|
But the Ranger was nerfed going from 3.0 to 3.5, right? I don't have a 3.0 PHB to hand, but the d8 HD and spacing out of the special abilities actually weakened the class, I thought; a feeble animal companion that's no use come mid and higher levels wasn't much cop as a replacement, for my money. In any case, I don't think that the power creep is in the ranger, who it seems to me might in fact need some in order to be more attractive as a class.
From the narrative point of view, an animal companion is cool and it's a nice idea. One that swiftly becomes useless isn't cool at all but the way that the numbers are set up means that is effectively the case. From the simulationist/world-logic point of view, you just aren't going to see higher level rangers with animal companions under the existing rules unless they really don't care what happens to them. Was that the intent? It seems to me that it wasn't.
You've made some good points. I agree that at high levels, which I have never experienced with a 3.5 Ranger, makes the animal companion look more like a weak wizard without spells than a beefy fighter.
I am thinking that there are two ways if Jason wants to address this:
Ranger gets Companion as Druid but Level -3. The reason I say three is that at Level 4, that effectively makes them a Level 1 Druid. however, the -2 from the feat you mention is also workable. If this was the case, though, I would recommend the Ranger not be able to choose alternate animal companions as a Druid would, since it allows them to acquire the best companions of the druid, and that isn't really fair or balanced with the druid. The real idea is to allow the ranger to get the +12 HD to their companion.
Ranger gets Companion as Druid but at full level/ Essentially follows the same progression, so no worry about any math. You would start with a better companion than normal, but at the end you equal the druid. Again, I would advocate not allowing the Ranger to select a better companion.
The only thing I must caution is that we are venturing into the Realm of backwards compatability. A level 4 Ranger NPC, previously CR 4, would now have a companion with an extra 2 HD and some other bonuses. Is this too much? I don't know.
But, there is also the matter of adjusting higher level NPCs/PCs. Adding +12 HD to a creature is a big deal. If I wasn't so opposed to the idea of Rangers having a Tyrannosaurus as a companion, that would actually be easier to accomplish.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
A level 4 Ranger NPC, previously CR 4, would now have a companion with an extra 2 HD and some other bonuses. Is this too much? I don't know.
I'd rather not see great increases in power at low levels. Players who like high powered games can start play at level 10. I prefer low level play and hope that PRPG will have room for that. It will have to to be backwards compatible, of course, so I'm not too worried. It does make me question the logic of the OP's repeated call for 'more power, more power'.
Abusers and bullies always have their excuses and their copouts.
Why are you still crying?
Solution for elemental rage:
4 rage points: all damage you do this round is of an elemental type (acid/cold/electricity/fire/sonic) chosen by you instead of physical damage.Enough elemental damage to matter. Scales as your damage dealing capability. And the real beauty - you aren't actually dealing more damage, so we don't have to worry about this being too much additional damage.
add the +1d6 dmg for every attack, let it cost 6 points and we have a deal.
I think just replacing the damage wouldn´t justify 4 rage points
Fully replacing your damage with elemental damage is when you actually circumvent damage reduction in a meaningful fashion.
Barring the occasional vulnerability, sonic would be the mainstay choice, which makes the weapon better than adamantine at destroying inanimate objects (while it's used, at least).
|
I am thinking that there are two ways if Jason wants to address this:Ranger gets Companion as Druid but Level -3. The reason I say three is that at Level 4, that effectively makes them a Level 1 Druid. however, the -2 from the feat you mention is also workable. If this was the case, though, I would recommend the Ranger not be able to choose alternate animal companions as a Druid would, since it allows them to acquire the best companions of the druid, and that isn't really fair or balanced with the druid. The real idea is to allow the ranger to get the +12 HD to their companion.
Ranger gets Companion as Druid but at full level/ Essentially follows the same progression, so no worry about any math. You would start with a better companion than normal, but at the end you equal the druid. Again, I would advocate not allowing the Ranger to select a better companion....
