Damage Reduction-- then that rule will not be in the Beta test, or might not make it into the hardcover.

The hardcover Pathfinder rules system as a whole will certainly not be the same as 3.5, but Jason has occaissionally stated that several rules in the Alpha documents are experiments, which might succeed or might fail. If they fail, they'll be scaled back closer to the (3.5) baseline.

That's the process, as I understand it.


Wow......I am left speachless. Well, not really. Lets see, the subject was "Skill simplification? This is not 3.5!"

No, it is Pathfinder. Which is supposed to be compatible with 3.5. Is a perception check really the same as spot or smell or listen? No. So, lets put it to a vote shall we? Hey Paizo, I think your your decision to start your own RPG is the best thing since....well since 3.5. Would you please consider leaving the skill point system like it is? Or, well...I like the fly skill, but dont lump all the perception skills together like that ok?

I vote yes on fly, no on lumped perceptions.

Ok, everyone chime in now.


And the moral of our story:

1) The way you word your first statement in a thread sets the tone for the whole thread. 3/4 of this thread has been wasted responding to your very stupid word choices.

And every time you try to clarify your position you really confirm moral #2:

2) Walks like a troll, talks like a troll, uses all caps like a troll...you're a troll.


Please, children, don't feed the troll.

I thought about making a reasoned and well-thought-out reply to the OP, but then I thought "meh." My time could be spent in so many more productive ways.


"Build a troll a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a troll on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."


Ok, I guess the subject changed. Lets feed the troll. Ummm....will there be trolls in Pathfinder RPG? I like trolls. There are trolls in the Paizo boards....yes?

So, we are going to separate spot, search, and listen checks right?

Scarab Sages

Snoring Rock wrote:
I vote yes on fly, no on lumped perceptions.

It took me a while to warm up to Fly, but I do like it now. I also like Perception replacing Listen and Spot.

As an aside, I think the Acrobatic feat should modify Acrobatics and Fly, and the Athletic feat should modify Swim and Climb. After all, the Acrobatics and Fly skills are both DEX, and Climb and Swim are both STR. Also, the Acrobatics skill description says you can "dive, flip, jump, and roll" which (except for jumping) are all things you can also do while flying.

Grand Lodge

pres man wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
And, for what it's worth, you haven't seen that game. All you've seen are the Alpha documents, which are intended to include all the wild and revolutionary ideas that Jason thinks might be fun enough to use.

This isn't directed solely at Chris, but I've seen this stated quite often on these boards, and almost always to someone who is complaining that the Pathfinder rules will not be 3.5. What is the meaning of that statement? Is it to suggest to the complainer that there is a chance that certain rules will return to a pre-Alpha condition? If so, then it is misleading. Does anyone really believe that the things that have changed will be changed back to 3.5? No, of course not. While the final rules may not be the same as the Alpha rules, they will also certainly not be the same as 3.5 as well.

The only meaningful reason it would seem to me to say the above statement is when someone gets too excited about a given change, much like the Alpha 1 max-min skill system fans. Reminding those people not to get their hopes too high would be valuable. Telling someone that is already upset about a change, that things could change still more isn't very constructive, unless you intend on trying to decieve them into thinking it will change back.

That's a strange twist of logic. When things change they very rarely go back to thier original condtion.

The stated goals of Pathfinder is to revamp the 3.5 rule into something that is more playable going forward. They have provided many game conversion guides that have begun to show you how convert older materials to Pathfinder standards. It's by no means complete, but we are in alpha development so more details will come to light.

Having read the post here, I can't see how anyone is telloing the OP that they should get thier hopes up at all that things might revert to thier original position. As a matter of fact, you seem to want to fan the flames here by impling that posters to this board are "decieving" people. You may not like the changes to the rules Pres man, and i know that you haven't like some of the responses you have recieved from your posts, but don't start making baseless clames around people's honesty.

