I was very excited When Pathfinder was announced. Not because I hated 4E or anything (I'm pretty much indifferent towards it) but because I glad that there would be something for those sticking with 3ed and I'm a huge fan of Paizo so I was curious to see what they came up with. I had a pretty solid list of things in 3ed that I wanted to see addressed and fixed and there was no better choice than Paizo to undertake that task. On top of which I knew they would deliver an incredibly high-quality product.
So Pathfinder Beta is finally here. This is the version that is supposed to be fairly "complete" and that Paizo wants the community to playtest. So after spending some time giving the pdf a once over, I and myself feeling very under-whelmed and quite honestly, somewhat letdown by the Paizo development machine.
I can summarize my disappointment as follows:
1. Failure to address core issues
Almost nothing on my "what needs to be fixed in 3ed list" has been addressed. This includes, but not limited to, multiclassed spellcasters, the 15-minute adventuring day, and high-level play.
Sure, some of the fixes they've done are nice - and needed: grappling, combat maneuvers, (some) skill consolidation - but I see these changes as giving the house a new coat of paint while the framework is still shaky.
I know Paizo has said they would still like to address some of these issues (even Lisa the CEO has made her feelings about high-level play known!) but to me, these things should have been addressed from the very start. They should have been the priority. They are not "Beta" fixes. In the software world, Beta, heck even Alpha, assumes all the major features you are introducing are already developed and are at least stable enough to use and test. Alpha is for testing and bug fixes. When the build gets to Beta, it is essentially a release candidate, meaning it's ready for prime-time assuming nothing catastrophic is found at the last minute.
In the development process, you prioritize your workload and feature list first. I feel Paizo (although ultimately, this is probably Jason Bulmahn) had their priorities backwards from the start. Revising the classes and races, for example, is the easy stuff but it doesn't addressed the core mechanics. It doesn't change the way the game is played, which I feel, is what 3ed needs.
2. Crunch overload
From what I've seen, the design philosophy for Pathfinder has been "more, more, more!" While options are fine, it's not what 3ed really needs at this point in time. I have more ranger variants than I can shake two scimitars at. I like a lot of the class and race revisions but I still feel like I'm talking to a used car salesman who is trying to distract me by cranking the car's sweet stereo so I can't hear the grinding sound coming from the engine.
There's a lot of nice, new, shiny crunch in Pathfinder but I find that I'm asking myself if it's really what I need. I have bookshelves full of class variants and I have my own. Is this really what I need Pathfinder to deliver? Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding "no".
What I do need are developers willing to look at the core of 3ed and fix it. I need developers to fix the things that I don't have the time to do myself. I don't need developers to spend their time further bloating an already heavily patch-worked system.
3. Change for change's sake
Along with the lack of addressing core issues and the massive amounts of new crunch, what I find most annoying is some of the things they did change didn't need to be changed at all. This further supports my feeling that the design goal at the start wasn't clear or well-defined.
Just to illustrate my point, take something as small as the Cleave feat. Did it really need to be changed. If you were to go about revising the 3ed ruleset, would you even think twice about feats like Cleave, or Great Cleave, or Combat Expertise? I think Mr. Bulmahn should have had a plaque made and hung it above his desk that said "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
To take this one step further, did the barbarian need rage points? The barbarian, to me, was one of the most well-designed classes already. The mechanic might be sound but truely ask yourself, is this change needed.
Part of why I was excited for Pathfinder was that I was looking for a single resource, a single set of rules, for 3ed. But now I'm finding the more I read it, the more things I already want to houserule or change back to the way they were originally!
Conclusion
Trust me, I'm fully aware that nothing will make everyone happy. I'm fine with that. I also thing it's commendable what Paizo has undertaken with this process. I thought the open playtest would be a mess but they've certainly made it work and I fully support their decision to open the rules to the fans.
Perhaps some of my disappointment stems from the fact that I hold Paizo to such a high standard. I think they one of, if not the best, RPG publishers in the business right now. I want them to succeed. Which is why my enthusiasm for Pathfinder has waned the more and more I've seen in each release. I want Paizo to step up and create a memorable and lasting 3ed ruleset and truly improve the very core of the game. Superficial changes won't do that.
