|
This is a query for Mr. Bulmahn,
What areas of the game do you feel need more playtesting?
I ask because it is getting difficult to pinpoint what hasn't been worked on, and thusly so far it has been more playtesting what I find interesting.
Without any leading questions from me: as a matter of input from the designer, and with the Beta coming out soon, what areas should/could the playtesters devote some attention to?
Director of Games
|
This is a query for Mr. Bulmahn,
What areas of the game do you feel need more playtesting?
I ask because it is getting difficult to pinpoint what hasn't been worked on, and thusly so far it has been more playtesting what I find interesting.
Without any leading questions from me: as a matter of input from the designer, and with the Beta coming out soon, what areas should/could the playtesters devote some attention to?
Hey there, with the Beta off the printer, and not due to be release for about two months, feel free to take it easy for a bit. Play the game, but remember that we are changing a host of things here in two months that we no longer have the ability to alter until then.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Jason is too modest.
Things that Yon Publisher would like to see playtested:
The cleric's channel energy ability, especially as it pertains to big fights with undead and long-term healing. It is intended to soften the impact of the so-called "15 minute adventure day". Does it?
The barbarian's rage points mechanic. I think most readers agree that versatility with a barbarian's rage is preferable to the standard method, but the idea of points adds a somewhat new element to class powers. On first read, a lot of people are turned off by it. How do players and GMs feel after using it in play for a few sessions? Anyone converted? Anyone turned off by it? I know the gut reactions to this one, but I'm curious to dig deeper.
The #1 hesitation I see among a lot of gamers regarding switching to Pathfinder is the claim of backwards compatibility. Some of the changes (we hope improvements) in the core rules do mean things are a little different here and there, but how different does it really seem in play? How difficult is it to, say, convert any Pathfinder adventure to the system? A lot of people seem to be running Curse of the Crimson Throne or Rise of the Runelords in their Pathfinder RPG playtests. How easy is the "conversion" process?
I will think of more, but those are the ones that stand out to me as areas that deserve further scrutiny.
|
The #1 hesitation I see among a lot of gamers regarding switching to Pathfinder is the claim of backwards compatibility. Some of the changes (we hope improvements) in the core rules do mean things are a little different here and there, but how different does it really seem in play? How difficult is it to, say, convert any Pathfinder adventure to the system? A lot of people seem to be running Curse of the Crimson Throne or Rise of the Runelords in their Pathfinder RPG playtests. How easy is the "conversion" process?I will think of more, but those are the ones that stand out to me as areas that deserve further scrutiny.
I can comment on this one for you for CoCT, generally quite easy its a matter of adding a hitpoint per hitdice and a feat in most cases to various NPC's, the main sticking point I've found so far is at the end of Edge and Seven days there are spell casters who when converted need a full tactical rework as they lose their specialist and domain spells and gain a raft of differant abilities. It's not so bad in Edge with only Vreck, but Seven Days has 3 of the little blighters which isn't exactly a small amount of work. That being said the encounters could probably be run as is without being a walkover for the PC's as their quite tough anyhow.
So does that means there will be a new DL in 2 months or is it being sold and by printers do you mean its going to be a real bood not a PDF?
It's not an "or" it's both.
The Pathfinder RPG Beta release will be available in August 2008 as a free PDF download and as a 400+-page full-color softcover print edition.
Many people have converted the two Pathfinder Adventure paths, so I went ack and converted Whispering Cairn. It too was easy,my most difficult work came from format errors, which have no impact on the rules, I just like having things just so.
In the end though, it's very easy to convert these adventures. And any of it can be done on the fly, i.e. a few more hitpoints per HD and CMB can be done mentaqlly in seconds. And that's only with Class level NPCS.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Jason is too modest.
Things that Yon Publisher would like to see playtested:
The cleric's channel energy ability, especially as it pertains to big fights with undead and long-term healing. It is intended to soften the impact of the so-called "15 minute adventure day". Does it?
In our play-by-post, it has allowed the party to last longer. We combined it with the racial hit die variant to see how that worked. I enjoyed the pace of the adventure but a lot of prepared adventures assume a 15 minute adventure day.
Perhaps, it worked a little too well. I think the adventure we were using assumed that the party would be beat up pretty hard by the time they reached a certain room, would have returned home, leveled up and then reapproached to kill the big bad evil guy. Our party had earned the experience points but was able to use the channel energy to stay in the game and so met one of the BBEGs without having levelled up.
