I'm too lazy to repost everything on my blog here, not to mention the changes of things ranging all over the place and getting off topic are pretty high, so if anyone is interested, I posted a few of my current frustrations on my blog here, and I welcome discussion on what I wrote there:
Interesting reading. I will read more later. I agree with most of your points though. I would like to see Pathfinder stay basically in line with SRD, as that would allow me to use the splat books I already have without having to repurchase a whole new set. That is an impossibility for me as I am on a fixed income and cannot afford it. That is also one reason I decided to not go with 4e. Finances are a determining factor for me.
Just my 2 cp.
|
I really do see where you are comming from. I really have a big problem with Rogues and Sneak Attack as I understand it.
I fully agree with the Save or Die spells. All the suggestions are to make the spells pretty useless so their class (Fighter um um) is unbeatable, but not taking into account that other classes might depend on those spells. On the other hand, some seem very taken with a suggestion I made to boost the minor effect up, and make the more potent effects rarer, like on a crit.
Honestly, I don't see this as such a problem. There are a lot of things I don't see why they would want to change them at all. Concentration and Fly come to mind. I guess I don't really have a problem with Fly, outside of it being just seems like another rule that was never broken to begin with.
I really do see where you are comming from. I really have a big problem with Rogues and Sneak Attack as I understand it.
I fully agree with the Save or Die spells. All the suggestions are to make the spells pretty useless so their class (Fighter um um) is unbeatable, but not taking into account that other classes might depend on those spells. On the other hand, some seem very taken with a suggestion I made to boost the minor effect up, and make the more potent effects rarer, like on a crit.
Honestly, I don't see this as such a problem. There are a lot of things I don't see why they would want to change them at all. Concentration and Fly come to mind. I guess I don't really have a problem with Fly, outside of it being just seems like another rule that was never broken to begin with.
Yeah, I kind of worry that some changes weren't so much needed, but preemptive, worrying that someone might think its a problem. The more I look at skills, the more I agree some could be consolidated, but there are probably some that really didn't need to be messed with, especially with the current +3 system.
Interesting reading. I will read more later. I agree with most of your points though. I would like to see Pathfinder stay basically in line with SRD, as that would allow me to use the splat books I already have without having to repurchase a whole new set. That is an impossibility for me as I am on a fixed income and cannot afford it. That is also one reason I decided to not go with 4e. Finances are a determining factor for me.
Just my 2 cp.
See, that's something I've been thinking of as well. Potentially, Pathfinder can keep some people playing "3.5" with their current trove of books. While that doesn't help Paizo, per se, some members of that same gaming group, especially the DM, are more likely to pick up the latest Pathfinder books.
On the other hand, if more and more of their 3.5 stuff is invalidated, they have less of a reason to choose to play in a Pathfinder game, and are therefore less likely to pick up a new Pathfinder book "once in a while" if they are moved to spend more on gaming.
Another thing I didn't even get into in my posts had to do with Psionics. The consensus seems to be that if Pathfinder addresses psionics, they are going to scrap the SRD version of them and start over, which then eliminates the interest of all of those players that have the XPH, Complete Psionic, maybe some Eberron books, and perhaps some Malhavoc books they would have liked to have used.
I know there hasn't been anything set in stone about that, its just an example of how this trend might hedge out some 3.5 holdouts that might like to play in a Pathfinder campaign.
|
|
I can understand Psionics. Generally, the only people that want Psionics are the players who get to use it, while all other players are glad that it was not included, or neutral because they do not know how much Psionics can ruin the game for others.
One thing I really wish that they would have changed up a bit is how things stack. As I understand it, they actually went the other direction in some cases, making some spells not work together anymore. I wish they would loosen the restrictions on stacking so that characters would no be so dependent on specific gear only.
I'm too lazy to repost everything on my blog here, not to mention the changes of things ranging all over the place and getting off topic are pretty high, so if anyone is interested, I posted a few of my current frustrations on my blog here, and I welcome discussion on what I wrote there:
Thanks for sharing this. I mirror your concerns on almost every issue. Much of my early enthusiasm for this project has been diminished by the deviation from 3.5 SRD. When it started as adding options, I was 100% behind the innovations, but there are now so many changes to various sub-systems that I am not sure the final game is going to be one that I will still know how to play.
I can understand Psionics. Generally, the only people that want Psionics are the players who get to use it, while all other players are glad that it was not included, or neutral because they do not know how much Psionics can ruin the game for others.
One thing I really wish that they would have changed up a bit is how things stack. As I understand it, they actually went the other direction in some cases, making some spells not work together anymore. I wish they would loosen the restrictions on stacking so that characters would no be so dependent on specific gear only.
I understand that, but I guess I'd almost rather know that they just weren't going to redefine psionics than to expect that somewhere down the road they may start adding some psionics rules that won't quite jive with the SRD psionics.