Dark Archive

Doombunny wrote:

All I can really say is this:

Jason Buhlman = Pol Pot

LMAO

Posting of the week! Where shall I send your award? :)


grrtigger wrote:
Snoring Rock wrote:
I vote yes on fly, no on lumped perceptions.

It took me a while to warm up to Fly, but I do like it now. I also like Perception replacing Listen and Spot.

As an aside, I think the Acrobatic feat should modify Acrobatics and Fly, and the Athletic feat should modify Swim and Climb. After all, the Acrobatics and Fly skills are both DEX, and Climb and Swim are both STR. Also, the Acrobatics skill description says you can "dive, flip, jump, and roll" which (except for jumping) are all things you can also do while flying.

I like that idea, think I'll house rule that if the final Pathfinder neglets it.


Herald wrote:
]Having read the post here, I can't see how anyone is telloing the OP that they should get thier hopes up at all that things might revert to thier original position. As a matter of fact, you seem to want to fan the flames here by impling that posters to this board are "decieving" people. You may not like the changes to the rules Pres man, and i know that you haven't like some of the responses you have recieved from your posts, but don't start making baseless clames around people's honesty. [/QUOTE wrote:

Having discussed other issues with Pres Man I would have said I take him at his word (Don't agree, but his view is valad), however this stuff about Pathfinder going back to Alpha 1 is so illogical (Why invest the time and money [man hours] just to go backwards?), that it has gotten me thinking.

Not pointing the finger at anyone but I'm starting to think that people are coming to these boards just to start a fight and cause rifts within this community. Pissed off 4th editon supporters, pissed that someone dared to question the mouse. Pissed off Enworld and rpgnow people who don't like freindly boards. And generally young players who just want to star cyber trouble, and see these boards as an easy way to do this (Over at enworld they love pathfinder and hate 4th). I would say WotC is behind this, but not in a conspiracy sort of way, but in the type of players they are fostering with bussines wize and with 4th.

Simply put guys, look out some among us just want to start fights and split Pathfinder fan base, which is odd becuse we are a group of individuals, not Wizard drones.

P.S. I'm I supposed to still be hurting since my scraming post? 'scrath, scracth' Might go see a doctor.

Sczarni

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber
Herald wrote:

That's a strange twist of logic. When things change they very rarely go back to thier original condtion.

The stated goals of Pathfinder is to revamp the 3.5 rule into something that is more playable going forward. They have provided many game conversion guides that have begun to show you how convert older materials to Pathfinder standards. It's by no means complete, but we are in alpha development so more details will come to light.

yes, but the entire idea of alpha playtesting is that it is raw 'this is what I want to do, lets have a bunch of people playtest it and see if it works or if it should go in the junkpile' When developing video games you would be surprized how many things are in the alpha versions of games, but don't make it into the final version. I've seen entire cities erased off the map of some RPGs.(one they had already drawn the maps to go in the software box, so they turned it into a recently attacked and demolished town if I remember correctly)

While there will be changes, some may not be the same as the alpha test. That is the reason for the tiered testing system.


Herald wrote:
Having read the post here, I can't see how anyone is telloing the OP that they should get thier hopes up at all that things might revert to thier original position.

O Rly?

Chris Mortika wrote:

If something in the Alpha rules doesn't work, if people don't understand it, if it leaves itself open to loopholes and abuse, if it turns out to wreck backwards capabilities --the most obvious examples are the skill system from Alpha 1, Combat Feats, and possibly the change to Damage Reduction-- then that rule will not be in the Beta test, or might not make it into the hardcover.

The hardcover Pathfinder rules system as a whole will certainly not be the same as 3.5, but Jason has occaissionally stated that several rules in the Alpha documents are experiments, which might succeed or might fail. If they fail, they'll be scaled back closer to the (3.5) baseline.

That's the process, as I understand it.

Besides, which that goes back to my point. If someone is complaining about how they don't want things to change from 3.5, who does telling them "Well don't get too excited these rules might not be in the final product" help them? As you stated, "When things change they very rarely go back to thier original condtion." If someone doesn't want to change from Vanilla (3.5), telling them that the it might not end up being Strawberry (Alpha) is pointless if it is likely to be Chocolate (Beta) and extremely unlikely to be Vanilla. The person complaining doesn't want Strawberry or Chocolate, they want Vanilla.