Jason is too modest.
Things that Yon Publisher would like to see playtested:
The cleric's channel energy ability, especially as it pertains to big fights with undead and long-term healing. It is intended to soften the impact of the so-called "15 minute adventure day". Does it?
The barbarian's rage points mechanic. I think most readers agree that versatility with a barbarian's rage is preferable to the standard method, but the idea of points adds a somewhat new element to class powers. On first read, a lot of people are turned off by it. How do players and GMs feel after using it in play for a few sessions? Anyone converted? Anyone turned off by it? I know the gut reactions to this one, but I'm curious to dig deeper.
The #1 hesitation I see among a lot of gamers regarding switching to Pathfinder is the claim of backwards compatibility. Some of the changes (we hope improvements) in the core rules do mean things are a little different here and there, but how different does it really seem in play? How difficult is it to, say, convert any Pathfinder adventure to the system? A lot of people seem to be running Curse of the Crimson Throne or Rise of the Runelords in their Pathfinder RPG playtests. How easy is the "conversion" process?
I will think of more, but those are the ones that stand out to me as areas that deserve further scrutiny.
Thank you for posting this. I like rage points in principle, but cannot comment on them from a playtest point of view, since my playtest group is only just going to have a player take a level of Pathfinder RPG Barbarian.
I can, however, comment on the Channel Energy mechanics, which are an improvement over the old Turn Undead mechanics, that were needlessly complicated and generally went unused. Now to your specific and indeed somewhat justified concerns:
1) Channel Positive Energy in its current incarnation makes important fights against the undead too easy
2) Channel Positive Energy does help mitigate the so-called '15-minute adventuring day'
I would recommend toning down the healing/damage done by Channel Energy to a scale similar to that of the Cure ... Wounds spells of the appropriate level. To ensure that the positive impact of the mechanic's amelioration of the '15-minute adventuring day' is not lost, however, the above change would best be combined with increased frequency of usage of the Channel Energy ability. This would probably entail giving the Cleric and possibly the Paladin more uses of the ability per day, as making it at will would probably be too much.
|
Im currently running a campaign that started with Shattered Gates of Slaughterguard, and is currently in Expedition to Ravenloft, and will be going to Expedition to Demonweb Pits.....Ive already implemented the Clerics Channel ability over the Turn Undead. When the Beta comes out, Ill pick up a hardcopy or two at Gencon and switch everyone over fully.
Ive just started the scenario and the characters are in Barovia with the Zombie invasion...and its working like a charm. After 3 encounters with the beefed up Zombies, where I anticipated the party to need to rest at the Inn before heading off to the graveyard and church, they are still raring to go.
Now a quick question...One of the players is playing a Warmage. When I do the conversion, any suggestions as to how to make the Warmage over into PRPG?
Obviously unlimited Cantrips. Thought also to allow them to choose 1 Martial Weapon. Anything else?
|
|
Channeling positive energy most certainly makes the adventuring day last longer, especially as the cleric can use the ability to heal multiple injuries.
It can also make fights last longer, when the cleric heals the enemy alongside the PCs. That makes for some interesting mixed emotions.
As for vs. undead, it is slightly more powerful than the old ability, especially against multiple undead. A 1st cleric can now destroy skeletons when he uses the ability twice in a row. I don't yet think it is overpowered.
The ability came into play twice in my home game in Fortress of the Stone Giants. The cleric and the wizard faced the deathwebs while the others were still scaling the cliff. The ability is likely the only thing that kept the cleric alive. The fight lasted three rounds. And two fireballs and two channeling positive energies were used. The flavor difference is seen in the fact that the cleric, close to death, managed to revitalize himself while also driving off the foes (two deathwebs failed their saves and fled to the back of the cave).
Later, in the small tunnels, the cleric had one last channeling left and used it to heal himself and a companion. It also healed two redcaps, but I ruled it was enough to drive them away at the same time, per the creature description.
Overall, I think the new mechanic works pretty well the way it is currently written. I originally thought a d8 would make more sense than a d6 but, math wise, the d6 is probably more balanced.
|
|
Jason is too modest.
Things that Yon Publisher would like to see playtested:
The cleric's channel energy ability, especially as it pertains to big fights with undead and long-term healing. It is intended to soften the impact of the so-called "15 minute adventure day". Does it?