Interesting read, some parts I agree with and some parts I don't. However as James has repetitively mentioned a lot of the things released for the Beta are more extreme than what the final product will be.
I know, and I do trust James. I've also talked to Erik in the chatroom, and that has calmed my fears, a little. Jason has done an amazing job, and I don't want to diminish that, but I also wonder sometimes if the long list of posts that just accept that X or Y must be changed because the Beta has changed it are representative of the customer base, and if it isn't, then what better time to point out what does and doesn't work for a given individual.
|
|
I guess what I mean about Psionics ihas to do with what they where saying about Divine prestige Classes. At the moment, they where not sure how +1 Divine Caster Level would affect Domains now, because they funtion differently. If it is caster level, than many domains are going to be very weak if you go into a Prestige Class. If Cleric Level and Caster Level are the same thing, (as it was put in some of the Cleric abilities for simplicity), than Prestige Classes for the Cleric might be very overpowered, or risk losing to much by not getting full casting.
So for the moment, they are not going to bother with it at all, hence no Divine Prestige Classes. I do not think that Psionics will be very changed. I just think they want to wait to deal with Psionics at all until the rest is fleshed out.
And to be honest, at least from what I have seen, there are a lot more people strictly against Psionics or Neutral than there are for, and those that are for are usually both of two things a.) people that like getting away with things no one else can and b.) players that do not have to worry about the repercussions than a new set of rules that does not really fit with everything else very easily or well.
I'm generally in agreement with most of what you had to say, but this part bothered me a bit:
There are also a number of posters that come up with something that someone or something, no matter how specialized and unlikely said character or situation might be, might do, that requires the rules to change massively to prevent this corner case situation from ever happening. Heck, once in a while, they can even produce an annecdote from the one in a thousand campaign where the corner case came up (usually being DMed by one of the DM's from example 2 above).
I guess maybe I'm just more anal-retentive than you are, but my opinion is this: If there's a loophole in the rules that can be fixed by adding one or two sentences (or rewriting one or two sentences), why not fix it? Even if I don't consider it a big deal, fixing the rules is never a bad thing. YMMV, of course.
I guess maybe I'm just more anal-retentive than you are, but my opinion is this: If there's a loophole in the rules that can be fixed by adding one or two sentences (or rewriting one or two sentences), why not fix it? Even if I don't consider it a big deal, fixing the rules is never a bad thing. YMMV, of course.
I'm not bothered by one or two sentences closing a loop hole. I've seen some of the things you are concerned with, and while I don't always agree with them, they aren't nearly as corner case as some of the other issues I've seen brought up, with great fervor, as if not fixing the issue, with pages of text, will ruin the game.
Plus, there have been a lot of things I have agreed with you on, so there you go . . . ;)
For what its worth, I was remembering discussions like the old "lets cast Wall of Iron over and over again so that the character can get rich," if you want an example.
|
|
I think that the implication is that there really was not a mechanical loophole or universal problem as much as certain groups do not understand the rules fully or exagerate something too (or too little) literally. Then instead of seeing all the solutions that are presented to help ease the trouble they specificly are having, they try to change some fundimental aspect of the game so that their favorite type of class/race/tactic/etc. . . is as epic at first level as they think it should be.
I think that the implication is that there really was not a mechanical loophole or universal problem as much as certain groups do not understand the rules fully or exagerate something too (or too little) literally. Then instead of seeing all the solutions that are presented to help ease the trouble they specificly are having, they try to change some fundimental aspect of the game so that their favorite type of class/race/tactic/etc. . . is as epic at first level as they think it should be.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I was getting at. I understand there are some loopholes that if taken literally can get pretty silly, and I don't mind a line or two clarifying them, but I'm against completely getting rid of spells/feats/class abilities that just need to be clarified, and I'm against any proposed fix that seems to take more to explain than the rule that originally prompted the fix in the first place.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Beckett,
I think your last post sums up fears of Psionics, TOB, ToM and most 3rd party products. The new rules are not completely understood (Psionic Metacap) or are not fully tested prior to publishing (Truenamer)
I agree some of the more extreme changes in the Beta arne't to my taste, Concentration will remain in my games regardless, though I am folding spellcraft into knowledges.
I like the fighter and rogue 'power ups' though I'm not sure about sneak attack. I mean smacking a golem in the knee might be worth extra damage, but it's not like it has any 'dangly' bits to attack, or you can't make it bleed into its eyes.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I was getting at. I understand there are some loopholes that if taken literally can get pretty silly, and I don't mind a line or two clarifying them, but I'm against completely getting rid of spells/feats/class abilities that just need to be clarified, and I'm against any proposed fix that seems to take more to explain than the rule that originally prompted the fix in the first place.
