Jason, I would greatly appreciate it you would read this.


General Discussion (Prerelease)

1 to 50 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

(Just to let you know, I'm going to post this now. Then I'm going to post parts of it in the Beta sections when the appropriate game aspects are being designed. And then I'm going to post it again and again afterwards, until somebody pays attention to this.)

I used to be a regular poster around here. I used to look forward to all the updates we'd get. I used to look forward to the new releases. And I was filled with great expectations today, with the release of the Pathfinder Beta.

Then those expectations were brutally crushed underfoot as I went through the document.

I'm going to go through here and tell everyone what is wrong with Pathfinder. I'm going to be blunt. Tact requires a great deal of work that I don’t feel like devoting. I refuse to sugarcoat my words for problems that have yet to be solved despite my bringing them up time and time again.

I hope you’re reading this, Jason. I also hope you don't get offended to the point where you ignore what I'm saying. Sometimes criticism hurts. You might disagree with the tone of some of the things that I'm writing--and trust me, it's far nicer than what I had originally planned on saying--but I think we can agree that my advice is mechanically sound.

Barbarians

Spoiler:
Sigh.

1. Elemental rage: Wow, it’s bad.
Eight rage points for a pithy +1d6? Energy resistance five negates any application. Even though it applies to all attacks in the round, it’s just not worth it. This needs to be two (2) rage points, and it needs to scale with level—something like +1d6 additional damage for every six levels or so.

What you have to remember is that even though the barbarian might be able to use this +1d6 on four attacks in a round, energy resistance five is going to take five damage off of EACH of those attacks. Which means that 5/6 times, you’re going to be doing no damage at all. And higher-level monsters aren’t going to care about it.

2. Increased damage reduction: DR 3/—?
Yeah, that DR isn’t going to do anything against a dragon’s attacks. This is another power that should cost a flat two rage points and scale with level. Perhaps DR 1/-- for every three levels that you have. If it doesn’t scale, it needs to last longer than one round. When monsters are doing 3d8+13 damage, they’re not going to care if they’re only doing 3d8+10.

3. Low-light vision/night sight.
It’s not good enough. Not only does it last a single round—lame—it is pointless overall. To make this good, it should grant darkvision and then be upgraded later so that you can see through magical darkness.

4. Renewed vigor.
No scaling = no use. It might not be bad at low levels, but a tenth-level barbarian isn’t going to care about wasting a standard action to heal himself for a few hitpoints. (As much as I hate to echo the 4e developers…“economy of actions” is an important game concept. At least in 4e, you use a standard action to heal a quarter of your total hitpoints.)

5. Unexpected strike: useless by virtue of a magic weapon or a fifth level wizard.
This needs fewer rage point cost. What adventurer wouldn’t have a weapon of speed? What kind of wizard doesn’t cast haste for great justice? It’s negated by an entire character class at fifth level.

6. Surprise Accuracy, Strength Surge, Guarded Stance, etc.
ARGH. This is what makes me so annoyed. It makes my blood boil. Here is a fundamental concept that should be applied across the abilities: a low rage point cost that scales with level. Unfortunately, the problem is that these abilities are so good that you’d have to be retarded NOT to take them. They completely outclass the other abilities. A +20 bonus on attack or damage rolls for TWO rage points? Yes, please.

7. Rage point cost for raging: mechanically clunky and complex.
It’s bad. Too much bookkeeping. The duration of the fatigue requires too much hassle on the player’s part—how many rage points did I spend, how many rounds am I fatigued for, am I done being fatigued yet, can I enter a rage again?

Bards

Spoiler:

1. Inspire competence: no scaling bonus is bad.
+2 doesn’t mean anything at high levels. This really needs to receive a bonus equal to ½ one’s bard level because one can just get a +15 bonus on skill checks from magic equipment.

2. Auto-stun on deadly performance for the lose.
At least the save DC has been brought down to reasonable levels. Being able to stun a high-level creature without a check is a little strong.

Clerics and Druids: Still broken but less so. I'm still an advocate of a d6 HD and ½ BAB, but that’s beside the point.

Fighters

Spoiler:

Still broken by virtue of being 3e, but better.

1. Armor Mastery: Too little, too late.
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.

I’ll repost my suggestion from before:

Armor training should grant damage reduction.

Light armor gets DR 1/-- per +1.
Medium armor gets DR 2/-- per +1.
Heavy armor gets DR 3/-- per +1.

This also helps differentiate the various armor types.

Monks

Spoiler:

1. Flurry of Misses.
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.

2. Ki pool.
This has potential, but it fails. First, it actually makes the monk weaker—if he drains his ki, his fists are stuck being “normal.” Secondly, it’s more bookkeeping. Thirdly…well, I think that’s all of it. I like the concept, but dropping the part where the monk gets turned into a fighter-without-magic-weapons when he uses up his ki would be nice.

3. Healing surge! Or wholeness of body.
Not enough healing done. And it’s no good for being in combat. A character needs to be able to heal himself a lot if he’s going to waste a standard action on it. (Again, economy of actions.)

Paladins

Spoiler:

1. Lay on hands: yet another example of s$*@ healing.
ARGH. Same problem with wholeness of body. Sure, the paladin can use heal later, but it’s too little, too late.

2. Turn undead.
Why can’t the paladin turn as well as the cleric again? It’s lame. If anything, the paladin should be able to turn BETTER than the cleric, what with him being a divine awesomeness.

3. Divine bond: unstackable bonuses taste like crap.
If the bonuses were to stack, the paladin would, at the least, be able to use the divine bond to make sure that she was being useful. As it stands, the divine bond is very meh. The paladin should be able to kick demon ass when using the divine bond.

Furthermore, the wording on this ability is bad:

“When called, a celestial spirit enhances the weapon, causing it to shed light as a torch for 1 minute per paladin level.”

So it sheds light for 1 minute/level. Great. How long does the enhancement last? (Sloppy writing is sloppy. I know it’s 1 minute/level, but it’s sloppy writing nonetheless.)

