That would be gaming Nirvana. And no - not the shotgun-in-the-face kind of Nirvana...
Glad you clarify it, playing russian roulette with a shotgun would be kind of... problematic, you know, with the lack of a rotating barrel.
with the anti-caster crowd just piping in to gloat from time to time.
Good for them, victory must feel good. Cheers!
don't you love when the magic-haters express pleasure for ruining others fun?
For the last time, they didn't ruin anyone's fun because the game was -meant for them- (you have to look no further than the alpha's spell list), it's actually fans of fantasy magic the outsiders here. Mind you, I don't even dislike the new Concentration Check rules that much, but if it's fantasy magic you want, go to 3.0 or 4E (great rituals!).
Hmmm, I wasn't aware they had decided to drop the Barbarian's Rage Point mechanic, that is disappointing. I felt that added a nice touch/change to a relatively stream-line class. If that is the final result, I suppose I'll have to horde away some Beta Barbarian information for a "variant" use aka house rule. Though we still haven't seen the Barbarian preview, maybe they removed the class entirely from the book and are going to put out "Pathfinder Martial Compendium: Things that should've been in the core book"? LOL, no clue where they would get THAT idea from.
As for Sorcerer Bloodlines and Skill Consolidation, you group is definitely in the minority for disliking those changes. Same goes for the Human Martial Weap.Prof., as another poster said above, use the free feat for the weapon proficiency. But to each their own.
As for Channel Energy, to expect Clerics to ALWAYS Turn Undead seems kinda silly to me. Not every cleric is a worshiper of Sarenrae or Pelor, they don't HAVE to be undead smashers. Even if they don't TURN/REBUKE them, they still get a sizeable AoE damage and CURE spells have ALWAYS had the potential of doing MORE damage than a Fighter of the same level to undead. Turn Undead as a feat is hardly a loss.
Limiting the At Will Blasts(Heaven Fire, Acid Dart, etc.) per day is something I was some what disappointed with, but after level 5ish they're relatively useless anyhow, especially for a Sorcerer (Celestial 10th level so far). The never even came close to competing with the Warlock's Eldricth Blast as they don't gain entire dice with levels (similar to sneak attack), but whatever works at their current power level (1d6 +1/2 levels) they're useless in comparison. I wouldn't miss them if they disappeared entirely.
Good luck! Remember... House Rules FTW!
with the anti-caster crowd just piping in to gloat from time to time.Good for them, victory must feel good. Cheers!
don't you love when the magic-haters express pleasure for ruining others fun?For the last time, they didn't ruin anyone's fun because the game was -meant for them- (you have to look no further than the alpha's spell list), it's actually fans of fantasy magic the outsiders here. Mind you, I don't even dislike the new Concentration Check rules that much, but if it's fantasy magic you want, go to 3.0 or 4E (great rituals!).
LOL Dogbert, simply put... It's all well and good until one of those "anti-casters" is playing his Barbarian or Fighter and cries for healing and you CAN'T SUCESSFULY cast because you're surrounded by monsters. Better hope you DM isn't one of the alledged "anti-casters" as well, or you can pretty much bet all the monsters will start with the "Step Up" feat.
(great rituals!)
BTW, Nice sarcasm! *appreciated*
|
LOL Dogbert, simply put... It's all well and good until one of those "anti-casters" is playing his Barbarian or Fighter and cries for healing and you CAN'T SUCESSFULY cast because you're surrounded by monsters. Better hope you DM isn't one of the alledged "anti-casters" as well, or you can pretty much bet all the monsters will start with the "Step Up" feat.
fortunately he is my DM
unfortunately... he might like that idea :PI know I do... but we won't use that concentration rule :P
(great rituals!)BTW, Nice sarcasm! *appreciated*
errr... he is NOT being sarcastic... he likes the rituals... its an irony... he dislikes 4E magic as much or more than me... but he loved the rituals.
By the way, this thread is nothing compared to the complaining about 6th edition Hero on the Hero Games forums. Now there's some top-quality complaining!:
Actually, I have most of the 5th Edition Hero Games stuff.