In our play-by-post, it has allowed the party to last longer. We combined it with the racial hit die variant to see how that worked. I enjoyed the pace of the adventure but a lot of prepared adventures assume a 15 minute adventure day.
Perhaps, it worked a little too well. I think the adventure we were using assumed that the party would be beat up pretty hard by the time they reached a certain room, would have returned home, leveled up and then reapproached to kill the big bad evil guy. Our party had earned the experience points but was able to use the channel energy to stay in the game and so met one of the BBEGs without having levelled up.
Some of that was the fault of metagaming on my part. I really, really, really didn't expect the BBEG to be a real vampire when we were only level 1.
He's a goblin, how hard could he be, I thought. And NPCs with delusions of undeadness seemed to be a theme :)
|
Erik-just my two cents worth here. For me, I like the way Barbarian rage points enhance the versatility of my barbarian PC. As for channeled energy, it has been quite helpful in reducing the 15 minute adventuring day. Of course, if you don't have the Selective Channeling feat, there is a element of risk that adds to the tension of a combat encounter.
As for conversions, so far, so good.
It can also make fights last longer, when the cleric heals the enemy alongside the PCs. That makes for some interesting mixed emotions.As for vs. undead, it is slightly more powerful than the old ability, especially against multiple undead. A 1st cleric can now destroy skeletons when he uses the ability twice in a row. I don't yet think it is overpowered.
I love that mixed emotion you and other posters describe when it can potentially heal enemies and allies. The first time the players think of it, they look at you as if it must be some sort of istake, but then it dawns on them. It's a new type of strategy.
If they hate it, Selective Channeling is an easy way to mitigate it at the cost of a Feat.
I agree, a little hard on undead to start, but I think it all washes out after the first few levels.
|
|
With respect to backwards compatibility:
I'm being thorough and a bit picky about my conversion of Rise of the Runelords, mostly because it gives me an excuse to playtest things that I wouldn't get to do otherwise (like rage points), but even with that, the conversion has been simple as can be. If I weren't bothering to be picky, the conversion would be about 20 seconds per encounter: the amount of time needed to figure CMB for the monsters involved.
With respect to rage points:
Having just run through the
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Some of that was the fault of metagaming on my part. I really, really, really didn't expect the BBEG to be a real vampire when we were only level 1.He's a goblin, how hard could he be, I thought. And NPCs with delusions of undeadness seemed to be a theme :)
Yes, the adventure* has some quirky stuff: a vampire that just can't be, a high CR monster in an environment that gives him all the advantages (facing a low CR party), and some other oddities. The DM is left telling the metagamer "What part of 'beware of the vampire' didn't you understand?".
Still though, I think that the extra healing lets the party game longer which may throw off the assumptions of adventure writers regarding how and when a party will take a rest. If adventures are written for a 15 minute adventuring day, then a longer adventuring day may sometimes get PCs into trouble. Good fun though.
Wicht wasn't fond of the racial hit die at the beginning. His dwarven wizard has been kicking ass and mixing it up like any brawler. It must be fun to play a wizard that pounds the heck out of stuff with his bonded warhammer. It is certainly is fun to watch.
*Name of adventure spoilered for those who might play it:
Goodman Games, Into the Wilderness
|
|
Wicht wasn't fond of the racial hit die at the beginning. His dwarven wizard has been kicking ass and mixing it up like any brawler. It must be fun to play a wizard that pounds the heck out of stuff with his bonded warhammer. It is certainly is fun to watch.
I still think, mechanics wise, the racial hit dice unbalances the CR assumptions. Game wise, it is fun to have a Dwarven Transmuter with more hitpoints than the 1/2 orc Barbarian/Cleric (at least until the Wraith sucked out my constitution).
Things that Yon Publisher would like to see playtested:
The cleric's channel energy ability, especially as it pertains to big fights with undead and long-term healing. It is intended to soften the impact of the so-called "15 minute adventure day". Does it?
The answer to that would be an unqualified yes. That, combined with the the hit die upgrades and the beginning HP options go a long way to allowing for a fuller game day.
The barbarian's rage points mechanic. I think most readers agree that versatility with a barbarian's rage is preferable to the standard method, but the idea of points adds a somewhat new element to class powers. On first read, a lot of people are turned off by it. How do players and GMs feel after using it in play for a few sessions? Anyone converted? Anyone turned off by it? I know the gut reactions to this one, but I'm curious to dig deeper.
