|
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
Also, "dungeon level" ! :)
Multiclassing you were generally one level behind. So a f/mu 4/5 was basically matched up against a level 6. This held true until name level, when xp/level fixed, and single classers started pulling away. The big problems with multiclassing was usually your hp sucked, but your combined skills were usually enough to make up for it.
Dual classing required a 15 in the OLD class and a 17 in the NEW one. Thus, not many folks could dual class. You also couldn't advance in your old class ever again.
TH in 1E was the same as 3E, they just used the target number instead of the modifier. It was actually a HUGE advantage to the Melee classes, because clerics were 2/3, theives were 1/2 and mages were 1/3. Sure, stuff had lower AC's, but still Melees ruled the TH roost.
For Two Handed weapons, the big thing was they did different damage to size L critters. Bastard swords doing 2-16 and Two handers doing 3-18 was a substantial improvement over a longsword's d12. However, longswords were the most common weapon and the most balanced for a one hander. It's interesting that 4E made a flat rule that 2h'ing a one hander just adds +2 dmg now...it was +1 in 1E.
At high levels you failed on a 1, not a 20. You still had to roll high there. And it was more like a 3...Rings of Prot+3 were the main save buffs. The save tables for most classes averaged about a 6-8 (Melees avged about a 4-5)
Compensating high stats was there so you didn't have magic items allowing you to turf stats. A 12 str fighter with a girdle of giant str performed better then a 18(00) str fighter, but he didn't get the xp.
Also note that 1E was very unforgiving of less then great stats. Gygax even said that unless his barbarian had an 18 str, 17 con and 16 dex, it was suboptimal against a fighter. He was right, too.
Complete Book of Elves introduced the bladesinger, which blew away any other sort of kit in the game, and gave Elves archer benefits no other race could duplicate (i.e. went back to multiple attacks). jsut some really broken stuff there about how elves were all awesome sauce in skinny little bodies.
===Aelryinth
I had an elven F/M/T in 2nd ED.
He was so much fun. When he hit 5/5/5, that is...
|
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
Um, dude. Everyone knows jello shots are broken past level 12. Stop using Book of Nine Bartenders, it's total cheese. Like Cocktail on steroids.
Andar Greywind was my F/MU/Druid, something like 11/16/14 when we stopped play. He rocked in many, many ways. I loved f/mu's! lose one level of casting, gain tons of endurance.
===Aelryinth
|
|
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.)
But, for the record, sometimes they aren't rose colored glasses. Sometimes they're very astute observations about how the new game rejected a lot of what what right with the old game so we could have D&D, Rolemaster Edition.
(Quick clue, the griping about fighters - other than they were a little boring - and other "mundane" types compared to wizards? Didn't happen. Fighters didn't carry golf bags in 1e. And CoDzilla? Man, you couldn't get anyone to play a cleric back in the day, now they're 1a along side wizards - who you could also barely get to play back in the day).
No, to argue earlier editions are better just requires that you prefer common sense and imagination to math homework.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
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.
I agree with this criticism, to some extent. I wish we'd had the time and capability to spend as much time "innoventing" (to use a Jack Donaghy term) the way we present rules as we spent on fixing up bad rules. In many ways I think the weakest parts of Pathfinder are where we stuck to the same presentation style from third edition. A natural evolution given the origin of the game, of course, but something I'd love to have had the time to address the first time around.
The "basic game" product(s) we're working on will, I trust, address this to some extent, but it's difficult to address all of them without fully doing a new edition of the game, which is something I'd like to put off for a goodly while yet.
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
OMG... Am I going to have to retire my usability testing rant? It's my most well-worn rant!
Sean, Erik, thanks for addressing my concerns! You know I only criticise because I care.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I suspect there might be less frustration and hyperbole if Paizo hadn't (by their own admission) deliberately hidden the FAQs from casual users, and if you weren't still doing so, instead of linking to them all from some obvious location (say, http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/resources, plus from all the other "FAQs" lurking on the site to mislead the unwary).
It is nice that you've put the Core and Bestiary errata links on the Resources page; how about the other errata links too?