O.K., I agree with everything you said there. What sometimes irks me is people who use the "no true Scotsman" argument whenever any kind of bug fix is proposed. E.g. "No DM worth his salt would let you get away with that, so the rule is fine the way it is."
There are plenty of good arguments against fixing a rule (e.g. the fix is longer/more vague/worse than the rule it's supposed to fix); there's generally no need to resort to "No true DM...". :-)
I agree some of the more extreme changes in the Beta arne't to my taste, Concentration will remain in my games regardless, though I am folding spellcraft into knowledges.I like the fighter and rogue 'power ups' though I'm not sure about sneak attack. I mean smacking a golem in the knee might be worth extra damage, but it's not like it has any 'dangly' bits to attack, or you can't make it bleed into its eyes.
I think one of the things that kind of keeps the sneak attack/potential critical changes in the grey area is that its been kind of relegated to the monster entry as to if this change affects any given monster.
I don't so much have a problem with, as I've said before, some kind of gear golem or even a flesh golem having a weak point that could be sneak attack, nor do I have a problem with, say a vampire getting sneak attacks.
On the other hand, I really hope that, for example, an iron golem is going to be immune to criticals and/or sneak attacks, or at the very least have some form of the fortification ability.
But, like I said, since this change is going to be on a monster by monster basis, its hard to know for sure the depth of this change until we see some of the new monster entries.
I really enjoyed your posts and left some comments on your LJ. Thanks.
Another thing I didn't even get into in my posts had to do with Psionics. The consensus seems to be that if Pathfinder addresses psionics, they are going to scrap the SRD version of them and start over, which then eliminates the interest of all of those players that have the XPH, Complete Psionic, maybe some Eberron books, and perhaps some Malhavoc books they would have liked to have used.
I know there hasn't been anything set in stone about that, its just an example of how this trend might hedge out some 3.5 holdouts that might like to play in a Pathfinder campaign.
Don't even get me started on Psionics! ;p
When my group and I were playtesting a lot of the changes, through the Alphas, one of the things that kept coming up was that all the changes were making it difficult to use the XPH as is.
While I think Pathfinder is almost 100% backwards compatible, it's not 100% the same. The compatibility is high, but the "same factor", which in my mind measures the amount of necessary change, is low. Too much has been changed for the sake of change.
A secret I've not told anyone is that *I did not want to write the Psionics Update for Pathfinder*! I wanted to use my book as is, because me and my players love it! The XPH (and Ghostwalk) is (are) the only book(s) outside of the core manuals that we all have copies of. It's an important part of the game for us. The fact that we had to make some changes to keep using it was not much fun. And, we feel, not in line with the "use your old books" hook.
I had a brief exchange with one of the Paizo devs (although I forget who) on these boards. His issues with psionics were not things we'd ever had a problem with and made me feel like a) he wasn't clear on the rules, b) the problems were with the encounter design, not psionics, and c) he was not the only one at Paizo who was against them.
I'd love an SRD compatible psionics book from Paizo (64 pages, no crunch would be my dream) but there is just too much prejudice against the system as it stands for this to happen (IMHO). The problem I see with changing psionics (from the 3.5 XPH) is that the psionics market is a small one already. It's going to get a *lot* smaller if Paizo switch systems on us XPH fans. Possibly to the point of not being worth the effort to produce the book (and that's a sad state of affairs).
And, personally, I don't like the other ways I've seen psionics handled in 3.x. I like XPH because it sits right where I want it to, in terms of power and flavor, and difference and similarity between psionics and magic. There are enough options in that book to keep me and my group going for many years yet. I've said, here on these boards, more than once, that if I was starting from the ground up, I'd make a lot of changes to 3.5 psionics. I really would. But the appeal of Pathfinder was getting to play 3.5 in all but name. Continuing to buy 3.5 books in all but name. To keep using our 3.5 books - not having to write 20 page PDFs of rule changes because your group is not the only one who doesn't know how to handle psionics in Pathfinder!
With all that said, I'm a Paizo fan and they're all great people. They consistently put out great, high quality books. I'll keep buying them. But I really feel that somewhere along the line* the idea of keeping things as similar as possible has been forgotten, in favor of the excitement of new shiny toys. And as I posted on KEJR's lj, I think that the open playtest has shown that Paizo's strengths lie with adventure design and the story-stuff, not mechanics.
But, since we're all using a whole boatload of house rules anyway....
Peace,
tfad
*Possibly around the post-Beta paladin, possibly as early as the cleric domains. I remember too, the promise that the Alpha1 was the furthest from 3.5 that Paizo wanted to stray.
One of the things that is a little disheartening is that Paizo themselves has put out new rules, feats, domains, traits, etc. that aren't going to be able to be converted (at least not easily) when the PFRPG comes out.