And, yes, 6th Edition does annoy me. :( Just not to the extent that it appears to annoy others on that thread.
Better hope you DM isn't one of the alledged "anti-casters" as well, or you can pretty much bet all the monsters will start with the "Step Up" feat.fortunately he is my DM
unfortunately... he might like that idea :P
I know I do... but we won't use that concentration rule :P
I'm guessing our group will try it, and then switch back once it causes 2 or 3 TPKs due to caster ineffectiveness. There's always the opposite possibility as well, your party starts mercilessly CRUSHING big, bad enemy casters and the DM gets tired of it. Reset Button anyone?
errr... he is NOT being sarcastic... he likes the rituals... its an irony... he dislikes 4E magic as much or more than me... but he loved the rituals.(great rituals!)BTW, Nice sarcasm! *appreciated*
Hmmm, that's a bummer. I personally would rather not spend 10 minutes casting a spell to summon an animal messenger, just walk it's faster. :p "Rituals" and "Powers" (insert TAP symbol here) were MY deal-breakers on 4E, but that's all for another thread.
|
|
Ive played every edition of D&D (except 4th...) and probably 90% of the RPG's out there.Wow! When do you get time to do anything else! I have loads of games I have bought and read but never found time to play, and that is just a drop in the ocean compared to all the RPGs out there. I salute you sir! :)
My point- I dont understand the your need to create this thread to state something that, as you yourself said, won't have any effect. Hubris? Ego? I don't get it.It can be just a means to vent - to tell someone who might understand what the hell you are going on about, and maybe let Paizo know something they might just take into account in future decisions.
I know I have vented quite a bit about various other things on the internet - it is a very good medium for venting as you feel you are sharing even if no one actually reads your post :)
hehe...It comes from playing RPG's since 1975, not from spending all my time playing them ;)
Fair enough. I can relate to venting and if its in fact therapuetic, then I hope it had its effect.
LOL Dogbert, simply put... It's all well and good until one of those "anti-casters" is playing his Barbarian or Fighter and cries for healing and you CAN'T SUCESSFULY cast because you're surrounded by monsters.
*grins* Ever read The Monkey's Paw? Well, they got their wish, and now they'll have to live with it. Magic haters are more often than not also upfront hack&slashers, now let's see how they like the abolition of the Healbots as moving from threatened area to threatened area to cast a touch spell is now pretty much out of the question (mind you, this also means that Touch Spells in combat are as of today effectively abolished).
Better hope you DM isn't one of the alledged "anti-casters" as well, or you can pretty much bet all the monsters will start with the "Step Up" feat.
Oh you can put your money on that, that's inevitable as the sunrise, actually I dare say is the way the game is meant to be played.
BTW, Nice sarcasm! *appreciated*
As Montalve said, it wasn't sarcasm, I do like 4E's rituals. =P
unfortunately... he might like that idea :P
Don't tempt meeee. >=P
|
|
My point- I dont understand the your need to create this thread to state something that, as you yourself said, won't have any effect. Hubris? Ego? I don't get it.*rolleyes* Somebody new to the internet and the concept of "messageboards".
Is this one of those creepy "don't post if you criticize! You will only love!" posts? Weird.
*chuckle*. Hardly new to the internet.
I just liken this thread to an Arson wondering why no one likes the house burning.
Posting something that says (and I paraphrase) 'Dont get on me for doing this, but I dont like what theyve done and I know noone is going to care, but I still have to say I dont like it and noone say anything bad against me not liking it.'
*shrugs* In the end though if he gets what he wanted out of this...I guess its fine. As I said though, I have my doubts that he will get what he wants out of it...and therein lies the rub ;)
|
Better hope you DM isn't one of the alledged "anti-casters" as well, or you can pretty much bet all the monsters will start with the "Step Up" feat.Oh you can put your money on that, that's inevitable as the sunrise, actually I dare say is the way the game is meant to be played.
