Thank you for the sockpuppet. It bringed to me a smile, I was sad thinking to Aleena.
Cursed, cursed Bargle...
Wait, don't you know ? She was re-published into the Granduchy of Karameikos Gazetteer and later products (either retconning the 'death' or assuming she was successfully raised).
Have a look at her troubled story (and various retconning) HERE.
In my old 'game continuity', she was raised by her uncle (Cleric 9th, if I'm not mistaken) and married the 'unnamed Fighter' of the Intro adventure (I think I found a suitable name/character correspondence among some of the important NPCs of Threshold). Of course, the Mystara Campaign Setting me and my friends played back then was HEAVILY homebrewed...
Millions of people play Tauren in WoW, because it's fun. Also, if people didn't like playing totally nonhuman things in fantasy, World of Darkness wouldn't be selling a bajillion copies for over a decade. So, please, think before you start throwing tired rhetoric and buzzwords in the face of proven fact. It doesn't make you look clever, just old and stubborn.This isn't WoW.
This isn't WoD.This is PFRPG. If you want taht stuff, go play that.
Keep your damned chocolate outta my peanutbutter.
Until they add that stuff to PFRPG, and then you're wrong, and everyone but you is happy, which makes the world a better place.
:D
|
If you want wacky races not covered by the Core Rules, then there are plenty of 3PP products that you can use. And the fun thing about Pathfinder keeping compatibility with 3.X is that you can look over the TONS of 3PP products put out for that to expand your game as well.
PFRPG
Remarkable Races—Pathway to Adventure: Compendium of Unusual PC Races
Races of Obsidian Twilight
d20/OGL
|
Remarkable Races—Pathway to Adventure: Compendium of Unusual PC Races
I recommend the Squole, personally. Jello-mold people FTW.
Thank you for the sockpuppet. It bringed to me a smile, I was sad thinking to Aleena.
Cursed, cursed Bargle...
Wait, don't you know ? She was re-published into the Granduchy of Karameikos Gazetteer and later products (either retconning the 'death' or assuming she was successfully raised).
Have a look at her troubled story (and various retconning) HERE.
In my old 'game continuity', she was raised by her uncle (Cleric 9th, if I'm not mistaken) and married the 'unnamed Fighter' of the Intro adventure (I think I found a suitable name/character correspondence among some of the important NPCs of Threshold). Of course, the Mystara Campaign Setting me and my friends played back then was HEAVILY homebrewed...
Interesting! Tank you. This does not makes Bargle less of a J****ss, but Dungeon Magazine already addressed it, IIRC...
Worst thing about Pathfinder? The dismissive attitude of the developers regarding errata and faq subjects.
A prominent Paizonite recently stated "an rpg is not computer code, GM's are smart, they'll figure it out..." completely dismissing a poorly worded section in a recently released Paizo product. When this designer was called out about how he himself, on his own personal blog, has a rant about how people who are creating commercial products should pay close attention to the mechanics of the system and be sure to use the correct terminology, because the wording matters, he dismissed that too.
This is one of the things that concerns me most about PFRPG. The fact that the designers do not seem to have a desire or interest in simplifying the system or cleaning up the inconsistencies and poorly worded legacy artifacts from previous generations. Instead they would rather continue to release product after product with more and more new layers of poorly worded mechanics and then never release adequate errata or clarifications for the previously released products. Then, when the fan-base begins to get themselves in a tizzy about the complete lack of any sort of substantive errata they complain about how busy they are.
This is my issue.
Millions of people play Tauren in WoW, because it's fun. Also, if people didn't like playing totally nonhuman things in fantasy, World of Darkness wouldn't be selling a bajillion copies for over a decade. So, please, think before you start throwing tired rhetoric and buzzwords in the face of proven fact. It doesn't make you look clever, just old and stubborn.This isn't WoW.
This isn't WoD.This is PFRPG. If you want taht stuff, go play that.
Keep your damned chocolate outta my peanutbutter.Until they add that stuff to PFRPG, and then you're wrong, and everyone but you is happy, which makes the world a better place.
:D
Kinda missing my point, but OK.
