|
You know, with all the awesome stuff that comes out of Paizo, you gotta wonder where's the bad stuff.. and if it's bad.. how bad is it? For that matter, where is it kept? Was the real reason they moved offices because they needed a larger containment unit to store all the bad? There's some mad scientists at work at Paizo and there's gotta be some crazy stuff that never makes it to print.
I'm not a fan of everything Paizo has done, although I think they have a better success ratio than most.
When it comes to adventure paths - Paizo is the best there is. Also they make great game aids.
|
Well, they really don't have alot of bad, though they have made changes to some classes that certain people may not totally agree with (cleric's loss of heavy armor), or that they didn't do enough for (bard, but I hear that is getting remedied in the Advanced Players Handbook). Sometimes they don't flesh out their chronicles locations, but the authors have been kind enough to expand on the fluff in their own blogs.
Typos, sometimes, but that isn't really an issue, unlike in a Shadowrun book where someone misplaces a few pages in it's core rulebook.
I just finished making a Bard for an upcoming campaign, and I was reasonably happy with the mechanics (and I'm a shameless optimizer).
Archery seems to be a strong pursuit for Bards now (in 3.5, damage was an issue) since damage can be improved with both Arcane Strike and Deadly Aim to give the Bard a good ranged punch. Note that Arcane Strike is especially nice for archery as they allow arrows to bypass DR/Magic, and experienced archers know how easy it is to run out of magic arrows.
Also, If you prefer melee, Dazzling Display is not only wonderfully suited to Bards (who are more about the show than the action), it also is an effective debuff for which the Cha strong Bard should be quite effective in creating - 30' radius too. I didn't take it, but only after weighing the archery vs melee option for quite a while.
In 3.5 Bardic Knowledge was either fantastic or useless depending on the DM due to some very vague rules. Now a Bard can maintain several knowledges at half the skill cost (because you can raise the knowledge only every other level and have a total bonus equal to raising it every level). Not a huge bonus - but nice.
Despite the fact that Bardic Music is more limited in duration, Maintaining as a free action is a nice bonus - as is the reduced activation times with advancing levels.
Don't forget of course the D8 HP, which will mean 1 extra HP/level on average.
And Versatile Performance, which is basically equal to 2 extra Skill Points per level (In my case, I took Oratory, allowing me to use my Perform in place of Diplomacy and Sense Motive - note that Sense Motive would normally be a Wisdom based skill - another bonus)
Add in spells (with full class level caster level), 2 good saves, Med BAB, Light Armor and Shields without Arcane spell failure - and the Bard may not be the most powerful class in the game, but is certainly not left behind.
Of Pathfinder, my biggest beef is that they kept HP random. I would like to have seen luck removed entirely from the character creation and advancement process...
Of Pathfinder, my biggest beef is that they kept HP random. I would like to have seen luck removed entirely from the character creation...
Do what I do, HP is always maximum. That way, most PCs won't die from unlucky rolls, but will die if they do something incredibly stupid.
-- david
Papa.DRB
Of Pathfinder, my biggest beef is that they kept HP random. I would like to have seen luck removed entirely from the character creation...Do what I do, HP is always maximum. That way, most PCs won't die from unlucky rolls, but will die if they do something incredibly stupid.
-- david
Papa.DRB
Yeah, I housrule myself (1/2 +1 per level - keeps CR's more accurate). However, other DM's still use random, which kind of blows when you are on the player side (sometimes you get lucky - but nevertheless, sometimes you don't)
I just figured Pathfinder would have been an opportunity for Paizo to take the force of luck out of character development.
I've always considered luck an important part of character creation. Some people are lucky, or win the genetic lottery. Some don't. Yes, it would suck to be a 3rd level wizard with 3 HP. But that provides a LOT of reason to avoid melee (and combat in general) and learn as many protective spells as possible.
But that's just my opinion.
I've always considered luck an important part of character creation. Some people are lucky, or win the genetic lottery. Some don't. Yes, it would suck to be a 3rd level wizard with 3 HP. But that provides a LOT of reason to avoid melee (and combat in general) and learn as many protective spells as possible.