Also, something that you touched on in the blog, it struck me as strange that instead of coming up with a recharge mechanic for charged magic items, staves were completely redesigned and radically repriced.
I guess part of my feeling was, going in, that if some little tweaks were going on here and there, but 3.5 was the baseline, that people could playtest the tweaks, and then we could move on to the next couple of tweaks.
Viewing this like a science experiment, its been pretty hard to isolate a change against standard 3.5 and see if it works out, because not only has the class ability changed, but X and Y in combat or with monsters has changed, so its hard to even see what the baseline might be in the first place.
I also have to say that, while I wholeheartedly stood behind what Vic said way back when the Beta came out about what a playtest is, I've seen less conversation from any of the designers in any of the playtest forums than I've seen in the various "theory" threads that have sprung up, which almost gives me the impression that the theory threads are more important than the actual playtesting that I've been doing.
Regarding psionics, I'm actually really happy that Paizo made sure to put hooks into the setting to have psionic characters, between the comments about half-elves and Vudra and even other planets, but I'm not sure the gain of making a new psionics system to make people that hate psioncis (but who, even if they like it, may never use it much) is worth invalidating what people who like the current system like in that system.
The funny thing is, some changes that I was okay with in the Alpha (getting rid of clerical domans, getting rid of every single skill that didn't seem optimal, wizard school changes, etc.) are, the more I playtest, less desirable, not because they don't work, but because I'm seeing more and more where my players want to use X or Y from their old 3.5 collection and I'm having to either figure out how it works or tell them they can't use X or Y.
Finally, I kind of agree with your point about Paizo's strengths. I definitely think the strength is in writing adventures and tellings stories, but I do think they have a track record of coming up with good rules within the 3.5 system, but so much has been changed now that its starting to feel less like they are coming up with good ideas that work within the system and more like they are slowly replaces chunks of the system while leaving some of the framework intact.
Wow... in a single blogpost you synthezised nearly everything I've been trying to convey for months... pretty much everything boils down to one singe line:
People don't want to have to think... and they're jerks too.
I'm against completely getting rid of spells/feats/class abilities that just need to be clarified
Actually I prefer to see a resource removed from game altogether than seeing it changed into a videogamey parody of itself (as it happened to shape-shifting spells).
Murphy's Law of Design: No system is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.
No matter how much you clarify and polish a system, there will always be people obtuse enough to not understand so and so topics, these people will often be the most vocal, and will stop at nothing until you dumb your product down.
I know products ought to aim for the largest possible market, but eventually every artist has to face the same dilemma every other movie writer does: "Am I willing to let these people rape my work into something even they would like?". The hardest part of pushing a piece of art into the market is knowing where to draw to line for it to keep being art.
|
|
KEJr said, "I'm going to say something here that I hope no one takes any offense at, but its honestly how I feel, and what I want out of a product. I really don't want the game designed to make life easier on the lowest common denominator. If you are DMing, and you think its a pain to have to come up with plot saving solutions on the fly, or you have problem players you don't want to deal with correcting, and wished the game would do it for you . . . you may not be cut out to DM."
Pax responds, "Nice livejournal, KEJr. I especially appreciated the excerpt I quoted above. DMing is a journey into personal growth, expansion of the mind and imagination. It stretches myriad skills including project management, facilitation, public speaking, dramatic storywriting, and builds withitness and audience awareness, emotional intelligence, etc. So, no offense taken. As a designer myself, I can say when a person designs to the LCD, the resultant product is bubblegum for the brain a la most sit coms or tabloid reading. I am with you, sir, in your support of third edition and honesty in saying DMing is not for the weak-minded nor the lazy, and moreso, some folks are just not cut out to DM. This is not arrogance, this is the nature of the exceptional game formerly known as dungeons and dragons."
I also didn't want to completely beat up on what's been done so far. There is a lot that I like and a lot that has worked in our playtests.
A lot more players are willing to try maneuvers because of the simplification of the CMB.
The channel energy mechanic has made it so that the cleric can cast their spells without converting them constantly, although sometimes I do feel as if it healing and harming undead at the same time is a bit much.
The at will cantrips have been very popular and haven't (for my group) changed the feel of how the game has been running much.
Several players noted that they were much happier with the fighter as it stood now, even if it wasn't "pefect" there was enough to make it interesting for a whole campaign (though at least one player, after almost taking levels in fighter, decided to go with rogue because they got even more stuff, even though I'd never heard much about players not wanting to play rogues).
Most of my players like the straight time + gold item creation concept getting rid of XP.
Nobody in my group, including myself, has much of a problem with the changes to hit dice for the various classes (though I really didn't like the "extra hp" ideas at 1st level).
