|
Okay so to those of you who haven't gotten the rules early this is spoilerific.
Anywho, during the playtest when the skill section rolled around, I had some beefs with the new use of heal skill that allowed you to treat wounds. The first was to try and loby for it to heal more, Jason explained why he wasn't comfortable with that and I accepted his explanation. My second beef though was how healing with the skill actually cost more than healing from magic and magic items. I did a breakdown of the costs associated and the thread is in the design forum. Anywho, it was a simple fix, drop the # of uses needed from a healers kit from 5 to 2, which I also instituted as a house rule in my home games.
Lo and behold I got the final today and sure enough, using the heal skill to treat deadly wounds takes two uses of a healers kit.
Thanks for listening Jason and to all those naysayers I talked to when this RPG was announced about how they said they'd listen but really do whatever they want, Nyah nyah nyah, I have proof you were wrong :)
Thanks for listening Jason and to all those naysayers I talked to when this RPG was announced about how they said they'd listen but really do whatever they want, Nyah nyah nyah, I have proof you were wrong :)
But what if what they wanted was to listen to us?
*head explodey*
I'm still proud that I (as far as I know) single-handedly successfully lobbied to get rid of the ability to taste germs with the Perception skill. :-P
I remember a large design thread about shields and how to improve them and I'm curious to see if any of those ideas made it in.
I don't think the "Maneuver AC" revision to Combat Maneuvers is the province of any one person, as there were several posters who contributed equally to the idea.
But I am proud of my part in it. I think it's my single favorite change, and it definitely came from the boards!
It's all over the book. Too many things to mention. One spot in particular I noticed (mostly because I'm building one right now) is Arcane Trickster. During the prestige discussion we talked about it and Jason wound up using a bunch of the ideas we discussed.
Nearly all the classes are similarly effected.
You no longer need to be evil to control undead... I'm pretty sure that one came from the boards.
Meta Magic Mastery no longer allows you to cast spells of a higher level than they would be able to, that one was discussed also.
too many things to mention.
Director of Game Design
|
Why thanks everybody,
I really did spend a lot of time combing through the boards for ideas, inspirations, and general comments about trouble spots. I fixed what I could and used any good idea that came my way to do so.
There were places where I disagreed... and we went a different way, and I will be happy to discuss these issues once GenCon is over and everybody has a book. Until then, I am going to remain silent on such issues.
That said.. enjoy. Every playtester should be proud of the work they contributed to this book.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I have to laugh at the foul-tempered posters who were either banned or withdrew themselves from the playtest. I know not EVERY one of my ideas/preferences was implemented, but I feel CERTAIN my constructive criticisms made a difference to the final product... I think any 'house rules' will only be marginal adjustments to the Pathfinder rules, not completely new subsystems (say, using CON for Concentration, or giving out (Imp/Gr.) Vital Strike for free).
After it's in my hands, and Jason is back in Seattle, I certainly will look forward to a "Q&A" of "why did this end up this way? why not that way?"
Why thanks everybody,
There were places where I disagreed... and we went a different way,
Sure, and little wonder - after all, you were the one responsible for designing the rules, for making sure they all work together and for sifting through feedback - obviously you couldn't take on all our feedback. I am sure you ultimately chose what works best.
That said, one thing which is nice about the open playtest and feedback is that it will also give those of us who did playtest the rules and provide feedback a bit of 'pride' and sense of 'ownership' (in the psychological sense) of the system if we find a bit or two derived from our personal feedback and doubtlessly many will find just that. This feeling may prove to be beneficial to the uptake and upkeep of the system.
I would like to think I am not vain, but I will still smile if some of my suggestions (e.g. the skill point instead of hit point bonus each favored class level provides) that made it from alpha playtest to the beta or were mentioned later make it to the final version. :) But I certainly won't be upset if none of them make it - ultimately it is important to make the system work in the best way possible.
The only really bad thing is that I doubt the Pathfinder RPG will make it to Slovakia any time soon and I will stay here for at least 6 more weeks before I return to the U.S....
The only comment I can think of that might have helped was a question about whether "Extra Turning" shouldn't have been relabeled "Extra Channeling". Low and behold there it is in the book.
|
|
The only comment I can think of that might have helped was a question about whether "Extra Turning" shouldn't have been relabeled "Extra Channeling". Low and behold there it is in the book.
Ooh I found another one, now for all I know I'm not the only one who talked about this issue, I don't remember anyone else bringing it up on the forums but I'm sure some paizo staffer who played a bard mentioned it too
But I, when given the opportunity on the forums would continuously comment (often off-topic) on how the BETA sheet was silly because it gave you three profession slots in skills, but only 1 perform slot and a lot of people agreed. I thought it was crazy since I never saw characters with multiple professions but had seen tons with multiple performs (even non-bards) and sure enough in the final the character sheet has two profession slots and two perform slots.
