Why I am disappointed in Pathfinder Final.


General Discussion (Prerelease)

1 to 50 of 287 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

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 forgo the 1 level dip into a warrior class (usually Fighter) and play a human. This, too, didn't even make it out of Beta.
Channel Energy. This one hurts the most. There are very few classes that can suffer the "Hand of God" rule (meaning the DM has rules to take class powers away at a "whim"), and all of them suffer the same stigma. Clerics, Paladins, and Druids fall into this category. Any excuse to get one of these classes to the table is welcome. Giving them more power and flexibility is the most obvious way to do it. Hell, that was why the Cleric was given so much power in 3.0. It was to entice players into enjoying the class. Channel Energy was almost it, although a little too short in range. Now Clerics need to take a feat to do what they have been expected to do for years before PFRPG. It isn't a good example, but it would be similar to if Fighters had to take a feat to be able to do combat maneuvers, or Rogues needed to take a feat to Sneak Attack or Trapfind.
Fire Domain Fire Bolt ability. Yes, that one thing was great. I have - well had - a character idea that revolves around that alone. A full fledged idea and background and everything. Now I see that any character based on that needs to have a 15 minute work day...

There are a couple of other things we still like about the Beta, but I know they were opposed pretty heavily so I doubt they will make it through the final.

What we didn't like about the Beta:
Sorcerer Bloodlines. Don't get me wrong. Flavor was great. But for us, Sorcerers didn't need any boost. So this is a power increase that isn't needed for us.
Consolidated Skills. While I get the simplicity... It is hard to wrap my fury little brain around some of them. My character has to be fluent in 15 different languages just to be a master forger? Really?
The nerf in shape altering spells. Yes, I know this is a contentious area. Remember, liking has nothing to do with understanding. Problem is, we are adults. We used the spells responsibly. Others didn't, and we all have to be treated as children now.

So what we end up with is everything (or at least almost everything right now) that we liked about the Beta is gutted, and every thing we didn't like is still in.

So think less of me if you like to, but there really isn't anything about Pathfinder holding my, or my groups' interest.

But there might be that one class adjustment that makes it all worth it.
I'm sure not expecting it.


Someone seems, well...

Disenchanted.

:)

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

As for me, I foresee a glaring danger with the new mechanic for casting defensively, but I like almost all of what Pathfinder is becoming.

I am eagerly awaiting the final release.

I do feel that a few spells will end up houseruled here and there (polymorphs at the top of the list), and maybe a few class features (channel energy) or feats (Turn Undead) or skills (maybe; nothing comes to mind right now) or mechanics (casting defensively).

But heck, I have had houserules in every edition of D&D since I began playing back in the 70s.

And from what I can see right now (which still isn't much yet), I think I will have fewer houserules for Pathfinder than I had for 3.5.

That can only be a good thing.

I'm sorry you're so disenchanted.


I hope you take what you like and leave the rest. That's what I'm going to do!

Cheers,
hogarth


DM_Blake wrote:
I'm sorry you're so disenchanted.

Oh don't be.

It's not like I won't survive or anything. ;-)

And I certainly didn't put this up for pity, or even sympathy.
I felt like explaining that it wasn't "one class change" that lost my interest in Pathfinder.
There seems to be quite a few people who assume that because they only read one reason a poster doesn't like a system that is the only reason.
Or they would really just love the system if they understood the reasons behind the changes...

It is an attempt to educate.

There is more to it that what some people are assuming. And belittling others feelings on a system doesn't do a damn thing to help anyone.


I concur with your opening statements.


Don't think any less of you, Disenchanter. To me, what it sounds like is that the new rules simply don't cater to your group's play style very well, but the Beta's did. I'd be disappointed too if that were the case with me.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

I thought the edition wars had proven that matters of taste could be changed through brute force applications of logic. ;-)

I don't have much of substance to add, but why not just use the beta rules as your starting point and take what you like from the final version (or vice versa) and make your own 3.Disenchanter version of D&D? Out of curiosity, why didn't you just import the 3.5 ranger into 3.0 if that was the edition you preferred? You seem very dedicated to using one official set of rules, which I find surprising given that you've demonstrated that you know what you like in your game and what works for your players. I can understand wanting to use a full set of the rules for ease of reference and compatability, but you've got the experience and interest to make your own unique hybrid work.