I don't mind those, really (and I'm fine with some sort of restrictions on what companions are allowed. I also don't want a Tyrannosaurus Rex companion, although some improved companions would be OK with me).
|
|
My hobby is not too important to expect civility from fellow human beings. That's like saying I should listen to a political candidate even if he says I'm a worthless human being and that he obviously knows what's "right" for the country while anyone who dissagrees is a moron.
Well, then, we disagree. I'm prepared to ignore being called a moron by someone that's doing some good and I'm certainly happy for you to have to do it (because, you know, I care more about me than I care about you, selfishly). And I'm not just putting my time and money into Pathfinder for fun, I really do quite care about it, certainly more than I care about civility.
Civility is nice when you get it and it often leads to enjoyable discussions. I hardly think that it's the only way that useful discussions happen, though. Maybe we just have to operate with the LogicNinja and Psychic_Robots we have, not the ones we want.
The OP lost me when he started using the word "Gish".
The OP lost me when he started using the word "Gish".
Slang for Armored Caster.
The OP lost me when he started using the word "Gish".Slang for Armored Caster.
And a good album from the Smashing Pumpkins ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Maybe we just have to operate with the LogicNinja and Psychic_Robots we have, not the ones we want.
I didn't know we had a psychic_robot until this thread and never felt any absence.
The majority of the mechanics he suggests do nothing for me and seem to be power upgrades. Why would we want them? If the 'sweet spot' is levels 5 to 10 why would we want, for example, level scaling increases etc. that pull us through that sweet spot as quickly as possible. In other cases, they reduce the possibility of low level, grittier play ... this reduces the options for DMs and will cast a smaller net for potential converts to PRPG.
He's made a few good points but generally ... yuck.
Hey guys, PsyRob won't change his mind, so its useless trying to "correct" him. If he had the nerve to write that in the begining, with time he would only get more "angry" and more on the defensive. So let him be and post his mind, anyway everyone with something to say had already done so.
Don't fan the flames!
Abusers and bullies always have their excuses and their copouts.
Did you just compare the OP with ABUSE? Seriously? Wow. That's pretty disrespectful to actual abuse victims.
(And why ARE you still whinging about it? The guy worded a post a little harshly. Oh no, your delicate sensibilities! You must complain about this, pages later!)
|
|
I've been reading some of the REH Conan books, and the Jirell of Jorey series, and I've been trying to model a barbarian rage ability that simulates those character. They seem to get mad a lot, and the madder they get, the stronger they get.
I'm trying to come up with a mechanism whereby "being really angry" --perhaps a swift Intimidation roll??-- could generate rage points that could be spent that round. The angrier you get, the more rage points you can spend on abilities that round. Next round, you have to keep being angry.
That's what I'm working on. I hope to work through some playtests soon to see how it works.
Is turning green part of the barbarian class? I hadn't really put these together until now. Maybe Bruce Banner is just an epic level barbarian. "Don't make me angry -- you wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
This is a lively discussion, so I'll throw in my 5cp...
First off, THANK YOU to Psy_Rob for kicking off this thread. Irregardless of his candor, it takes a lot of time and work to put the thoughts and numbers together! I agree with most of his comments and suggestions. As for the "tone", I mean really, is anyone actually insulted? Personally, I thought his ranting commentary was funny, and made me read more... very Lewis Black! (which is a good thing)
The +1d6? Whatever. Totally irrelevant. Lets not clunkify the ability. Put it on your weapon if you must have it.
Two of my biggest criticisms of 3e/3.5/PF is power scaling at high levels. Up to about 10-12th level, depending on the class, is fine... beyond that, design-level inconsistencies become very prevalent. That's why, love it or hate it, 4e was built with a scaling system.
IMHO, I think the Bo9S did a great job of adequately scaling melee combatants offensive and defensive abilities.
My point, I guess, is that melee damage boosts to any class should scale appropriately - +1d6 is great at low levels, ok mid-level, and fairly insignificant at higher levels. +1d6 per 5 levels is probably a fair scale (+4d6 at 20th).