Actually I would say that as is a DM being a jerk (much like a dm who intentionally puts in nothing but incorporeal undead to stop a rogue getting sneak attack or a dm having a campaign where none of a rangers favoured enemies are present at all).
*grins* Ever read The Monkey's Paw? Well, they got their wish, and now they'll have to live with it. Magic haters are more often than not also upfront hack&slashers, now let's see how they like the abolition of the Healbots as moving from threatened area to threatened area to cast a touch spell is now pretty much out of the question (mind you, this also means that Touch Spells in combat are as of today effectively abolished).
THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!
Let's try to grow a little perspective here.
Healbots make a lot of use of cure wounds wands. Failing a concentration check--not a problem. Spells like the cure mass wounds line can be cast at range and by the time you have those the concentration check on lower level, individual target spells has gotten easier.
So what do I expect will happen? We'll move a little closer to the older 1e/2e groove of casters trying to be a little more distant from melee or using magic items to do the work when they are that close. Casters will start finding a little more utility in lower level spells in their arsenals rather than trying to call the day quits when their top two levels of spells are burned through.
Is it a change? Yep. And a darn good one too.
THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!
Let's try to grow a little perspective here.
lol, sarcasm is a scalpel, not a bludgeon. Also it's more effective when used on someone who might feel offended by it, contrary to people who can care less (and by can, I mean can't) for whatever changes are done to a game he doesn't even play and is just giving an observer's opinion.
But yeah, you might be right, saying all your games start with level 4+ PCs in order to start the game with wands, that is, either that or forcing your party's melee types to spend their feats in Combat Expertise and Shall not Pass to ensure no monsters will chase the casters and eliminate said safe distance but what do I know?
Nerf warlocks, buff warriors, Blizz sucks... errr, wrong forum.there are no warlocks in Pathfinder... so I have no idea what are you talking about...
Well, I only dabbled in World of Warcraft for a couple months, but I think this quote is a backhanded reference to that game.
Sure were a lot of whiners there - but with 10,000,000 accounts, there's bound to be some outspoken whiners.
|
But yeah, you might be right, saying all your games start with level 4+ PCs in order to start the game with wands, that is, either that or forcing your party's melee types to spend their feats in Combat Expertise and Shall not Pass to ensure no monsters will chase the casters and eliminate said safe distance but what do I know?
Screw all that. First thing the fighter has to do is take all those 3rd party rich nobility feats so they can buy the cleric those wands.
Yeah, yeah. I know. No one cares, and I'm just a whining cry baby for even thinking the way I do.
Guess what? Stop reading right now. This isn't the thread for you if you are thinking that way.
If you are still reading, then I suspect you are curious, and for that reader I'll try to explain what it is that is taking my interest in Pathfinder away.
No, I don't expect anything to come from this. But I do expect Paizo to take note. Again, I don't expect that notation to change anything.
First, let me explain I don't really speak for the group I play in. But that group does tend to share my opinions, so I am a reasonable representation of about 8 people.
We didn't like the change from 3.0 to 3.5. Financial situation aside, there was too much nerfing of spells. The change in Heal and Harm were enough for me to want to throw the 3.5 PHB into traffic. Add to that the reduction in buff spell lengths and it was almost settled. And we could understand, and sympathise, with the reasons they were changed.
Liking something has very little to do with comprehension, or understanding.
So why did we change?
The Ranger.
Yeap, one class adjustment was enough to put aside our disdain for the other changes.And it played well. We had fun. But I still cringe when I look at Heal/Harm.
What we liked in Pathfinder Beta:
Barbarian Rage Points. Yes the points. The powers were refreshing, but the points sold the change. While the points might have needed tweaking, they gave each power weight. If tweaked just right they eliminated the "obvious choice" of powers. These didn't even make it out of Beta... The powers themselves feel too much like a CCG to enjoy as is.
Human Weapon Training. Finally, a compelling reason to play humans. No, a feat and a bonus skill point weren't enough for our group. Humans are too bland, too normal. Hell, we are just as likely play non-PHB races as we are to play non-human PHB races. Any time we had a character idea that used a martial weapon, we could...