I've only had one chance to run a barbarian in playtest, as an enemy, but the options are appealing. Yes, I used the rage points mainly for the standard rage, but the Powerful Blow rage power came in handy a couple times during the fight. The mechanics take a bit more work than the old barbarian, but the math isn't any worse than a psion keeping track of their points.
The #1 hesitation I see among a lot of gamers regarding switching to Pathfinder is the claim of backwards compatibility. Some of the changes (we hope improvements) in the core rules do mean things are a little different here and there, but how different does it really seem in play? How difficult is it to, say, convert any Pathfinder adventure to the system? A lot of people seem to be running Curse of the Crimson Throne or Rise of the Runelords in their Pathfinder RPG playtests. How easy is the "conversion" process?
I'm currently running my group through CotCT and have done conversions for the first adventure. The major, classed NPCs have taken maybe 10-15 minutes to convert, factoring in the new choices, such as the rogue talents for the Spider King or additional spells for Trinia Sabor. On the whole, backwards compatibility hasn't been a major issue. I've made minor tweaks on monsters, mainly hit points, to ensure that they allow for a challenge for PF characters.
Admittedly, a full conversion of monsters seems a little daunting, but I can't give an honest critique at the moment since I haven't really given it a shot. I plan on working up a "neo-otyugh" for a sewer escape, so when that gets done I'll be happy to post the outcome and how it fares against the PCs.
|
|
Jason is too modest.
Things that Yon Publisher would like to see playtested:
...channel energy...
...barbarian's rage points...
...backwards compatibility...
I will think of more, but those are the ones that stand out to me as areas that deserve further scrutiny.
I'm running CotCT. No conversion of the AP. Everything is running good. Backwards compatibility has worked out fine so far.
The party has no cleric though one of the members does have the Channel Energy ability. (I gave it and a couple of other things to offset the no cleric thing.) The fighter who has it really likes it. (He's a brand new to D&D, and RPG's, player.) He used it in the fight against Verick. Even though he healed Verick he felt that it was better to help out his party even if he did help out the 'bad guy'. We do have a Dragon Shaman using his vigor aura which also has been helpful. The channel energy ability though was very effective when it was used. I think it saved 2 PC's for sure (down to 1 & 2 hp's) and probably a third as well.
The wizard and his unlimited acid arrow was able to continue to be a factor is several battles throughout the day. The player was good to be useful for long periods. (We've had several fights/encounters in a day and many resources are being used.)
I don't believe in the 15 minute day thing... so far it isn't a problem.
No barbarians in the party, so no feedback there.
We are happy with how the PRPG is working out.
Let us know what else we can let you know about... :]
|
I'm running CotCT. No conversion of the AP. Everything is running good. Backwards compatibility has worked out fine so far.
...
We do have a Dragon Shaman using his vigor aura which also has been helpful. The channel energy ability though was very effective when it was used. I think it saved 2 PC's for sure (down to 1 & 2 hp's) and probably a third as well.
The wizard and his unlimited acid arrow was able to continue to be a factor is several battles throughout the day. The player was good to be useful for long periods. (We've had several fights/encounters in a day and many resources are being used.)
I play the wizard and the dragon shaman (sorta). The unlimited use acid arrow, 0-level spells, increased hitpoints, +2 armor bonus, arcane bond, increased hitpoints, and even the martial weapon proficiency (he's human) make me more willing to engage in combat than with a 3.x wizard of the same level. However, such a PC would easily get a +1 LA (+2?) in a strict RAW 3.x game.
|
|
Jason is too modest. Things that Yon Publisher would like to see playtested:
...channel energy...
We have yet to see this impact the game negatively, except when the NPC Evil Cleric used Negative Energy Chaneling to empower his undead AND damage the party at the same time. Bwahahahaha.
...barbarian's rage points...
I am still not fond of the Rage points mechanic, but love the idea of Rage Powers. After several playtest sessions, we converted completely to the Rage mechanic found here. It seemed to please everyone, and made math tracking (such as points per round) easier for all.
...backwards compatibility...
I think in general this is still possible with very little conversion needed. Grapple (and any other CMB maneuvers) are the things I've noticed that need converting first in a module. Petty things like skill points I save for only important encounters. So far, we have playteseted through all the original 3.0 modules (Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury, Standing Stone, etc) with little trouble at all converting them.