Anyway, good luck sorting it out. I also liked the beta versions of the domain powers better, but at the end of the day, I don't have much of a dog in the fight since I'm not planning on playing a 3.x variant anytime soon.

Liberty's Edge

Majuba wrote:
I concur with your opening statements.

I agree...

and I know the logic on "take out what you don't like" my problem... I did it on Beta... now I need to add the Beta again... which leaves me with almost about nothing of Pathfinder RPG Final...

and my group already said "I won't play that if you don't house rules this... that and also that"... i would blame them... but I agree :P

as I have taken to said this days... "If I need to house rule most of the book... do I really need it?"

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

A while back I posted a thread wondering whether some people would stick with the Beta over the final version - I guess you might be one of those people.

And I can understand your need to express your displeasure even if it won't accomplish anything - that's what the internet is for! :)

Liberty's Edge

DigitalMage wrote:
And I can understand your need to express your displeasure even if it won't accomplish anything - that's what the internet is for! :)

nuh!

Internet is for seeing pr0n! we all do bad use of the interwebs!!!

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

One other thought before I chime out to make a call - you might want to try giving the rules a playtest before coming to a final conclusion. Back when 3.0 came out, a lot of people were unhappy about static initiative, but once they saw how it played, they came to like it. It might be worth it just to play the final rules to see how close they come to what you want, and then change them.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

I'm just surprized that you're disappointed in the final version of the rules, since unless you secretly work for Paizo or their printer, I'm pretty sure you haven't read them.

Sure there are some things you don't like that have been in the previews so far, but until you see the full rules, this could simply be a case of the blind men and the elephant. Make you're you're not holding it's trunk and think that it's a snake!

Liberty's Edge

JoelF847 wrote:

I'm just surprized that you're disappointed in the final version of the rules, since unless you secretly work for Paizo or their printer, I'm pretty sure you haven't read them.

Sure there are some things you don't like that have been in the previews so far, but until you see the full rules, this could simply be a case of the blind men and the elephant. Make you're you're not holding it's trunk and think that it's a snake!

previews on the cleric on my side are not promisiong... well actually they are... they told me what to expect. I don't like it :P

do they return the polmorf or other similar spells? for what I have heard they are staying like that...

so we might be blind men... but for some of us they are nailing it quite well in whichever issues affect us


Majuba wrote:
I concur with your opening statements.

What, that I am a whining cry baby for even thinking this way? :-p

Sebastian wrote:
I don't have much of substance to add, but why not just use the beta rules as your starting point and take what you like from the final version (or vice versa) and make your own 3.Disenchanter version of D&D? Out of curiosity, why didn't you just import the 3.5 ranger into 3.0 if that was the edition you preferred?

Overall, it isn't just my decision. It is the groups' decision. I would have the best time if I played with myself. ;-P

But as far as adapting the Beta, that is what we might do for the AP games.

But it is likely we will stick with 3.5 for our long running campaign.

JoelF847 wrote:
I'm just surprized that you're disappointed in the final version of the rules, since unless you secretly work for Paizo or their printer, I'm pretty sure you haven't read them.

Why do I have to read the Final rules, when what was liked about the Beta won't be in, and what wasn't liked will be in?

I just don't grasp that...


Maybe that's why WotC [sorry, didn't mean to swear] drew a line under 3.x and moved to 4th.... nah!, it was for money, sorry my mistake.


I guess you know that it's best for the final product before making any final decisions, so I won't bring it up.

Damn, I brought it up.

Disenchanter wrote:


Yeah, yeah. I know. No one cares, and I'm just a whining cry baby for even thinking the way I do.

Yeah, you're a whining crybaby. But not for that reason ;-P (just kidding)

Disenchanter wrote:


Guess what? Stop reading right now. This isn't the thread for you if you are thinking that way.

But... but I want to criticise your decision! ;-)

Disenchanter wrote:


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.

Probably right, seeing how the book is already being printed, or maybe even already printed and all that.

Disenchanter wrote:


The change in Heal and Harm were enough for me to want to throw the 3.5 PHB into traffic.

Actually, I thought that was one of the greatest changes in 3.5. Especially harm had no right to be the way it was. It was a virtual death sentence unless you made sure to be protected against it. All you needed after you hit the enemy (who got no save) was to apply a little damage - maybe from the extra partial action you got from heal. Or a quickened spell.

Disenchanter wrote:


What we liked in Pathfinder Beta:
Barbarian Rage Points.

