Director of Games
|
Welcome to the General Discussion Forum of the Beta Playtest of the Pathfinder RPG. This forum is for posting general observations about the rules as well as discussing aspects of the rules that have not yet been brought up in the Design Forums.
Those of you who participated in the Alpha playtest will notice a change. Instead of discussing the entire system all at once, we will now be focusing on specific aspects of the rules in a limited period, so as to focus the discussion. Although we will be monitoring this forum for ideas to discuss later, our primary focus will be on the design forums, so if you want to make sure your voice is heard, be sure to post in the Design Forums.
Once again, welcome to the Beta Playtest. I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Contributor
|
Thanks, Jason! I know I'm not the only one (by a long shot), but I greatly appreciate your hard work, as well as that of all the Paizo team. Thanks for the opportunity to contribute directly to our beloved game. I look forward to the work before us in the coming year.
For you and all the playtesters, I will do my best over the next few days to generate a list of changes from the Alpha 3 release to the Beta. This will likely need to be a collaborative effort, so I will appreciate any help (and corrections) in the work.
What happened to the posts in the old general discussion forum?
|
|
I picked up my copy here at Gen Con and have read through most of it already.
Personally, I'm extremely disappointed. While there was a lot of work put into it, there are a ton of items that remain unchanged from Alpha 3, and some of them simply don't work at all. The best part is that feedback will be more structured than it has been in the past.
The biggest concerns I have will certainly wait until you're ready to address them, and so I remain hopeful that they will be addressed before the final release.
Although this is not the rules forum, I thought I would provide an example of the kind of thing that I mean... While the CMB bonus is great, the DC for many attacks is impossibly high. For example, in our Alpha 3 Playtest my wolf companion could not trip an opponent with a natural 20... Any opponent, no matter how poorly the rolled.
The DC is 15 + the CMB of the target - so for any two targets that are evenly matched, there is only a 25% chance of success. However, the animal companion has a CMB of 5 points below any 'challenge' for our level, since it does not have a good BAB and has a lower strength modifier than most monsters. On an opposed Strength check (the 3.5 method) it could trip even the strongest creature when the wolf rolled a 20 and the opponent a 1 (the opponent would have to have a Str modifier of +20 or more).
So, I'm looking forward to providing that feedback in the appropriate forum, and having a chance for open debate (two sides talking AND listening) instead of the sussuruss of a thousand voices chattering. On the whole though, I'm very afraid for the future of Pathfinder based on this document. Although I'm happy to see changes made (whether more than exist at present or less) I do want all changes to make the game better. There will be quite a few examples where the game was made more complicated rather than less (even if the math is easier). It pains me to be patient to bring up each one, but since I do want them all to receive due consideration, I'm happy that the feedback will be strucured in this manner.
I wanted to say thanks for offering a download version split up by chapter!
This might seem like an odd thing to be grateful for, but keeping the individual PDFs below 5MB makes it much easier for devices with limited RAM (such as PDAs and SmartPhones) to handle the PDFs without hanging. So for me, that's a HUGE improvement over the single large file offered in Alpha 3 — even the slimmed-down, printer-friendly version caused my WinMobile6 PDA to choke. Now I can finally keep the rules on me at all times (for quick-reference) without needing to lug the printed version everywhere or having to keep a laptop on me for the single-file PDF.
It's my hope that in a year's time, the purchasable version will also be offered in such a format.
Thanks again!
Paizo types - have you thought about a separate forum for Introductions and First Impressions?
It looks to me like we're going to get a lot of new blood on the forums, and a lot of people posting new threads with their first impressions, and I think it would be less work for everyone if there was a clearly defined section for those.
|
Paizo types - have you thought about a separate forum for Introductions and First Impressions?
It looks to me like we're going to get a lot of new blood on the forums, and a lot of people posting new threads with their first impressions, and I think it would be less work for everyone if there was a clearly defined section for those.
Agreed. But at the same time, we want the new people to feel at home. I'd support such a forum.
Jal Dorak - I'll admit that I came to this from a place of eye rolling, but you're absolutely right that we want to welcome new people and not drive them off.