If you want furries in your game, make furries and put em in your game.
Paizo doesn't need to publish every need and want of it's customers.
|
Armor that works differently, AC that works differently, monsters with new types of abilities, magic that works as skills or talents or something totally new, something besides arcane and divine magic (psionics, please? ...or maybe something chi-based?), new rules for hit points (for something inbetween "I'm fine" and "omg dying!"), plus some kind of truly effective drawback system.
That's where my comment about Chevys and Hondas came from. If you want that many changes to core mechanics, then you need a new system other than d20.
If you want furries in your game, make furries and put em in your game. Paizo doesn't need to publish every need and want of it's customers.
Or rather, they don't need to cater to a tiny minority with fringe desires who are probably better off with a different game.
Don't advocate for drastic changes in a just-released game system - move on instead.
A prominent Paizonite recently stated "an rpg is not computer code, GM's are smart, they'll figure it out..." completely dismissing a poorly worded section in a recently released Paizo product. When this designer was called out about how he himself, on his own personal blog, has a rant about how people who are creating commercial products should pay close attention to the mechanics of the system and be sure to use the correct terminology, because the wording matters, he dismissed that too.
It's that guy's thing, and he's done it for years. I was disappointed he ended up at Paizo. (It's pretty annoying, actually, because he keeps showing up to things I like and then hatchet-jobbing 'em. I liked FR - he toodles in there and hatchets it up. I move on to Paizo and its APs, and look who shows up again. STOP. IT. I thought the tin-foil hat I'm wearing would keep him away.) ;)
:D :D :D
OP: What do you dislike about A?
Poster 1: I dislike X.
Poster 2: If you don't like X, then you shouldn't be playing A.
FYI, poster 2, you are off topic.
OP: What do you dislike about A?
Poster 1: I dislike X.Poster 2: If you don't like X, then you shouldn't be playing A.
FYI, poster 2, you are off topic.
In certain cases this is correct.
If it went more like:
OP: What do you dislike about A?
Poster 1: Everything. I wish they had done everything different, and the stuff I do like they didn't go far enough...etc.
Poster 2: If you don't like A, then why on Earth are you playing A?
Then it's not off-topic.
|
I recommend the Squole, personally. Jello-mold people FTW.
Remarkable Races—Pathway to Adventure: Compendium of Unusual PC Races
O_o
This opens up a whole can of worms for the inevitable bloom of variant subspecies every D&D race must undergo. The flighty, spacy magic-lovin' jello with bits of fruit subtype, the evil jello vodka shot underdark dwellers, the aquatic jello with marshmallows (for bouyancy) variant, etc.Looking forward to this much more than a Tauren rehash. :D
|
|
OP: What do you dislike about A?
Poster 1: I dislike X.Poster 2: If you don't like X, then you shouldn't be playing A.
FYI, poster 2, you are off topic.
In certain cases this is correct.
If it went more like:
OP: What do you dislike about A?
Poster 1: Everything. I wish they had done everything different, and the stuff I do like they didn't go far enough...etc.Poster 2: If you don't like A, then why on Earth are you playing A?
Then it's not off-topic.
+1
It's that guy's thing, and he's done it for years. I was disappointed he ended up at Paizo. (It's pretty annoying, actually, because he keeps showing up to things I like and then hatchet-jobbing 'em. I liked FR - he toodles in there and hatchets it up. I move on to Paizo and its APs, and look who shows up again. STOP. IT. I thought the tin-foil hat I'm wearing would keep him away.) ;)
I'm cautiously optimistic that the addition of SRM to the mix might help clean some of this up. While I am not a fan of most of 4E, I am a massive fan of the consistency and clarity of the system. That system is rock solid and the designers had/have an appreciation for clarity and consistency. I don't get that impression from PFRPG.
Worst thing about Pathfinder? The dismissive attitude of the developers regarding errata and faq subjects.
I apologize for not thinking that a rule that refers to "spells with the water type" rather than "spells with the water description" is significant errata or worthy of a FAQ entry.