Rangers

Spoiler:

1. Animal companion: “I’m still junk!”
The only use the ranger’s animal companion has is a) being a scout, or b) (more likely) being lunchmeat. It needs to be STRONG LIKE STALIN. That means more HD! Give it druid animal companion progression, for crying out loud. The favored enemy bonuses don’t cut it—they might make the animal companion able to hit harder, but they sure as hell don’t give it more hitpoints.

Sorcerers

Spoiler:

1. Metamagic casting time increases = fail.
Look, we all know that Skip Williams hates sorcerers and wishes that they all had AIDS. That’s no reason to keep them gimped. WotC basically admitted to this screw-up by repeatedly releasing feat “fixes” that eventually ended up being, “You can use metamagic without sucking.”

Just change it. Please, for the love of God, just let sorcerers be less bad.

2. Growing wings: make it stop burning.
What the deuce. You finally get wings at 9th level, and they end up being junk. Make them PERMANENT wings. Wizards have been flying around in circles ever since third level. And then the draconic sorcerer has to wait until FIFTEENTH level to get wings…

It don’t make no sense.

3. Destined bloodline is blargh.
The first-level ability is handy. Then the rest are very bland, very boring. All the other bloodlines get cool abilities. Destined…not so much.

4. Undead bloodline: damage reduction against nonlethal damage is…uh….
How many monsters are going to be trying to do nonlethal damage? Very few. Damage reduction that ONLY affects nonlethal damage is horrendous. It should be made into DR/slashing or DR/bludgeoning--let the player choose which type of undead he's going to mimic.

Wizards

Spoiler:

Still overpowered, but less so. It’s 3e, so we’re stuck with it.

1. Why does the wizard need his bonded item to cast spells again?
Enlighten me. Because it’s a stupid, unnecessary mechanic, much like ASF. Dump it. And how the f++# does choosing a wand work? What if a player wants a wand of fireballs at level one? We have been asking for clarification SINCE THE FIRST RELEASE. PLEASE CLARIFY.

2. Specialists: damn.
Bad. Bad.

Abjurers: energy resistance 10 = junk. Nobody cares, especially when there’s a second-level spell that does it better.

Conjurers: +6 to AC is pathetic and unthematic. Mage armor is almost as good, and bracers of armor are better. Now, if you were to make this bonus stack with other forms of armor, it would be palatable. However, it still stands that mage armor SHOULD BE ABJURATION, NOT CONJURATION. It is retarded that the 3e devs made it conjuration. Why not just end the insanity and fix it by making that teeny, tiny little change to school?

Enchanters: Whoo-hoo, skill bonuses. Very…uh…underwhelming in comparison to everyone else. Also, the fact that they have to wade into melee combat to use their ability is bad.

Evokers: +5 damage at level 20 = monsters don’t care. +5 damage doesn’t mean squat. They need more like +2 or +3 damage per spell level.

Necromancers: Another melee attack. Grumble, grumble, grumble—wizards don’t fare well when they’re in smashing distance.

Transmuters: A whopping +5 bonus to one ability at level 20. That doesn’t stack with any of the nifty spells that the transmuter can cast. Lame.

Feats

Spoiler:

I’ll just go in alphabetical order with these.

1. Acrobatic (and all the other crummy +2/+2 feats).
Still crappy, but whatever. At least they got upgraded.

2. Arcane Armor Training: WHY.
I hate how the gish has been hit by the nerfbat fifty-two times with these feats. ASF doesn’t actually affect balance. Nobody cares about it. There’s no reason that the feats can’t be “always on.” The swift action prevents gishes from being useful by buffing themselves with a quickened spell.

3. Armor Proficiency: Why the hell are we STILL requiring several different feats for this crap?
Good Lord, the feats are horrendous enough as it is; they should just be merged into one feat. (No offense to Paizo; the 3e job was just horrible.)

4. Combat Casting: Still better off with Skill Focus: Spellcraft.

5. Combat Expertise (and Power Attack and any other feats): f+&# the players.
Why the Christ—I am aware that that makes no sense—would you gimp this stuff? Giving players control over the “slider” of offense/defense is what made these things good.

6. Double Slice: Why am I getting 1.5x my Strength modifier to my off-hand attacks?
I’m well aware that this is not the intent of the feat, but sloppy writing is sloppy. Add a note that mentions that you get this INSTEAD of the half-strength bonus.

7. Great Fortitude (and Lighting Reflexes and Iron Will): Still s&%&.
They suck. Still. Again, not Paizo’s fault so much as the 3e devs’. They should scale. Give a +2 initially and then maybe another +2 at level 10.

8. Maximize Spell is a POS.
Crappy crappy crappy crappy crappy feat. It remains a “trap” for newbies to D&D.

9. Overhand Chop, please make it good.
Look, a high-level fighter is probably going to be hitting with two attacks out of his four. That means that he’s going to be doing twice his weapon damage plus thrice his Strength modifier. Sure, he has to take a full attack action to do so, but this feat is just lame. Make it an “always on” thing.

10. Tower Shield Proficiency is still poop.
What a waste of a feat.

11. Vital Strike: almost have it.
So close. So very, very close. Unfortunately, this feat has several flaws:

1. It doesn’t solve the attack at a +10 bonus whiffing horribly.
2. It forces characters to use “big” weapons to be effective.
3. It doesn’t do enough.

I'd suggest making it a straight +2d8 for attacks. Yes, TWF will get additional benefits from this, but TWF has enough problems of its own in 3e that I’m pretty sure it won’t break anything.

Spells
Overall, a number of the spells have been fixed, but there are a few sticklers.

Spoiler:

1. Enchantment spells.
They’re still borked. They all need a HD limit on them equal to your caster level.

2. Save-or-sucks.
Stuff like sleep and hold monster are killers. Even though they’re not save-or-dies, they might as well be.