Things that Yon Publisher would like to see playtested:
The cleric's channel energy ability, especially as it pertains to big fights with undead and long-term healing. It is intended to soften the impact of the so-called "15 minute adventure day". Does it?
We were playing Burnt Offerings this evening and the the cleric's energy channel ability definitely allowed the cleric to actually cast her spells as non-heals and the ability to heal in a burst was much appreciated. I think this has been a success for us.
The barbarian's rage points mechanic. I think most readers agree that versatility with a barbarian's rage is preferable to the standard method, but the idea of points adds a somewhat new element to class powers. On first read, a lot of people are turned off by it. How do players and GMs feel after using it in play for a few sessions? Anyone converted? Anyone turned off by it? I know the gut reactions to this one, but I'm curious to dig deeper.
One of my players is a barbarian. I think he's enjoying the new rage, but one thing I worry about is that we might lose track of points from time to time. I pretty well let him track that. If I were to run a number of NPC barbarians (something I have not done yet) I suspect I might lose track of rage points. My players seem to like the idea of using rage points, but we've only played a handful of games so far.
The #1 hesitation I see among a lot of gamers regarding switching to Pathfinder is the claim of backwards compatibility.
I think the number one hesitation our group had going in was power creep. We weren't all that worried about total backwards compatibility.
We are still stumbling around a little bit with the changes in skills, but we're slowly getting used to it. I think I finally got used to using perception instead of spot/search/listen this evening. ;-)
One thing that I'm starting to wonder about is the experience. I started running Burnt Offerings using the Alpha 3 standard table, but I think I might switch to the fast table because the advancement is noticeably slower and I'm worried about the players getting a bit behind the curve with regard to how they are expected to be in the adventure path. I added a few more monsters and the occasional other encounter here and there, but even so, I'm still worried they are going to be a bit behind where they should be for the adventure path. I really do like having three different experience options though.
How difficult is it to, say, convert any Pathfinder adventure to the system? A lot of people seem to be running Curse of the Crimson Throne or Rise of the Runelords in their Pathfinder RPG playtests. How easy is the "conversion" process?
So far we're only in the opening stages of Rise of the Runelords (about to start the semi-optional dungeon) and I haven't found it too hard to do the conversion. I can do a lot of it on the fly at these low levels, although I didn't quite convert the goblin warchanter correctly on the first evening. I think for the rest, especially Thistletop, I'll do more of the conversion beforehand for all the major NPCs. I don't expect it to be all that difficult.
I answered some of EM's questions in my ongoing playtest report here in some detail, but I thought i'd just add something that occurred to me last night when i started creating some higher level NPC's
normally i use free NPC generators (Jamie bucks or Andragors 3,5). can anyone from Paizo say if they are going to commission / support this kind of essential DM support, or failing that if they will allow a 3rd party to use the PF rule system for this?
(haven't seen it in another post, but apologies if this has already been covered)
(if the NPC was already created i'd just convert CMB and maybe add HP's on the fly, but I'm trying to crunch the new rules for multiple classes so I spent a few hours last night getting some 7-9th level NPC's Pathfindered - and it was quicker going from scratch than dissassembling the auto generated one)
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I would go so far as to say that "most" of the big character generator computer aids will be doing Pathfinder RPG versions. PC Gen, for example, just got approval the other day, and we are working with three or four other companies with for-sale products as well.
Since all of the rules are open under the terms of the OGL, I encourage all programmers interested to incorporate the rules into their systems.
The names of the gods are the only IP in the entire book, but everything else is fair game.
|
|
The cleric's channel energy ability, especially as it pertains to big fights with undead and long-term healing. It is intended to soften the impact of the so-called "15 minute adventure day". Does it?
Yes it prolongs the day and it's very much appreciated!
Big fights with undead... well it slaughters multiple undead.. but then against multiple undead in 3e usually means low level undead, so that's ok. I like that it hurts higher level undead, unlike 3e where turning is a wasted effort.
The barbarian's rage points mechanic. I think most readers agree that versatility with a barbarian's rage is preferable to the standard method, but the idea of points adds a somewhat new element to class powers. On first read, a lot of people are turned off by it. How do players and GMs feel after using it in play for a few sessions? Anyone converted? Anyone turned off by it? I know the gut reactions to this one, but I'm curious to dig deeper.