To be fair, those were put to rest shortly after the beta came out. The new rules were even the first of the forum hotfixes we got. And the way it sounded, they did it because their supplies ran out in their castle and the siege wouldn't have been lifted otherwise.

Disenchanter wrote:


Human Weapon Training. Finally, a compelling reason to play humans. No, a feat and a bonus skill point weren't enough for our group.

Depends on the groups. In our games, humans have been the majority. Since they get a free +2 to one attribute, it got even worse. So I guess the majority thought that this made humans too good.

Disenchanter wrote:


Humans are too bland, too normal.

Bah. Only as bland as your character concept. Everything stands and falls with the concept, with the thoughts behind the choices you made during character creation and advancement. If you need a crazy race/class combo to make a concept interesting, that might be a problem with the concept itself.

Disenchanter wrote:


Channel Energy. This one hurts the most.

I do hate the separation of healing and damage, but won't shed a tear for the fear effect. That was more an annoyance to me and my groups than anything else.

You turn, critters flee (sometimes right through the walls), and the cleric gets depressed that he let evil get away, or obsessed with hunting them down.

Disenchanter wrote:


Fire Domain Fire Bolt ability. Yes, that one thing was great. I have - well had - a character idea that revolves around that alone. A full fledged idea and background and everything. Now I see that any character based on that needs to have a 15 minute work day...

Don't like that one, either. The fallback "weapons" were nice, and enabled you to be, say, a wizard all day.

Disenchanter wrote:


What we didn't like about the Beta:
Sorcerer Bloodlines. Don't get me wrong. Flavor was great. But for us, Sorcerers didn't need any boost. So this is a power increase that isn't needed for us.

A lot of people disagreed.

What became increasingly clear while reading through your post was that you are in the minority with your tastes. You like things a lot of people didn't like at all.

Such a situation always sucks, but it can't be helped.

Disenchanter wrote:


Consolidated Skills. While I get the simplicity... It is hard to wrap my fury little brain around some of them. My character has to be fluent in 15 different languages just to be a master forger? Really?

Nah. He has to be a master forger to be a master forger. He just happens to pick up a lot of languages along the way.

I like almost all skill consolidations. The language part was weird, but languages have always been weird in D&D, at least as far as I can remember. Certainly in 3e.

Maybe Jason had enough time to do something about languages.

Disenchanter wrote:


The nerf in shape altering spells. Yes, I know this is a contentious area. Remember, liking has nothing to do with understanding.

I don't like the beta versions, either, but that's mainly because of the bonus type. They shouldn't be enhancement bonuses, not completely. Clerics get to use size bonuses with their righteous might, so the game's shapechangers should get in on the action, too.

Other than that, I welcome the change.

Disenchanter wrote:


Problem is, we are adults. We used the spells responsibly. Others didn't, and we all have to be treated as children now.

It all depends on the size of the problem. I think this one was a pretty big one. I know I've seen this abused so often. Whether to change something like this or not is a decision that depends on how many people complain. This is a real big complaint magnet, so a change was probably more than necessary.

I don't appreciate the child jab, though, so I reply in kind: If you're all adults, won't you be able to use the new spells? Surely you're not little powergaming children who need to boost their halfling druid's str 5 to 30, you just do it for the roleplaying potential, yes? ;-P

Disenchanter wrote:


So think less of me if you like to, but there really isn't anything about Pathfinder holding my, or my groups' interest.

It's the way the world works: Not everyone likes everything.


Montalve wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:
And I can understand your need to express your displeasure even if it won't accomplish anything - that's what the internet is for! :)

nuh!

Internet is for seeing pr0n! we all do bad use of the interwebs!!!

All these guys unzip their flies for PORN PORN PORN!


stuart haffenden wrote:
Maybe that's why WotC [sorry, didn't mean to swear] drew a line under 3.x and moved to 4th.... nah!, it was for money, sorry my mistake.

What is? I'm not quite following you.


My personal opinion about the final game: I don't like everything, either. It's to be expected - Paizo is only human, they're not perfect, so they cannot hope to my every perfect taste.

But so far, all the things I don't like can easily be houseruled, and I'm used to having a number of houserules.

That might change if they didn't fix polymorph spells (that one would need a bigger change from 3.5 or beta) and might include multiclassing rules, but so far, I'm cautiously optimistic.


