Okay, I've been quiet for awhile now, using the beta rules with my regular gaming group. We're very pleased with the way some of the changes work and the thought that went into those changes. We're all in agreement that we like the redefined skills list, combining some similar skills into new unified skills (such as stealth and linguistics) with a couple minor exceptions. One player doesn't like that rope use disappeared as that something he liked to incorporate into all his characters, and a couple are confused by lumping the old jump skill --strength-based-- into one skill with balance and tumbling which are dexterity-based. On the other hand, we all firmly agree that the changes to skill ranks seems unnecessary, like you tried to reinvent the wheel... and the new system isn't better, its just different. From my perspective, trying to maintain a game compatible with all my old D&D and third party D20 sourcebooks, the change to skill ranks means an extra step when adding prestige class levels. Its just an unneeded annoyance to have to look at the skill rank prerequisites and subtract 3. We went back to the extra skill ranks at first level (class + int modifier x4) as presented in the Player's Handbook. We also agree universally that the class changes are good all around, with special emphasis on barbarian rage... and we've been trying to modify the monk class to work in a similar way with Ki points. Its good stuff.
There are some other things that have slowed us down with debates and even arguements. For one thing, the class abilities are more powerful, and the player races also feel amped up... the two combined have given the players a decided edge. We started playing at the medium speed xp advancement, but around roughly 12th level, I wanted to switch over to the slow advancement. We didn't set anyone's level back, but they had to catch up to the altered xp table before advancing again. The early levels went fast because the PCs were just way tougher than the monsters and NPCs with the altered hit dice and different starting hit points. We started play with the racial hit point bonus. We had tried some side games, starting over with different characters using different starting HP & ability score method --occasionally with a different DM-- usually playing to about 5th or 6th level. As the primary DM, I found myself CONSTANTLY re-evaluating challenge ratings (a mechanic I hate tinkering with) based on how easily the players crushed monster opposition... and NEVER the other way around. Even having moved to the slow advancement XP table, everyone advanced way too fast, recieving too much reward for too little expended effort (in this case, effort being defined as hit points used per encounter vs available healing, spells and limited use magic items used, etc).
I'm sure the game as is makes a lot of gamers happy because the players moved from encounter to encounter, dominating everything like some kind of Hollywood or Anime super heroes. Considering we had players who reached level 20 in a little under 2 months, even using some game sessions to start and play entirely different characters, we're probably NOT going to follow up with Pathfinder's official release unless it gets majorly toned down... something that we hope happens but don't really anticipate. We had fun game sessions, and other people playtesting are probably having those same experiences, and I'm guessing the immediate fun is going to carry more weight than the long term stuff we typically enjoy. But our games aren't about tearing through opposition and levelling up fast in spite of a greatly hampered XP table. So, we'll probably borrow stuff from the beta and house rule it into our regular games from now on, but Pathfinder is not going to become our D&D replacement.
--------------------------
Our main playtest game consisted of a party of 4.
* dwarf fighter 8/cleric 11
* human paladin 10/monk 10
* half-orc barbarian 12/rogue 6
* elf sorcerer 18
Our side games included an all halfling party of a druid, a monk, a bard, and a wizard; an all fighter party consisting of an elf, a dwarf, a human, and a half-orc, and an "evil" party with a gnome cleric, a halfling ranger, a dwarf rogue, a human fighter/sorcerer, and a half-elf wizard.
Wow, 20th level in 2 months??? How often did you play? That seems rather quick to me. My group played every two weeks for like 6 months and were just at 3rd level. *shrugs*
Two nights (approx. 3 to 4 hours each) a week plus saturdays (typically 6 to 8 hours with a break or two for a walk to the local convenience store for snacks & smokes).
Only one player reached level 20, there were two level 18s and a level 19 at that point.
fast with a lot of playing. That is not the typical gaming group. You game what 12+ hours a week?
|
I'm DMing RotRL under Beta rules. Fast XP progression. We kicked off in March and we play usually three 4-hour sessions per month. It's December, we just finished PF3: Hook Mountain Massacre and the party is at lvl 10.
Granted, the group is:
a) inexperienced with D&D
b) prone to overt caution and over-planning every move
Still, it's slow enough for me, and if we kicked in the Med XP prog, it would be even slower.