All I'm suggesting is not using the comment about how what is in Alpha might not be in the final product, when someone complains "It's not 3.5!" Because you are not helping them. Tell it to folks that say, "The new change is super totally awesome! I'm wetting myself it is so cool!" so they don't get their hopes up too much and then get disappointed when it changes (e.g. Alpha 1 max-min skill system fans).


I'm confused. If someone prefers 3.5, why not just stick with 3.5? Granted, Pathfinder will use 3.PF, so you'll have to dock everyone a couple feats and minor abilitites, but there are enough 3.5 adventures written that I could play for the rest of my life and not get through them all.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'm confused. If someone prefers 3.5, why not just stick with 3.5? Granted, Pathfinder will use 3.PF, so you'll have to dock everyone a couple feats and minor abilitites, but there are enough 3.5 adventures written that I could play for the rest of my life and not get through them all.

I agree. That is what I am going to do. I also see it as meaningless for someone to come in and say "Paizo should be strictily 3.5, because it is I want". Companies make choices to make money. If they think they can make more money by switching to a new system, good for them. If someone doesn't want that new system, take your money and spend it on more valuable material somewhere else, or invest it for your retirement or something.

But if for some demented reason someone did come and say, "This is not 3.5!" Telling them "Well what you are seeing now, might not be what the final product is" is pointless. They don't want Strawberry (Alpha) or Chocolate (Beta), they want Vanilla (3.5). Tell them to either change their flavor choice or stop buying from this store. Don't tell them that the final product might not be Strawberry.


"Back in my day we were lucky to get ice cream! We could get puke flavored and be glad to have it! These kids today...!"

Dark Archive

Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'm confused. If someone prefers 3.5, why not just stick with 3.5? Granted, Pathfinder will use 3.PF, so you'll have to dock everyone a couple feats and minor abilitites, but there are enough 3.5 adventures written that I could play for the rest of my life and not get through them all.

Because these folks need something to complain about. They wanted Paizo to just continue making products based strictly on 3.5 and the SRD. They don't want to have to spend money on a new core books, so they are whining non stop about how they aren't getting what they deserve.

The sense of entitlement and outright rudeness that accompanies these folks posts is baffling. They never offer constructive ideas for what they would like to see. They just want to piss people off. I'm sure one of them will pop in and say something silly like "PFRPG is more different from 3.5 than 4e is, so if that is what Paizo is going to do I am going to hold my breath and defecate on the floor until they cave to my demands".

The problem in all this is these folks don't want to work with the community to make the end product better. They want everyone here to give them what they want and then thank them for the priveledge of being allowed to serve their needs. Instead of just calling Paizo a bunch of "Nazis" or "Liars" or whatever, they could offer concrete examples of things that would make the game more enjoyable to them. Whenever someone tries to reason with them about how similar PFRPG is to 3.5, they throw a temper tantrum and sulk. They don't want to help with PFRPG. They want to make everyone miserable because Paizo isn't giving them products based off 3.5 without ANY changes in perpetuity.

I say the best thing to do is just voice our opinions about how PFRPG is good, and continue to give Paizo feedback on what we think isn't working like most of us have been doing since day 1. It won't stop the toddler like behavior or the insults to those who like PFRPG by these folks who feel that can't express themselves with anything but an emotional melt down. There is plenty of support for the game, and Jason has made changes based on the feedback from this board. So we know factually that our thoughts are being incorporated into the product. If it were WotC doing this they would have banned 75% of the board right out of the gate and then censored anything other than glowing and effusive praise. The fact that these folks are allowed to rant about everyone here being dishonest, fascist, and the most despicable of all insults "Nazis", already shows that Paizo is allowing the voices of everyone to be heard. Where else can someone be a complete jack ass to the entire community and still have posting privledges?