Disenchanter, I do not like the changes. But nothing can be done. My group is going to continue with 3.5. (and many 3.0 spells) Several of us are subscribers, so we're just waiting to see if we can play with little effort Paizo’s adventures with rules 3.5 or if we should stop buying. It is a pity, but what can not be changed must be accepted.
|
|
You can skip the long windedness and go straight to the end for the gist.
With that being said though, I also notice when people make threads that are relating to "I don't like this" compared to "I like this", more people tend to make the "I don't like this" threads.
I imagine it's because of people like me who are happy and over all pleased with the changes and the current previews that we feel no need to say anything. Why should we? It's what we wanted.
However I also after reading through this thread that if nothing else, with myself (and my group) being someone who enjoys the changes coming our way that have been showcased I should say that we like it just so it's one more voice heard that's FOR it.
Iono, maybe just to let the company know that there are likely a lot of people like me and my gaming group that don't say things because we've got nothing to say against it.
So I guess long story short, I'm saying my group and I enjoy these changes and look forward to seeing more as well as the finished product. Just wanted to show my support for everything so far.
I'm not taken with the PfRPG corebook rule previews and very doubtful I will pick it up. For every change I liked there were two I didnt, which adds up to more houserules. And has been said, why spend money to rewrite a book. There are other games that are less work and more play for me (especially if I am the one running it). I'm glad the PfRPG has enough similarities that I can continue using the Gamemastery series even as they come out post-Pf.
I think our gaming group is still on board with moving to Pathfinder RPG, though we are disappointed that some of the more interesting changes appear to have been rolled back since the Beta. We think it's still a net "win" but I certainly understand and agree with some of the OP's concerns. And he should be welcome to voice them; it's fine to disagree with specific points but flaming him for expressing his opinion should not be allowed.
I have to say, I'm not a fan of PFRPG, or of the Pathfinder adventures either.
What I am doing here? I have no idea. ^^
I guess it's because there are lots of people here who show you different ways to look at many aspects of the game. And that's still good enough to me.
I don't know anything about the Final (probably should take a look into the previews next thing), but I'm not thrilled by Beta. I guess it's probably a really good d20 game. As is 4th Edition. ^^
But when PFRPG was announced, it sounded pretty neat to me, like a bugfix or update for 3.5e. But after having spend months with designing prestige-classes, I finaly came to the conclusion, that 3.5e doesn't feel like the old AD&D-style I like, because it's overloaded with fancy abilities. So my approach to houserules is to have less abilities in the classes, so that the players have to rely more on mundane means to solve problems, just like normal people do.
But as it turned out, Pathfinder went the exact opposite way and didn't streamline the game, but instead even added a lot of stuff to characters. The Beta made me feel like Pathfinder is about more, more, more! It's nice for the fighter, but it didn't balance anything, because clerics and wizards got even more new abilities, which made the gap even wider. Not to say pathfinder has poor design, but it is even more focused on class features.
My view is that players should think "okay, we got our swords and bows, some horses and a small selection of spells. Let's see how we can make creative use of them and the environment to solve our current problem". And I guess, pathfinder is not for me.
Unsure if anyone really cares for it, but here are some specific aspects, that don't fit into my own plans:
- Rage powers: True, rage is an ability with limited uses and it kind of shoehorns players what a barbarian is. But the rage powers are too fancy for me and I espacially disliked the idea of having kind of a "mana pool" for barbarians.
- Domains: Nice idea, but I'm terribly conservative when it comes to hobby stuff. Just felt too different for me.
- Rogues: I like rogues as thieves with limited combat ability. Combat is not their place to shine in the game. With more hp and more combat special abilities, they were made even more into dexterity fighters, which is a trend I allready didn't like in 3.0.
- Bloodlines: Not because of the way they work, but because I always hated the "dragon ancestor" stuff that was born out of that little half-sentence in the first PHB. I much prefer the approach, that some people just have magical abilities without any discernable reason. Bloodlines work against that.