Capstone abilities around 20th level seemed pretty cool, especially for classes that didn't have much going on at that level range.
Adding alternate abilities that one could take instead of an animal companion/familiar/bonded mount was a good idea, because it kept the original option intact from 3.5 (at least until that particular issue, keeping the 3.5 option intact, was kind of speared by the new rules for animal companions and mounts, meaning that those now no longer match up with 3.5 standards).
Heck, I like the three XP chart idea, and for the most part I like the XP award system, as its been a breeze to award XP at the end of an adventure and it seems pretty close to where characters would be under 3.5.
I'm just mentioning the above so that it doesn't look like I'm saying that Paizo should have just republished the 3.5 rules, and so that it also doesn't appear that I'm beating up on Jason, since I do think he's had some really good ideas and that he's done a lot of hard work on this. I'm just worried that the boundaries are being pushed out further and further than they originally seemed to be set.
Heck, a few months ago, we were being told not to panic because the Beta isn't final and things could still go a lot closer to 3.5, but the tone really feels like its shifted to don't worry, the system will be fine and should work with most 3.5 stuff with minimal effort, which feels like a lot more "out there" stuff is already considered set in stone than the earlier tone seemed to indicate. Maybe its just me.
I'm really glad to see, however, that not everyone seems to want to see every class, spell, magic item, and rule reworked and changed. I'm not expecting that everyone like the same things I do so much as just hoping to see more people that want things closer to the 3.5 baseline than they are starting to feel.
Heck, a few months ago, we were being told not to panic because the Beta isn't final and things could still go a lot closer to 3.5, but the tone really feels like its shifted to don't worry, the system will be fine and should work with most 3.5 stuff with minimal effort, which feels like a lot more "out there" stuff is already considered set in stone than the earlier tone seemed to indicate. Maybe its just me.
I have to admit that when folks were saying "Don't worry -- the final rules could be completely different from what you're seeing now", it made me worry even more!
|
|
While I think Pathfinder is almost 100% backwards compatible, it's not 100% the same. The compatibility is high, but the "same factor", which in my mind measures the amount of necessary change, is low. Too much has been changed for the sake of change.
I guess that it's a hard line to draw. When I got into Pathfinder RPG, I was concerned about too much change, but the more I think about it whilst continuing to play 3.5 (alternatively with a PFRPG game just started), the more 3.5 annoys me and I like most of the changes (other than stuff that I've repeatedly posted about, like Power Attack and Combat Expertise nerfs). However, that's just personal taste; the real thing I'm posting to say is that, whether changes are good or bad, I don't think that they've been done for the sake of change. I think that they've been done with the intent of making a better game, smoothing out some of the broken or dull or over complex or clunky spots (whilst inevitably leaving most of them relatively unchanged), although opinion as to the size of the existing flaws varies.
While I don't 100% disagree with you about where to draw the line and it being a tricky thing, I have to say, going into this, there were some things I had heard, in my circles and on Paizo's boards . . . fighters loose their umph at high levels, lots of PrCs don't require you to give up anything good at higher levels, high level play is a pain, grapple is a pain, clerics convert all of their spells to healing . . . so I got the "first wave" of changes and what they addressed.
I've never heard anyone complain about, for example, Wish and ability scores. I've heard several people say they actually wished that PrCs were less over the top, but yet they seemed to be balanced against some of the most over the top ones now . . . I rarely heard anyone on these boards complain about a 15 min adventuring day.
I got the feeling for a while that it wasn't so much that a lot of Paizo's existing fans didn't like X or Y or had a problem with it, but that X or Y was cited as a problem by the 4E designers, so it got addressed as if to prove you could fix the cited problem within the 3.5 ruleset, even if it wasn't a big deal with the fans. I could be way off base, but it did seem to me that a lot of the design process started to "chase" the 4E designers complaints.
|
|
Since I seem to see eye to eye with most people on this topic, what do you guys think the biggest "mistake" with Beta is at the moment?
Not in the sense of "people just don't understand how it work", or "it is to vague or unclarified", or "this will not working in ______ setting", but an actual change since 3.5.
What is the biggest problem you have?
|
I have to admit that when folks were saying "Don't worry -- the final rules could be completely different from what you're seeing now", it made me worry even more!
Ditto. I'm fine with spell tweaking and skill consolidation, but CMB so far has been an utter failure for me, and I'm not sure that the power-ups to the Cleric have been needed (given the utility of the new Domains, I'd be tempted to limit a Cleric to *one* Domain). The Universalist Wizard is just insane and needs to die in a fire, IMO.
Rogue Sneak Attack working on just about anyone/anything? About time. Golems, skeletons, whatever, most of 'em have kneecaps and stress points and joints and all that good stuff. If the dude can disable a device *and* surgically take apart a human, he should be able to surgically disable a device that walks like a human.