But that's just my opinion.
Those 1's actually aren't as bad for a wizard, who doesn't need the HP nearly as often. (for the reasons you mentioned. Mirror image, Invisibility, Blur, levitate...a wizard can layer many defenses)
However, if I was playing a Melee Barbarian and kept rolling 1's...well, I guess I just should have my replacement character ready...perhaps another Melee Barbarian that's exactly the same in every way, except the HP.
We've all seen variations of that I think. Can't blame the player too much either, since they made the character they wanted to play, but the character was stolen from them by some bad rolls. Unfortunately, it can detract from the fun, and that is kind of the point.
I am not saying there isn't a certain interesting challenge in playing a character with low HP. However, I would prefer to make the decision to play that challenge rather than have it thrust upon me because I rolled bad.
I've always considered luck an important part of character creation. Some people are lucky, or win the genetic lottery. Some don't. Yes, it would suck to be a 3rd level wizard with 3 HP. But that provides a LOT of reason to avoid melee (and combat in general) and learn as many protective spells as possible.
But that's just my opinion.
Those 1's actually aren't as bad for a wizard, who doesn't need the HP nearly as often. (for the reasons you mentioned. Mirror image, Invisibility, Blur, levitate...a wizard can layer many defenses)
However, if I was playing a Melee Barbarian and kept rolling 1's...well, I guess I just should have my replacement character ready...perhaps another Melee Barbarian that's exactly the same in every way, except the HP.
We've all seen variations of that I think. Can't blame the player too much either, since they made the character they wanted to play, but the character was stolen from them by some bad rolls. Unfortunately, it can detract from the fun, and that is kind of the point.
I am not saying there isn't a certain interesting challenge in playing a character with low HP. However, I would prefer to make the decision to play that challenge rather than have it thrust upon me because I rolled bad.
That's kind of like saying you'd like to start with pocket aces and "make the decision" on how to play your hand, rather than play with what you were dealt.
Luck is a factor in RPGs. You can house rule whatever you want, but it's not the mechanic that's the problem.
Yeah, I housrule myself (1/2 +1 per level - keeps CR's more accurate). However, other DM's still use random, which kind of blows when you are on the player side (sometimes you get lucky - but nevertheless, sometimes you don't)
I just figured Pathfinder would have been an opportunity for Paizo to take the force of luck out of character development.
Oh yea, I know that side... An 18th level Mage 10d4 + 10(con) + whatever amount it was for levels 11-18 back in the OD&D days... He had about 30 hit points total. Other than the 4 at first level, I *never* rolled over a 2, and most were 1's.
A 3rd level Paladin (game fell apart), who had max at 1st and rolled a 1 at both 2nd and 3rd level...
That is one of the reasons I DM. I almost never have a survivable character because of low hp.
-- david
Papa.DRB
Luck is an aspect of every single thing the character does in play. There's no need to stack the deck beforehand.
I'm all for no luck in character creation, as well.
That's kind of like saying you'd like to start with pocket aces and "make the decision" on how to play your hand, rather than play with what you were dealt.Luck is a factor in RPGs. You can house rule whatever you want, but it's not the mechanic that's the problem.
Although I see your point, I disagree mainly because roleplaying is not strictly a game of win/lose like poker.
Many people play characters that have intentional flaws, perhaps tactically, perhaps personality, or mechanical. However, the build usually ensures a method of play that will make the character a worthy contributer.
In poker, you would never knowingly work an inferior hand because it would be more fun to play (or maybe you do, if so, let me know - I would LOVE to play with you!)
As for luck being part of the game, I agree it is (though I'm not big on the level of luck involved with some things - like save or die for example), however, it doesn't need to be part of character creation or development - and we have moved away from that as roleplaying games are developed.
Point buy attributes I had never seen before 3.0, and max HP at first level - I think 2e was the first time I saw that. Being able to place your rolled attributes in the attribute of choice did not exist in Basic - you rolled 3d6 in order from Str to Cha.
There is only one bit of luck remaining in Pathfinder for character creation development, and that is the HP. I would have loved to see it go officially.
the picture of the dire bear in the bestiary is really, really, really bad
|
|
Luck is an aspect of every single thing the character does in play. There's no need to stack the deck beforehand.
