Obviously, the following is a rant from my point of view:
I've been noticing a very disturbing trend for several months now with regards to the Pathfinder RPG. Almost every rules tweak, suggestion, or class modification is in regards to increasing the power level. If even a third of these suggestions are taken, the power creep from 3.x to Pathfinder will be enough to thwart backwards compatibility.
I see little harm in things like additional skill points for classes. But too often I'm seeing "put in stuff like Tome of Battle" or "put in stuff like 4e". If everyone wants to see a signficant bump in power, why aren't you just playing 4e (or Tome of Battle, etc.).
The racial increases in power are already pushing it in my mind. Having meaninful class abilities per level is ok and I'm waiting to see the finished product.
But why must the power always INCREASE? If spellcasters are too powerful at high-levels, wouldn't another option be to reign in the power escalation of those classes rather than making non-spellcasters equivalent to Crouching Tiger-style fantasy?
Eventually, as the power level continues to increase, you're going to get diminishing returns while continuing the "arms race". And for those who complain that high level play is difficult or breaks down, I see the power escalation accelerating the point at which that occurs rather than preventing it. At some point, swords-n-sorcery or lower-magic style games won't even be possible. Everything will be excessively high fantasy or effectively a supers game with fantasy window dressing. If that's what everyone wants, then ok, I guess. However, that's not the vibe I'm getting from Paizo and not the vibe I'm getting from the Pathfinder products.
I'm guessing I'm in the minority. I recognize that Paizo didn't state the design goals as "reduce or even out the power level" or "we're getting rid of the Christmas tree effect". However, I think those are just as feasible a design choice as "let everyone be/use magic".
End of rant. The Fantasy Super Hero Action Hour syndrome of D&D just really turns me off and it seems to be harder and harder to escape anymore. Aside from my own campaigns, that is.
I'd have to agree with you on pretty much all of the above.
1) Players are more inclined to accept new rules if it doesn't make their character weaker.
2) Backwards-compatibility is easier if the PFRPG isn't taking things away from 3.5 characters and monsters. One thing I hated about 3.5 was that rangers switch to d8 hit dice instead of their d10 from 3.0. That meant every single printed ranger had too many hit points and had to be squished down. Boo, hiss!
1) Players are more inclined to accept new rules if it doesn't make their character weaker.
2) Backwards-compatibility is easier if the PFRPG isn't taking things away from 3.5 characters and monsters. One thing I hated about 3.5 was that rangers switch to d8 hit dice instead of their d10 from 3.0. That meant every single printed ranger had too many hit points and had to be squished down. Boo, hiss!
In principle, I agree. But if the power level is so high that further power escalation exacerbates the problem, I fail to see how an overall increase in power helps matters.
1) Players are more inclined to accept new rules if it doesn't make their character weaker.
2) Backwards-compatibility is easier if the PFRPG isn't taking things away from 3.5 characters and monsters. One thing I hated about 3.5 was that rangers switch to d8 hit dice instead of their d10 from 3.0. That meant every single printed ranger had too many hit points and had to be squished down. Boo, hiss!
In principle, I agree. But if the power level is so high that further power escalation exacerbates the problem, I fail to see how an overall increase in power helps matters.
Also, just b/c WotC chose (incorrectly, IMO) to introduce power-creep in new races, classes, & mechanics, I don't think it's necessarily good form to follow bad form by using the same design philosophy.
I'm not leveling that charge at Paizo, mind you, rather expressing frustration at the "MORE POWER" mindset that seems to either be A) growing or B) very, very vocal.
|
I would prefer if every class had as rich a palette of options as a 3.5 Druid or Cleric. That definitely means that I support 'power creep' for Rogues, Fighters, etc. The 'backwards compatibility' issue I would address after playing and running games for such characters by increasing the numbers of creatures encountered appropriately, or increasing their Hit Dice / hit points / ability scores as if I were running a game for a party of four 3.5 Druids or Clerics.
Reducing the Cleric and Druid, perhaps by requiring them to carry prayer books and acquire spells like Wizards, or learn and cast spontaneously, but have very small fixed spells known like Sorcerers, would, IMO, balance those two classes better vs. the 3.5 Fighter.
The Sorcerer would still, in my opinion, need a tweak upwards to gain bonus feats or Bloodline abilities every five levels, in imitation of the bonus feats that a Wizard gains, to be better balanced against the Wizard. (I consider this the primary reason why the 'big 3' of the game will always be the Cleric, Druid and Wizard, and never the Sorcerer, the lack of class feature gain after 1st level.)
I consider some level of 'power creep' to be necessary, and a *ton* of Pathfinder options are instead power reductions. (And not merely for the Druid's Wild Shape or by getting rid of the 'Rebuke' Cleric with his menagerie of Rebuked Undead / Air creatures / Earth creatures / Fire creatures / Water creatures / Plants / etc.)