- d6 for Wizards: I could understand it for sorcerers, but making even wizards more endurable in combat only makes fighters and barbarians less durable in comparison. I like it when people get seriously hurt quickly. Making everyone tougher is not an approach that suits me.
- School specialization: Are domains for wizards? Not my cup of tea.
- Skills: Sorry, but I need my skills. Yes, it's much more work when gaining a new level and for designing NPCs, but I want the characters to be able to be very good climbers but extremely poor swimmers. Though I dislike to emphasis class features, I really like to make massive use of skills.
- Feats: There are more. As said, I think less is more.
- Combat maneuvers: Great idea, but when we used in in play, it seemed totaly unusable to me. With just a very small amount of optimization, my elf archer could grapple the half-orc barbarian every time and he had no chance to get the upper hand. Maybe we didn't get the rules right, but it seemed greatly flawed.
- Channeling: Let's just say, I don't like it the least.
It's mostly not that the rules are bad, it's just that they propagate a style of play I'd rather discourage.
But there's also a lot of stuff I do like:
- All the polymorph stuff. It's just to great for narative reasons to have it tossed out completely, and I think the pathfinder way makes it all completely save and balanced. Great thing. ^^
- Combat maneuvers: Yes, I had those allready under stuff I disliked. But I think the idea is great, and I'll base a housrule on it.
- Revising XP: I did it different, but it got me some ideas. It's much simpler to just raise or lower the amount of XP the characters get, than to have different tables at which amounts of XP to level up.
- Damage reduction: Did it different, but similar.
- Poisons: nice
- And I really like the list of conditions. I think the changes are small, but there are some real good ones.
I guess I was more expecting a kind of Unearthed Arcana for D&D at first. But it turns out to be a new d20 game, for which you can use many Monster Manuals, splatbook spells and feats, and such. But you can do that with lots of other d20 games to.
Regarding the Final, I guess I burrow it from a friend for a day and give it an afternoon to get an overview to look for interesting variations to D&D I'd like to use in my homebrew. But I don't think I'll buy it for that.
|
|
My gaming circle must be in the minority then. All of those who like 3.5. are not going to be buying PF. Out of a gaming group of eight 3 really like 4E and are not going back. The other 4 dislike 4E but find that PF does not fix the issues that 3.5 and in some cases makes it worse. Not to mention they have no intention of spending 100$ again on a houseruled version of 3.5. There words not mine.
Which leaves myself. The only guy in the group running and likes 4E who is very sure to buy the book. As I miss some elements of 3.5. Nothing says I can't like both 4E and 3.5.
I would not be surprised though if it did not do as well as it could. It's a product that has to appeal to fans of 4E who more likely than not will not buy it. Fans of 3.5 who are happy with 3.5 as is and see no need to get Pathfinder. You can't just say "Buy it! It's from Paizo! I really don't envy Paizo right now. I wish them the best of luck.
My gaming circle must be in the minority then. All of those who like 3.5. are not going to be buying PF. Out of a gaming group of eight 3 really like 4E and are not going back. The other 4 dislike 4E but find that PF does not fix the issues that 3.5 and in some cases makes it worse. Not to mention they have no intention of spending 100$ again on a houseruled version of 3.5. There words not mine.
Which leaves myself. The only guy in the group running and likes 4E who is very sure to buy the book. As I miss some elements of 3.5. Nothing says I can't like both 4E and 3.5.
I would not be surprised though if it did not do as well as it could. It's a product that has to appeal to fans of 4E who more likely than not will not buy it. Fans of 3.5 who are happy with 3.5 as is and see no need to get Pathfinder. You can't just say "Buy it! It's from Paizo! I really don't envy Paizo right now. I wish them the best of luck.
You're probably right.
4e fans won't backpedal, and I'm sure many 3.x fans will stick with what they have.
That leaves Paizo's market right there in the middle. 3.x fans who want something more AND see Pathfinder as being that something more.
It's a niche, but then so is every game system.
|
I respectfully disagree with most of the pessimistic posts.
The development of PFRPG has been a long and thoroughly discussed process. I also find it hard to believe that folks are disappoint when the they have not read the whole tome?!?!