Thats not huge, but it certainly saves me from crossing out rofession and writing erform over it so I could list my skills.
Well, I've been looking over my copy that got here this morning, and I found that the "iron pot subsidy" has now been fixed: Iron is 1 sp per lb, but a 4 lb iron pot now costs 8 sp, rather than the previous scenario, where a worked pot cost less per pound than raw iron.
Of course saffron is still absurdly cheap, but at least we can still postulate giant crocuses to explain that.
Why thanks everybody,
I really did spend a lot of time combing through the boards for ideas, inspirations, and general comments about trouble spots. I fixed what I could and used any good idea that came my way to do so.
There were places where I disagreed... and we went a different way, and I will be happy to discuss these issues once GenCon is over and everybody has a book. Until then, I am going to remain silent on such issues.
That said.. enjoy. Every playtester should be proud of the work they contributed to this book.
It was a blast. Thanks for the chance to help out in making the game system I'll probably be playing for the next 5+ years.
It was not I, but a player of mine (paladin) who complained about a paladin's god abandoning him if he failed to terminate a creature (on the first try, or even after a number of rounds) with a smite.
I notice the final Pathfinder Paladin has a god who's in it for the long haul. Smite sticks around until that evil is smote!
I have it on good authority that the Paizo people listen to my thoughts and spy on my dreams.
Is THAT why they have insomnia? :)
I have it on good authority that the Paizo people listen to my thoughts and spy on my dreams.
Wait, zombies dream? That's as screwed up as finding out that being dead hurts . . .
Hey you're a big Liar Mc.Liarpants. You said you'd rip seven random pages out of my book and you never did!stuff
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Just wait until you meet him IRL again. Then he'll rip out seven pages at random from your beloved first printing PRPG Core Rulebook. ;-)
|
|
Just wait until you meet him IRL again. Then he'll rip out seven pages at random from your beloved first printing PRPG Core Rulebook. ;-)Hey you're a big Liar Mc.Liarpants. You said you'd rip seven random pages out of my book and you never did!stuff
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Meet him IRL again? I never knew I met him before, wait a minute, you aren't thinking I sing the song "I know you" are you, cause if thats so you're waaay off :)
Listen to some, ignored others.
Fixed some classes, broke others.
Oh well disappointing is all I can say in my first hour reading it.
You no longer need to be evil to control undead... I'm pretty sure that one came from the boards.
Holy crap, and here I thought the industry was doomed to view undead as evil icky monsters that can never do and good or have some form of redemption (granted some are...). I'm glad to hear that the stance on undead control is neutral. I've always viewed undead (the mindless ones that is) as tools/weapons. As the saying goes, "Undead don't kill people, their controllers do." ;)
Listen to some, ignored others.
Fixed some classes, broke others.
Oh well disappointing is all I can say in my first hour reading it.
Yeah but you are never happy anyways.
|
I have it on good authority that the Paizo people listen to my thoughts and spy on my dreams.Wait, zombies dream? That's as screwed up as finding out that being dead hurts . . .
Yes, I dream. I dream of a world where the heartbeat challenged are no longer looked upon as undead monstrosities or unholy abominations, good only for providing so-called heroes with experience points. I dream of a world where beings aren't considered "evil" based solely on their connection to a particular type of life-destroying energy. A world where the "cool thing" about a character class isn't how much damage they can do to the undead. A world where I can be free to meet new and interesting people, then gnaw their skulls open and devour their brains.
Yes, I dream. I dream of a world where the heartbeat challenged are no longer looked upon as undead monstrosities or unholy abominations, good only for providing so-called heroes with experience points. I dream of a world where beings aren't considered "evil" based solely on their connection to a particular type of life-destroying energy. A world where the "cool thing" about a character class isn't how much damage they can do to the undead. A world where I can be free to meet new and interesting people, then gnaw their skulls open and devour their brains.
Sir, we've run the numbers and it looks like everything you're saying is polling well, with the exception of gnawing open skulls and devouring brains. At that point we lose about 99.995% of all voters. And you wouldn't want to meet the 0.005% who are still applauding.
Our focus groups suggest that we can win this thing if you change "gnaw their skulls" to "shake their hands" and "devour their brains" to "listen to their stories." It'll be kind of like a code. Pardon me if I don't shake your hand ...
Yeah but you are never happy anyways.Listen to some, ignored others.
Fixed some classes, broke others.
Oh well disappointing is all I can say in my first hour reading it.