I like rage points, I had one person complain it was like raging in WoW and someone looked at it and agreed. I have to agree too... however, the new system allows for a lot more to be done and the player seems to enjoy it.
The #1 hesitation I see among a lot of gamers regarding switching to Pathfinder is the claim of backwards compatibility. Some of the changes (we hope improvements) in the core rules do mean things are a little different here and there, but how different does it really seem in play? How difficult is it to, say, convert any Pathfinder adventure to the system? A lot of people seem to be running Curse of the Crimson Throne or Rise of the Runelords in their Pathfinder RPG playtests. How easy is the "conversion" process?
The Complete/PHB2/SplatbookEtc. classes don't overshadow the Core classes anymore... which is nice. Don't have a problem running RotR under the new rules at all. Just have to remember how skills convert over or what to do with grapple now if they're relevant to the encounter. If they're irrelevant, no reason to waste time converting them, usually a standard post-it note on top of the stat block is enough space for conversion notes.. if that much space is even needed!
I will think of more, but those are the ones that stand out to me as areas that deserve further scrutiny.
The Sorcerer touch attacks are still a pet peeve. A sorcerer in melee has proven time and time again to be a dead sorcerer, so it becomes a very useless level 1 ability compared to what wizards get. A sorcerer that hangs back to cast spells instead of using his "claws" becomes a sorcerer that makes us rest sooner then the other classes that have to manage their "resources."
I would go so far as to say that "most" of the big character generator computer aids will be doing Pathfinder RPG versions.
Oh, come on, use names already. I don't know what 'big' is. I use DM Genie. How about DM Genie?
|
|
I would go so far as to say that "most" of the big character generator computer aids will be doing Pathfinder RPG versions. PC Gen, for example, just got approval the other day, and we are working with three or four other companies with for-sale products as well.
Since all of the rules are open under the terms of the OGL, I encourage all programmers interested to incorporate the rules into their systems.
The names of the gods are the only IP in the entire book, but everything else is fair game.
Nice. The GSL doesn't allow such s/w for 4E, correct?
|
|
Just a thought and it may not even be in line with your strategy, but perhaps you could unleash some of the pent up playtester restlessness on brainstorming a basic version of Pathfinder rules to appeal more to the "uninitiated." Figure out a way to keep Alpha 3 rules intact, but find "innovative" ways to make it less daunting for someone who has never played an RPG before.
It might be interesting running "Pathfinder Basic" playtests with people who have never gamed before and give people an execuse to introduce their hobby to a wider circle of friends and family.
(***Warning - Burnt Offerings/Rise of the Runelords Spoilers***)
I've finally gotten some conversion in my game group (running Burnt Offerings in RotRL), and the testing has commenced. I'm really giving the new rules a workout though - the party is currently a mix of 3.5 and Pathfinder, as well as being Gestalt (yes, I'm still a glutton for punishment).
At the moment, I have several players in the party representing both 3.5 and A3 versions of core classes, which is allowing me to see how each play in the same scenarios. My current "Versus" classes are:
Druid
Rogue
Cleric
Barbarian (though the 3.5 barbarian just switched over to A3)
So far, both versions have been able to play side by side without any difficulty. They come at the scenarios differently, but not in any 'game-breaking' ways I have noticed yet. Even using the two different skill versions has not been a big issue.
The A3 cleric is a recent addition, and will get his first play this Friday. We'll see how the Channel Energy ability works - considering that having to pull out of the Catacombs to rest/heal was the impetus for the character converting, it will be a good test of the party's overall endurance now.
The Rage Points have gone over very well. The players have not had any real problems tracking point usage, and really like the new variety of uses for Rage. Having two A3 Barbarians in the party will showcase how they can go down completely different paths - I'm looking forward to seeing this as the campaign continues.
I've already had to change my major NPCs into Gestalt to be a challenge to the party, and I'm slowing the party advancement to be one level behind recommended to keep things challenging. So far this is working (they got their first real challenge in the Catacombs - I added several more Sinspawn to really push them and focus on team tactics). I will modify some of the other major NPCs to A3 on a case-by-case basis (Karzoug, I'm looking at you....and getting a headache).
All in all, it is going well. The players like it, I like it, and it seems both versions can play alongside each other without stealing the limelight too much.