I'm all for no luck in character creation, as well.
What he said. Doesn't matter if I take all max hit points and 18s in every stat, if I can't roll higher than 1 at the table, luck will still make me her red-headed stepchild.
This isn't life, or 'a genetic lottery.' It's a *game.* For these few hours, we get to be heroes, not college students living off of Prince macaroni and Ramen noodles or postal workers or whatever.
I just figured Pathfinder would have been an opportunity for Paizo to take the force of luck out of character development.
Actually, I like that they kept things like they are now.
And I hate any random aspects in character generation.
The thing is, it is easy enough to change, and the way it is now allows several styles of play.
I also use average rounded up (10 becomes 6), and use purchase instead of rolling for attributes.
I don't even give full HP on 1st. Instead, you get normal HP, plus a one-time bonus equal to 1d8 (i.e. 5) plus con. Makes characters a little bit more hardy at first level, and makes it less relevant what class you start with (something I really didn't like about the 3e skill system - because your first skill points were quadrupled, a fighter/rogue could look a lot different depending on what level he took first)
If someone wants random generation, I usually discuss it. If I'm in the minority, or the GM has some dice rolling fetish, I'd go along with it. After all, it's everyone's game.
I did come up with a great method to discourage dice rolling:
In the first campaign with a particular GM, we rolled dice - and one player got 2 18s! (It was a more generous method than usual - 4d6, drop lowest, roll 7 times and drop the lowest result, and then increase one attribute by one. Not bad, but there are a lot more powerful options).
That character was quite strong (okay, it was 3.0, there was spell power involved, it was a druid, and later on, he took a PrC that was quite powerful. Verdant Lord, if you want to know).
So when we finished that campaign and started a new one, I practically begged the GM for point buy. But he insisted on the old system.
This time, around, it was ME who got the two 18s. My character was quite tough and powerful.
The next campaign used point buy :D
LOL - good story! What goes around comes around eh?
Also, I should make it clear that I'm nitpicking. Everything they changed with Pathfinder that I can think of changed for the better. I am a big fan of 3.5, and Pathfinder is simply better yet.
However, when someone implies something is perfect, the devil's advocate in me looks for flaws ;)
Pathfinder isn't perfect, but it continues moving roleplaying games in the right direction. Paizo has done a great job, but now is the time to continue looking forward keep supporting the system and collecting feedback. Likely at some point there is going to need to be an errata, and we want it to be comprehensive!
There are bad things in Pathfinder :
Dwarves are still here.
I'm not exactly thrilled with the way psionics APPEAR to be going in pathfinder,
Your comment amuses me because we haven't even had a concept meeting about how we want psionics to work, or started an outline for a psionics book. It's a blank slate at this point. :)
Your comment amuses me because we haven't even had a concept meeting about how we want psionics to work, or started an outline for a psionics book. It's a blank slate at this point. :)
Do you deny that psionics have been spoken about by senior Paizo staff on the messageboards? ;)
I've always considered luck an important part of character creation. Some people are lucky, or win the genetic lottery. Some don't. Yes, it would suck to be a 3rd level wizard with 3 HP. But that provides a LOT of reason to avoid melee (and combat in general) and learn as many protective spells as possible.
But that's just my opinion.
Point buy for PC generation so there isn't one PC with amazing stats and one with 3s in everything.
HPS either you roll or take the average player choice.
Your comment amuses me because we haven't even had a concept meeting about how we want psionics to work, or started an outline for a psionics book. It's a blank slate at this point. :)Do you deny that psionics have been spoken about by senior Paizo staff on the messageboards? ;)
No. But we've also talked about a LOT of things that aren't on our current schedule. Until they are on a schedule, it's just talk and subject to change at a whim.
|
l Mage 10d4 + 10(con) + whatever amount it was for levels 11-18 back in the OD&D days... He had about 30 hit points total. Other than the 4 at first level, I *never* rolled over a 2, and most were 1's.
My method for rolling HP involves some luck, but not nearly as much as the usual.