Well not since it became obvious they favored melee over casters and enjoyed kicking clerics around in this edition.
Well not since it became obvious they favored melee over casters and enjoyed kicking clerics around in this edition.
----
Seriously, I don't think they actually enjoyed taking the features away. They thought it was necessary, and probably predicted this reaction from people, then did it anyway. This is upsetting to you,I'm sorry for that, but there's no need for hyperbole.
Well not since it became obvious they favored melee over casters and enjoyed kicking clerics around in this edition.
----
Seriously, I don't think they actually enjoyed taking the features away. They thought it was necessary, and probably predicted this reaction from people, then did it anyway. This is upsetting to you,I'm sorry for that, but there's no need for hyperbole.
Prehaps but what explains the change to wearing of heavy armor? Is it honestly because that one feat taken away now brings complete balance to the class? Is that really the reason? I don't believe it, I believe they did it to make sure everyone sees they kicked the cleric down. It's more symbolic then effective since as has been pointed out it is easy to regain just costs a feat.
|
Prehaps but what explains the change to wearing of heavy armor? Is it honestly because that one feat taken away now brings complete balance to the class? Is that really the reason? I don't believe it, I believe they did it to make sure everyone sees they kicked the cleric down. It's more symbolic then effective since as has been pointed out it is easy to regain just costs a feat.
Well not since it became obvious they favored melee over casters and enjoyed kicking clerics around in this edition.
----
Seriously, I don't think they actually enjoyed taking the features away. They thought it was necessary, and probably predicted this reaction from people, then did it anyway. This is upsetting to you,I'm sorry for that, but there's no need for hyperbole.
If the change was really more symbolic than effective, why are you so up-in-arms about it? Seriously, you can't have it both ways. You admit that the change was fairly minor, effectively, so go look at all the new abilities and bonuses that clerics got and quit claiming that clerics got nerfed to oblivion.
Prehaps but what explains the change to wearing of heavy armor? Is it honestly because that one feat taken away now brings complete balance to the class? Is that really the reason? I don't believe it, I believe they did it to make sure everyone sees they kicked the cleric down. It's more symbolic then effective since as has been pointed out it is easy to regain just costs a feat.
I think you'll have to hear it from Jason. I don't know. It doesn't make that much sense to me, but it also is very simple to fix in my own games if the players take issue with it.
I bet when you eventually hear his rationale, you will still be unsatisfied with the change. Try to see the forest for the trees though. If you were enjoying any of the changes up until this one, use PFRPG as an optional rules manual for 3.5. It's certainly useful in that regard.
In the end, it's one feat. Everyone is going to find something in the book that pisses them off, that's inevitable. You just found your thing. I hope that there is more to like than dislike, and if not, your 3.5 library retains even more value.
I honor your right to dislike this change. I encourage you not to make it a personal attack, however.
If the change was really more symbolic than effective, why are you so up-in-arms about it? Seriously, you can't have it both ways. You admit that the change was fairly minor, effectively, so go look at all the new abilities and bonuses that clerics got and quit claiming that clerics got nerfed to oblivion.
He's upset because it burns!
C'mon you can't relate?
I remember playing a 10th level Red Wizard in 3.0 when 3.5 came out. They changed my Spell Save DC bonus to a caster level bonus. I was livid!
What came over me could best be described as temporary insanity.
I'm not saying Thurgon has a right to make personal insults or take things completely out of control, but a little fire-spitting is well within his right. Remember this when you stumble upon a rule that you don't care for. Sometimes we just need to blow off steam.
If the change was really more symbolic than effective, why are you so up-in-arms about it? Seriously, you can't have it both ways. You admit that the change was fairly minor, effectively, so go look at all the new abilities and bonuses that clerics got and quit claiming that clerics got nerfed to oblivion.
My issue is if it's so minor, why do it? Do you seriously think taking one feat away from the cleric brings it into complete balance with the other core classes? If it really didn't do anything, well why do it at all? The class took it on the chin in many ways in pathfinder, I am ok with most (still not happy with DC). But this to me is just a silly slap that adds no balance. Did the cleric really need a slap for no reason that doesn't bring balance in any appricable way?
My issue is if it's so minor, why do it? Do you seriously think taking one feat away from the cleric brings it into complete balance with the other core classes? If it really didn't do anything, well why do it at all? The class took it on the chin in many ways in pathfinder, I am ok with most (still not happy with DC). But this to me is just a silly slap that adds no balance. Did the cleric really need a slap for no reason that doesn't bring balance in any appricable way?
I can't explain why. And when Jason does, you are probably still going to disagree.