3. Astral projection: adventure on other planes without fear of anything!
This spell needs to die in a fire, it’s so ridiculous.

4. Protection from [Alignment]: completely negating a school of magic is lame.
Really lame. This needs to be altered because enchantment is completely useless when the spell is cast. I’m guessing that the 3e devs used this as a Band-Aid fix for enchantment’s “save or be my pawn.” The root problem needs to be fixed.


That is all. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Like I said, I’m going to be posting this in the future.

Liberty's Edge

I agree with everything you say and would like to add:

Illusionist specialization is crappy too (you might've just forgotten it)

and most of the cleric domain "Touch of _" abilities are utterly useless.

Dark Archive

Psychic_Robot wrote:
And then I'm going to post it again and again afterwards, until somebody pays attention to this.)

Yeah, because spam is such a great way to get people on your side.

Paizo have asked for people's feedback, that dosn't mean that they have to follow each and every person's personal preferences.

A lot of what you've said is probably correct, certainly I've no doubt that there are others who would back you up on any of those points.

When people do things you think are wrong it's generally not because they're dumb, or insane, or want to fail, or wish to spite you; it's generally because they have a perspective that whilst similar to yours is slightly, but significantly, different.

I doubt I'll switch to PFRPG, I don't feel any need to -- 3.5+house rules works for me, and it sounds like that's the way you want to go too. That dosn't mean that Paizo shouldn't make PFRPG, and it dosn't mean that they shouldn't ask for peoples feedback, and it also dosn't mean that they shouldn't, in the end, make the game that they feel is the one they want to produce.


Your opinion is valuable as a customer of Paizo. Just as valuable as anyone else's. However, reading your post, it sound like, rather than realizing that Paizo is trying to balance between making the majority of their fans happy and making the RPG backwards compatible, that instead, they have to address your issues specifically.

You also seem to sound as if you have found flaws that others have not found, or that others don't wish to admit as flaws, and that they are objectively flaws that must be addressed. I contend that this may not be a fact.

I personally really liked 3.5. Some things are quirky, but even some of those quirky things feel like D&D to me. They may not to everyone else, and that's fine, because everyone can chime in with their opinion. My own hopes are that most of the changes from the Beta are minimal, and mainly focused on higher level play, where thing still get a bit clunky.

I know its been a while since he posted it, but at one point in time, Jason pointed out that he would rather people not post "Jason, please read this" in their threads, because he does read the forum posts. Often times these posts are posts that would be better presented elsewhere.

Jason also pointed out that he really does want to try and keep the discussion focused on one area at a time, so that he can actively interact and react to issues that may or may not come up when it comes to a given area of the rules.

I personally am certainly interested in fellow Paizonian opinions, and I may change my mind after a well reasoned argument, but I'm not willing to cede that anyone knows what I want in a game well enough to speak for me when I have a chance to chime in myself. I'm also willing to accept that some issues may just be a matter of what works best for the most number of people, personal preferences be damned.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Jason is heading out to Gen Con UK tomorrow, and he'll be gone for a little over a week, so I'm not sure if or when he'll get a chance to reply to this (or other) threads here. But please don't take that as him (or Paizo) ignoring this thread or others. Once Gen Con UK is over, the con season is pretty much over for Paizo until next summer, and at that point focusing in on the Beta becomes one of our largest priorities.

SO: Feedback like this is very important, but until we finish out Gen Con our presence here is going to be somewhat lessened. We'll certainly be lurking here, though! And once the playtesting feedback moves out of Ability Scores and Races into the 11 classes, I hope you'll re-post these observations again just to make sure we see them and remember them; there's a fair amount of wisdom in the OP's post, after all.

That said... there's also a fair amount of tastelessness in the OP's post. I understand that people are passionate about the game, but comments like "Skip Williams hates sorcerers and wishes that they all had AIDS" do more harm than help. Peppering your observations and comments with childish sentiments like that are the best way to ensure that we stop reading your post and ignore you, so please keep the comments to the rules at hand and avoid descending into tasteless commentary.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

would accept his post a lot more if he hadent wriiten up on the gamer den in page 41 of the Still more Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both a link leading back to this thread with the title prepare for epic fail. Or how about your thread on that Forum entitled and I quote "Bulmahn's sweat, fail and tears: update of Pathfinder". So if your just going to throw insults on the other forum and not expect other people to see them then dont be suprised when people completly dimiss your posts out of hand for there bad attitude.


Psychic_Robot wrote:

1. Metamagic casting time increases = fail.

[u]Look, we all know that Skip Williams hates sorcerers and wishes that they all had AIDS.[/u] That’s no reason to keep them gimped. WotC basically admitted to this screw-up by repeatedly releasing feat “fixes” that eventually ended up being, “You can use metamagic without sucking.”

Highlight by me...

You very effectively lost me with the highlighted comment above. As a person living with HIV, I found this to be a very crass and uncouth thing to say. At absolutely NO point should you be putting these kinds of hate-filled words into other peoples mouths.

That is all I will say on this matter. (starts looking for an ignore button).

Sovereign Court

I feel we need folks to really closely examine Beta, as was done here, though perhaps less vitriolic.

IDEA:

Paizo sponsors a PRPG-chapter-per-week process.

Each week the entire community examines a class/chapter/whatever in terms of balance, playability, clarity, etc.

I suspect there is a simple question, such as: "How likely are you on a scale of 1 to 10 to take this option?"

Any options that consistently rate very low or very high is suspect.

Other ideas to ensure Pathfinder RPG is something we all want to play?

Dark Archive

Dario Nardi wrote:
Other ideas to ensure Pathfinder RPG is something we all want to play?

Probably the best idea is to avoid design-by-committee.

Liberty's Edge

Dario Nardi wrote:

I feel we need folks to really closely examine Beta, as was done here, though perhaps less vitriolic.

IDEA:

Paizo sponsors a PRPG-chapter-per-week process.

Each week the entire community examines a class/chapter/whatever in terms of balance, playability, clarity, etc.