Additional Ideas/Opinions:
- Ranger companions should not scale with the Druid. -2 or -3 levels is fine with me.
- Paladin smite ability should be #/encounter rather than #/day. That, or significantly increase the #/day uses. My point - a mid-level paladin gets to be cool in melee 1 or 2 times per day, with a miss chance? And its useless against constructs, animals, etc. Enhance this ability!
- DR for melee combatants should scale faster, as the OP mentioned. 5/- at 20th at a minimum (can be boosted with feats, abilities?)
- I really like the channeling healing/undead damage - I think it is a fair amount of dice as printed.
|
Barring the occasional vulnerability, sonic would be the mainstay choice, which makes the weapon better than adamantine at destroying inanimate objects (while it's used, at least).
Sonic is the bane of DMs in my opinion. There are resistant opponents and good protections for every elemental damage type except for sonics, and players know it. Our mage in the level 13 group I participate in pretty much only keeps sonic fireballs around (soniballs?).
Of course the occasional steel predator makes this decision a little harder to deal with, but sush you, we bad-guys don't want more sonic adventurers walking around.
|
Abusers and bullies always have their excuses and their copouts.
Did you just compare the OP with ABUSE? Seriously? Wow. That's pretty disrespectful to actual abuse victims.
(And why ARE you still whinging about it? The guy worded a post a little harshly. Oh no, your delicate sensibilities! You must complain about this, pages later!)
You got me. I don't know what to say.
Your troll fu is just so much better than mind.Burn my village.
Adieu.
The OP lost me when he started using the word "Gish".Slang for Armored Caster.
That's some awful slang.
I hope it doesn't catch on.
The OP lost me when he started using the word "Gish".Slang for Armored Caster.That's some awful slang.
I hope it doesn't catch on.
It's good enough for the Githyanki!
You got me. I don't know what to say.
Your troll fu is just so much better than mind.Burn my village.
Adieu.
When you start complaining about how horribly offensive the slightly strong tone of the OP is, pages in (and once discussion has moved on), you're not trolling.
When I call you on likening a harsh post on the internet to ABUSE, and ask why you're still harping on how OMG that post hurt your feelings... I'm a troll.That's some delicious cognitive dissonance there.
|
Contributor
|
I've been staying out of this thread, and I probably should continue to do so, but I do have one important point to make. This is directed at all of you who feel that lack of civility does not affect the end result of the product.
First a side point: While I will accept that the majority of customers will never see this thread and thus will not be driven away by the rudeness in it, that does not mean that none will. But that's not my real point.
I am a good game designer. Check my profile for links to my work, and then read the reviews of my work. I am not going to engage in this discussion of rules because of the rudeness displayed here. Thus this discussion has lost my input.
Now I'm not so egotistical as to think that my input alone will make or break the game design-wise (unlike the OP, by my read). However, I postulate that there are many other excellent designers unwilling to wade into this mess for the same reason, and I'll back that up with the evidence that (AFAIK) all of the werecabbages are steering clear. A few have specifically told me they are staying away from this discussion.
Again, we may not be the be all and end all of game design, but I still think that it is indicative of a problem that is bigger than just us (or me) being offended by this thread.
EDIT: I just want to clarify that I am in no way speaking on behalf of the other cabbages in any kind of official capacity or anything like that. I speak for myself only.
|
|
LogicNinja:
Abusers and bullies always have their excuses and their copouts.
Did you just compare the OP with ABUSE? Seriously? Wow. That's pretty disrespectful to actual abuse victims.
(And why ARE you still whinging about it? The guy worded a post a little harshly. Oh no, your delicate sensibilities! You must complain about this, pages later!)
What sort of abuse are we talking about here - alcohol? Goodwill? Steroids? The English language? See, the term "abuser" is pretty non-specific so it's kind of tricky to see what you are getting upset about. It can even mean self-abuse, which might be the most apposite under these circumstances when talking about the OP, and maybe you too.
Or..