There is also the change that my goals don't coincide with Paizo's. And that's fine too. I hope it's not the case because I want to support them. But as of right now, Pathfinder isn't for me.
Post deleted due to having nothing nice to say about a post that is all whine and no solutions.
Personally, I think it looks fine. My 20th level alpha 3 game plays about as well as my 20th level 4e game. They both suck equally in that regard. Than again, I've never enjoyed high level play anyway. To each their own.
Somehow, that doesn't strike me as a good endorsement. "Try Pathfinder - it sucks just as bad!"
...and you managed to playtest it all within a day?
Personally, I think it looks fine. My 20th level alpha 3 game plays about as well as my 20th level 4e game. They both suck equally in that regard. Than again, I've never enjoyed high level play anyway. To each their own.Somehow, that doesn't strike me as a good endorsement. "Try Pathfinder - it sucks just as bad!"
LOL! More like it sucks differently.
Wasn't going for endorsement. 3e has a huge problem with high level play, 4E has just as big a problem, It has just been foisted off into different parts of the game.
This is an issue that revolves around becoming too attached to the rules in high level play. Around 15th level, the game HAS to be shifted to a less rulesy more narrative approach...anything else will drown the fun out in rules laywering bile. TOO MUCH! Sure some folks dig that, but some don't.
I have no solution, so I won't waste anyones time whining about it. It's a group dynamic, and as such, will be different to each group.
|
Part of why I was excited for Pathfinder was that I was looking for a single resource, a single set of rules, for 3ed. But now I'm finding the more I read it, the more things I already want to houserule or change back to the way they were originally!
But that's what they've been saying from the start. Pathfinder is specifically being designed so that it is backwards compatible with 3.5. That way if you WANT to go back and use the original rules/mechanics for any part of your game...you can.
Of course I think that's part of the confusion. People are expecting a WHOLE new edition but that's never been what Pathfinder was supposed to be. Also consider that this is still just the Beta. We have YEAR of playtesting before the final version. Your opinion is that the things YOU wanted changed should have been a priority for Paizo to fix first. That does not mean that Paizo should have the same priorities as yourself. Give it more than 1 day. I can't get behind any of the "Boo...how dare they not fix this" posts only 1 DAY AFTER the release.
Edit: I forgot to add that my only problem is that they are staying with Vancian Magic. That is due to the backwards compatibility. Doesn't mean that I think James or anyone at Paizo is short sighted or doing a bad job. I understand that to keep with their plan they CAN'T change it. Doesn't kill the system for me. And I like the idea of Rage Points. Makes going into a rage more realistic. before you enter a rage and your just in it for however many rounds you have. NOW you have to think about it, as a player. Plan your rages due to having to spend points. It simulates the idea that they have to dig down and tap into that inner strength. I wish they would do something similar for the Magic System. I still love this system.
It doesn't change the way the game is played, which I feel, is what 3ed needs.
This is, I feel, why you are disappointed.
One of the primary design philosophies of Pathfinder RPG is precisely not to "change the way the game is played."
To do so would counter everything, *everything*, at the core of what most people want out of Pathfinder. To keep playing the essentially the same game, with a few changes to solve problems, and a few changes for freshness.
The goals you describe are quite worthy. Whether they are even achievable is in question, but not their worthiness.
To touch briefly on your three points:
Multi-class spellcasters - This hasn't yet been addressed by PFRPG.
15-minute adventuring day - I feel this is more of a play-style issue (DM's pushing their groups to the limit too often, or groups abusing a lack of time limits to rest far too often). However improvements *have* been made on this, with the first level at will abilities for casters, and channel energy.
High-level play - I enjoy high-level play as is, but I am a fairly rare combination of core-strict DM and hyperactive mathematical mind to track everything at once. I believe A) some 'problems' in High-level play may be insurmountable, by any game system that can possibly call itself Dungeons & Dragons; and B) long-term playtesting of the new rules is *required* to judge changes at high level, and to recommend additional moderate solutions (spell changes and such).