That's uhm, what they are doing, it's not weekly per se but Jason is going to be going from section to section. Abilities and Races are what he's on now.


If anyone has some ideas they want to share in the interest of improving the Pathfinder rulebook, the best thing to do is write them down and save them on your own computer, and WAIT until the phase when Jason is actually LOOKING at those Chapters. You might even be able to clarify/improve your own suggestions in the meantime...

Venting every "great thought"/ feeling that don't even apply to the current Chapters up for Review,
ISN'T productive, OR very mature.

If you post your ON-TOPIC insights/suggestions ONCE, clearly thought out and well-written, there shouldn't be a need to re-post them... Much less 'attack' those who don't agree with your viewpoint. If your specific tastes/viewpoints aren't incorporated into the rules, well, you can decide if the final Pathfinder Book is one you want to purchase, or would instead like to create & publish your own Ruleset.


I agree with a lot of the OP comments, but not the tone of the post. I realize that many of us have gotten a little jaded over the alpha process by trying to be nice and polite and having many of our concerns ignored or dismissed. However, this one has gone a little overboard IMO. Blunt and to the point is fine to me, but many of the comments were not blunt but straight out argumentative, harsh, and distasteful (like the sorcerer comment).


You think that this was bad? Trust me. The fellow who visits The Gaming Den has probably seen the original. Yes, my post has a bit of "P_R" in it, and I'm not going to pretend like part of it were very lowbrow. However, my suggestions are all good suggestions. I want Pathfinder to be the best RPG it can be, and it can only be that way if people get through to Jason and his team that things are not okay the way they are. All of my advice throughout the playtesting period has been systematically ignored even back when I was phrasing things in the kindest, gentlest, most helpful tones.

So, yeah, I didn't bother to sugarcoat this time around.


Well, enjoy wasting your energy commenting off-topic from the current phase.

I DO think Paizo could have done a better job communicating about just what changes to expect in Beta (much wasn't changed (that seems likely to), and there's still stuff just missing: the main aim was to cover stuff like Equipment and Spells so it didn't depend on 3.5/SRD anymore, which isn't COMPLETELY achieved yet either.)

Personally, I'm looking forward to sharing helpful ideas at the proper juncture: alot of them are around topics that MUST be dealt with in some way or another, but haven't been addressed yet. I don't necessarily expect all my ideas will be adopted as such, but I'll at least point out the parts that need to be cleared up one way or the other, and help Pathfinder be the best game that it wants to be.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Psychic_Robot wrote:
Stuff™

So this is what happens when someone who puts all their social ranks in Intimidate attempts a Diplomacy check huh?

Interesting results: You make a number of good points but at the same time make many of the folks who agree with You hostile and/or spiteful.

"At least it got folks talking this time," sayeth the Oh Pee...


Psychic_Robot wrote:


So, yeah, I didn't bother to sugarcoat this time around.

I don't mean to be a dick, but please, do sugarcoat.

I'm put off the points you made that I agree with. In the words of The Hip-hop-apotamus: "Be more constructive with your feedback!"


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
toyrobots wrote:
In the words of The Hip-hop-apotamus: "Be more constructive with your feedback!"

His rhymes are bottomless...


Quandary wrote:

Well, enjoy wasting your energy commenting off-topic from the current phase.

Well, personally I don't feel that this is wasting anybody's time since

STICKY AT THE TOP OF THE GENERAL FORUM wrote:


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.

Since Paizo is taking their time moving on to other subjects (which I understand due to limited resources), where else are we supposed to post our comments about sections of the rules that have not been opened up "officially" for discussion? It doesn't do my gaming group a lot of good to only go over rules consisting of ability scores and races when we are planning on starting a new campaign next weekend....

Quandary wrote:

I don't necessarily expect all my ideas will be adopted as such, but I'll at least point out the parts that need to be cleared up one way or the other, and help Pathfinder be the best game that it wants to be.

I think most of us realize that not all the changes one may desire will be implemented. I may be speaking just for myself here, but I think recognition and reasoning would be extremely helpful in alleviating many hard feelings during this process. Don't just give a reason of "backwards campatbility" when that same reason is practically ignored in other reasons (like clerical domains). For example, there were reasons given for the decision to neuter save-or-die spells. Though I don't agree with them, I can see that they may be problems for other groups and can live with the change (or house rule it). Skill points (or the lack of them for many classes) is one that hasn't had a lot of reasoning other than "they don't need them" or "it would break backwards compatibility". Considering the large number of people who think these classes do need more skills (I would probably estimated 50/50, or maybe even 40/60 in favor of increasing them), these reasons aren't good enough for keeping them the way they are.

Scarab Sages

Psychic_Robot wrote:

You think that this was bad? Trust me. The fellow who visits The Gaming Den has probably seen the original. Yes, my post has a bit of "P_R" in it, and I'm not going to pretend like part of it were very lowbrow. However, my suggestions are all good suggestions. I want Pathfinder to be the best RPG it can be, and it can only be that way if people get through to Jason and his team that things are not okay the way they are. All of my advice throughout the playtesting period has been systematically ignored even back when I was phrasing things in the kindest, gentlest, most helpful tones.

So, yeah, I didn't bother to sugarcoat this time around.

I hate to be the one to say this, but these words sound eerily like the argument made by certain other posters before they were asked to take a time out from the forums (and subsequently chose not to return).

Sure, you might have good ideas, but if you get a reputation for presenting them rudely your future ideas might just be ignored. Also, every poster would be within their rights to call you on your rudeness, and you have no excuse to defend yourself.

Finally, and this has certainly been said before but warrants repeating: If you just present a litany of complaints with observations of the system, you are only frustrating others with your own demands. Playtest and provide solutions, please. For example, have you actually played a high level Barbarian and been frustrated by endless creatures with resistance to all energy types?

Also, I would like to point out that protection from only blocks mental commands, not ALL enchantment spells, so you are exagerrating there. Also, tell a Universalist wizard that Maximize is useless when they can do it 2/day for free at 8th level.