Why is it we have to turn the other cheek? For someone who claims not to worry about people being unpleasant in a post, you seem remarkably thin-skinned when it comes back at you (even the mild and deliberately misrepresented comments from Heathanson). Or is it only OK if the perpetrator is agreeing with you (are you going to condemn the OPs comments on AIDS, for example - that is, without me goading you to - or is that somehow acceptable "in the context")? I have been accused of hypocrisy but compared to you guys, I don't even know where to start.
|
|
When you start complaining about how horribly offensive the slightly strong tone of the OP is, pages in (and once discussion has moved on), you're not trolling.
When I call you on likening a harsh post on the internet to ABUSE, and ask why you're still harping on how OMG that post hurt your feelings... I'm a troll.That's some delicious cognitive dissonance there.
You win. I give. Nothing snarky.
I'm not posting to you, or reading you again.
What was the point of this thread again?
What was the point of this thread again?That barbarians get stronger when they get mad and therefore should also turn green.
Are there options for other colors because my wife already complains that I have too much green in my wardrobe.
|
Looking over the OP's list, I agree with much of what he's saying.
Unfortunately, it's all been phrased in aggressive, confrontational, if-you-disagree-with-me-you're-a-retard Frank Trollman-speak, and I find myself having to force myself to agree, because every other sentence seems to be going out of it's way to piss me off.
It's like some cute waitress just came up and said, 'Hey there! Want some cheesecake?' and then sat down in my lap and started slapping me in the face while I was eating it. Okay. I like the friendly hottie. I like the cheesecake. I like the lap-sitting. But the face-slapping is turning me off to the whole experience.
LogicNinja:
"Why is it we have to turn the other cheek?"
Well, uh, because you guys are the ones insisting on complete politeness with nary a strong phrasing anywhere.
I'm not complaining that people are phrasing responses to my points harshly. I'm pointing out that the very same people who act like strong phrasinng is so horrible don't seem to be shy about getting snarky and passive-agressive, or just plain openly insulting, themselves. If you want civility, you need to be civil, even when someone says something you don't like, or even if you think that maybe the way they write kind of implies that they might possibly think you're not so bright or well-informed.
"Are you going to condemn the OPs comments on AIDS, for example"--sure, it was kind of crass. But the OP didn't compare anyone to HIV-positive people or anything. Yes, it was crass, but it was a minor note in a long and otherwise useful post. Heathan's post consisted of "abusers and bullies always have their excuses and copouts." In its entirety.
"I have been accused of hypocrisy but compared to you guys, I don't even know where to start."
I am not PsyRobot. I did not write his post. If he were calling Heathan out on the abuser thing, it might be hypocrisy. It is in no way hypocritical for me to do it.
Also, keep in mind that the discussion is at this level because you guys keep harping on how, OH NO, the tone of the OP is HARSH. The OP didn't ruin this thread with his tone--everyone who responded with "omg you're so offensive" instead of discussion of the points did just as much.
I am a good game designer. Check my profile for links to my work, and then read the reviews of my work. I am not going to engage in this discussion of rules because of the rudeness displayed here. Thus this discussion has lost my input.
And, while we're bringing up anecdotal evidence, I know a bunch of people who aren't posting on the forums because of how thin-skinned and resistant to criticism people are. And a bunch more who aren't contributing because they don't think their contributions would be listened to or have any positive effect. (Someone mentioned the example of Jason adding a -5 AB to Devastating Blow from alpha to beta, instead of fixing it; I think that's a good one.)
Looking over the OP's list, I agree with much of what he's saying.
Unfortunately, it's all been phrased in aggressive, confrontational, if-you-disagree-with-me-you're-a-retard Frank Trollman-speak
|
|
Are there options for other colors because my wife already complains that I have too much green in my wardrobe.What was the point of this thread again?That barbarians get stronger when they get mad and therefore should also turn green.
At epic levels you get access to florescent orange.