So in summary, I will continue to give feedback to Paizo on the rules as I playtest them. I will point out what I like, suggest something different for things I don't, and work with the rest of the community to make the game better. I suspect 90% of the people on this board will do the same. For those who have to scream and throw their excrement around, they will be heard by Paizo too. That said, I am very reassured that there are far more calm, collected, and thoughtful folks on here than there are egocentric jack holes who aren't happy unless everyone is miserable or they get exactly what they want.

Huzzah for Pathfinder and the best message board community on the web!!!


For Pete's Sake I apologized for saying Nazi, get over it and let it go already!

Why do people put so much emphasis on word choice? It's rather ridiculous.

What would make this game worth buying:

1) Split Perception back into separate skills. Thieves should be caught with spot not with touching. Split Acrobatics back into climb, tumble, jump and balance. A rugged mountain climber character whose never spent a single day in the circus should not be just as good at tumbling as he is at climbing. Skill lumping is detrimental to roleplaying, as all of a sudden everyone who was a scout in the army or is a royal food taster is a monk with every sense heightened.

3) Avoid using anything remotely similar to Tome of Battle. If I want over the top action where every attack is described with Latin chanting in the background, I'll play BESM.

4) Don't nerf magic or magic items. The ability to acquire magic item has been a fun part of the game for years. Death effects, spells that mimic skills, and non-damaging spells should also remain in the game.

5) Don't nerf monsters. Yes, the core version of the monster manual's rust monster is rough, but he's meant to be rough. I would implore you to use the core version and not the wimpy new version which can barely rust a nail.

6) Do give certain monsters more power and fluff. Give gargoyles an extra edge. Give Nymphs their death attacks back. Make Stone giants, famous for throwing rocks, NOT suck at it. (Using capitals for lack of a bold button)

7) Don't take away the human's multiclass ability. The way they have to choose it at the beginning instead of taking the one they have the most levels in is kind of a big nerf.

8) Please don't use rage points, it turns barbarians into warriors and makes high level barbarians unable to maintain their rage for very long. I would prefer the old system where it always lasts rounds based on the new constitution modifier. "Increases to constitution do not increase rage points" is also equally ridiculous, no Barbarian is EVER going to buy an amulet of con now.

Things that I do like so far:
1) Sorcerers and a free bloodline. I was considering doing something like this to sorcerers in my homebrew setting anyway.

2) Giving elves a bonus to intelligence.

3) Your half elves and half orcs.

4) Scaling domain powers.

The Exchange

There are a number of Germans who post on this board who find it extremely offensive - like using "n1gger" in the US (and other places).


Because the words you use and the context you use them in are the only way those on these boards have to determine your meaning.

There is no communication with you without the choice of words you use.

Take for example two phrases:

___________________________________________________
Hey you stupid SOB, don't you know that 2+2=4? Any idiot with an IQ high enough to tie a shoelace knows that!

and

I think you made a minor math error there.. 2+2=4 not 5. I figured it was just an oversight, but it does change your calculation quite abit.

___________________________________________________

In overall effect the two statements are identical. They correct a mistake. However, the word choice makes a world of difference in how it comes across.

You are trying to communicate here with people whose only method of determining what you mean is by reading the words you place on this board. Therefore, you will find a great many folks put a great deal of weight on what words you choose, and in what order.

Dark Archive

Aaron Goddard wrote:

I feel that I am now capable of explaining what I meant when I referenced the Nazi party.

Nazis are known for their fanatical devotion to conformity and for their tyrannical oppression of all who dare to resist the establishment’s flow of change. Star Wars Sagas and Dungeons and Dragons are all moving towards the sort of game that 4th Edition is supposed to become. Wizards of the Coast’s tactics have so far been unsavory and draconic in nature.

When I heard that Paizo would be sticking their middle finger in the faces of Wizards of The Coast by sticking to 3.5, I was needless to say delighted that they were not choosing to conform to the new standards, that they were going to stand firm in the face of tyranny. But when I finally read the alpha rules I was shocked and appalled to see the word “perception skill”, for when I read it I knew that Paizo had in fact caved in and changed one of the things I felt was fundamental to the 3.5 rule set, and that is separate skills for separate actions.