Every time the characters gain a level, they roll all of the HD, and add them up.
You compare that number to your old one (minus con and favored class bonuses). If the new number is higher, you take it. If it's lower, you add 1 to the old one, and then apply the normal HP bonuses.
It involves a bit more math, but also gives the level 5 barbarian who rolled all 1s and 2s to get a chance at a massive HP increase next time he level. His fighter teammate who rolled 5 10s in a row has a lower chance of getting a high increase, and in the long run it forces all of the numbers to slightly above average.
There are bad things in Pathfinder :
Dwarves are still here.
Hey! I love Dwarves! I even kind of look like one (well, an extremely tall one anyway).
It's a blank slate at this point. :)
That's a TERRIBLE psionics system! :P
|
|
I like rolling for hit points. I gives the players a good feeling when they roll well. And I recognize that it sucks to roll low on that roll in particular.
To combat that I use a house rule of my own. Since everyone else was sharing, I figured I would pop in and share mine, since it's clearly the best ;)
I let my players roll their HP at every level beyond first (which they get max as per the rules). If they roll less than half of the max they could have rolled, I give them half of max instead. If they roll better than half of max, then good for them.
love,
malkav
|
|
Re: HP/Stats/Dice rolling... It's here if you want it, gone if you don't. All rules are subject to GM/Player negotiation if you ask me. If it don't work, fix it. If it ain't broke, don't.
Re: Psionics. ROFL. People talk about the Giant Slohr on the message boards, even Paizo official posts. Doesn't mean they're going to exist or work that way. I mean seriously...
Because for a weapon as vaunted and nerdtastic as the katana, those stats are ridiculously low. How could the Highlander have been such a badass without a katana that did 3d100 damage without the ability to do critical critical hits and also grant an AC bonus and also x4 Str damage (not Str bonus... actual STRENGTH score).
That said, my next character's going to an Ogre Fighter who dual wields Katanas and chews bubble gum.
In short, the content of the posts on the messageboards are subject to change, interpretation, whimsy and editing until the book comes back on that mega-freighter from China. Then, and only then, is something official and irrevocable. (this is of course excepting things like canonical discussions such as the one re: "Is Aroden dead dead, or just mostly dead?")
On the subject of dice rolling and luck/bad luck. I am VERY much for point buy myself, which is partially because standard roll for me looks like: 11, 6, 3, 10, 13, 14. Maybe make the 14 a 17 or 16 on one of the nice days. Not all GMs let you reroll even the worst stats ever to see the face of the earth. Second I often play with people to whom 2 18's are quite standard. One of the people I known is known to (pure luck, mind you) roll characters with 4+ 18's. Not exactly fair.
You are supposed to be heroes to some extend after all. Not good when you as a player know that you'll die if you look at a battle.
Hit points I usually tend to roll, although I really liked the racial hit point option in the Beta. Thinking to house rule it back in.
As a GM I never let people go with too sucky rolls. If they roll to badly I'll either let them roll again (until they get something at least acceptable) or simply get the standard. I do tend to let people roll, and if they get lucky then good for them, however I'll not let anyone get too unlucky.
...
On the general subject, I have so far not managed to find anything bad in Pathfinder, but true, I don't have half of what I want. That's perhaps the only bad thing. They make too good things. You want it all. Being a student really doesn't give you that kind of money. Sad, sad, sad. But well, who knows, that just leaves me more to look forward to in the future.
I suppose they can't make everything perfect for everyone. But I do believe they manage to find a way that many people find really attractive (and loads of thanks for doing that).
Of course there's bad things. Somewhere. To someone. There's most likely people who do not find Pathfinder interesting at all. But well, I guess it's individual. No one can tell others what to think (or well, they can, but it's hard to make it work much beyond saying).
|
|
Stuff that'd I'd call 'bad,' since not everything in Pathfinder gives me wood.
1) I've seen some artwork that I don't care for. Does that count? There are some pictures in the Bestiary that are surprising, given that I've seen better artwork for those very beasties in APs or on covers of Pathfinder product. There's certain kinds of 'bad' that I can tolerate because it follows a specific theme or evokes a specific feel (like DiTerlizzi's art from Planescape, which I didn't like, but at least created a unifying feel), but some of the art in the Bestiary was less than awesome. I hesitate to point out specific examples, because artists are people too, and even the worst of them are producing artwork about 1000x better than I could. But try to make it through the letter 'G' without cringing at least once.
