|
I've been a big supporter of Pathfinder RPG since it was announced, but have had a hard time embracing it without wanting to drag my house rules along. Still, you're getting me to come around.
1. I've dropped the 2 ranks = 1 language for Linguistics . . . but I STILL want Paizo to do a better job (IMO) condensing the skills.
Athletics needs to be in.
Merge Bluff with Disguise for Deception.
Merge Survival and Knowledge Nature.
And so on.
2. I've also been tossing around various ways to create a better streamlined carrying capacity tracking system - something that doesn't need a table, but a simple formula.
4e looked interesting . . . but seems a bit powerful.
3. Massive Damage. Love the concept of battle wearing down a person's fighting prowess as opposed to Save or Die . . or Save or Dying. The Star Wars Condition Track really enthused me. I hope Paizo does something with Massive Damage. It certainly needs to be revitalized.
4. Feats. I like a lot of the new entries but still remain steadfast that, given the condensed skills - if done "properly" - +2/+2 Feats will be (or should be) completely unnecessary. Everything should turn to Skill Focus.
But in the end, I am seeing the logic of some of Paizo's decisions. In other cases, I'm still not satisfied. One thing I'd really like to see is Paizo pick perhaps some of the more contentious issues and really get into explaining where it's coming from, and why Paizo's decision is a good decision.
Thanks, guys.
|
|
But in the end, I am seeing the logic of some of Paizo's decisions. In other cases, I'm still not satisfied. One thing I'd really like to see is Paizo pick perhaps some of the more contentious issues and really get into explaining where it's coming from, and why Paizo's decision is a good decision.
We are getting access to the rules as they are being written and are encouraged to playtest them and to suggest tweaks.
Having Jason and the other designers systematically explain their choices is, I would argue, inappropriate for the following reasons.
The rules should stand on their own. If they make sense, we implement them in our games. If they strike us as odd, counter-intuitive or somewhat broken, we tweak them and post our tweaks on the forums. If they are unworkable and untweakable, we rewrite them and post the rewrites on the forums.
I am thankful for Paizo to let us do the above. I don't think anything more is desirable in the current setup.
We have:
- rampant flame wars
- inflammatory and rude posts (You nerfed <insert ability, class, spell...!>
- odd suggestions which fail to exhibit sometimes a basic understanding of some of the 3.5 rules and balance
- pet hates (I've been GMing for x years and I always hated....)
- and all the things we get in an open and anonymous interweb community.
We also have a lot of "revolutionary" ideas, that is ideas which toss out a basic premise of 3.5 and replace it with something completely different and unfamiliar.
I don't mind that Jason and the team don't post extensive comments on rule changes. This is not the time nor the place nor the audience for that.
What I would like to see for the Beta is directed and supervised playtests with a limited selection of scenarios, pregenerated characters, no house-rules and report sheets with specific questions aimed at the GMs and the players.
Finally, I would argue that Paizo is not aiming to have people "come around." We are here because we like 3.5 and don't fancy switching to a new rule set. In one form or the other, we have already come around.