Yeah, I would say that quick level progression (especially using steeper experience and trying other characters!) is an anomaly, and has to be somehow based in the way you are playing rather than the PF rules themselves. Unless of course there is no roleplaying or plot development and you guys are just doing combat simulations with minis over and over. *grin*
|
Our group had a major interruption to play and are still in Burnt Offerings. But we have all noticed that combat is faster, as the PCs tend to mow down opposition quickly. I do feel that they are getting too much XP for the amount of effort invested.
On the other hand, the players are LOVING it! Combats are much more interesting and the PCs are not afraid to try new things. Each player was required to take a class he has never played in 3.x and that has been a blast as well. As it turns out NONE of us have yet to play a Bard.
I do look forward to adventures written FOR Pathfinder. I expect bigger badder monsters, and more mobs.
Of course we have no higher level play yet, so things may completely turn around at higher levels.
We discussed using different XP charts through the campaign but it was unanimously opposed as a major pain in the butt, so we chose the medium XP path.
I did add two encounters for flavor on the way to the Goblin lair... a sleeping T-rex having feasted on a herd of bison/rhinos things, and a dryad that almost managed to suck a PC into her tree. These were fun just to see the looks in their eyes.
On the other hand, we all firmly agree that the changes to skill ranks seems unnecessary, like you tried to reinvent the wheel... and the new system isn't better, its just different. From my perspective, trying to maintain a game compatible with all my old D&D and third party D20 sourcebooks, the change to skill ranks means an extra step when adding prestige class levels. Its just an unneeded annoyance to have to look at the skill rank prerequisites and subtract 3. We went back to the extra skill ranks at first level (class + int modifier x4) as presented in the Player's Handbook.
I'm involved with a couple campaigns right now, one using 3.5 mechanics with PFRPG classes and races, and the other full PFRPG content. It's taken some getting used to, but I'm coming to like the PF rules for skills.
Here's why: it's easier to calculate. That's it. That's all. Creating a mid-to-high-level character is now a LOT easier. Checking the math is even easier.
While I agree the change isn't huge, it's basically a redesign to the way things should've been done in the first place.
|
It's taken some getting used to, but I'm coming to like the PF rules for skills.
Here's why: it's easier to calculate. That's it. That's all. Creating a mid-to-high-level character is now a LOT easier.
For anyone who wasn't involved in the Alpha1/Alpha2 discussions, this is EXACTLY why it is the way it is. A lot of DM complained that creating high-level NPCs - with multiple classes and ability score bumps, etc. - was a nightmare. Getting rid of cross-class skills and x4 at 1st level, and adding a +3 bonus to class skills is all to make those high level NPCs easier to create. What they were 1st level doesn't matter, whether they took a skill classed or cross classed doesn't matter, when they bumped their Int doesn't matter; it's all just one calculation.
For anyone who really hates this, the actual number of points should work just about the same as the old way (1x4 or 1+3) but how will you handle cross-class skills? The old 2 points = 1 rank, or assign a -3 penalty?
It's taken some getting used to, but I'm coming to like the PF rules for skills.
Here's why: it's easier to calculate. That's it. That's all. Creating a mid-to-high-level character is now a LOT easier.
For anyone who wasn't involved in the Alpha1/Alpha2 discussions, this is EXACTLY why it is the way it is. A lot of DM complained that creating high-level NPCs - with multiple classes and ability score bumps, etc. - was a nightmare. Getting rid of cross-class skills and x4 at 1st level, and adding a +3 bonus to class skills is all to make those high level NPCs easier to create. What they were 1st level doesn't matter, whether they took a skill classed or cross classed doesn't matter, when they bumped their Int doesn't matter; it's all just one calculation.
For anyone who really hates this, the actual number of points should work just about the same as the old way (1x4 or 1+3) but how will you handle cross-class skills? The old 2 points = 1 rank, or assign a -3 penalty?
As a DM, I never had trouble making mid- to high level characters, so this is why I disagree with the change. I'm sorry the people who had troubles before aren't especially math talented, but the change enforces doing additional math for those converting... making more math to reduce math is my real problem with Pathfinder skills.