In my response to you pointing out this issue, I even said In other words, I agreed with you that technically that text is incorrect. But still feel that the usage of the incorrect term isn't a significant problem because you know what the rule is trying to say. And you agreed with me, you said, (Emphasis mine.)
Now you're in this thread saying that section is "poorly worded" and saying that I'm "dismissing" its significance as an errata or FAQ item. I had four posts in that thread, showing that I wasn't dismissing it at all. Again, I agreed with you that they should be corrected. I even sent an email to Jason about it. I just happen to disagree with you about whether this is a FAQ issue.
FAQ means "frequently asked questions." How many people have posted the following question (or something like it)?
Answer: Zero, as far as I can tell. As of right now, your post has been hit twice by the FAQ flag. Twice.
So is this rule issue actually unclear, or can the reader tell that it actually means "spells with the water descriptor"? Is this rule issue enough of a problem that we actually need to create a FAQ item for it?
I have given this rule issue a lot more time than many other issues that other players would consider "urgent" based on number of FAQ-flags. I spend a couple hours a week looking through the FAQ-flagged items and evaluating whether or not they're really an issue. And that's in addition to developing a lot of text each day and working on RPG Superstar (not only am I a judge, I'm the guy who put together the schedule, the Rules, and the FAQ for the competition since 2008). So... do you really think I'm being "dismissive" of this rule issue (which I agreed that it should be reworded in order to be 100% correct in accordance with the rules technology)?
I check the boards at work. I check the boards at night when I go home. I was reading the boards at 4 a.m. last night after getting home from a midnight showing of Harry Potter. Do you really think I'm dismissive of this community or what its members have to say?
Oh snap.
Oh snap.At least it wasn't "full phasers at point-blank range."
I'm a lot nastier when I'm irritated.
Nice restraint, Sean.
Oh don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the post.
Anyone who'd read that other thread knew what was up, imho.Realisticly, it's foolish to call out a dev and expect nothing.
This brings up an interesting point - The worst thing about Pathfinder is that it is based on a FANTASTIC but heavily flawed source - AD&D.
AD&D is all over the map. Nothing is balanced in terms of the way we use the term today. Based on all of the leveling restrictions, I also think that most of the game play was intended to take place up to about 10-12 level. Higher level play brings out the fundamental limits of a 1-20 (d20) spread and other limited ranges. It also allows players a dizzying array of options that requires a GM to place restrictions that some would view as arbitrary.
With that said, it is the game I want to play, even when presented with more balanced, more refined options. I guess playing in a time when DMs were expected to make some stuff up, bend rules to fit, and much happened behind the screen gives me a different view about the game then I might if I were introduced without previous experience with older additions.
vvv Enevhar -you could always write a letter to "Ask the Sage" HA! vvv
What I dislike about PRPG is the same thing I dislike about most any other rpg in this age of the internet. Too many players and DMs/GMs expect every little thing to be addressed by the publishers and cannot seem to make their own house rules any more or do not have the capability to play in any way other than exactly how the rules are written. I started playing when 1st Ed AD&D was still new and if something did not work the way the rules seemed to say it should, then our gaming group got together and discussed it and made our own ruling to use. Whatever happened to independent thinking?
Whatever happened to independent thinking?
Maybe people are just less willing to take responsibility of their own games?
To be fair I can see people wanting clarity for Society / RPGA style games. But for everyone else not so much. And even if something isnt clear and the person JUST NEEDS TO HAVE AN ANSWER! they can always come here or ask the devs directly?
Listen, people knew that this game was meant to be backward compatible and built off of the 3.5 framework. Jason and co. were very clear and open about that. Pathfinder also had a year long open playtest where people could give input on developing the game.
For ideas that weren't used the devs usually were able to explain why they weren't used or why a rule was changed or why it wasn't changed. To lay into the game at this point just seems like people in this thread (not all of you mind you but more than enough) are complaining about a bowl of Lucky Charms not being a a slab of medium well prepared steak from Peter Lugers.
When you knew full well you were pouring a bowl of Lucky Charms from the get go.