Feats like Power Attack and combat options like Trip have become significantly harder to pull off, which seems counter-intuitive to me, to add so much potential to Clerical Domains, while cutting the combat power and utility of Fighters by 'nerfing' their bread and butter feats, or requiring them to use a Swift Action to get the AC bonus from their pathetic Dodge feat. That's completely backwards, IMO.
It's easy to look through a particular lens and see only the upgrades (racial ability score bonuses), while ignoring the downgrades (combat feat changes, CMB, etc.).
Also important to recall is that 99.9% of the suggestions from the forums are going to be discarded. Finishing the game is up to Jason and the other editors at Paizo, and it's easy to forget that with hundreds of us shouting our best ideas at the top of our lungs.
1) Players are more inclined to accept new rules if it doesn't make their character weaker.
2) Backwards-compatibility is easier if the PFRPG isn't taking things away from 3.5 characters and monsters. One thing I hated about 3.5 was that rangers switch to d8 hit dice instead of their d10 from 3.0. That meant every single printed ranger had too many hit points and had to be squished down. Boo, hiss!
I agree with the OP's sentiment ( and for what little it is worth so does every person I speak to who is interested in staying with a 3e type of D&D). We like that our characters dont have superpowers.
While I accept the second point made by SKR the first seems a bit like the way you attract children to a new thing. They wont like it unless we make it shinier.
Personally the way I tend to fix via houserule is to disallow or add a nerf to stuff I deem too powerful - prestige classes, spells, feats, class abilities - not add to other stuff, because if you take them out the game stops being broken. The game works really well at levels 3-11ish (IMO)
I do not direct these comments to some of the fixes for the lower levels of the game as characters of those levels needed a bit of a boost to fix the swinginess (so with these it works from level 1-11). It just seems the boosts continue into the higher levels where if anything the opposite style fix is needed.(the fixes dont seem to be fixing levels 12+ and may be making levels 9+ worse)
If it is accepted wisdom that spellcasters under 3.5 are the powerful classes after level 6 why are they getting such substantial boosts in power? Which means the non spellcasters who needed boosts before have to get boosts on their boost.
I also hated that rangers got reduced HD, they were a weak fighter subtype made weaker- plus I hated that barbarians , 3.0 toughest combat machine, got tougher combat abilities.
I have pretty much resigned myself to having to go through the pathfinder game when it comes out and eliminate some of the power ups which just seem to be there to add a random buff to make them shinier (ie giving fighters +1 AC and +1 dex to armor every 4 levels).
I dont mean to be too critical as i know you have a lot of people to cater for. I guess I just prefer a lower power game.
Note: Some spells in Pathfinder have indeed been reduced in power (e.g. Glitterdust, Web, Grease, various death spells, Divine Power). So that is weakening spellcasters, in a way.
Note: Some spells in Pathfinder have indeed been reduced in power (e.g. Glitterdust, Web, Grease, various death spells, Divine Power). So that is weakening spellcasters, in a way.
I must have missed the glitterdust and grease changes- but I noted forcecage has a save now. IMO this approach is the best way to go, fix the overpowered spells. ( I love the new web)
Perhaps I have got it wrong about the power creep at high level- I hope so.
Glad to see I'm not completely alone. Overall, I have faith in Jason & Paizo to not let power-creep get out of hand. I guess I just don't understand the mindset of the posters/fans that keeps asking for more power.
I've played the uber-high-powered games. Although they're great from a "I kick butt" escapism, they haven't had staying power - at least not compared to the campaigns where things are more strongly rooted in swords-n-sorcery vs. uber-high fantasy. I know there are elements that are part-n-parcel with D&D, and I presume, will be with Pathfinder. However, once the dial goes to "11", the teens aren't far behind, reducing the staying power of the game itself.
Slightly tangential, but, have you looked at Mike Mearls' Iron Heroes yet?
A nice change of pace from typical high-fantasy...
I'm a Conan OGL fan, myself, but I borrow liberally from Iron Heroes.
|
The whole thing about PFRPG is to make it better and correct the failings of 3.5.
I am concern that some changes do not make PFRPG OGL compatable but rather make it a new RPG. Some changes are good to bring balance to weaker classes but things like tome of battle or tome of magic should be saved for future sources books as discussed in other threads.
What was proposed for sneak attack is another off balance is one thing I would not be happy about. PFRPG should be correcting and improving play not ascending it - there is a difference between "what if?" and "how to fix?".
That's my main concern with PRPG. The power level is raising too much. I understand the reasons, but this is too much for my taste. I'm just waiting to see the final product but as now, it's not for me.
Also, I think that backward compatibility has been hurted and became a problem.
Wait and see.