LOL. I'd love to see the place where we admit that we've "deliberately hidden" the FAQs.
The company is growing so fast these days I admit I can't read every staff posting to our message boards anymore, but that one sounds like a hum-dinger.
Heh. There's my usability rant again. It's almost like I'm taking classes on it or something...
You know how to reach me if you want input. ;)
2e definitely has some weirdness such as the high strength dart spam characters (which I've never actually seen in actual play) but overall with core only it was a really tight system.
Expanded 2e was where the wheels kinda came off (Elven Munchiness was over the top and 2e Psionics was beyond totally broken).
Overall I think there are a lot of things to recommend about 2e in terms of actual play.
I still prefer 1e-2e multiclassing. Basically you got an increase in power at low levels (although HPs typically sucked for anything other than Fighter/Clerics) at the cost of always being 1-2 levels behind the single class characters. Thieves could be a bit farther ahead but that's mainly because they had a very fast advancement rate.
The problems generally arose later on when the primary casters are beginning on throwing around bigger badder spells and the multiclass characters don't have as good of spells to throw around. Also because your HPs typically sucked you were actually quite vulnerable to big AoE spells (blast was still effective back in the day). Tri-classed character really sucked in this regards especially some of the more exotic hybrids.
Also if you capped Demihuman advancement the end game potential of several builds really sucked.
Honestly dual classing rarely came up in our games. I'd say 90% of the problems with it arise when you start characters as something other than 1st level. In actual play the penalties for Dual-classing were absolutely brutal and for the most part even if you could qualify for dual-classing (something that generally only happens with the high end dice-roll systems) the party as a whole really couldn't afford to lose your assistance long enough to actually power level you. I remain convinced that it's almost entirely a theorycraft problem.
The switch to ascending AC was a good change from THAC0 (which is admittedly counter-intuitive for many players) and 2e non-weapon proficiencies were pretty behind the times but in terms of solid mechanics I've seen far less 1e-2e games go completely off the rails than 3e games.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Heh. There's my usability rant again. It's almost like I'm taking classes on it or something...
You know how to reach me if you want input. ;)
Well, you learn something new every day.
One thing I learned today is that our Resources page is pretty fugly and doesn't contain a lot of stuff it probably should.
I've added this to a meeting agenda for our design team, but it will take a few weeks to make any substantive changes due to the upcoming holiday.
A large problem I still have with 3.x/PF is the leveling system. Many woes with the game would right themselves if classes leveled at different paces, and multi-classing were stricter. They are heading in the right direction by adding small abilities on top of Spells-Per-Day to keep casters "in the fight" so to speak. However, casters still gain power at a much large exponential rate than "mundanes". Establishing different leveling scales, either individually or categorically, would help to even out this rate. There are many ways this can be done, and actually...I think I'll start a sub-thread!
And CoDzilla? Man, you couldn't get anyone to play a cleric back in the day, now they're 1a along side wizards - who you could also barely get to play back in the day).
I dunno who you played with, but our 1E/2E games were always about half divine casters.
And they were tough. Especially in 2E, which ultimately gave away pretty much all the good things about fighters to at least some specialty priests. (And you could get the rest quick by starting your priest career with 2 levels of fighter first. Yay, dual class!)
G%! d%%n, man. You're a 2E fan? How's that even possible? You got almost everything about it wrong. And I'm not talking, we disagree about how good something was wrong, I mean the rule books say something and you say something else wrong.
But a couple things in specific:
First, your description of multi-classing glosses over a big thing: that at some point, you stop gaining additional levels forever. Weren't level limits a great idea?
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.
I understand exactly how dual classing works. Believe me, in the last good 3 or 4 years every PC in multiple 2E campaigns was dual-classed something. We went over those rules with a fine toothed comb because we were sure we were missing a drawback. We weren't.