If 3.x had been done this new way originally, I might like the new better... but its not how it was done, so the conversion annoys the hell out of me.
|
|
Personally, I think that the skills change was elegant. It's also easier to convert from PFRPG<-->3.5 than to calculate in 3.5, I would say, so it's excellent all-round (although I guess I wouldn't be one to insist on absolute veracity in skill block conversions anyhow, so long as the results were sane).
I guess that if the skill points change is an issue for you, it may be that you were never going to like PFRPG, because the skill points change is probably the poster child for 'fixing stuff without making conversion too hard'; most of the other changes are bigger, but I would guess that nearly everyone, in both the "PFRPG changes too much" and "PFRPG doesn't change enough" camps, likes the change to skill points.
Change to skill points rock.
Combining skills is good (although jumping put in acrobatics doesnt make alot of sense because of the str vs dex arguement.)
Something dont make sense.
Stealth, combing move silent and hide made one certain anomoly.
Shadow feature for magical armor. How does black armor make you move quieter?
Elven cloak, how does a blending cloak make you quieter.
elven boots, how does magically soft boots make you harder to see?
Either the magic boost needs to be altered or the skills need to be separate.
I really miss things like the old 2nd addition gauntlets of ogre power and boots of striding and sprining.
In 3.x and this game they are greatly reduced magic items.
Specifically for this discussion boots of striding and springing.
Poop on that.
on another note, the way these skills points work, rogues are a little too skill beefy, and clerics (especially those with no intelligences bonus) too skill weak.
I made a human cleric with a 10 intelligence ( I used high fantasy point buying system and I only had 20 points to spend)
This cleric started the game with 3 skill ranks to spend (2 from cleric and one for being human) eek!
I would suggest a change:
Starting characters have 5 skill points to spend in addition to what they get fron their character class.
Human get an extra 3 skill points.
Elves get an extra 5 skill points (being long lived and having more time to develop skills before startingout adventuring.)
Then drop the 3 points for every class skill bonus.
Make starting characters choose 3 skills (4 for rogues and bards) that they have as their "favored" skills that get the 3 point bouns. The rest of their class skills get a bonus of plus 1 (2 for rogues and bards).
This makes the skill specific classes more intense in that area, without have a skilless character at 1st level and not making everyone create clerics with high intelligences just for the sake of getting skill points.
The humans get 3 points for being versatile the elves get 5 skill points for being long lived and learned.
(in another thread I suggested elves get a skill focus as a racial bonus for the same reason I suggested elves get more starting skill points here, perhaps the skill focus is more appropriate for elves and the humans keep their 3 point of bonus skills as they are more likely to spread them around.
The beauty of the new points system, though, is that it's broadly backwards compatible (same starting bonuses without the x4 at first level thing, for example).
Broadly compatible?
So if I pull a dweomervore from my Forgotten Realms City of Splendors: Waterdeep 3.5e sourcebook, how many skill points do I remove and from which skills to balance it out with the Pathfinder skill system?
Sure, the skills work the same way, but the compatibility aspect is skewed because older monsters and characters will have more skill points. Yes, one can remove skill points from the 3.5e stuff to be compatible with the Pathfinder game... but to me, that's not backwards compatible, that's forcing me to upgrade the old material. And yes, it is forward compatible, but I don't feel like or want to do the added work every time I want to use something from an older edition.
Mind you, this is just the skills issue. That's not my only hangup with the game, I brought it up as an example and its being re-examined at length here. There's too much work to convert between editions for it to be considered truly backward compatible... compatible yes, but not compatible enough.
|
|
If it's a monster your PCs are just going to kill, why bother changing the numbers? Unless it is something you expect to use again and again over the campaign, use the stated number, let it die, move on. That is backwards compatibility to me. Ability to use the numbers without it being glaringly over/underpowered for the challenge.
Most of the monsters in my campaign say "Ogre 25hp" on apeice of paper, occasionally one of these things lives long enough that the peice of paper checks a ketchup stain on it.
Creatures/NPC's that stick around a while enough to worry about things like, skills, specific equipment and even spell lists? Well I make the from scratch almost all the time anyway.
Any you know what? Ihad a 1st level Paladin, single handedly kill an NPC villian that was meant to hang out quite a while. The girl playing the paladin had never even played DnD before! I had spent two days makig this baddy, figuring out what he had to do with the story line and basically had him all made out like a pc. I even drew a picture of him!