Okay...I'll shut up now. Sorry for the ramble ;P
Your Friendly Neighborhood Dalesman
"Bringing Big D**n Justice to the Bad Guys Since 1369 DR"
The single worst Pathfinder rule change at this point IMO which needs serious playtesting and feedback is the no experience crafting after L5+ particularly high level campaigns L13+ in suggested wealth by level campaigns.
The No Experience Crafting rule breaks the CR mechanic the game is based on using suggested wealth by level without the associated experience cost brake on crafting abuse.
All that free extra magical wealth for a single feat for all party members compared to existing rules with via Craft Wondrous Item or the Leadership feat to obtain a NPC party crafter effectively makes the PCs higher level against standard CR encounters.
|
|
The No Experience Crafting rule breaks the CR mechanic the game is based on using suggested wealth by level without the associated experience cost brake on crafting abuse.
All that free extra magical wealth for a single feat for all party members compared to existing rules with via Craft Wondrous Item or the Leadership feat to obtain a NPC party crafter effectively makes the PCs higher level against standard CR encounters.
Not necessarily. I have an opinion on Crafting that goes along the lines of WOTC.
If you're crafting, you're not having fun.
Let me explain that, if you're crafting... everyone is sitting around the table doing nothing. Crafting is a waste of time, both in game and out of game. An archer making arrows on the road while they camp is very different then a Wizard/Sorcerer who sucks up weeks of in game time crafting.
Crafting vs Balance comes down to the DM. If the DM lets the PCs sit around doing nothing and fails to have the BBEG continue to destroy the world, then the group deserve the imbalance and the DM deserves to have his campaign ruined.
If the BBEG is going to a dragon's treasure hoard to get the Scepter of Domination to rule all of Lodoss and the good guys decide to hang around while the Wizard makes some magic swords for them, then the PCs deserve to find the dragon dead and the Scepter gone.
|
The #1 hesitation I see among a lot of gamers regarding switching to Pathfinder is the claim of backwards compatibility. Some of the changes (we hope improvements) in the core rules do mean things are a little different here and there, but how different does it really seem in play? How difficult is it to, say, convert any Pathfinder adventure to the system? A lot of people seem to be running Curse of the Crimson Throne or Rise of the Runelords in their Pathfinder RPG playtests. How easy is the "conversion" process"
I'm in the middle of playing Necromancer's module "The Vault of Larin Karr" (which was originally printed for 3.0). Part of this is a full conversion of the module, and at this point I've noticed that it's easier than I would have ever imagined (I even did an on-the-fly conversion of a level 5 cleric in the middle of a fight).
I'll try to get better at posting my conversion thoughts as I go through the module.
Here is a link to my playtest of the Channel Energy mechanic: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?p=4345377#post4345377
The thread also contains suggested solutions.
I think the adventure we were using assumed that the party would be beat up pretty hard by the time they reached a certain room, would have returned home, leveled up and then reapproached to kill the big bad evil guy. Our party had earned the experience points but was able to use the channel energy to stay in the game and so met one of the BBEGs without having levelled up.
All of my gaming groups level up 'in situ' - hit dice, to hit, saves, extra spells, feats, etc. We just coincide the level up at the end of a session so mechanics can be crunched in downtime (although we always roll hit dice increases in front of the DM/group). It makes sense to do this as PCs are supposed to be improving through experience predominantly and are presumed to be 'training' in downtime (this is assumed, not role-played, unless it is significant and fun). It makes little sense to have to break off a quest every time PCs accumulate the experience to level up.
Also it is a way to combat the '15 minute' day which has become less of an issue with the A3 PRPG rules upgrades.
The one upgrade we've made so far is the cleric turn ability - damage but not heal (I think we'll be converting this soon). This has made the turn ability relevant. Before this change we looked at number of turns/day as extra smite/other ability use chances.
The reason we've not converted totally (and I'm personally *really* wanting a full conversion) is a lot of the people I game with are reluctant to have to 'reinvent the wheel' (they'veconverted a few times before). Of course, PRPG is not reinventing the wheel but enhancing the wheel so you get a better ride. Full conversion in my groups will most probably happen over the next couple of months but I just thought I'd share that the A3 rules are great but players (I play with) are pretty reactionary to change.
On a different forum, we established that there are two different kinds of compatibility - sideways and backwards.
Backwards compatibility isn't much of an issue with PRPG - this is the ability to play older modules, or even 3.5 modules with relative ease. PRPG succeeds here because it retains gnomes and bards, and all the things that 3rd edition (and even 2nd edition) modules are written around.