But that's just me. Everyone seems to have a different list of what changes are awesome, palatable, pointless or 'too much.' It's a mess.
Interesting reading. I will read more later. I agree with most of your points though. I would like to see Pathfinder stay basically in line with SRD, as that would allow me to use the splat books I already have without having to repurchase a whole new set. That is an impossibility for me as I am on a fixed income and cannot afford it. That is also one reason I decided to not go with 4e. Finances are a determining factor for me.
Just my 2 cp.
4cp now *tossing mine down as well*
Yeah, and that's kind of what worries me. If it was just a matter of adding onto 3.5 framework, you have much less of a mess. Obviously some people will like the add ons, some won't, but the baseline is still very obviously 3.5.
The subsystems seem to be where a lot of the chaos is coming into play.
Although I really don't want to see many spell tweaked at all. I've heard some people make a very good point, in that when you are keeping, say 90% of something the same it tends to cause more problems than reworking the whole thing, because people remember everything that is the same and assume its the same all the way through.
What is the biggest problem you have?
Rage points.
If anything I'd have preferred Pathfinder get simpler instead of more complex.
Since I seem to see eye to eye with most people on this topic, what do you guys think the biggest "mistake" with Beta is at the moment?
Not in the sense of "people just don't understand how it work", or "it is to vague or unclarified", or "this will not working in ______ setting", but an actual change since 3.5.
What is the biggest problem you have?
Hm . . . its really hard to narrow down, because I think one of the biggest mistakes isn't really one big mistake, its that it tries to alter too many things, and in some case in way too fine a detail.
I've heard some people make a very good point, in that when you are keeping, say 90% of something the same it tends to cause more problems than reworking the whole thing, because people remember everything that is the same and assume its the same all the way through.
That is almost a non-issue in my eyes. Time will deal with it on it's own as we all become more familiar with the newer nuances of rules. Reworked spells dont really change backwards compatibility either.(maybe adjust a CR or ECL up or down a level, but negligible imo)
1). Changes that seem to defy reasons why they were changed, and no explanation given. Feats such as Power Attack; Fly-skill and screwy rules that force naturally flying creatures to roll when they oughtn't; changing spells that very few folks ever complained about, simply to seemingly be re-done to Paizo-staff satisfaction. Dropping Assassins spell-casting without replacing it with anything worthwhile, and invalidating who-knows-how many Assassin spell lists from various sources.
2). 'All of this may change' or 'Went to extremes to see how far we could go'. Characters made under Beta may need to drop Racial Favourite bonus HPs or SPs when the Hardback goes live. In general on this point, the 'Woohoo! Who knows where she'll stop?!' philosophy/sophistry.
3). Uneven power-ups (Universalist Wizards, I'm looking at you), while not really solving other existing issues, such as making 15+ level Fighters the Melee masters over Rogues (worse now than ever). Instead of focusing the diffuse Druid and making them on-par with Clerics (and Clerics and Druids on-par with Wizards), still leaving Sorcerers as the red headed stepchildren with bizarre combos of powers that leave them below (supposedly broken) Druids, while stripping Shapechange of useful qualities. Etc.
4). New Feats (that seem to have been invented while stuck in traffic as a fleeting thought) that likely won't have been Play-tested enough for inclusion in the Hardback being introduced late into the evaluation cycle.
5). The general plan to subvert 3.5 and supplant it with Pathfinder while still claiming backward compatibility (the CR and XP reward system, taken with Crit/SA issues regarding monsters, and all of the other changes are taken together essentially create another game system entirely).--I won't be buying the Bestiary (I have all of the WotC monster books, and more importantly, Advanced Bestiary and the Deluxe Book of Templates, etc.)
That's most of what I don't like.
* What I do like: Lots of little things that may still find their way into my 3.5 games, as AE, WoW, Midnight, and Iron Kingdoms have.
Pathfinder won't replace my 3.5, it will supplement it.
Pathfinder won't replace my 3.5, it will supplement it.
I'm pretty much floating in the opposite direction. I like a lot ofthe things Pathfinder did that made the maddening accountant-feel of 3.5 go away. SPs, and CMB especially. I dont really mind the faults some people have found with these subsystems. The ease of use factor far outweighs that, imo.
I'm pretty much floating in the opposite direction. I like a lot ofthe things Pathfinder did that made the maddening accountant-feel of 3.5 go away. SPs, and CMB especially. I dont really mind the faults some people have found with these subsystems. The ease of use factor far outweighs that, imo.
That's cool. I guess in a lot of ways, folks who might have otherwise gone to 4e may prefer PF for its greater, um, 'compatibility' with 3.x material. I just find the modifications to be disingenuous with Paizo's continued claims that PF is BC with 3.x. The more things change, the less useful 3.x books are, and the clearer that Paizo's plans (IMO, all along) have been to supplant 3.x with PF. If they'd just had the fortitude to come out and say that from the get 'go', I'd have more respect.