KaeYoss wrote:
I don't appreciate the child jab, though, so I reply in kind: If you're all adults, won't you be able to use the new spells? Surely you're not little powergaming children who need to boost their halfling druid's str 5 to 30, you just do it for the roleplaying potential, yes? ;-P

Absolutely.

Because when the halfling Druid needs to break through a wall to save the groups' behinds, we just role play the strength needed...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
KaeYoss wrote:
It's to be expected - Paizo is only human

Really ? I thought that they are a bunch of Advanced Elite Lifespark Flesh Golems...

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

I can appreciate your concerns, and am sorry that so many of the things that you and your group liked were some of the things earmarked for early removal.

All I would say is to peruse the final product when you can actually see it, to see if it is really as bad as you feel for your group. I know for our group, there are some houserules we've got in mind depending on how things swing, but we on the whole are rather excited about the product still.

Good gaming to you, Disenchanter, and may things look better in the final analysis.


Disenchanter wrote:


Because when the halfling Druid needs to break through a wall to save the groups' behinds, we just role play the strength needed...

I think that's faulty logic.

If I teleport into the abyss, right before Lamashtu's throne, and call her a barren frigid whore-toy to Pazuzu, I just roleplayed the need for the power of a greater deity or two.

Doesn't mean they'll change "Divine Power" to be literal.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
KaeYoss wrote:

If I teleport into the abyss, right before Lamashtu's throne, and call her a barren frigid whore-toy to Pazuzu,

Now I would pay good money to see that/ I would pay extra if you said her mother smelled of elderberries. (Be worth it just to see her rip someone in half like a phonebook.)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I second Gamer Girrl's comments and wish you good gaming in the future.

Doug


KaeYoss wrote:
I think that's faulty logic.

So is the reasoning to play role playing games. And?

My point is, there is a time and a place when "OMGWTFBBQ Game Breaking" isn't, and in fact it is appropriate. Perhaps even "dramatically appropriate."

But there are clearly those that need rules to let them know how to play well with others...


Eh, when you publish your first role playing core rule book call us back.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Eh, when you publish your first role playing core rule book call us back.

If that was to me, what makes you think I haven't?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Disenchanter wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Eh, when you publish your first role playing core rule book call us back.
If that was to me, what makes you think I haven't?

Basic probability. Given that most posters here have not published a role playing core rulebook, the most likely result of selecting a random poster is that they have not published a role playing core rule book. You may be the exception that proves the rule, but without evidence to the contrary, the default assumption (that the random poster you're talking to has not published a role playing core rulebook) works pretty well.


Disenchanter wrote:


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 forgo the 1 level dip into a warrior class (usually Fighter) and play a human. This, too, didn't even make it out of Beta.

Really? Humans were already the most powerful race in the game, PfRPG only increased that gap. Humans get a bonus feat, use that to get your weapon, a bonus skill point, they can assign a +2 bonus to any stat they choose and they can pick their favored class guaranteeing another bonus skill or bonus hit point per level.

I can understand avoiding humans because they lack flavor for you, but that isn't a mechanical argument it is a RP argument and having a free martial weapon shouldn't affect that calculation either way. If you are looking for mechanical advantage or optimization, ie not having to dip into Fighter to get your weapon of choice, then Human is still the best choice. In fact, I have a hard time coming up with any reason to play anything other than human if you are min/maxing.

Disenchanter wrote:


Sorcerer Bloodlines. Don't get me wrong. Flavor was great. But for us, Sorcerers didn't need any boost. So this is a power increase that isn't needed for us.

Again, really? You are seriously the first person I have ever seen defend the 3.x Sorcerer as a playable class...

No disrespect intended, I am just somewhat shocked.


Matt Rathbun wrote:
Really? Humans were already the most powerful race in the game, PfRPG only increased that gap.

I don't agree, but if we assume this is true (and, for the record I am not arguing it isn't) then that could be the real reason we avoid Humans...

We (the group I'm in) do seem to have a natural aversion to "overpowered," and only use it when it seems needed.

And as far as defending the 3.X Sorcerer, I wouldn't go so far as defending. It isn't like I am lobbying for any result. It is just that with our playstyle they are powerful "as is."

Grand Lodge

Well, I am withholding any opinions until the final book hits the shelves and I've had time to read it over.

I hope they included a feat to allow channeling to be used for both turning and healing. If not, that is a simple fix- just need a feat.

Not worried about polymorph spells, as we seldom use them.

Hoping CMB does not become too complicated.