Sideways compatibility is the RPG's ability to be augmented with like-version products, in this case - things like Bo9s or Complete Arcane. To some, PRPG fails in this regard because of the relative power creep and whether or not a Scout (for example) from Complete Adventurer would be able to hold his own when coupled with a party of PRPG core characters.
This isn't that big of a deal to me personally, but I know some folks are concerned about it.
I like your definition here. I'd say that Sideways compatability is important to me as well.
If the goal of the game is to allow us to use our extensive libraries of 3.5 materials, I'd like to do so without a majority of those materials being outdated by upping the power of the Core stuff.
-Steve
Not core classes don't overshadow the Core classes anymore... which is nice. But the new spells sucks. My players (and I) hate pathfinder magic. I never will use it in my games. Grease, web, glitterdust... needn’t changes. They are fine in 3.5
I don’t like rogue magic tricks. Rogue isn’t a magic user class (UMD is different)
Unlimited Cantrips is fine, very funny. I don’t see unbalace.
The barbarian's rage points mechanic... it’s fine. For now (high levels don’t playtested)
I don’t like the new fighter.
Channel Energy mechanics… I don’t know. The idea is good, but I need more playtest. I am waiting for the beta...
Please: in gold edition, the spells should not suck
Please: in gold edition, the spells should not suck
True. I agree. Pahfinder's magic is very sad
If the pathfinder's magic sucks.... is better don't change it.
|
I just got done running a pathfinder converted Red Hand of Doom run through parts 1 and 2 of the adventure and so far they are loving it. The even love what it does with the enemies.
One of the bads used grappled on them and in the end, thanks to the new mechanic everyone was laughing and smiling in the end instead of bored.
One major source of complaints was the rampant use of the melee touch attack for sorceror powers and wizard powers(enchantment school) and for some of the cleric powers. The player's would really love to not have their squishy attempting to get up close and personal just to use what look like really cool abilities otherwise.
Also new fighter rocks. He is undisputably the best at using weapons ever, even at the cost of his other features. The overall feeling at the table was that the slight power creep was needed as it allowed everyone to be better at what the y do without breaking the game wide open.
Channel energy has been working like a charm( so much so that the paladin has actually used it in addition to the cleric, a feat I can claim to have never seen with the old turning), but then again we havent run into many undead. That'll be next time.
One complaint I got was from a guy who was attempting to convert a beloved 3.5 character into a pathfinder and was upset to see his air and fire domains no longer let him turn/rebuke elementals as though they were undead, but I suppose that was just a casualty of the changes in the system.
As for barbarian rage point, everyone was super excited by them. They worked very well and after the night was over I had players who usually only play casters clamoring to play the barbarian and( due to an awesome demonstration) the monk, classes which havent seen play at my table for more than a level or so dip since the early days of 3.5.
The only other problem I ran into was a rather confusing rapid shot/ many shot overlap problem, where the player wanted to use both at once and I was unable to divine a clear answer out of the rules.
Otherwise, the game ran much more smoothly than it had when we had played the same adventure in 3.5 and the game really seemed to be everything we had hoped 4th ed. would bring.
The following was one of my major complaints about Alpha 2 and 3, and the problem may have already been solved in Beta. So if I'm poking a dead horse please forgive me. (I've generally shut up on this issue lately since Beta is not out yet.)
In my group of players those that play arcane casters love using familiars (including myself). We come up with creative uses for them and make them into NPCs, complete with their own personalities, wants and needs. Many are now furious that if they want to play a sorcerer and have a familiar then their bloodline is all but chosen for them. Not only does this not meet the criteria for backwards compatability but it leaves behind the original concept of the sorcerer as written by WotC. (The same reasons that Jason is refusing to alter the paladin's alignment restrictions - something I agree with.)
Please change it back so that all sorcerers have access to a familiar regardless of bloodline. (This doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a class feature... a feat available to all arcane casters at level one would be great!)
As for other issues... Rage points for barbarians? Works great! Energy channeling for clerics? Still playtesting, but great results so far! New fighter class abilities and progression? Fantastic! New versions of old spells? This one has mixed reviews... but mostly "aawwww"'s. I know the "save or die" effects have never been popular, but I think the real problem is that there were too many of them. Finger of Death should most certainly be a save or die effect. It's the entire point of the spell. On the other hand, Identify has been met with good reviews.