The price of the item was a concern and Paizo did seek feedback about it. I believe they went ahead and add more stuff based on peoples feedback. The PFRPG will have a modest amount of products per year so as you add things up it is reasonable.
PFRPG appears to me to bring balance to the game and classes. I LOVE, and so does my group, the AP and modules. From what I have seen and heard all of the updates to 3.5 sound awesome and will improve the game play.
Before folks make big calls maybe some patience and wait and see and play before judgement. Though everyone is entitled to their opinions.
I for one will rush straight into PFRPG and convert my group's 3.5 characters over... if nothing else to give them an edge to survive RotRL. :)
I for one will rush straight into PFRPG and convert my group's 3.5 characters over...
Before folks make big calls maybe some patience and wait and see and play before judgement.
So...
Let me see if I understand you.
It is perfectly reasonable to make "blind" judgment calls if you like/love what you see so far...
But you should show patience and take a wait and see if you don't?
WTF is wrong with you?
|
|
WTF is wrong with you?
now Disenchanter lets be nice... I understand your outrage, your are being judged for expressing an opinion based on information you can already imagine would be working in your games... and you are right Masika is already presenting a judgment of value without evenhaving read the book
but also i believe Masika is supporting Paizo...
Masika, you are being unfair in your statement the optinion of "first try it then give an opinion" might be good but after more than a eyar of playtesting people can give themselves a taste of the changes after seeing the Alphas, the Beta and the Preview...
yes they might be just small portions of the whole... but the idea is that those small portions should let someone give their idea of what is to follow... have you seen movie trailers? I know you do... its the same concept... you can see there if you might like or not the movie... of course actually going to see it can give you another experience... for good or ill... I have seen trailers I hated and loved the movie and viceversa...
Dread... there has been more of 1 year of playtesting... after that year as much as Paizo people deserve their opinion... even if you dislike it, if you do... leave the thread isntead of beginning flamming people for their rights...
about the wizar-haters/magic-haters is nothing but a label... but when every edition you heard from the same type of people "too powerful, nerf it so the fighter has a chance"... well... there are no much other ways to call it... magic-disliker maybe... but its not catchy :P
|
|
Hmmm, that's a bummer. I personally would rather not spend 10 minutes casting a spell to summon an animal messenger, just walk it's faster. :p "Rituals" and "Powers" (insert TAP symbol here) were MY deal-breakers on 4E, but that's all for another thread.
ok here they called my attention because they reminded me of 2nd Edition... the most powerful spells took longer than a round, you needed preparation... but you were rewarded with awesome effects and great power...
now we still have them... they just call them plot devices and are unavailable to players...
Let me see if I understand you.
It is perfectly reasonable to make "blind" judgment calls if you like/love what you see so far...
But you should show patience and take a wait and see if you don't?
I generally like what I've seen of Pathfinder so far, but I have to admit I get a bit irritated every time I read someone's post saying "you can't have a (negative) opinion on the final product because it could be completely different than the Pathfinder Beta and/or completely different than what the previews have shown" (paraphrased). I don't think that's true at all; at this point, I think there's enough information out there to make an informed opinion.
I don't think that's true at all; at this point, I think there's enough information out there to make an informed opinion.
I would say there is at least as much information out there to make a decision as there was prior to the release of 4e to make a decision then.
What there is, right now, is some information.
The previews have specifically discussed certain things that will be in the final release. Making an informed opinion on those previews is absolutely valid.
There are also posts by the game designers themselves. Some of those posts have clearly stated things like "This BETA rule will go away" or "Here's a change we're making for the final rules" or "One of our design goals is X and we're sticking with it til the end" or variations of that kind of definitive info. Making judgments about the final Pathfinder rules based on this kind of stuff is almost absolutely valid (hey, have to give them a little room to change their mind at the last minute).
What we also have is the BETA rules that haven't been previewed or scooped. These rules might or might not make it into the final release. Making an uninformed opinion on these rules is pure guesswork, and the sensible thing to do would be to adopt a wait-and-see attitude toward these rules.