Are there issues? Sure. There are issues in every game. Are there enough issues to warrant a pile on 10 page thread? Apparently, but it just seems like alot of the issues that people had with 3.5 in general. If you knew the issues were there and you didnt like them? Either adjust for your own table or play another game. See? AWESOME. It works out for everyone. The game CANT be all things to all players and just because there's something that drives you crazy doesn't mean it drives someone else crazy too. The rules are a baseline for you as a GM/Player to adjust for your table as you see fit. If it's too much for you to do that then honestly you need to be playing another game that is closer to what you what for enjoyment.
What I dislike about PRPG is the same thing I dislike about most any other rpg in this age of the internet. Too many players and DMs/GMs expect every little thing to be addressed by the publishers and cannot seem to make their own house rules any more or do not have the capability to play in any way other than exactly how the rules are written. I started playing when 1st Ed AD&D was still new and if something did not work the way the rules seemed to say it should, then our gaming group got together and discussed it and made our own ruling to use. Whatever happened to independent thinking?
People started to expect more from a product they paid for; since gaming wasn't in its infancy anymore, people expect to be forced to do less in the way of house rules because something in the RAW is wrong.
Once upon a time cars didn't have power steering or air conditioning or heated seats or navigation systems either. Let's not enshrine the days before those features as something that's great because of their lack.
|
|
My biggest issues are:
1.) Counterspelling still sucks donkey balls. I really want it as an immediate action.
2.) APG isn't in PRD yet. I really really want it in some easy-to-reference form. Please.
3.) Companion line is wonky. It's confused, dazed, entangled and not sure which direction it's going.
4.) Ultimate Magic comes out before Ultimate Combat, but I guess this simply proves that magic sells.
|
People started to expect more from a product they paid for; since gaming wasn't in its infancy anymore, people expect to be forced to do less in the way of house rules because something in the RAW is wrong.Once upon a time cars didn't have power steering or air conditioning or heated seats or navigation systems either. Let's not enshrine the days before those features as something that's great because of their lack.
Sorry, over-codification does not equal better. It just means you have made effort (failed) to rule on everything - when in reality have caused more problems then if it was left more open.
Try to stop with the false comparisons between editions - 3.0/3.5 was not evolved, just different. Some would even argue worse than earlier editions.
Sorry, over-codification does not equal better. It just means you have made effort (failed) to rule on everything - when in reality have caused more problems then if it was left more open.
Try to stop with the false comparisons between editions - 3.0/3.5 was not evolved, just different. Some would even argue worse than earlier editions.
I didn't say anything about editions or even specific games. That's all you.
I'm saying we have different expectations of a game than 30 years ago.
(But, for the record, to argue that earlier editions are better you have to ignore an awful lot of their faults and mostly look at them with rose-colored glasses. Not that 3.X doesn't introduce new faults.)
|
|
I didn't say anything about editions or even specific games. That's all you.
I'm saying we have different expectations of a game than 30 years ago.
(But, for the record, to argue that earlier editions are better you have to ignore an awful lot of their faults and mostly look at them with rose-colored glasses. Not that 3.X doesn't introduce new faults.)
We were on the subject of D&D, so if you are talking about infancy vs. newer games the assumption is that we are still talking about D&D. And if not, then the different incarnations of D&D still applies to your broad "gaming in general" comment.
People started to expect more from a product they paid for; since gaming wasn't in its infancy anymore, people expect to be forced to do less in the way of house rules because something in the RAW is wrong.
Maybe you were thinking of Call of Cthulhu?
And another solid "No" on the rose-colored glasses bilge.
Those earlier editions did have faults; they also had the excuse of being part of the first incarnations of gaming and gaming in its infancy. Wtf is 3.0/3.5's excuse?
3.0/3.5 introduced faults which effectively broke the game - as in unbalanced and unplayable without severe house rules and holding your nose. An inexhaustible list of problems which did not exist with earlier editions – it isn’t looking at history with rose colored glasses, just looking at the math and default balance issues
For me, the only bad thing is the
"cutting yourself out of the t'rex's stomach after he swallowed you and then the wound closes through muscular action" dealyo.
I flippin hate it, man.