EDIT: I'll have to look again, but you might also be able to get plaid.
|
Contributor
|
I am a good game designer. Check my profile for links to my work, and then read the reviews of my work. I am not going to engage in this discussion of rules because of the rudeness displayed here. Thus this discussion has lost my input.And, while we're bringing up anecdotal evidence, I know a bunch of people who aren't posting on the forums because of how thin-skinned and resistant to criticism people are. And a bunch more who aren't contributing because they don't think their contributions would be listened to or have any positive effect. (Someone mentioned the example of Jason adding a -5 AB to Devastating Blow from alpha to beta, instead of fixing it; I think that's a good one.)
I can't do much about the fact that Jason can't personally respond to every idea posted on the board, except be aware of and respectful of that fact. As for the people who won't post because I'm too thin-skinned, well guess what? They drove themselves away, and drove me away too. It is unreasonable to imply that my desire for civility somehow treads on their right to be rude to the point that they had to leave.
|
|
It's like some cute waitress just came up and said, 'Hey there! Want some cheesecake?' and then sat down in my lap and started slapping me in the face while I was eating it. Okay. I like the friendly hottie. I like the cheesecake. I like the lap-sitting. But the face-slapping is turning me off to the whole experience.
That is the best, I will write it into an Inn encounter for next weeks game!
Are you really saying that there isn't/wasn't a better way to say what he wanted to communicate?
I am saying most of it is fine. "This sucks, here's why." I have no idea how you turn that into "he's calling me a retard."
Do you just see someone say that ability X sucks, and assume that because you thought it was okay/you chose it, that means they're calling you stupid?
Is this strongly phrased? Yes. Does it drive the point home? Yes. DR 5 at level 19 is a joke.
But nobody is being called a retard here.
The Skip Williams crack? There's a better way to say what he was saying there.
"Monks still miss all the time. Just give them full BAB. I know that you said that it would hurt “backwards compatibility,” but, really, it won’t. Trust me on this—full BAB is a joke, especially when spellcasters can get it really easily"?
That's fine. It could do with a little more elaboration, but writing up the same explanations time and time again gets really old.
"Ability X sucks, ability Y is useless" is not insulting. It's not calling anyone a retard. I have no idea why you're getting so up in arms about it.
I can't do much about the fact that Jason can't personally respond to every idea posted on the board, except be aware of and respectful of that fact. As for the people who won't post because I'm too thin-skinned, well guess what? They drove themselves away, and drove me away too. It is unreasonable to imply that my desire for civility somehow treads on their right to be rude to the point that they had to leave.
Nobody expects Jason to personally respond to every idea posted on the borads, but if through Alpha 3, and are in the Beta, and people feel like what they were saying was completely ignored, there's a problem. It's not that he doesn't respond on the boards: it's that the changes seem to be made haphazardly and without an understanding of the problem (like Devastating Blow being "fixed" with a -5, when that's an arbitrary penalty that doesn't address any of the *real* issues with the feat... or like skills being consolidated, but Fly being added) even when the problem has been clearly explained.
People feel like their feedback is or would be pointless and ignored. If Jason wants people to not feel this way, this is a problem.People aren't not posting because you, Craig Shackleton, specifically, are too thin-skinned.
They're not posting because criticism phrased as straightforwardly as "ability X is terrible and here's why" gets jumped on as "offensive" and "he's implying we're retards!".
You said you aren't contributing because you felt the OP was too rude.
Well, other people aren't contributing because they feel the atmosphere is too sensitive to criticism of Pathfinder, and too eager to be offended. This whole "oh my god, he said X sucks, he's calling us retards" thing is pretty offputting for a lot of people.
|
|
LogicNinja:** spoiler omitted **
You posted on the thread that I should not post until I read everything. That, actually, was pretty disrespectful, irrespective of the weasel words you came out with about how "don't post" was actually encouraging me to do so. That said, in retrospect, I overreacted, but the temerity of telling me not to post on an open thread was pretty breathtaking. Again, I suspect you are a kid, and you seem a nicer guy that Psychic Robot, but it was cack-handed, to say the least. (And yeah, I'm patronising you.)