All I can offer is my sympathies. I respect you for discussing it rather than giving us one of those "I QUIT PATHFINDER FOREVER" threads.
|
|
If the change was really more symbolic than effective, why are you so up-in-arms about it? Seriously, you can't have it both ways. You admit that the change was fairly minor, effectively, so go look at all the new abilities and bonuses that clerics got and quit claiming that clerics got nerfed to oblivion.He's upset because it burns!
C'mon you can't relate?
I remember playing a 10th level Red Wizard in 3.0 when 3.5 came out. They changed my Spell Save DC bonus to a caster level bonus. I was livid!
What came over me could best be described as temporary insanity.
I'm not saying Thurgon has a right to make personal insults or take things completely out of control, but a little fire-spitting is well within his right. Remember this when you stumble upon a rule that you don't care for. Sometimes we just need to blow off steam.
No, I get it. I'm still completely baffled that monks don't get full BAB and have to devise this wonky mechanic where they have full BAB most of the time but can't list it on their character sheet as such. So I questioned the logic behind it, and when I was satisfied, or got to the point where I knew the reasons they did it but don't agree with them, I made the decision to houserule it in my own games and moved on. I don't go around the boards spouting hyperbole about how monks suck now and that Jason doesn't listen to me because I'm upset about that one single rule.
|
|
My issue is if it's so minor, why do it? Do you seriously think taking one feat away from the cleric brings it into complete balance with the other core classes? If it really didn't do anything, well why do it at all? The class took it on the chin in many ways in pathfinder, I am ok with most (still not happy with DC). But this to me is just a silly slap that adds no balance. Did the cleric really need a slap for no reason that doesn't bring balance in any appricable way?
If the change was really more symbolic than effective, why are you so up-in-arms about it? Seriously, you can't have it both ways. You admit that the change was fairly minor, effectively, so go look at all the new abilities and bonuses that clerics got and quit claiming that clerics got nerfed to oblivion.
Can we *not* drag the 'cleric nerf' into a thread that is talking about all the stuff Jason changed as a result of listening to the fans? There is already a thread for the cleric stuff, no need to drag it in here too.
|
|
Seriously, can everyone drop the discussion on clerics armor. Because the only way that it relates to this thread is that it was something some people on the boards were asking for and was therefor more proof that Jason listened. Whether it was good or bad has nothing to do with this discussion. Same goes for any changes people don't like, this is not the thread for it. This is the thread to either thank Jason for listening or post specific examples that you know of where he listened.
From the previews I had proof Jason listened to 3 points I championed. 1. Medium armor proficiency for rangers. 2. Level - 3 spell casting for paladins and rangers. 3. Mithral armor not giving a pretend armor proficiency. There were a couple of areas where he didn't agree with how I felt but I still feel he listened to my argument.
So I am very happy with how it turned out.
AFAIK (book not here yet), he made mithril overcome DR X/silver, which was my suggestion. That's always going to be "my rule."
Can we *not* drag the 'cleric nerf' into a thread that is talking about all the stuff Jason changed as a result of listening to the fans? There is already a thread for the cleric stuff, no need to drag it in here too.My issue is if it's so minor, why do it? Do you seriously think taking one feat away from the cleric brings it into complete balance with the other core classes? If it really didn't do anything, well why do it at all? The class took it on the chin in many ways in pathfinder, I am ok with most (still not happy with DC). But this to me is just a silly slap that adds no balance. Did the cleric really need a slap for no reason that doesn't bring balance in any appricable way?
If the change was really more symbolic than effective, why are you so up-in-arms about it? Seriously, you can't have it both ways. You admit that the change was fairly minor, effectively, so go look at all the new abilities and bonuses that clerics got and quit claiming that clerics got nerfed to oblivion.
The thread is about how Jason listened.
I don't see it as off topic to point out listen is relative. Listen to some, not to others is a fair point. And to illustrate that point I bring in a specific rules change where some got what they wanted and can claim he listened and others can point to it and say he didn’t listen to them. His listening was selective, do you really debate that point?
I’ll be happy to bring it into any topic it fits in. I will attempt to not do so in threads it doesn’t belong. As long as its on topic and civil why does it bother you so much that I bring it up? At least I am not demanding people not post their thoughts on the thread’s stated topic as others seem determined to do.
The thread is about how Jason listened.I don't see it as off topic to point out listen is relative. Listen to some, not to others is a fair point. And to illustrate that point I bring in a specific rules change where some got what they wanted and can claim he listened and others can point to it and say he didn’t listen to them. His listening was selective, do you really debate that point?
No, it's not a fair point. He can listen to you and still disagree with you. He was selective, yes, because he had to make choices when it came to putting the game in final form. But does that mean he selectively listened? No. It means he didn't follow everyone's advice... which would have been impossible.