Also hoping there is some way for the Arcane casters to keep their machine guns going. The 15 minute adventuring day all revolves around casters. Give casters something they can do, and it goes away.

Buff spells... we use 3.0 versions and probably always will. Hour/level for a buff spell is SOOOOO much better than Minute/level. One of those little things that make casters better and helps eliminate the 15 minute adventuring day.

Multiclassing, I am happy with as is.

Scrolls and Potions should become more common now that XP is not used. Granted they were small amounts for Scrolls and Potions, but still. This should go a long way to eliminate the 15 minute adventuring day. "What ya mean you're out of spells? We gave you 5,000gp each and you spent it ALL on the barmaid and didn't make a SINGLE scroll?"

Hope that Use Rope comes back in some form. Kind of hard to use Escape Artist now, when the target DC is ummmm impossible- "All people tie the perfect knot and you cannot possibly escape, sorry." or "I don't care how you tie the knot, you cannot possibly do it better than anyone else so the DC to escape your "Kinetic Knot of Kinky Koolness" is just as low as the preschooler's. He escapes with ease, deal with it."

The rest, I can take or leave.

Honestly they better not veer too far from Beta, cause I really like Beta.


Disenchanter wrote:
Matt Rathbun wrote:
Really? Humans were already the most powerful race in the game, PfRPG only increased that gap.

I don't agree, but if we assume this is true (and, for the record I am not arguing it isn't) then that could be the real reason we avoid Humans...

We (the group I'm in) do seem to have a natural aversion to "overpowered," and only use it when it seems needed.

And as far as defending the 3.X Sorcerer, I wouldn't go so far as defending. It isn't like I am lobbying for any result. It is just that with our playstyle they are powerful "as is."

I can buy that argument. What I don't understand is why you are upset that humans lost the free martial weapon if you goal is not optimization.

Liberty's Edge

KaeYoss wrote:
Montalve wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:
And I can understand your need to express your displeasure even if it won't accomplish anything - that's what the internet is for! :)

nuh!

Internet is for seeing pr0n! we all do bad use of the interwebs!!!
All these guys unzip their flies for PORN PORN PORN!

Is that Avenue Q? Grab your $@!# and double click...


Krome wrote:
Hope that Use Rope comes back in some form. Kind of hard to use Escape Artist now, when the target DC is ummmm impossible- "All people tie the perfect knot and you cannot possibly escape, sorry." or "I don't care how you tie the knot, you cannot possibly do it better than anyone else so the DC to escape your "Kinetic Knot of Kinky Koolness" is just as low as the preschooler's. He escapes with ease, deal with it."

I can't tell if you missed it, or just that you don't like the current rule, but the DC to Escape rope/bindings is the binders CMB + 10. At least in the Beta.

Grand Lodge

Disenchanter wrote:
Matt Rathbun wrote:
Really? Humans were already the most powerful race in the game, PfRPG only increased that gap.

I don't agree, but if we assume this is true (and, for the record I am not arguing it isn't) then that could be the real reason we avoid Humans...

We (the group I'm in) do seem to have a natural aversion to "overpowered," and only use it when it seems needed.

And as far as defending the 3.X Sorcerer, I wouldn't go so far as defending. It isn't like I am lobbying for any result. It is just that with our playstyle they are powerful "as is."

Some might remember when Bloodlines came out I was vehemently opposed to them. I do NOT like the idea of your class deciding your race (which bloodline does). But it IS cool, so I accepted it.

I would rather see a clear distinction and use for the sorcerer. Cleric is Divine Magic, Wizard is Arcane Magic, so make the Sorcerer Mental Magic (psionics) and make it actually a class unto itself, instead of a Wizard wannabe. Honestly, I would have been thrilled with the exclusion of the Sorcerer all together. It serves no purpose. Same EXACT spell list? Really? Exactly the same? So ummm, yeah ok. Why bother other than "flavor," that could be worked into the Wizard anyway.

**** EDIT****

And make it such that these are distinct types of magic. Why in the world does a Wizard get to use spells that are "Divine." He just gets them a level later. Duh? Ok, obviously "Divine" magic isn't really all that Divinely inspired.

Grand Lodge

Disenchanter wrote:
Krome wrote:
Hope that Use Rope comes back in some form. Kind of hard to use Escape Artist now, when the target DC is ummmm impossible- "All people tie the perfect knot and you cannot possibly escape, sorry." or "I don't care how you tie the knot, you cannot possibly do it better than anyone else so the DC to escape your "Kinetic Knot of Kinky Koolness" is just as low as the preschooler's. He escapes with ease, deal with it."
I can't tell if you missed it, or just that you don't like the current rule, but the DC to Escape rope/bindings is the binders CMB + 10. At least in the Beta.