You just showed disrespect to a friend of mine (Heathanson). Etc. You get the picture. As Craig points out, you are talking to a small clique with this stupidity about how being nice doesn't matter. Not only are you taking up the technical errors of Trollman but you are also picking up the social errors too. So you limit the discussion to a bunch of social retards, and who seem mainly interested in mutual back-scratching - plurality it ain't.
And where is Trollman? Irrespective of whether he was chased away by phillistines such as myself or self-exiled in a strop, he is having little influence here, kind of indicating that actually his lack of politeness had a big impact on whether he got his message across with the powers that be. Perhaps you might reflect on what happened then and see the bigger picture of what his approach actually achieved - nothing. Whether that damages Pathfinder or not depends on your point of view, but what is pretty clear is that if he had taken a different approach, he could still be providing input. Or did you think we were all just jealous of his genius?
I've been accused of hypocrisy in being robust on this point (which is pretty hypocritical from a bunch of people who say civility doesn't matter). I'm probably much less tolerant than I was before Frank showed up, when tolerance and politeness was thrown back with hysterical bile and venom. You agree with Frank, so you probably were not on the receiving end. It wasn't nice. Try disagreeing with him before you tell me that politeness doesn't matter in discourse.
But it is also simple sense. How old are you? Do you have a job? Do you need to persuade people to do stuff for you, like co-workers, subordinates, your boss? How do you do it, by insulting their intelligence, belittling them? You would fail utterly and be jobless if you did that. Why is this different? Or are you just hiding behind anonymity? Is this important to you because you really care about Pathfinder, or is it (like it was for Trollman) just an ego trip? Look above a few bloody numbers for a moment and think about what this is about.
|
|
I am saying most of it is fine.
Ok, but could it have been written better?
DR 5/-- at level 19 is a joke. It’s pathetic. Nothing cares. Monsters are laughing at the fighter for having this ability. DR 5/-- would be more useful around level 5.
Couldn't this have been changed to say something like...
I really felt like getting DR 5/- at level 19 is fairly worthless. An extra 5 points of reduction really doesn't do much at that level when facing creatures that are doing 50+ points of damage every hit. It would be nice if it was either spread out a bit more (like the barbarian's ability) or if it was achieved at an earlier level (like maybe level 5). This would also allow the fighter to get more usage out of the ability than one session.
I would imagine that Jason's skin is pretty thick when it comes to this stuff -- but even so, if you were the one that came up with these rules, how receptive would you be if someone said that your rules were "a joke" or "pathetic". Why should he be more inclined to listen to that than constructive criticism?
|
|
Well, other people aren't contributing because they feel the atmosphere is too sensitive to criticism of Pathfinder, and too eager to be offended. This whole "oh my god, he said X sucks, he's calling us retards" thing is pretty offputting for a lot of people.
I don't know, there seem to be a lot of threads providing constructive criticism of the Pathfinder Beta rules that aren't getting bogged down like this one is. It seems to me that's because other posters have some respect for their audience.
There are a lot of things to work out in the Beta RPG. There are some that bother me. For example, when the Feats section comes under scrutiny, I will lobby my hardest to get Weapon Swap removed from the Pathfinder RPG. But when I do so, I will do it with the respect that is deserved not only to the designers, but to the people who frequent the boards who may read my post.
Perhaps by respecting the people they are trying to address, these "other posters" might be able to get their ideas through without all the unnecessary drama.
It's the Golden rule. Put simply: if you want others to respect you, you must respect them.
I've been staying out of this thread, and I probably should continue to do so, but I do have one important point to make. This is directed at all of you who feel that lack of civility does not affect the end result of the product.
First a side point: While I will accept that the majority of customers will never see this thread and thus will not be driven away by the rudeness in it, that does not mean that none will. But that's not my real point.
I am a good game designer. Check my profile for links to my work, and then read the reviews of my work. I am not going to engage in this discussion of rules because of the rudeness displayed here. Thus this discussion has lost my input.
Now I'm not so egotistical as to think that my input alone will make or break the game design-wise (unlike the OP, by my read). However, I postulate that there are many other excellent designers unwilling to wade into this mess for the same reason, and I'll back that up with the evidence that (AFAIK) all of the werecabbages are steering clear. A few have specifically told me they are staying away from this discussion.