Smack, he died. It wasnt even the whole party! they wer busy with undead minions!
The "uber baddy" was a blackguard of 1st level but had enough cleric to qualify for the prestige class. If I remember correctly he had 47 hit points and was only there for his class features to control undead and wave in front of the PCS and say "BOO"!!
She flanked the zombies/skelies after hitting him by luck with a few arrows (which I must confess at first I didnt even mark down the damage because I didnt think it would be relevant)
She then landed THREE consecutive critical attacks with a bastard sword in which he missed twice and hit her once and had her with in inches of her life. Instead of self healing, or running away, she landed the third crit hit and killed him!
So in short, if you have to spend 30 minutes redoing a specific baddies skills,a nd hes likely to get killed? Don't.
If hes NOT likely to get killed and you need his skills, spells and feats it certainly wont take you as long to fix the skills as makea whole creature from scratch and have it killed off anyway!
|
|
Broadly compatible?
Similar bonuses. So stat blocks are more less correct and you don't need to know too much to realise which skills to merge, etc. It's pretty elegant, I thin.
So if I pull a dweomervore from my Forgotten Realms City of Splendors: Waterdeep 3.5e sourcebook, how many skill points do I remove and from which skills to balance it out with the Pathfinder skill system?
I'd just keep it more or less as it is. It shouldn't be more than a couple of points off in terms of the skill bonuses, in most cases...
Sure, the skills work the same way, but the compatibility aspect is skewed because older monsters and characters will have more skill points. Yes, one can remove skill points from the 3.5e stuff to be compatible with the Pathfinder game... but to me, that's not backwards compatible, that's forcing me to upgrade the old material. And yes, it is forward compatible, but I don't feel like or want to do the added work every time I want to use something from an older edition.
But bonuses are similar, which is the main figure of merit in stat blocks...
Mind you, this is just the skills issue. That's not my only hangup with the game, I brought it up as an example and its being re-examined at length here. There's too much work to convert between editions for it to be considered truly backward compatible... compatible yes, but not compatible enough.
Oh, I know; my point was that if this is a hangup, I don't think that the game was ever going to be for you. It may be that you prefer a level of precision and verity (relative to the rules) that mean that the transition would indeed require an unacceptable amount of work; for me, things like the skill system are not a big concern (I started RotRL with PFRPG last night and it was fine, by my standards).
Wow, 20th level in 2 months??? How often did you play? That seems rather quick to me. My group played every two weeks for like 6 months and were just at 3rd level. *shrugs*
My question is how do you get the players to level so slow? We're in a pretty combat-intensive game, so even under the slow XP chart we level pretty fast. Even as a player, I'd like to level slower for story's sake.
Please enlighten me.
It's taken some getting used to, but I'm coming to like the PF rules for skills.
Here's why: it's easier to calculate. That's it. That's all. Creating a mid-to-high-level character is now a LOT easier.
For anyone who wasn't involved in the Alpha1/Alpha2 discussions, this is EXACTLY why it is the way it is. A lot of DM complained that creating high-level NPCs - with multiple classes and ability score bumps, etc. - was a nightmare. Getting rid of cross-class skills and x4 at 1st level, and adding a +3 bonus to class skills is all to make those high level NPCs easier to create. What they were 1st level doesn't matter, whether they took a skill classed or cross classed doesn't matter, when they bumped their Int doesn't matter; it's all just one calculation.
For anyone who really hates this, the actual number of points should work just about the same as the old way (1x4 or 1+3) but how will you handle cross-class skills? The old 2 points = 1 rank, or assign a -3 penalty?
As a DM, I never had trouble making mid- to high level characters, so this is why I disagree with the change. I'm sorry the people who had troubles before aren't especially math talented, but the change enforces doing additional math for those converting... making more math to reduce math is my real problem with Pathfinder skills.
If 3.x had been done this new way originally, I might like the new better... but its not how it was done, so the conversion annoys the hell out of me.
I haven't found any problem with either method, though I must say as a DM who makes waaay too many NPCs for his own good that the Pathfinder system has greatly expedited my NPC-generating process.