Multi-class spellcasters - This hasn't yet been addressed by PFRPG.
Of all the issues with the 3E rules, honestly, this one isn't very high on my list. I guess I just haven't had the same problems with it that others have.
15-minute adventuring day - I feel this is more of a play-style issue (DM's pushing their groups to the limit too often, or groups abusing a lack of time limits to rest far too often). However improvements *have* been made on this, with the first level at will abilities for casters, and channel energy.
The biggest reason for the 15 minute adventuring day is a simple lack of hit points. The include the starting hit points option as Con score + max hit points at first level, + Con modifier. That plus channeling positive energy really should take this problem and make minced meat out of it.
High-level play - I enjoy high-level play as is, but I am a fairly rare combination of core-strict DM and hyperactive mathematical mind to track everything at once. I believe A) some 'problems' in High-level play may be insurmountable, by any game system that can possibly call itself Dungeons & Dragons; and B) long-term playtesting of the new rules is *required* to judge changes at high level, and to recommend additional moderate solutions (spell changes and such).
I agree with your conclusions, but they have already repeatedly said that this is a fix that they will have some sort of solution for by the time the final version releases. I suspect that the rules will have to be optional because it will probably limit backwards compatibility. You just can't stop the math from breaking down, and it breaks down the minute that the D20 roll becomes insignificant. Add magical buffs and other moving pieces into the equation and it becomes a very complex problem. Have more patience on this one. They're aware of the issue and they have promised some sort of a fix.
|
|
OP, anything can be spun, depending on how you look at it. The things you downplay can just as easily be praised as important changes that really helped stabilize a "shaky" framework, like combat maneuvers.
As for how much crunch is too much and what is change just for change's sake, these are both very subjective, and your plaque suggestion is really condescending. I like the change to Cleave, just like I like the new options for core clases that had become sadly outclassed by "bookshelves full of" new classes and PrCs.
High level play is currently my biggest issue, and it was not addressed in the Beta. I do think that was probably affected by an "in time for GenCon" deadline, but I'm pleased with what I can play with now, and as you said yourself, they will address it in the final version.
You say you're fully aware that nothing will make everyone happy, and you're fine with that. I guess I'm just curious what the point of your post is, because it isn't clear or well-defined to me.
Your priorities apparently aren't the same as Paizo's priorities. Your definition of "too much" crunch, things that weren't broken, and things that are only minor fixes also differs, but you don't provide any suggestions or examples of what would make you happy.
Open playtesting is an opportunity to help shape the release to what you think it should be, but "I don't like this and it disappoints me" does nothing to accomplish that.
This includes, but not limited to, multiclassed spellcasters...
There is nothing wrong with multiclassing spellcasters. If you dabble in other classes you get behind on the spell-powes. It no only works, but I feel it's even logical. The only thing people need to do (if they want a power-effective multi-class spellcaster) is pick the spells that can be used at any level. There are many of them.
|
|
One way to go for multiclassing might be to switch over to fractional BAB and saves (page 73 in Unearthed Arcana), and Magic Rating (UA p135-136, or d20srd.org) to determine Caster Level, perhaps?
One way to go for multiclassing might be to switch over to fractional BAB and saves (page 73 in Unearthed Arcana), and Magic Rating (UA p135-136, or d20srd.org) to determine Caster Level, perhaps?
I think this thread is a propos to the discussion here. (Lisa Stevens' post in particular.) I don't mean specific issues raised here, but in offering perspective on Paizo's agenda.
|
I'll admit there were some really disappoting things in the Beta. I haven't found many significant changes from the Alpha yet. All the arguing, and discussing and problem solving we made from Alpha and I have yet to find any of it in Beta. A more thorough read and sitting down and comparing Alpha side by side with Beta may help. Maybe.
That being said, Alpha dealt with most of the issues I have had, so Pathfinder still works just fine for me. I think there was only one issue I have not seen directly addressed. High level play. But then again I have no idea how to fix it either.