Yeah like THAT makes sense. So a sailor or boy scout has a crap chance to tie a knot but a frontline soldier who never uses a rope can tie one REAL WELL. What does Combat ability and Strength have to do with tying a rope?

"Yes, Mr Wizard, I understand you grew up on ships and worked intimately with rigging, but I the Fighter am MUCH better at tying ropes. Now, umm, is THIS a rope? I put the loose end through the, oh hell I just lay it down and it doesn't matter. See Mr. Wizard he can't possibly escape that because I am strong and swing an axe." Fighter puffs out his chest and walks away. Meanwhile the Wizard looks at the two rope ends lying two feet apart and wonders why he never thought of tying a rope like that before and gains a new admiration for the Fighter's ability to do nothing and yet succeed anyway.


Matt Rathbun wrote:
Disenchanter wrote:
Matt Rathbun wrote:
Really? Humans were already the most powerful race in the game, PfRPG only increased that gap.

I don't agree, but if we assume this is true (and, for the record I am not arguing it isn't) then that could be the real reason we avoid Humans...

We (the group I'm in) do seem to have a natural aversion to "overpowered," and only use it when it seems needed.

And as far as defending the 3.X Sorcerer, I wouldn't go so far as defending. It isn't like I am lobbying for any result. It is just that with our playstyle they are powerful "as is."

I can buy that argument. What I don't understand is why you are upset that humans lost the free martial weapon if you goal is not optimization.

There is a couple of things to this.

First, remember that I don't think Humans are overpowered.
Second, it is less about optimisation, and more about avoiding cookie cutter characters. When 7 or 8 out of 10 characters have 1 level of Fighter - just to get proficiency with 1 martial weapon (a level of Fighter is more acceptable to us than using 1 of the 3.5s sparse feats since you get a feat with 1 level of Fighter) - that makes it a bit obvious that the current (3.5) proficiency mechanic is lacking. At least for us.

Giving Humans a free martial weapon proficiency was such a gifted idea. It was brilliant to us. And frankly, it still is. But that is something else.

And finally, upset is a bit strong. I'm not so sure when posting a dislike to something on the internet automatically equates to upset.

It is certainly not like I am "threatening" to take away my business or anything like that.

Like I said at the start, I posted it primarily for Paizo to take note of. It seems I am not alone in my disappointment.

And I'm not saying anything should be done. But Paizo has the right to take the information and do with it what they will.

Paizo Employee CEO

Sebastian wrote:
One other thought before I chime out to make a call - you might want to try giving the rules a playtest before coming to a final conclusion. Back when 3.0 came out, a lot of people were unhappy about static initiative, but once they saw how it played, they came to like it. It might be worth it just to play the final rules to see how close they come to what you want, and then change them.

You know, that was totally me. 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.

So I echo what a couple of people have said. Give it a whirl. It may still not work for you, but then, that is what houserules are for.

-Lisa


Krome wrote:
Yeah like THAT makes sense.

I wasn't suggesting it was good. But from your previous post I couldn't tell if you even knew it existed.


I'm really happy with it.

I think almost all of the things that I wanted to see are in there so far.

Not trying to be a fanboy, that's just how it turned out. If you had gotten what you wanted, it would be me starting this thread.

In order to keep it interesting though (because I've seen this type of thread go south quite quickly), I must ask you: You've told us how you feel, but what do you hope to get out of Pathfinder now? Why comment at this time?

Contributor

HOW DARE ANYONE SPEAK ILL OF THE PFRPG? SILENCE THE INFIDEL!

Spoiler:

Nah, seriously, dude - we don't expect to be everything to everybody. That way lies the path of madness. If the PFRPG isn't for you, then hopefully you'll enjoy our setting books or our gamemastery aids or our bestiaries (because if there's one thing that's awesome across all systems, it's monsters!). Whatever the case, no hard feelings, and I hope that we can all get along and keep these boards welcoming for everyone who likes ANY of our products... even if they hate the rest.

After all, we can all hate Jason Bulmahn personally and still be friends with the other staffers, right?


toyrobots wrote:
In order to keep it interesting though (because I've seen this type of thread go south quite quickly), I must ask you: You've told us how you feel, but what do you hope to get out of Pathfinder now? Why comment at this time?