--As a b!tching aside, if the 'Into the Darklands' is the 'shape of things to come', I am angrily disappointed with the low-value to cost ratio of PF's 'replacement' products. As I don't like Golarion, nor do I purchase their APs, I'm not mesmerised by the slick production to high-cost ratio. I have all of the GG DCC adventures I'll ever need, many of the very best TSR modules, and whatever I liked from the WotC adventures -- not to mention a fecund and twisted imagination all of my own.
So, if PF works for you and many others, and their IP is something you like, and they are great people and all that, that's so much better experience than I am having with PF, that I'm genuinely happy for the lot of you.
Personally, I've lost 'faith', but because I started the PF-playtest, I will continue it until (at least) Hardback, because I am a woman of my word.
I've liked some rules and changes while stared confused at others. Many have made their way nto my games such as channeling energy, paladins and Bards, SA/Crits work on NEARLY everything, etc. But CMB has been clunky for me so far, and if a monster is based off of grapple it almost feels like its CR needs reduced by 2 or more. An Otyugh in my experience cannot take a 2nd level party because it can't grapple anyone with a +2 str bonus reliably. That's just sad IMO. But PFRPG has lots of good stuff and the adventures are top notch so in the end I'll make it work. The one thing I want when the hardback comes out is either a section or web content pdf that actually just lists every rule, feat, skill, and class/spell change in the book between it and 3.5 so that if your curious about somnething it's right there wih a page number to see the change. That way you don't have to be PF expert to play 3.5/PF game. just my 2cp.
I'm pretty much floating in the opposite direction. I like a lot ofthe things Pathfinder did that made the maddening accountant-feel of 3.5 go away. SPs, and CMB especially. I dont really mind the faults some people have found with these subsystems. The ease of use factor far outweighs that, imo.That's cool. I guess in a lot of ways, folks who might have otherwise gone to 4e may prefer PF for its greater, um, 'compatibility' with 3.x material. I just find the modifications to be disingenuous with Paizo's continued claims that PF is BC with 3.x. The more things change, the less useful 3.x books are, and the clearer that Paizo's plans (IMO, all along) have been to supplant 3.x with PF. If they'd just had the fortitude to come out and say that from the get 'go', I'd have more respect.
--As a b!tching aside, if the 'Into the Darklands' is the 'shape of things to come', I am angrily disappointed with the low-value to cost ratio of PF's 'replacement' products. As I don't like Golarion, nor do I purchase their APs, I'm not mesmerised by the slick production to high-cost ratio. I have all of the GG DCC adventures I'll ever need, many of the very best TSR modules, and whatever I liked from the WotC adventures -- not to mention a fecund and twisted imagination all of my own.
So, if PF works for you and many others, and their IP is something you like, and they are great people and all that, that's so much better experience than I am having with PF, that I'm genuinely happy for the lot of you.
Personally, I've lost 'faith', but because I started the PF-playtest, I will continue it until (at least) Hardback, because I am a woman of my word.
They kinda have to supplant 3.x since it is out of print. Or did you mean that the accumulated differences would spiral the two games further into total incompatibility?
I really couldnt tell which =/
They kinda have to supplant 3.x since it is out of print. Or did you mean that the accumulated differences would spiral the two games further into total incompatibility?
I really couldnt tell which =/
The latter, although I don't agree that "3.5", via the SRD, couldn't STILL be done by another party.
If I had the money, I'd be that other party. In the meanwhile, I hope someone else will do so.
A girl's gotta' dream... :)
The one thing I want when the hardback comes out is either a section or web content pdf that actually just lists every rule, feat, skill, and class/spell change in the book between it and 3.5 so that if your curious about somnething it's right there wih a page number to see the change. That way you don't have to be PF expert to play 3.5/PF game. just my 2cp.
That would do a lot to smooth things over, IMO.
|
|
Personally, I can't stand sneak attack working on anything. It ruins my fun, it completely twists old modules and encounters (in a terrible way), and as a DM it means that I have to completely rethink how encounters work if there is a Rogue in the party.
Crits I don't mind. In fact, I can understand crits working a thousand times more realistically than Sneak Attack.
Here is my concern, and granted, it has to do with my particular situation, but it does seem to be part of Paizo's overall concern since they no longer have Dungeon and Dragon bringing people to Paizo.
Four of the six people at my gaming table are playing in another campaign, which is 4E. They don't hate either system, and have fun with both. Only one of the six is dead set against 4E.
I have a revolving door of people playing in my campaign because most of my old friends have moved on, and so I have a group of people that play that come into the game store. Those people do tend to stay for a few years at a time (I live in a college town), but I can't assume that any one of my players will be a player for more than a couple of years.