Within that that framework, more and more people are finding excellent and detailed reasons within what we know for sure to decide one way or another. I can't see anything wrong with that, nor any reason to caution or advise or admonish them for doing so (note: I'm not implying that I believe I have any rights to do so in the first place).
Now, the people making decisions based on BETA rules, those people I might advise to wait and see.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
The price of the item was a concern and Paizo did seek feedback about it. I believe they went ahead and add more stuff based on peoples feedback. The PFRPG will have a modest amount of products per year so as you add things up it is reasonable.
If anything the book is underpriced relative to other tomes of its size. The Dark Heresy rulebook, for example, is about the same size but $10 more expensive, and with less art.
I was very pleased at the PaizoCon banquet when Jason Bulmahn held up the actual printed copy and everyone gasped at the sheer size of it.
I heard two people at the table behind me say "Holy s@~~, I thought it would be a ripoff but look how huge it is! I am totally getting that!"
The proof will be in the pudding, as they say, but I am not in the least bit worried that people will think the book is too expensive once they've had a chance to see the genuine article.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
WTF is wrong with you?
That's enough of this kind of confrontation, please. Feel free to disagree and even question other folk's comments, but please try not to be so rude about it.
This goes for everyone. I'm not trying to single out Disenchanter specifically, but when a thread gets to a point where people are asking each other "WTF is wrong with you," things are getting out of hand.
Thanks.
The proof will be in the pudding, as they say, but I am not in the least bit worried that people will think the book is too expensive once they've had a chance to see the genuine article.
[tangent]
I feel I can tease Erik since we met and chatted and all, so now we're buds...I always thought they said "The proof is in the putting". A derivation from "Put your money where your mouth is" which derived from "Put/Place a bet on what you're saying if you really mean it."
Hence, "The proof is in your willigness to put some of your own money up as backing against what you say."
Which eventually just devolved down to "The proof is in the putting."
[/tangent]
Edit: when are you going to activate those [/tangent] BBCode tags?
|
|
As for the topic, I can understand why some people are disappointed. Some things I was hoping for never happened and/or changed. But for me the positive changes outweigh the negative changes.
Of course I reserve the right to change my mind once I have the book in hand. I mean we already know there are more than a few changes from beta already and we have only seen a fraction of the final reveled.
But no I don't think it is to soon to start forming a impression of the product. Though I still think everyone should try it first, just as I felt everyone should at least try 4e first, before making up their mind. Which I had a pretty negative view of 4e but still tried it a few times.
err anyways done rambling.
|
|
The proof will be in the pudding, as they say, but I am not in the least bit worried that people will think the book is too expensive once they've had a chance to see the genuine article.[tangent]
I feel I can tease Erik since we met and chatted and all, so now we're buds...I always thought they said "The proof is in the putting". A derivation from "Put your money where your mouth is" which derived from "Put/Place a bet on what you're saying if you really mean it."
Hence, "The proof is in your willigness to put some of your own money up as backing against what you say."
Which eventually just devolved down to "The proof is in the putting."
[/tangent]
Edit: when are you going to activate those [/tangent] BBCode tags?
[tangent]
Nope. The full phrase is "The proof of the pudding is in the eating", warning that things can look good, be presented well smell marvelous and still taste like dog food that's been through the dog.[/tangent]
I always thought they said "The proof is in the putting". A derivation from "Put your money where your mouth is" which derived from "Put/Place a bet on what you're saying if you really mean it."Hence, "The proof is in your willigness to put some of your own money up as backing against what you say."
[tangent]
From what I understand, it's just a corruption of "the proof of the pudding is in the eating," meaning that the quality of the object [the pudding] is determined by actually testing [eating] it.[/tangent]
The proof will be in the pudding, as they say, but I am not in the least bit worried that people will think the book is too expensive once they've had a chance to see the genuine article.[tangent]
I feel I can tease Erik since we met and chatted and all, so now we're buds...I always thought they said "The proof is in the putting". A derivation from "Put your money where your mouth is" which derived from "Put/Place a bet on what you're saying if you really mean it."