3.0/3.5 introduced faults which effectively broke the game - as in unbalanced and unplayable without severe house rules and holding your nose. An inexhaustible list of problems which did not exist with earlier editions – it isn’t looking at history with rose colored glasses, just looking at the math and default balance issues
That's an interesting position, but certainly holds no water in my experience.
AFAIC, 3.x is the only edition that I found reasonably playable - and I only felt like I needed to add a modicum of house rules compared with other games I've tried. Conversely, after some years of playing it (almost 8 years) I found 2e almost completely unplayable without building an almost complete second PHB for our group... and still holding our nose. The problems not only existed in previous editions, but required more work, discussion, analysis, and changes again because of how poorly put together it was.
Obviously, YMMV.
|
|
That's an interesting position, but certainly holds no water in my experience.
AFAIC, 3.x is the only edition that I found reasonably playable - and I only felt like I needed to add a modicum of house rules compared with other games I've tried. Conversely, after some years of playing it (almost 8 years) I found 2e almost completely unplayable without building an almost complete second PHB for our group... and still holding our nose. The problems not only existed in previous editions, but required more work, discussion, analysis, and changes again because of how poorly put together it was.
Obviously, YMMV.
Couldn't disagree with you more.
Check out the spell DC system for 3.0/3.5, that and the disparity in attributes and values that is CORE design and mainstay broken-ass feature of this modern art masterpiece.
Utter trash and a travesty that no one was watching the ball when they designed the system.
|
|
I check the boards at work. I check the boards at night when I go home. I was reading the boards at 4 a.m. last night after getting home from a midnight showing of Harry Potter. Do you really think I'm dismissive of this community or what its members have to say?
You weren't talking to me, but I don't think so, no.
I've wanted Stealth rules clarification for a long time, now, but you guys (and, I suppose, gals) have made your position clear on that topic, and I'm fine with it. I still think it's a big gap to fill, and doing so is definitely more work than I want to do as a GM, but given the body of rules as a whole, I love this game and I'll take the good with (what I perceive to be) the bad.
The name of the series should have been "Severus Snape", by the way.
Sectumsempra!
Are we really having a 2E vs. 3.5 edition war? :P
Check out the spell DC system for 3.0/3.5, that and the disparity in attributes and values that is CORE design and mainstay broken-ass feature of this modern art masterpiece.
Sure. Do you think there aren't ten things in 2E that are at least as bad of ideas?
|
|
Sure. Do you think there aren't ten things in 2E that are at least as bad of ideas?Check out the spell DC system for 3.0/3.5, that and the disparity in attributes and values that is CORE design and mainstay broken-ass feature of this modern art masterpiece.
No, not as a core mechanic which affects some classes greater than others.
If they were bad ideas then they were bad because a d20 system is just bad in general. Using an AC system to hit is bad in general. No skill system = bad, and you can go on.Of course most of these transitioned over into 3.0 so that doesn't help your argument.
As a single core mechanic - and I mean math/design foundation here not some single stupid rule - I would say no. 1st, 2nd, basic, had less mechanical flaws that 3.0/3.5 has. The DC and attribute disparity is really unforgiving.
I keep wanting to add to this thread, but I don't really have anything to complain about. My 15th level game is still going strong, and as far as I can tell high level just keeps getting more awesome. The martial characters in my game kick ass. The spell casters in my game kick ass. Everyone has fun.
The thing I love about Pathfinder is that since it is still mostly d20 based I can adapt many of the interesting variants that I prefer into the game easily. Stuff from places like Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, Book of Experimental Might, Unearthed Arcana, Green Ronin's Advanced Guides, etc.
Maybe its because I'm the GM so I get to decide what we house rule.
I miss backstab... (;
No, not as a core mechanic which affects some classes greater than others.
If they were bad ideas then they were bad because a d20 system is just bad in general. Using an AC system to hit is bad in general. No skill system = bad, and you can go on.
Of course most of these transitioned over into 3.0 so that doesn't help your argument.