Many of the people that I have playing in my group tend to be interested in Pathfinder because they can still use their 3.5 material with it. Over time, if they are impressed with it, they may buy more Pathfinder material, and not just be 3.5 fans playing Pathfinder, but actual Pathfinder fans. In fact, a couple of them have purchased the campaign setting and Gods and Magic. But its still a matter getting to use 3.5 stuff as opposed to being dedicated to Paizo itself.
I would think, at least for the first year, the biggest draw to Pathfinder will be people that want to still use 3.5 material with a minimum of conversion work, especially material that came out towards the end of 3.5 that only people that play four or five times a week could have possibly exhausted.
Yes, there are quite a few people that are dedicated to Paizo itself right now, but if Paizo wants to grow its business, it seems like they should be at least partially concerned about the people that seemed to be interested in continued support for 3.5.
Now, when I go to bring in new players as some of my other players drift away, how does the sales pitch of "trust me, Paizo is a great company, and while you can't use most of your 3.5 stuff with the game, its a lot like 3.5, but its still a brand new RPG" sound? Compared to, what the original comments seemed to be, "its 99% compatible with 3.5, and they are continuing to support 3.5 in that manner."
In the end, even if I like Pathfinder as an RPG, if it doesn't have the added draw of continuing to support 3.5 with almost no conversion work at all, then I'm not going to be drawing in new players and making new loyal customers for Paizo.
And when it come right down to it, I like to game, and if I have to, and its the only way I can get new players, I may have to convert over to running 4E, because I'd rather continue to participate in the hobby using a ruleset I'm not thrilled with than abandoned hobby that I love to make a point.
They kinda have to supplant 3.x since it is out of print. Or did you mean that the accumulated differences would spiral the two games further into total incompatibility?
I really couldnt tell which =/The latter, although I don't agree that "3.5", via the SRD, couldn't STILL be done by another party.
If I had the money, I'd be that other party. In the meanwhile, I hope someone else will do so.
A girl's gotta' dream... :)
I think Mongoose made a phb out of the SRD.
And when it come right down to it, I like to game, and if I have to, and its the only way I can get new players, I may have to convert over to running 4E, because I'd rather continue to participate in the hobby using a ruleset I'm not thrilled with than abandoned hobby that I love to make a point.
LoL, I said the same thing about 3E and d20 in general. I'm still not a huge fan of 3.x but if playing Pathfinder means I can use all those modules I got still then I'm into PFRPG. If Castle Whiterock becomes incompatible ... then Pathfinder will have drove off without me like 4E did.
Since I seem to see eye to eye with most people on this topic, what do you guys think the biggest "mistake" with Beta is at the moment?
...
What is the biggest problem you have?
There are too many changes to sub-systems. Although the names and abilities all look the same, under the hood there are some considerable revisions (channeling, racial ability modifiers) that push the learning curve too far, in my opinion.
There is a power-creep that frustrates me as well. I am a huge fan of the Mythic Vista settings by Green Ronin, and the introduction of so many additional powers makes historical campaign settings much less compatible than 3.5. (limitless cantrips and orisons, channeling, etc. The HP increases make abstracting wounds much more challenging.)
Extra options are wonderful when they add to a stable foundation, but conversions that require more than a couple quick changes make the new system much less useful.
|
|
I got the feeling for a while that it wasn't so much that a lot of Paizo's existing fans didn't like X or Y or had a problem with it, but that X or Y was cited as a problem by the 4E designers, so it got addressed as if to prove you could fix the cited problem within the 3.5 ruleset, even if it wasn't a big deal with the fans. I could be way off base, but it did seem to me that a lot of the design process started to "chase" the 4E designers complaints.
Most of the issues (excepting the PA one, which looks to me like a DM issue), I had seen. Fighters starting to suck, casters getting too powerful after being dull at low levels, monks missing all the time, rogue dull to play as too many creatures became crit-immune, Paladins feeble, Ranger Animal Companions useless, some spells just too good (the old Irresistable Dance, for example, now somewhat weakened), etc, etc. The 15 minute workday/nova caster was a scenario design issue, for me, though (although I do think it exists when scenarios have no urgency). I want those things, that are part of problems with the rules, fixed, and a fair number have been. I definitely don't just want an SRD with the missing bits -- chargen, xp, etc -- added. I wish WotC had gone this route, of fixing rather than replacing 3.x, but they didn't; I'm happy that Paizo are doing it instead.
I think Mongoose made a phb out of the SRD.
Yes, the 3.0 Player's Guide. Nice format-size, like the Arcane and Divine spell books. Too bad it is out of date; doesn't have the GM stuff; and doesn't have the basics of monsterdom. :)