Psychic_Robot wrote:
All of my advice throughout the playtesting period has been systematically ignored even back when I was phrasing things in the kindest, gentlest, most helpful tones.

Perhaps simply because your advice.. sucks? It consists primarily of rants about the current system, that 90%+ of the people here are trying to *maintain* and not wipe out. All your delightful changes to supercharge this or that pretty much wind up canceling each other out entirely, except of course for the ultra-optimized, multi-broken-combo characters played by none other than yourself and your Den fellows.

Psychic_Robot wrote:

And then I'm going to post it again and again afterwards, until somebody pays attention to this.)

...
That is all. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Like I said, I’m going to be posting this in the future.

Time taken, post attended to, until clause has been satisfied. Please feel free to return to your status of "used to post a lot".

Scarab Sages

Psychic_Robot wrote:


I'm going to go through here and tell everyone what is wrong with Pathfinder. I'm going to be blunt. Tact requires a great deal of work that I don’t feel like devoting. I refuse to sugarcoat my words for problems that have yet to be solved despite my bringing them up time and time again.

I'm going to go through here and tell everyone what is wrong with your Original Post. I'm going to be blunt. tact requires a great deal of work that I don't feel your post deserves. I refuse to sugarcoat my words.

Your single example of epic fail (see, I can use leet speak too) is that you assume your opinions are:

1. correct

2. of any more weight than anyone else on the boards.

3. That Jason or anyone else in design must recognize the weighty wisdom of your commentary and proclaim its virtue from the mountain tops or burn forever in fiery suckitude.

4. the only possible solutions to play balance. the Hubris and nerdrage floating around on the Gamers Den makes me laugh every time I pop in to see what other zany crap you guys are railing against.

You see, I think your heart is in the right place with this post, but you seem to have fallen prey to the belief that the guys at that other forum have Won D&D with their design brilliance. I don't think you guys are half as smart as you think you are. HOw many of you guys work in the industry?

Hell, you never even bothered to determine if the community as a whole agrees with your assessment of what the problems with 3.x are. You just blithely assume that since you think its an issue, everyone does.

My advice (although I'm pretty sure you won't listen) is don't try to be Frank. Give your feedback in a constructive way and participate like everyone else.


No, the original copy of what I was going to post was a rant. This is a well-thought out criticism of the system that involves ideas for the developer team to use.

As for some others...

1. I don't want to be Frank. I'm not trying to be Frank.

2. I don't need to playtest things when +1d6 damage gets negated by energy resistance 5.

3. Maximize is worthless for the spell level adjustment cost.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Psychic_Robot wrote:
All of my advice throughout the playtesting period has been systematically ignored even back when I was phrasing things in the kindest, gentlest, most helpful tones.

Please go back to being polite.

I doubt that Jason or any of the Paizo folks were ignoring you, they may simply disagree. There are a lot of message board posts and not every post can be answered directly. We all need to remember PFRPG is not design by committee and some suggestions may not be taken. We have an opportunity to participate in the process with feedback but we are not co-designers.

If this were a new edition of D&D without the open playtest we'd just house rule out the things we don't like and move on. So let's offer what support we can politely and be thankful for the chance to influence the design. And when PFRPG doesn't conform tour our vision of the perfect RPG then we just House Rule what we don't like without attacking the designers.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Callum Finlayson wrote:
Probably the best idea is to avoid design-by-committee.

This comment is way off the mark.

PFRPG is hardly being designed by a committee. It's being designed by Jason. He is bouncing questions and ideas off his coworkers, Monte Cook, and others, and he is asking for constructive feedback from the Paizo player community...but ultimately he's designing the game himself.

And I speak as someone who has literally spent months of time in design committee meetings... :-P

Dark Archive

Psychic_Robot wrote:
No, the original copy of what I was going to post was a rant. This is a well-thought out criticism of the system that involves ideas for the developer team to use.

Exactly how was "Skip Williams hates sorcerers and wishes that they all had AIDS" a well thought out criticism?

There's a difference between 'not sugar-coating' and blatantly being a dick. You sir, seem to be the latter.

Liberty's Edge

Psychic_Robot wrote:
No, the original copy of what I was going to post was a rant. This is a well-thought out criticism of the system that involves ideas for the developer team to use.

I'll be blunt now.

The AIDS comment is just vulgar and insensitive.
The whole thing reads like an immature whiny angsty tirade.
It was tedious to read, and I was so tired of it that I really couldn't get anything from it. It might have all been golden, I really don't know. I can't pay attention due to all the crap.
Try writing for an audience for a change. I want you to revise the document again, since I had to be put through the torture of reading the damn thing.


Locke: Since the beginning of Pathfinder, people have been asking for clarification of the rules regarding wizard object familiars. We have received NO CLARIFICATION.

Scarab Sages

Psychic_Robot wrote:

No, the original copy of what I was going to post was a rant. This is a well-thought out criticism of the system that involves ideas for the developer team to use.

As for some others...

1. I don't want to be Frank. I'm not trying to be Frank.

2. I don't need to playtest things when +1d6 damage gets negated by energy resistance 5.

3. Maximize is worthless for the spell level adjustment cost.

in response...

1. I know. Frank has no tact at all. You at least recognized that you should show more, but then didn't anyway.

2. Yet it cost an entire plus to put this on a weapon. People pay for it anyway. While the power does need work, it is in some ways more versatile as you can tailor the energy to your need. I do think the cost is too high for the benefit.

3. In my opinion, more than half the original metamagic feats were. I usually could find a better option at a spell level than a trumped up spell from a few levels back. But this is a preference, not a problem. In fact, it illustrates my points above perfectly.

Scarab Sages

Psychic_Robot wrote:
No, the original copy of what I was going to post was a rant. This is a well-thought out criticism of the system that involves ideas for the developer team to use.

You consider this well-thought out with ideas for Jason to use?