The separate playtest threads are also a good step in this direction, too.
Playtest Beta
First of all, I got a problem with page numbering: the third page (in the pdf) is numbered as "2" (please change!). Now, by the way, even pages are at the left side, when you display to pages next to each other, and the page numbers are in the middle instead at the outside of the book. If you do not want to give the first page a number, then please add an additional unnumbered page at second position to get those things right.
What I miss is an index. One always needs to find something, and of course in play one needs to find it fast, and not everybody is going to use a pdf reader with "find" option but also printed version will be used.
What I further miss is a table converting those archaic units (nice for a "historic" game) such as ft., lb., and °F into m, kg, and K - ok, you got me, °C instead of Kelvin. Place this table at a prominent and easy to find location, please, maybe last page of (missing ;-) ) index.
p. 398: Well, if I remember the book of E. Cunningham: "Evermeet" right, than elfes are quite "flat" except when they nurse a baby. (But than again I remembered elfes as being smaller than humans, and the drawing at p. 8 and table 8-3 at p. 124 state the contrary.) Nevertheless the creature at p. 398 with elf-like ears is, eh, too well bestowed for an Elf, in my opinion.
I wanted to post my comments about rules in the Design forum of Playtest Beta but did not find it, so here you go:
Playtest Beta
I am referring to the printed numbers in the following, so to get the number of the page in the pdf please add 1.
p. 393: Lose a level/negative level: good idea, keep it so!
p. 205: XP costs: Yes, one should not lose XP by performing something!
I did not find anything about an alignment penalty. (OK, did not read the whole text. Did I miss the rule? Where?) Maybe instead of losing XP, when acting out of one's alignment or when changing one's alignment, either negative levels could be bestowed, or the necessary XP value to reach the next (and only the next) level could be increased instead?
p. 194: Find the path. Downsizing the original spell is OK (it *was* oversized), but I have a problem with "as long as it is large". I would like to see a spell which allows to find "mundane" locations like a "shop" of a horse-dealer or the next town gate (would "outside" work here?) etc. (Is it only us always leaving settlements in a hurry?), or a place with water in the desert (a large oasis somewhere at the same plane would be found, but a small spring nearer to the adventurers could be more usefull): anything a local person would know of (if one could be asked and would be willing to tell - well, all are willing to tell, but somtimes it would take our inquisitor more time than we have got) or a usual street map would show (if there would be any street maps). Something like "Find the road". A "lost city" or the "hidden treasure vault" would neither be generally known nor depicted on a map (a street map, not a treasure map!), thence could not be found by this spell.
|
|
Not sure where to add this so I went here.
I have a confusion about CANTRIPS for the different arcane classes.
It talks about at will spell casting and then talks about how many 0-level spells that can be cast.
The Sorcerer is the only one that does not have a base 0-level cast per day to go along with the at will description.
Here is what I copied from the beta:
Sorcerer
Cantrips (Sp): Sorcerers know a number of cantrips.
They can cast these spells at will as a spell-like ability. The
number of cantrips a sorcerer knows is noted on Table 4–13
under 0-level spells known. Cantrips are treated like any
other spell cast by the sorcerer in terms of duration and
other variables based on level.
Wizard
Cantrips (Sp): Wizards can prepare a number of
cantrips, or 0-level spells, each day. They can cast these
spells at will as a spell-like ability. The number of
cantrips a wizard can prepare each day is noted on Table
4–14 under “Spells per Day.” Cantrips are treated like any
other spell cast by the wizard in terms of duration and
other variables based on level.
Bard
Cantrips (Sp): A bard knows a number of cantrips. He
can cast these spells at will as a spell-like ability. The
number of cantrips a bard knows is noted on
Table 4–4 under 0 level spells known. Cantrips
are treated like any other spell cast by the
bard in terms of duration and other variables
based on level.
Is there a difference or how is this suppose to work for the game mechanics. Please advise.
Is there a difference or how is this suppose to work for the game mechanics. Please advise.
Sorcerers and Bards know a certain number of 0 level spells they know, and they can cast any of them at will, since they "know" them.