2) While I love the Barbarian rounds of Rage mechanic, I hate it for Bardic Music. I'd call that bad, especially for stuff like fascinate or the skill enhancer or blocking hostile song attacks, which should be able to be maintained for many minutes (playing music to protect your sailors from the songs of Harpies as you sail by Hullcrusher Rock isn't going to matter squat if you can only Countersong for a pathetic 36 seconds today...). A Dwarven workchanter should be able to pound his drums and recite his sonorous chanty for hours, to assist his blacksmithing or mining brethren in their tasks, without being limited to a couple of rounds of assistance a day to skills that can be accomplished in 6 seconds or less.
3) I'm not a fan of being able to beast shape into a fish that can't breath underwater. I get that fixing 'the polymorph problem' at the source by fixing the monsters so that there aren't any critters in the MM that are abusive to polymorph into, to play as monster PCs, to charm or dominate, to attract as cohorts, to summon or call or gate up with spells or to negotiate into working alongside the party with Diplomacy, would be too hard, but trying to 'fix' these problems at the level of charm spells, polymorph spells, summoning spells, the gate spell, the Leadership feat, the Diplomacy skill, etc. is just a thousand arrows completely missing the target. Watching the 'fixes' for polymorph and 'summoned creatures can't cast X spells' and whatever is like watching Inspector Clouseau bumble along, with a trail of bodies in his wake as the assassins hit everything in the area *but* him. If Efreeti (Glabrezu, Solars, etc.) performed services, and had cool powers to make that easier, like enduring creation spells, rather than granting *Wish spells* nobody would give a rat's rearend what a Candle of Invocation could do.
4) LA was a terrible verybad nogood thing. A patch at best, a clumsy awkward ugly embarassing kludge at worst. But abandoning it *without an actual solution* doesn't feel like a superior choice to me. It feels like giving up. "Yeah, that rule sucketh. And since I can't think of anything better to replace it, let's just throw up our hands and walk away."
I'll cop to not having a groundbreaking solution for this either, although creating options for 'lesser races' for PC use, augmented by race-specific feats as they level up until your Minotaur PC is all-growed up and has full Minotaur abilities (at the cost of not being as diversified as another Fighter or Babarian or Ranger of his level, because he had to spend so many feats accessing his full racial abilities), should at least have been touted as an *option,* rather than just tossing out a blanket 'Gnolls are too good for you, don't play these.'
Stuff that'd I'd call 'bad,' since not everything in Pathfinder gives me wood.
1) I've seen some artwork that I don't care for. Does that count? There are some pictures in the Bestiary that are surprising, given that I've seen better artwork for those very beasties in APs or on covers of Pathfinder product. There's certain kinds of 'bad' that I can tolerate because it follows a specific theme or evokes a specific feel (like DiTerlizzi's art from Planescape, which I didn't like, but at least created a unifying feel), but some of the art in the Bestiary was less than awesome. I hesitate to point out specific examples, because artists are people too, and even the worst of them are producing artwork about 1000x better than I could. But try to make it through the letter 'G' without cringing at least once.
2) While I love the Barbarian rounds of Rage mechanic, I hate it for Bardic Music. I'd call that bad, especially for stuff like fascinate or the skill enhancer or blocking hostile song attacks, which should be able to be maintained for many minutes (playing music to protect your sailors from the songs of Harpies as you sail by Hullcrusher Rock isn't going to matter squat if you can only Countersong for a pathetic 36 seconds today...). A Dwarven workchanter should be able to pound his drums and recite his sonorous chanty for hours, to assist his blacksmithing or mining brethren in their tasks, without being limited to a couple of rounds of assistance a day to skills that can be accomplished in 6 seconds or less.
36 seconds should give you enough time to get that wax in your ears. Since you hired a level 2 bard with 10 charisma you can't complain.