Essentially, I saw this decision to use 4th Editions logic that a man with one eye should take a penalty to his ability to smell and taste as a ridiculous adherence to conformity and change for the sake of keeping the Establishment happy.

The part that triggered my decision to cement my association between Nazism and the move towards melting everything together was the fly skill; so now a dragon the size of a jumbo jet can just spend skill points and turn on a dime? So now a Pixie that’s level one with no skill points to spare (due to having a 4 intelligence) has to move 15 feet to turn? I have no idea what the logic is behind the Fly Skill, but I...

I find it very hard to accept an apology when what you are doing is just rationalizing what you did. I mean the thing that cemented Paizo as Nazi's to you was the fly skill? Really? And that is somehow supposed to make what you said ok? You compared a company that makes games to a totalitarion dictatorship that attempted to commit complete genocide? Then you say you are sorry, but we shouldn't be mad because you said it because you were angry about the fly skill?

Sorry buddy, but that doesn't hack it where I am from. I can accept that people get angry sometimes. I can accept they say things they regret. I could even forgive being called a Nazi. However, I can't do any of those things when the apology amounts to two sentences saying "I am sorry" followed up by 4 paragraphs saying "but here is why it was ok and you guys are overreacting to my post" in which the conclusion of the 4 paragraphs is that the fly skill justified your rage.

I have very close friends who are from Germany, and making a comment like that is possibly the most derogatory thing you could say to them. Even 62 years after those horrible attrocities, those words carry horrific power to hurt those who are from that country or care about the implications of such a label. I won't comment further on this beyond this post, but you have to understand the magnitude of your comments. It isn't just a justifiable rant. I am not sure that you see that. I mean your response is that people put too much emphasis on the words you use and it is ridiculous they do so. That isn't the attitude of someone who is remorseful. It is the attitude of someone who doesn't regret what they said and is just irritated people have the audacity to call them out on it.


Brent wrote:

The problem in all this is these folks don't want to work with the community to make the end product better. They want everyone here to give them what they want and then thank them for the priveledge of being allowed to serve their needs. Instead of just calling Paizo a bunch of "Nazis" or "Liars" or whatever, they could offer concrete examples of things that would make the game more enjoyable to them. Whenever someone tries to reason with them about how similar PFRPG is to 3.5, they throw a temper tantrum and sulk. They don't want to help with PFRPG. They want to make everyone miserable because Paizo isn't giving them products based off 3.5 without ANY changes in perpetuity.

Sad to say have to agree with you. I'd add that when you realize there is little left to discuse with these people (not saying you should change their mind or they yours) just that that you've covered everything, they throw a tantrum that we can be civil enough to move on. Apparenlty they can't.


Aaron Goddard wrote:

For Pete's Sake I apologized for saying Nazi, get over it and let it go already!

Why do people put so much emphasis on word choice? It's rather ridiculous.

First you come in screaming and cussing that the entire pathfinder RPG is flawed because 2 skills don't work the way you would like them to.

Those replying react to your tone. Apparently, it's the only way to be heard

Now, you are upset people aren't responding to the substance of your message. how about that.

Tell you what Aaron, Why don't you post on several of the other threads dedicated to those things you don't like about the alpha playtest, and we'll let this one slide into the oblivion that is the archives.

<edit.>

I see that is what you did. Thanks.

<edit again>

Never mind.
<shakes head>


Well excuse me for not knowing there were actual German people here.
Besides which, I don't believe in political correctness.

Use common sense people. The connection I meant was that they're bowing down to the nazis, not that they are nazis themselves. Besides I've already recanted my usage of the nazi terminology. I was not rationalizing I was explaining, there's a big difference.

I reiterate: I already apologized please get over it and move on already.