Barbarian: 7 points, no evidence, no solutions.

Bard: 2 points, no evidence, 1 solution.

Fighter: 1 point, no evidence, suggestion that DR 5/- at 5th level would be a good idea, 1 pretty good solution with armor ratings.

Monk: 3 points, no evidence, claim that monks always miss (is "always miss" a class feature?), no solutions.

Paladin: 3 points, no evidence, lots of opinion, 1 solution, 1 error correction.

Ranger: 1 point, no evidence, demand for ranger to get more power.

Sorcerer: 4 points, no evidence, use of cool/not-cool, comparison of extraordinary ability to spells (bad idea), insult of Skip Williams, 1 solution.

Wizards: 2 points, no evidence, complaining about permanent magical effects being not as good as spells you must prepare and cast (???), call a mechanic stupid and unnecessary, no solutions.

Feats: 11 points, some math evidence, ignores stacking of Combat Casting and Skill Focus, good point about Armor Training, 1 or 2 solutions.

Spells: 4 points, three appear to actually be valid, but without evidence, and are presented with solutions.

So after reading 21 complaints, you offer a bunch of insults, some plain wrong information, and 8 solutions.

Scarab Sages

Psychic_Robot wrote:
Locke: Since the beginning of Pathfinder, people have been asking for clarification of the rules regarding wizard object familiars. We have received NO CLARIFICATION.

Jason and others have made it clear that from the Alpha to the Beta, Jason's main concern was adding new material. Have you made a seperate thread for this topic asking Jason for help?

Psychic_Robot wrote:


As for some others...

1. I don't want to be Frank. I'm not trying to be Frank.

2. I don't need to playtest things when +1d6 damage gets negated by energy resistance 5.

3. Maximize is worthless for the spell level adjustment cost.

1. Frank was not the only one asked to take a time out. But those that were all claimed that civility was not required in feedback. They were wrong, and it got them a temporary hiatus.

2. Except all creatures don't have energy resistance 5 to all forms of energy. Only rare creatures have energy resistance, and those that do only have a few categories (with the exception of Demons, Devils, and Archons). +1d6 is indeed often negated by energy resistance 5, but I suggest you DO need to playtest, since you apparently feel that dealing energy damage is inconsequential to most opponents.

3. Except when you prepare disintegrate as a 9th-level spell at 20th Level and deal 240 points of damage (save for half). And numerous other possibilities.


Psychic_Robot wrote:
However, my suggestions are all good suggestions. I want Pathfinder to be the best RPG it can be, and it can only be that way if people get through to Jason and his team that things are not okay the way they are.

But here again, instead of saying, "this is what would work for me, and here's why I think this way," you present your idea as objectively better than anyone else's, and imply that Jason is intentionally ignoring some brilliant idea.

Some of the things you don't like I have some problems with, but a lot of them I don't. So does that mean that, since you know your ideas are good, that my opinion shouldn't count, and that Jason should know that my ideas are bad, and thus able to be ignored, but yours are the essence of what Perfect d20 Fantasy should be?

So basically, state your opinion. People are reading it, but they may not agree with it. It doesn't mean it wasn't read, or even seriously considered. It just wasn't what ended up going in the final document. If that isn't good for you, then I guess you can choose not to buy the final product, if its a big sticking point.

Note, I'm not telling you not to post your opinion. I'm telling you your opinions are not automatically being ignored, nor are they demonstrably and objectively right.

Dark Archive

Psychic_Robot wrote:
Locke: Since the beginning of Pathfinder, people have been asking for clarification of the rules regarding wizard object familiars. We have received NO CLARIFICATION.

Ok...So what exactly do you NOT understand about object familiars?


Jal Dorak: No. Re-read the post. Here, I'll highlight the relevant parts of the barbarian section.

1. Elemental rage: Wow, it’s bad.
Eight rage points for a pithy +1d6? Energy resistance five negates any application. Even though it applies to all attacks in the round, it’s just not worth it. This needs to be two (2) rage points, and it needs to scale with level—something like +1d6 additional damage for every six levels or so.

What you have to remember is that even though the barbarian might be able to use this +1d6 on four attacks in a round, energy resistance five is going to take five damage off of EACH of those attacks. Which means that 5/6 times, you’re going to be doing no damage at all. And higher-level monsters aren’t going to care about it.

2. Increased damage reduction: DR 3/—?
Yeah, that DR isn’t going to do anything against a dragon’s attacks. This is another power that should cost a flat two rage points and scale with level. Perhaps DR 1/-- for every three levels that you have. If it doesn’t scale, it needs to last longer than one round. When monsters are doing 3d8+13 damage, they’re not going to care if they’re only doing 3d8+10.

3. Low-light vision/night sight.
It’s not good enough. Not only does it last a single round—lame—it is pointless overall. To make this good, it should grant darkvision and then be upgraded later so that you can see through magical darkness.

4. Renewed vigor.
No scaling = no use. It might not be bad at low levels, but a tenth-level barbarian isn’t going to care about wasting a standard action to heal himself for a few hitpoints. (As much as I hate to echo the 4e developers…“economy of actions” is an important game concept. At least in 4e, you use a standard action to heal a quarter of your total hitpoints.)

5. Unexpected strike: useless by virtue of a magic weapon or a fifth level wizard.
This needs fewer rage point cost. What adventurer wouldn’t have a weapon of speed? What kind of wizard doesn’t cast haste for great justice? It’s negated by an entire character class at fifth level.

6. Surprise Accuracy, Strength Surge, Guarded Stance, etc.
ARGH. This is what makes me so annoyed. It makes my blood boil. Here is a fundamental concept that should be applied across the abilities: a low rage point cost that scales with level. Unfortunately, the problem is that these abilities are so good that you’d have to be retarded NOT to take them. They completely outclass the other abilities. A +20 bonus on attack or damage rolls for TWO rage points? Yes, please.