Wizards have a set limit of the number (i.e. variety) of cantrips they can prepare any given day, but of the cantrips they can prepare, they can cast those that they have prepared an unlimited number of times per day.
In other words, a wizard knows more cantrips, but he has to select the ones he uses any given day, unlike the bard and the sorcerer that can just cast whatever they know regarding cantrips.
|
|
That's all and good but the tables then don't coincide with the description.
I can understand the wizard one ... though the term at will should not be used in thier discription.
Sorcerer table for spells per day excludes the cantrips:
Level Bonus Save Save Save Special 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th
1st +0 +0 +0 +2 3 — — — — — — — —
that is the table almost exact minus the special list
here is the bards:
Level Bonus Save Save Save Special 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
1st +0 +0 +2 +2 1 — — — — —
so this tells me that i can cast cantrips all day unlike the wizard?
Is that a correct assumption?
|
|
Can anyone verify what i am asking ... perferable one of the from the design team .... since it is there words or a copy form WotC.
The conflict is the wording at will and the # in the table for 0-level spells per day for wizards and other arcane casters.
bards and sorcerers due not have a 0-level amount in a table so this sounds like I can cast the known 0-level spells I know all day long every round if need be.
Unlike the wizard whom has a set number allowed to cast per day.
Is this correct or should there be a new wording or table reconfigured?
I didn't see a thread for discussion of the artwork in the Pathfinder RPG Beta book. Maybe it's hard to talk about something while not actually looking at it, but I thought there might be some people who care a lot about the artwork in the final product. If the pictures had titles under them, they would be easier to discuss.
I'd like to start by praising works on pages 6, 12, 16, 20, 23, 27, 81, 130, 315, and 402. Unfortunately, the page numbers in my pdf reader's toolbar are off by one compared to the page numbers on the actual pages, so in general I'm unsure which page numbers to use in discussion threads. I've been assuming the numbers on the actual pages, but it's also convenient to type a page number from someone's post into the toolbar.
|
|
I didn't see a thread for discussion of the artwork in the Pathfinder RPG Beta book. Maybe it's hard to talk about something while not actually looking at it, but I thought there might be some people who care a lot about the artwork in the final product. If the pictures had titles under them, they would be easier to discuss.
I'd like to start by praising works on pages 6, 12, 16, 20, 23, 27, 81, 130, 315, and 402. Unfortunately, the page numbers in my pdf reader's toolbar are off by one compared to the page numbers on the actual pages, so in general I'm unsure which page numbers to use in discussion threads. I've been assuming the numbers on the actual pages, but it's also convenient to type a page number from someone's post into the toolbar.
All the Beta artwork is reused from the various adventures and supplements which might be why there isn't much discussion of it. The Alpha will have, IIRC, new artwork commissioned. Although, personally, apart from the races in boxers picture, I'm fine with the current lot if it makes the process more viable.
|
|
Can anyone verify what i am asking ... perferable one of the from the design team .... since it is there words or a copy form WotC.
The conflict is the wording at will and the # in the table for 0-level spells per day for wizards and other arcane casters.
bards and sorcerers due not have a 0-level amount in a table so this sounds like I can cast the known 0-level spells I know all day long every round if need be.
Unlike the wizard whom has a set number allowed to cast per day.
Is this correct or should there be a new wording or table reconfigured?
I think the Wizard (and Cleric and Druid) has 0 level spells because they can only cast cantrip/orisons they have memorised (which means the same as can cast most of the time, just not this time, hence the confusion) (the number on the table) while spontaneous casters like the Sorcerer and Bard can cast all spells they know, which accounts or the differences in the tables. This could be clearer, however.
|
Director of Games
|
Hi there all,
You will find a schedule for the playtest in the announcements forum. As it turns out, today is the last day of this part of the playtest. It was a bit longer due to various conventions. Now that we are past those, things will move a bit faster.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'm a little confused on what's PI in Pathfinder.
It says "All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), dialogue, plots,
storylines, language, concepts, incidents, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress."
Now I understand trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names, dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress. Those are easy.
The thing I don't understand is langauge, concepts, and incidents. Can anyone explain this to me?
Thanks,
Anfalas