Again, we may not be the be all and end all of game design, but I still think that it is indicative of a problem that is bigger than just us (or me) being offended by this thread.
EDIT: I just want to clarify that I am in no way speaking on behalf of the other cabbages in any kind of official capacity or anything like that. I speak for myself only.
Craig, I am with you one hundred percent. Things have become very hostile on these boards lately, and the general negativity is clearly having an effect. This is the second time the Post Monster has eaten one of my replies. I think it's because the Post Monster eats compulsively under stress, and if I was said monster, nothing would stress me out more than the normally polite and carefree denizens of Paizonia slapping each other and the game designers in the face round by round.
There are only so many avenues for would-be designers like those of us who haven't the distinction of being werecabbages, and as long as conditions on this board devolve away from the civility of yore, I can't see Jason and the others taking any of us seriously, as we are drowned out by louder, angrier voices or scared away by the prospect of being picked apart by hostile posters.
My biggest gripe with the OP is the assumption that there is some grand high list of obvious problems with 3rd edition that are written in gold with a giant blinking sign on them and if you don't know what they are and acknowledge that they are problems then you are an idiot. If nothing else this process shows that no-one can agree on what is actually broken. There are some general ideas thrown out (high level play is too swingy, fighters aren't useful past 10th level, etc.) but most people can't even agree on those.
They throw their judgements and analysis of rules and mechanics out on the forum and get angry when people don't understand why they think there is a problem in the first place. Take the time to articulate what you view the problems are first (without passing judgment) and then offer solutions. Stop talking down to people by leaving out the "Wow, it's bad" and the "my review could have been worse" type judgments and your criticism will be much better received.
|
|
As far as the OP and his points I would say that they are all over powered. I don't want PFRPG to be an ever scaling powergrab for all the core classes; fix some mistakes and issues - In the case of 3.5 I would say most of them are the way spells work, and add in some options and features to advance the game.
P_R is a 4e hater from the wotc boards who has admitted that he doesn't really like 3.5 (or that he even plays) and wants a totally different game. I don't have a problem with what he wants, just more with the fact that he thinks that he is going to get it by leaning on PFRPG devs in an aggresive fashion.
The PF devs are doing the right thing, keep the game 3.5 compatable, scale the core classes to match the Prc standard, and fix and modify some spells and abilities. They do not need to create a radically different or up-powered game (DR 5 at level 5 is beyond sane gaming), just fix and evolve what already exists.
If people -including the OP, don't like the changes or don't think that they are radical enough then they may need to start considering another game as a possible hobby outlet. PFRP will stay 3.5 compatable and that is a good thing, if you don't agree then PFRPG may just not be for you.
That being said I would like to see more "optional" rules towards 3.5 be presented that would deal with both higher powered styles of gaming and grittier low powered styles of gaming (my pref), something that would integrate with 3.5/PFRPG and work as variants of the existing 3.5 game mechanics. Down the line of course and not in the core PFRPG. I don't think that PFRPG changes D&D so much that it becomes as uncrecognizable as 4th.
And to those defending the ops post and his style of posting, try taking a look at what he originally posted at the Gamers-/4chan/-Den. You may not be so quick to come to his defense after reading some of the garbage posted over there.
|
|
They throw their judgements and analysis of rules and mechanics out on the forum and get angry when people don't understand why they think there is a problem in the first place. Take the time to articulate what you view the problems are first (without passing judgment) and then offer solutions. Stop talking down to people by leaving out the "Wow, it's bad" and the "my review could have been worse" type judgments and your criticism will be much better received.
Win.
|
|
Why should he be more inclined to listen to that than constructive criticism?
Because they're right. After all, they've been telling us how right they are since this thread began. Its not our fault that we're too dense to see the awesome rightness they bring to the table.
Oh, and didn't you get the memo that said you can be an abrasive 'Richard' if you're right? Come on guys, get with the program already.