7. Rage point cost for raging: mechanically clunky and complex.
It’s bad. Too much bookkeeping. The duration of the fatigue requires too much hassle on the player’s part—how many rage points did I spend, how many rounds am I fatigued for, am I done being fatigued yet, can I enter a rage again?

Scarab Sages

Psychic_Robot wrote:
Jal Dorak: No. Re-read the post.

Which post and why?


Jal Dorak wrote:
Psychic_Robot wrote:
Jal Dorak: No. Re-read the post.
Which post and why?

See my reply above.

Dark Archive

[threadjack]LOL, I can't help but think WWSS (What would Sebastian say).. [/threadjack]


Jason Beardsley wrote:
[threadjack]LOL, I can't help but think WWSS (What would Sebastian say).. [/threadjack]

Okay, I'll draw the summoning circle if you start chanting his name backwards . . . now all we have to do is find someone willing to sign a contract in blood and we should be able to get him here easily.

Liberty's Edge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Psychic_Robot wrote:
No, the original copy of what I was going to post was a rant. This is a well-thought out criticism of the system that involves ideas for the developer team to use.

The Declaration of Independence was a well-thought out criticism. Please note that Thomas Jefferson didn't suggest that George III wanted anyone to get AIDS. You were ranting, and in the process undermining anything of value you may have wanted to contribute.

Dark Archive

KnightErrantJR wrote:
Jason Beardsley wrote:
[threadjack]LOL, I can't help but think WWSS (What would Sebastian say).. [/threadjack]
Okay, I'll draw the summoning circle if you start chanting his name backwards . . . now all we have to do is find someone willing to sign a contract in blood and we should be able to get him here easily.

Hmm.. where are those cultists..

Sovereign Court

Coridan wrote:
Dario Nardi wrote:

I feel we need folks to really closely examine Beta, as was done here, though perhaps less vitriolic.

IDEA:

Paizo sponsors a PRPG-chapter-per-week process.

Each week the entire community examines a class/chapter/whatever in terms of balance, playability, clarity, etc.

That's uhm, what they are doing, it's not weekly per se but Jason is going to be going from section to section. Abilities and Races are what he's on now.

Somehow I completely missed that. Great to hear!

Liberty's Edge

I gotta quit reading these things.
I gotta get a hobby.
I think I....
I think I should shred my scalp with a cheese grater, then pour the liquid from a bottle of jalapeno peppers on it.
Yeah, that'd be more fun.

Scarab Sages

Psychic_Robot wrote:


1. Elemental rage: Wow, it’s bad.
Eight rage points for a pithy +1d6? Energy resistance five negates any application. Even though it applies to all attacks in the round, it’s just not worth it. This needs to be two (2) rage points, and it needs to scale with level—something like +1d6 additional damage for every six levels or so.

What you have to remember is that even though the barbarian might be able to use this +1d6 on four attacks in a round, energy resistance five is going to take five damage off of EACH of those attacks. Which means that 5/6 times, you’re going to be doing no damage at all. And higher-level monsters aren’t going to care about it.

Not disagreeing that the points are perhaps too high. However, I can think of numerous "high-level" (what do you mean?) that have no energy resistance. A Level 20 Fighter has no energy resistance without magic items, and even then only to certain ones. Beholders have no energy resistance, heck even the Tarrasque is only immune to fire. Yes, 5/6 of the time you do no damage - but only if you are fighting a monster/NPC with the appropriate resistance. There are literally hundreds of monsters in the MM, I am willing to bet not half of them have energy resistance of any kind. Playtest.

It's like arguing that Weapon Specialization in Slashing Weapons is useless, since skeletons have DR 5/bludgeoning.

Psychic_Robot wrote:

2. Increased damage reduction: DR 3/—?

Yeah, that DR isn’t going to do anything against a dragon’s attacks. This is another power that should cost a flat two rage points and scale with level. Perhaps DR 1/-- for every three levels that you have. If it doesn’t scale, it needs to last longer than one round. When monsters are doing 3d8+13 damage, they’re not going to care if they’re only doing 3d8+10.

Okay, I overlooked your solution. I disagree that DR 3/- is useless. ANY DR is useful, but especially that little slash and dash.

Psychic_Robot wrote:

3. Low-light vision/night sight.

It’s not good enough. Not only does it last a single round—lame—it is pointless overall. To make this good, it should grant darkvision and then be upgraded later so that you can see through magical darkness.

Again, I overlooked your solution. Probably because you called it lame.

Psychic_Robot wrote:

4. Renewed vigor.

No scaling = no use. It might not be bad at low levels, but a tenth-level barbarian isn’t going to care about wasting a standard action to heal himself for a few hitpoints. (As much as I hate to echo the 4e developers…“economy of actions” is an important game concept. At least in 4e, you use a standard action to heal a quarter of your total hitpoints.)

Economy of actions only applies during a battle. This ability gives them a bit of healing, with in-game logic, out of battle. No-one is going to argue to use this all the time.

Psychic_Robot wrote:

5. Unexpected strike: useless by virtue of a magic weapon or a fifth level wizard.

This needs fewer rage point cost. What adventurer wouldn’t have a weapon of speed? What kind of wizard doesn’t cast haste for great justice? It’s negated by an entire character class at fifth level.

Your points are valid. But what if you want a keen weapon instead of a speed weapon, and have no wizard? What if you just want to be able to gain an extra attack of your own ability? Nobody is forcing you to take these rage powers.

Psychic_Robot wrote:

6. Surprise Accuracy, Strength Surge, Guarded Stance, etc.

ARGH. This is what makes me so annoyed. It makes my blood boil. Here is a fundamental concept that should be applied across the abilities: a low rage point cost that scales with level. Unfortunately, the problem is that these abilities are so good that you’d have to be retarded NOT to take them. They completely outclass the other abilities. A +20 bonus on attack or damage rolls for TWO rage points? Yes, please.

Okay, you present a hamfisted solution (re-valuing all abilities across the board) but you fail to do so yourself.