Hence, "The proof is in your willigness to put some of your own money up as backing against what you say."
Which eventually just devolved down to "The proof is in the putting."
[/tangent]
Edit: when are you going to activate those [/tangent] BBCode tags?
[tangent]
Nope. The full phrase is "The proof of the pudding is in the eating", warning that things can look good, be presented well smell marvelous and still taste like dog food that's been through the dog.
[/tangent]
Then why don't we say "The proof is in the eating?"
I think your quote is a later derivation of the widely recognized "Proof is in the putting" quote.
I surely could be wrong though.
But for me, I'm a tarrasque. I think my new motto is "The proof is in the EATING!!!"
"Yeweh c-c-cold. My thung ith nub! Thure with I wath immune to c-c-cold."
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Also, to be clear, we know for a fact that the final version is not going to appeal to everyone. You've got to make choices in life, and Jason and the boys made the best choices they could given the information they had and the playtest feedback we received.
All you need for an example of this is the (minor) uproar surrounding the race lineup. The one in the Beta was among the most controversial elements in that book, with far more people saying they disliked it than liked it. We sort of agreed, so we got a new piece by Steve Prescott that better fit our (and likely your) expectations for that kind of a piece.
So now, of course, people are coming out of the woodwork complaining about the NEW art because they preferred the old.
You really cannot please everyone, and we know that (despite our best efforts!) we won't be able to pull off that trick either.
Nothing I've posted to this thread should be construed as an attempt to silence those expressing concerns about the final book. I agree that there is enough general info out there that people can begin to form a more solid opinion of what the rules will be like, while at the same time I urge folks to check out the final version when it comes out to verify or allay your concerns.
We hope to produce a great version of this game that will keep us all playing for years to come. I hope you give it a chance and come along with us for the ride.
If you don't... well, that's ok, too. I hope you find the system that you are looking for and that we can still have some friendly chats about the umpteen million geeky things we do agree on.
Like, for example, how bad Star Trek Voyager sucks.
Like, for example, how bad Star Trek Voyager sucks.
Amen!
I about threw up when I read Kate Mulgrew said (and by all evidence believed) that, "In the end, I seduced even the most hesitant of the fans over to accepting me as the Captain."
As for Pathfinder, I've been glad to be along for the ride. I wish the best to those who have to follow a different path.
Like, for example, how bad Star Trek Voyager sucks.Dax was hawt!
Yes, Dax was hawt, but she was on DS9, which was my favorite Trek series. You might be thinking of 7 of 9, who I also found to be hot.
And as far as "proof is in the pudding," I direct you to this link
Yeah, I've heard that too.
But I've also heard that Miguel de Cervantes (a poet) was playing word games when he mutated "proof is in the putting" to his version in Don Quixote. Most of the etymology on the incredibly accurate interwebs stops at Don Quixote though, so it's hard to verify.
Could be the other way around though.
I've just posed this one to the world's smartest man, Go to Uncle Cecil, so here's to hoping he can put the pudding to rest, as it were.
I remember finding out what the plans were for initiative, and tracking down Jonathan Tweet and very vociferously telling him that his plans for initiative were going to doom 3rd edition and that it was the most stupid rule ever and that nobody would play it and that I would be houseruling that in my campaign and... <pant, pant, pant> And you know what, Jonathan was right and the new initiative was much better than what I played in my 1st edition campaigns. But it took me actually playing it to realize that he knew better than I did.
-Lisa
Add me as another person who, having tried them both, still prefers the 1e initiative system to the 3e system. Yeah, it was a pain in the neck, but it made so many other things make sense (You could actually get shot at while running, instead of the rest of the world holding still until you reached your destination! You could get hit while spellcasting!) Maybe if the "hold action" rules were a LOT better...
And to all you snickerers at the Paizo banquet who thought I mispronounced "Bestiary" because I didn't say it like "BEAST-e-airy," I direct you to this link.
Be sure to click the little speaker. :)
Damn you Eric Mona!