Off the top of my head I give you:
1E/2E's version of multiclassing
1E/2E's Dualclassing
1E/2E's version of attributes (1E's is mostly worse here -- and I'm not saying that 3E's version is good, but better)
1E's stupid hit charts
2E's (was it in 1E too? I can't remember) mechanic of giving out extra XP for high stats
1E's and to a lesser extent 2E's scheme of challenging for levels for some classes -- you definitely can't say that some classes having a half and half chance of not being able to gain a level and going back to the start of the previous and other classes not having to do that doesn't horribly affect some classes more greatly than others
2E's version of item creation, wherein it required a high-level wizard to burn permanent CON to make a +1 sword, leading one to wonder why +1 swords existed at all
I could go on a long time, depending on what you're willing to call a core mechanic or not. Like, you could say that 2E's implementation of the Stoneskin spell isn't a core mechanic, but right there it lets a 7th level wizard be completely impervious to a 100th level fighter that manages to utterly surprise him, at least for a round or two -- not a core mechanic per se but its implications are certainly to distort the balance of the two classes immensely.
Don't get me wrong -- I loved those games in their day, and I played the hell out of those games in their day... but by the time each succeeding edition rolled around, the huge fault lines in each were too apparent to keep playing the game anymore. There are only so many times you can play 2E campaigns where literally every PC is a human dual-classed fighter->wizard, possibly with a little cleric in the middle.
|
|
Plenty of false dilemmas here -
1E/2E's version of multiclassing
Superior to 3.0/3.5 where you always feel sub par with the rest of the party. That or the reverse where you plot out each level exactly to get the best mix of classes and Prcs to attain the utter mess of stupid.
Core multi-class in 1e/2e > to 3e1E/2E's Dualclassing
I see this one get tossed around by earlier edition detractors, usually by people who really didn't understand how this works.
You started a class, got to X level then started a new class (humans only). You needed at least a 15 in the prime stat for the new class. The whole time you are in your new class - starting at level 1 - you cannot use any of the old classes abilities, spell, powers. If you did you got NO XP FOR THE ADVENTURE. So you could be a 5th level fighter and 1st level wizard - you use your old classes attacks, saves weapon proficiencies...anything short of hit points you got nothing. You couldn't use older class abilities till your new class surpassed the old one. While other players you leveling up normally.Yeah, most people who cite this as broken never played it properly or never used all the limitations.
1E/2E's version of attributes (1E's is mostly worse here -- and I'm not saying that 3E's version is good, but better)
If I am comparing foundation vs. foundation features of the different games 1st/2nd basic all beat 3rd ed. The older edition stats didn't break the game - as in exploding DCs for spells.
No contest.1E's stupid hit charts
2E's (was it in 1E too? I can't remember) mechanic of giving out extra XP for high stats
Really?
The first no biggie, the second -well you rolled your stats and they never really went up. The game rewarded and advanced PCs with the better attributes - similar to life I suppose.......1E's and to a lesser extent 2E's scheme of challenging for levels for some classes -- you definitely can't say that some classes having a half and half chance of not being able to gain a level and going back to the start of the previous and other classes not having to do that doesn't horribly affect some classes more greatly than others
I miss this, much better for thieves, assassins, druids and monks than the flavorless $!%^ offerings of 3rd.
2E's version of item creation, wherein it required a high-level wizard to burn permanent CON to make a +1 sword, leading one to wonder why +1 swords existed at all
Vs. the item economy of 3rd edition? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
And the stoneskin issue? Fighters got multiple attacks with no drawbacks, anyone could throw 3 darts a round. Stoneskin went away per hit. Was a non-issue spell.
Also your 4th fighter/5th Magic user was competing with 7th* level single classed PCs. I don't really see the balance issues there. You get an MU with high hp and crappy spells and lower saves (overall) then his contemporaries.
*fixed
Stuff.
You also forgot how two-handed weapon style was useless when compared to sword'n'board and two-weapon fighting styles. To make two-handed weapon style useful, you needed to HOUSE-RULE that two-handed magic weapons were more powerful/common than one-handed magic weapons (like in BG2). I'm not saying that 3.x/PF's different fighting styles are more balanced, but they were not balanced back then either.
Also, at higher levels, you could only miss your saving throws with a natural 20.