Why would the be offended anyway,. its not like they themselves are nazis. You're speaking for them, assuming that they would be offended without even having asked them.

The Exchange

Let's not feed the troll - it isn't worth it.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Let's not feed the troll - it isn't worth it.

I said it before and I said it again,

I am not a troll.

Would a troll be constantly apologizing?

If you're getting mad its your fault for taking it so personally.

Dark Archive

Aaron Goddard wrote:

Well excuse me for not knowing there were actual German people here.

Besides which, I don't believe in political correctness.

Use common sense people. The connection I meant was that they're bowing down to the nazis, not that they are nazis themselves. Besides I've already recanted my usage of the nazi terminology. I was not rationalizing I was explaining, there's a big difference.

I reiterate: I already apologized please get over it and move on already.

Why would the be offended anyway,. its not like they themselves are nazis. You're speaking for them, assuming that they would be offended without even having asked them.

More rationalization. You keep saying you have recanted, but always with a disclaimer that people just shouldn't be offended or that you can't comprehend why the insult is offensive. I made it clear I have several very close friends who are native Germans. To them, this is the most disgusting slur you can use against a person. In American public schools, a student can be suspended for calling another student or teacher a Nazi. The term is synonymous with hatred, suffering, and the death of millions of innocents.

Further, now you are saying that you aren't calling Paizo Nazi's, you are saying they willingly worship Nazis. How is that different exactly? How is bowing down to a Nazi any better than being one? It seems to me you are the one who is lacking in cultural understanding, not the rest of us.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Aaron Goddard wrote:
For Pete's Sake I apologized for saying Nazi, get over it and let it go already!

Hi, Aaron. Glad to see you're still here.

Actually, you haven't yet apologized for the Nazi reference.

Yesterday, you wrote:

Having had a coffee and a few hours spent writing up NPCs on the bus route from my job interview, I feel that I am now capable of explaining what I meant when I referenced the Nazi party.

So you explained why you felt justified in using that parallel*, which is different. I'm not the world's expert on apologies, but if that's what you were intending, I'd have expected to see (a) an admission that it was wrong, (b) a promise to do better, and (c) an offer to "make things right".

You wrote:
Why do people put so much emphasis on word choice? It's rather ridiculous.

As people have said, it's all we've got.

Look, my friend, you made a bad first impression. It happens. (Ask me sometime about how Sebastian mercilessly mocked my very first post here.) Don't try to justify it, or blame anybody else, or get indignant. You've done your best to apologize, and it's done.

My advice: engage in the topic you started, or see if there's another thread to which you'd lke to contribute. Stay on topic, and stay civil.

And good luck on getting the job!

* By the way, Fascist Germany engaged a tremendous amount of outright evil.

Spoiler:
I've taught courses in Humanities, and every time I introduce my students to the kinds of obscenities the Nazi regime perpetrated, they all have nightmares. The French Revolution was bloody, but the motives were simple veangence. Stalin was brutal, but he was just ruthlessly grasping for power. The Nazis went out of their way to make life as Hellish as possible for just about everybody.

Associating Wizards, or any other company or group of people, with the Nazis because you don't think they like challenges to their authority, is a much larger rhetorical club than you may realize. Maybe use "Augustus Ceasar" instead.

Dark Archive

Aaron Goddard wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Let's not feed the troll - it isn't worth it.

I said it before and I said it again,

I am not a troll.

Would a troll be constantly apologizing?

If you're getting mad its your fault for taking it so personally.

Now its our fault for getting angry with what you said. So I assume you also think it is the fault of a rape victim that they were violated. Or you are the type of person who would walk up to someone, throw a drink in their face, kick them in the nuts, and then after they kick your butt saying that you getting your butt kicked was their fault for getting mad at what you did.

Ludicrous.


May I suggest we let this thread die.If the OP wishes to talk of the flaws he sees then let him open a more civil thread.This one is to tainted with flames and hostility to be of any use.

51 to 100 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / General Discussion / Skill Simplification? This is NOT 3.5!!!!!! All Messageboards