What do I expect to get out of Pathfinder?

The RPG? Nothing anymore.
The Brand? Kick ass APs and products.

Why comment at this time? I saw how posting dislike or disappointment in another thread was being attacked, and felt a more in depth thread was needed. Also, as I posted, while you were probably posting:

"Like I said at the start, I posted it primarily for Paizo to take note of. It seems I am not alone in my disappointment.

And I'm not saying anything should be done. But Paizo has the right to take the information and do with it what they will."


Disenchanter wrote:
snip

PfRPG grants significantly more feats than 3.5, so you could use this power buff to tailor your character rather than taking one level of Fighter.

Humans still get their bonus feat, you can always use that to get your martial weapon proficiency.

Most if not all of the classes are now good enough that your players should prefer to use up a feat on the proficiency rather than give up a level of class abilities to pick up that level of fighter.


I have no problem with expressing disappointment, although I encourage anyone to look inward and question why they are posting on a forum about it before they post. (not picking on you, but rather the thing you cited as inspiration for posting, which is the worthier topic, IMO)

Similarly, I should expect the same introspection from anyone who derides other posters for their views, for or against the new product.

I'm happy with the final product so far. It makes me happier to know that people such as yourself know the way they like to play, and that at least PRPG is close enough to the game you play that you can use it as an optional supplement.

There's no way it can please everyone, so I figure the highest expectation they could meet is: "Is there something of use in this book to all 3.5 and Pathfinder players?" If so, then I think it was worthwhile.

So do you think you'll be using any rules from the book as optional? Or even from the Beta?

I'm not a big fan of having a single canonical ruleset around that no soul may challenge. I much prefer a wide range of options and iterations from which we may choose as we please... just as long as it doesn't get so diverse that we can't communicate anymore!


toyrobots wrote:

So do you think you'll be using any rules from the book as optional? Or even from the Beta?

I'm not a big fan of having a single canonical ruleset around that no soul may challenge. I much prefer a wide range of options and iterations from which we may choose as we please... just as long as it doesn't get so diverse that we can't communicate anymore!

As I answered to Sebastian, it isn't my decision alone. And unless the group I am a part of surprise me, we won't be using anything from the Final, and only touch the Beta for AP games.

As a generalisation, we prefer one set of canon. It makes rules discussions much easier. As it is, we have about 5 different rulesets floating around in our brains at any one time, and we get them mixed up all the time. Not having one book to look through to reorient ourselves would really suck.

Liberty's Edge

I'm not at all pleased with all of the changes (which wasn't true, btw, of the Beta), but so far I can say that I like them better than I did their counterparts in 3.5, so I can't complain too terribly much. Honestly, I'd rather the greater number of people that LIKE the changes be happier and more likely to keep the game going than me be slightly disappointed as I am about 1 or 2 things.

Of course, I'll be much more voiceferous if they nerf the Wizard too badly again. :)

Liberty's Edge

Krome wrote:

I would rather see a clear distinction and use for the sorcerer. Cleric is Divine Magic, Wizard is Arcane Magic, so make the Sorcerer Mental Magic (psionics) and make it actually a class unto itself, instead of a Wizard wannabe. Honestly, I would have been thrilled with the exclusion of the Sorcerer all together. It serves no purpose. Same EXACT spell list? Really? Exactly the same? So ummm, yeah ok. Why bother other than "flavor," that could be worked into the Wizard anyway.

**** EDIT****

And make it such that these are distinct types of magic. Why in the world does a Wizard get to use spells that are "Divine." He just gets them a level later. Duh? Ok, obviously "Divine" magic isn't really all that Divinely inspired.

ooh yess... I very much agree on this

for me the only reason to keep the sorcerers are the bloodlines... it would be interesting to have something different... but I know why they are kept there... and I am NOT refering to backwards compativility


Montalve wrote:
Internet is for seeing pr0n! we all do bad use of the interwebs!!!

*sings* The internet is really really greaaaaaaaaat...

Grand Lodge

Disenchanter wrote:
Krome wrote:
Yeah like THAT makes sense.
I wasn't suggesting it was good. But from your previous post I couldn't tell if you even knew it existed.

Actually, no I missed that all together. lol

1 to 50 of 287 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Why I am disappointed in Pathfinder Final. All Messageboards