Just to point out, you have things hilariously wrong for such a fan of 2e. Experience isn't the same static number each level. A 4/5 F/MU is most likely competing with level 6-7 characters, not level 9 ones, due to earlier levels having smaller experience requirements.
I mean you're hilariously wrong on most of those things, but that's the one that stuck out to me the most.
Also Complete Book of Elves.
Checkmate
Plenty of false dilemmas here -
1E/2E's version of multiclassingSuperior to 3.0/3.5 where you always feel sub par with the rest of the party. That or the reverse where you plot out each level exactly to get the best mix of classes and Prcs to attain the utter mess of stupid.
Core multi-class in 1e/2e > to 3e
It's true that you feel sub par IF you have levels in a spellcasting class or some kind of animal companion. Non-caster multiclassing is fine IMO.
|
|
A 4/5 F/MU is most likely competing with level 6-7 characters, not level 9 ones, due to earlier levels having smaller experience requirements.
No, you got me on that one - broke your usual lolcirno style of posting with a quasi-fact.
You still are adventuring as level 1 and 2 while the rest of the party 5th and 6th. Your offering to the group was limited, your survival was limited hence the fallback rule of using any of your old abilities – NO XP FOR THE WHOLE ADVENTURE.
And cirno, no checkmate...seriously no checkmate.
You need to actually offer something to the argument to get one of the those.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
This is one of the things that concerns me most about PFRPG. The fact that the designers do not seem to have a desire or interest in simplifying the system or cleaning up the inconsistencies and poorly worded legacy artifacts from previous generations. Instead they would rather continue to release product after product with more and more new layers of poorly worded mechanics and then never release adequate errata or clarifications for the previously released products. Then, when the fan-base begins to get themselves in a tizzy about the complete lack of any sort of substantive errata they complain about how busy they are.This is my issue.
I can't (and won't) defend the first part of you comment, but we've added errata to every single reprint of the Core Rulebook (and other rulebooks) to date, so I think the idea that Paizo has "never released" adequate errata or clarifications is not completely fair.
We just hired another designer in part to help with the flow of errata and FAQ issues, and my hope is that things will improve on this front shortly. I get the frustration, but the dismissiveness and hyperbole is, in my view, a little misplaced.
We just hired another designer in part to help with the flow of errata and FAQ issues, and my hope is that things will improve on this front shortly. I get the frustration, but the dismissiveness and hyperbole is, in my view, a little misplaced.
For my part, I do think that the presentation of information is a weakness of Pathfinder as well. I actually think the rules design itself is first-rate, but I feel like there was a step of the process missing somewhere.
A lot of the rules seem to make sense, but then if you try to follow them to their logical extremity (like actually rolling on treasure tables) the gaps in the process show themselves. This isn't a huge problem for those of us who played 3.5 a lot, but for new players, this makes the material impenetrable.
Hopefully the intro set will address this issue to some degree, but I fear that unless you have someone whose job it is to take the designer's work and present it in a logical manner from the top down, you might end up in the same place.
In software user experience design, we rely a lot on testing actual users to expose these kind of gaps. In any system of sufficient complexity, the only way to expose logical gaps in presentation is to put it in front of someone who doesn't know how it's "supposed" to work. Obviously, you have to keep seeking out fresh user-meat for this kind of thing to work, but it is possible for a person to function as an "expert" in conducting this kind of design.
*shrug* I go off on this rant all the time, I hope it is viewed as constructive. What's important is that you can't really leave designers in charge of presenting their design (if it is complex enough), and it isn't the designer's fault, it's a fact of life. If you wrote the rule and you know what it is supposed to do, you are the least qualified person to review the final product.
By the way, kudos to you Erik for slogging through this thread. That shows real artistry, reviewing a big body of criticism head-on!
BTW we are going to be testing the intro game a lot, especially with people who've never gamed before and younger people (like 12-13, this isn't intended to be a "10 and under" product). And part of my buttinski involvement in the intro game is making sure that the language is absolutely clear. Frex, I printed a note and pinned it to Jason's wall, it says
.
.
.
In the intro game, all references to "level" MUST include the appropriate adjecive:
class level
character level
spell level