3) I'm not a fan of being able to beast shape into a fish that can't breath underwater. I get that fixing 'the polymorph problem' at the source by fixing the monsters so that there aren't any critters in the MM that are abusive to polymorph into, to play as monster PCs, to charm or dominate, to attract as cohorts, to summon or call or gate up with spells or to negotiate into working alongside the party with Diplomacy, would be too hard, but trying to 'fix' these problems at the level of charm...
technically if you read the polymorph description in the magic chapter you would realize that in pathfinder by raw you don't have to polymorph into a fish to breath water, a snake will do fine, since it has a swim speed. However most GM's would rule that while fish can breath underwater, snakes do need to come up for air, but by raw swim speed will be fine.
Creative Director
|
The "Bad" stuff is, hopefully, the parts we cut or change or fix and that never see print. That's more or less the very definition of a developer's or editor's job duties, in fact.
That said, I've got my own private list of the "bad" that made it into print. Can't catch all of it, but if we can reduce it to a tiny fraction of what it was going in... yay!
Part of that trick, is, of course, hiring authors who have a hard time writing bad stuff to begin with.
|
Creative Director
|
As for those fish...
Beast shape I is the first time you'd be able to assume the shape of a fish, and since that spell's 3rd level, and since water breathing is ALSO 3rd level, there's not really any game balance problem at all letting fish form grant the ability to breathe water. That's certainly the intent of the spell, and the best way to fix this would probably be to simply say that the spell grants the aquatic subtype when logical (and perhaps the amphibious special ability in some cases). I suspect that since the water breathing part of the rules lives in the aquatic subtype and is NOT a special quality or ability on its own that it just got missed during the spell's creation.
Actually... looking a bit deeper...
Check out the top of page 212, where the polymorph school is described.
"If the form grants a swim or burrow speed, you maintain the ability to breathe if you are swimming or burrowing."
So there ya go. Turn into a fish and you're good to go.
And if someone's already posted this observation and I just missed that post... well, yay!
the picture of the dire bear in the bestiary is really, really, really bad
+1, add the Griffon(I think Peagsus also) by the same artist. I hate to pick on artwork, but the quality is just not on par with the rest of the book.
I have been very happy with everything except the second half of the Second Darkness AP and the Cheliax Companion. The issues with SD are various and well known; Cheliax I thought just didn't have enough added value above what was already in the Campaign Setting and APs.
the picture of the dire bear in the bestiary is really, really, really bad+1, add the Griffon(I think Peagsus also) by the same artist. I hate to pick on artwork, but the quality is just not on par with the rest of the book.
The dire bear indeed does look awful. The darkmantle is also bad--it looks like the artist decided to focus on nasty bits like teeth and red eyes and just ended up with something that looks unworkable from an evolutionary perspective. Meanwhile the pseudodragon looks like it has mange, or at least hedgehog quills stuck through chihuahua flesh. If they'd looked like the firelizards on the 1st edition covers of Dragonsinger and Dragonsong, it would have been great. And the svirfneblin looks like a stoned concentration camp refugee or chemo patient.
That said, we've all been criticizing artwork back to 1st edition. Some of the original MM artwork is truly awful.
It's a blank slate at this point. :)That's a TERRIBLE psionics system! :P
I agree. The blank check system is far superior, provided you're the one getting the blank check. Last time I got to benefit from the system, I bought the entire planet of Mars.
|
I like rolling for hit points. I gives the players a good feeling when they roll well. And I recognize that it sucks to roll low on that roll in particular.
To combat that I use a house rule of my own. Since everyone else was sharing, I figured I would pop in and share mine, since it's clearly the best ;)
I let my players roll their HP at every level beyond first (which they get max as per the rules). If they roll less than half of the max they could have rolled, I give them half of max instead. If they roll better than half of max, then good for them.
love,
malkav
This is what I've been doing since 3.0...Wait, since I was running Rolemaster, actually, in the late 80s.
-Uriel
With my friends, we solved the random HP problem years ago : when you gain a level, you never roll a die for HPs, instead you gain half the die value (rounded up).
Easy math, and you stay in par with monsters (which always have half the dice value for HPs)