Psychic_Robot wrote:

7. Rage point cost for raging: mechanically clunky and complex.

It’s bad. Too much bookkeeping. The duration of the fatigue requires too much hassle on the player’s part—how many rage points did I spend, how many rounds am I fatigued for, am I done being fatigued yet, can I enter a rage again?

Could you present solutions? How is subtracting a number from another number too much bookkeeping? I playtested a barbarian NPC as a DM, and with a player running one as a PC, and had no problem converting from 3.5 and calculating rage points in my head.

EDIT: Got a little snarky.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

How does acknowledging that other opinions exist consume more time? One can use tact and still be succinct. Here, I'll show you how.

Psychic_Robot wrote:
Jal Dorak: No. Re-read the post. Here, I'll highlight the relevant parts of the barbarian section.

I will highlight the relevant parts for my purposes as well.

Psychic Robot Wrote

Spoiler:

Psychic_Robot wrote:


1. Elemental rage: Wow, it’s bad.
Eight rage points for a pithy +1d6? Energy resistance five negates any application. Even though it applies to all attacks in the round, it’s just not worth it. This needs to be two (2) rage points, and it needs to scale with level—something like +1d6 additional damage for every six levels or so.

What you have to remember is that even though the barbarian might be able to use this +1d6 on four attacks in a round, energy resistance five is going to take five damage off of EACH of those attacks. Which means that 5/6 times, you’re going to be doing no damage at all. And higher-level monsters aren’t going to care about it.

But, he could have written:

Spoiler:

NOT Psychic_Robot wrote:


1. Elemental rage isn't worth it.
Eight rage points for a pithy +1d6? Energy resistance five negates any application. Even though it applies to all attacks in the round, it’s just not worth it. I'd suggest (2) rage points, and having it scale with level—something like +1d6 additional damage for every six levels or so.

<snip> Even though the barbarian might be able to use this +1d6 on four attacks in a round, energy resistance five is going to take five damage off of EACH of those attacks. Which means that 5/6 times, you’re going to be doing no damage at all. And higher-level monsters aren’t going to care about it.

See, that's actually shorter and still conveys your meaning; In fact, I suspect it conveys your meaning better as people would read it.


Jason Beardsley wrote:
KnightErrantJR wrote:
Jason Beardsley wrote:
[threadjack]LOL, I can't help but think WWSS (What would Sebastian say).. [/threadjack]
Okay, I'll draw the summoning circle if you start chanting his name backwards . . . now all we have to do is find someone willing to sign a contract in blood and we should be able to get him here easily.
Hmm.. where are those cultists..

Cultists needed? We are at your service.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Heathansson wrote:

I gotta quit reading these things.

I gotta get a hobby.
I think I....
I think I should shred my scalp with a cheese grater, then pour the liquid from a bottle of jalapeno peppers on it.
Yeah, that'd be more fun.

I know, I feel all dirty after I read one of these threads, like I'm slowing down to watch a really bad traffic accident. Why can't we be nicer to each other?

Dark Archive

Elder Elemental Eye wrote:
Jason Beardsley wrote:
KnightErrantJR wrote:
Jason Beardsley wrote:
[threadjack]LOL, I can't help but think WWSS (What would Sebastian say).. [/threadjack]
Okay, I'll draw the summoning circle if you start chanting his name backwards . . . now all we have to do is find someone willing to sign a contract in blood and we should be able to get him here easily.
Hmm.. where are those cultists..
Cultists needed? We are at your service.

Nice.

Now, we're gonna need parchment, an empty ink vial, and a quill. Make sure you fill the vial with your blood, you're not going to miss 8 ounces. I'll take care of the verbal component, while you draw up the summoning circle. I've got rope or chalk dust, whichever you prefer, if you don't have any.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Heathansson wrote:

I gotta quit reading these things.

I gotta get a hobby.

Try knitting.


Jason Beardsley wrote:


Now, we're gonna need parchment, an empty ink vial, and a quill. Make sure you fill the vial with your blood, you're not going to miss 8 ounces. I'll take care of the verbal component, while you draw up the summoning circle. I've got rope or chalk dust, whichever you prefer, if you don't have any.

Do we need something to entice Sebastian into our service? Perhaps we should present a Bella Sara Booster Pack?


Dal Jorak:

1. +4d6 damage is only if all the attacks hit. Given that the +10/+5 attacks are a joke, they're probably not going to hit, which means a whopping +2d6 damage. And that's awful. While some high level monsters don't have energy resistance, a LOT of them do. In addition, the barbarian is probably going to have to metagame to make his ability useful, as it's doubtful that the average barbarian knows the weaknesses of glabrezu.

2. DR 3/- is useless. I'm sorry that you don't feel that way, but it is. Monsters don't care. Critical hits in particular don't care about DR 3/-. If it were DR 3/- for the entire encounter, I would say it would be more worth it.

3. Not my fault that you leaped to conclusions.

4. What kind of barbarian wastes his rage points out of combat? Think about this. The barbarian has to enter a rage and then sustain that rage while using a power that uses rage points in order to heal himself. It's worthless if it doesn't scale. (1 rage point to enter rage, 7 rage points per round for healing.)

5. A fifth-level member of a class shouldn't out-do nifty rage powers.

6. Yes, I could. Personally, I would turn the rage powers into passive abilities that one gets while raging.

7. The problem is that it's a lot to keep track of on top of everything else--particularly bonuses from raging and the 1-round rage effects.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Psychic_Robot wrote:
Locke: Since the beginning of Pathfinder, people have been asking for clarification of the rules regarding wizard object familiars. We have received NO CLARIFICATION.
Pathfinder Beta wrote:
Objects that are the subject of an arcane bond must fall into one of the following categories: amulet, ring, staff, wand, or weapon. These objects are always masterwork.

I think this clearly means a wand is basically a masterwork stick. Sorry no first level wand of fireballs.

1 to 50 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Jason, I would greatly appreciate it you would read this. All Messageboards