Here's the trick: As long as the entire party doesn't dual class at once, the drawback isn't much of a drawback at all. Okay, so your 1st level wizard can't use his 7 levels of fighter. But, he's still got more hit points than a wizard otherwise would ever have. And because, up to a point, every level in 2E costs double XP, blowing through the first couple levels is quick. You're literally gaining levels every encounter, or as fast as your DM is willing to award XP. By the time your party gains a level or so, hey, you're now 7 fighter / 8 wizard and you can use all of your fighting, if you want to -- but at this point you're a wizard with a ton of HP, a fighter's high con bonus and exceptional strength if applicable, and as good of a THACO as wizard will ever have, along with being just one level behind the rest of the team.
It's a good deal, unless you don't have a party that's willing to carry you as slightly dead weight for a session in exchange for making you permanently tougher forever. Too good, really.
Though it's fine, mechanically, the vagueness of hp sometimes irritates me. If you shoot someone in the brain, they die, even if they're really tough, reflected by their # of hp.
But if you do not kill that ''someone'', it means that you didn't shoot him in the bain. Maybe the bullet got stuck in his helmet/scales/hide, who knows?
Note: 11 pages. I didn't read them all, sorry.
That having been said..
The worst thing to me is a hold-over from 3.0/3.5.
There are six ability scores.
1.
Melee guys need at least three to be effective. Everyone doing physical damage, ranged or melee, needs strength, dexterity, and constitution. If they want to be even marginally competent out of combat they also need intelligence for some skills and charisma if they want those skills to be interactive with the community. And, of course, wisdom to not get mind controlled/ feared every 2nd encounter.
2.
Full casters need two stats. They need constitution and their primary casting stat. They may need dexterity- depending on the spells they choose- but they can do perfectly well keeping it fairly low. (10-12).
What this does is create an ability score disparity in the classes. The melee folks have to divert points over to multiple abilities while the primary casters only have to concentrate on a couple. to make matters even worse- full casters often get spells to compensate for the lack of their abilities. (ant haul is a good example here) if not abilities that directly let them do it (lore oracle side step revelation, looking at you here).
It needs to be fixed- either by letting melee folks honestly just use a couple of stats or by forcing casters to use more of theirs- preferably by nerfing the spells that take away their ability to dump them and get away with it.
Just my .02, clearly some will disagree :)
-S
I agree with this criticism, to some extent. I wish we'd had the time and capability to spend as much time "innoventing" (to use a Jack Donaghy term) the way we present rules as we spent on fixing up bad rules. In many ways I think the weakest parts of Pathfinder are where we stuck to the same presentation style from third edition. A natural evolution given the origin of the game, of course, but something I'd love to have had the time to address the first time around.
The "basic game" product(s) we're working on will, I trust, address this to some extent, but it's difficult to address all of them without fully doing a new edition of the game, which is something I'd like to put off for a goodly while yet.
Honestly, I see Pathfinder as a flawed product that had great potential. I've purchased the Corebook, the Bestiary, and the APG...and you know what? I would totally buy an improved version of the game that really "innovented" a lot more. Happily.
I would rather spend money on a better version of a game I already bought than spend it on more books for a product that didn't remotely live up to expectations. Personally, I'm done buying PF books. The game isn't going anywhere I care about. :/
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Good. Frankly, it seems like we fell far short of your expectations, and you're better off playing something else.
Personally, I am having a hell of a lot of fun with the game and consider it a vast improvement over what came before. I'm not blind to its flaws and hope that we can continue to improve it as time goes by, but life is too short wasting time with something you don't really like.
And it's pretty clear you don't really like Pathfinder, so see ya.
The training/leveling rules are there to prevent rampant dual-classing.
If you can only gain one level per session and surplus XP is wasted and you have to walk back to the city in order to train then power-leveling a dual class character is pretty dull. I'm not saying some groups wouldn't be willing to do it but we never had that much surplus time in order to game the system.
Further even though you have your old HPs everything else is crap including saves. Most of the DMs I played old school D&D weren't going to take it easy while the dual-class characters power level. SoD effects, Poison, brutal encounters, etc pretty much meant that characters that were behind the power curve were having significant issues from AoE spells, traps, etc.
Even if you somehow survived the intermediate levels without getting killed too many times and taking the various con penalties from dying the benefits weren't really that great other than potential decent saves and better HPs. F/MUs still can't wear armor and cast, Thieves can't use heavy armor and use thief skills, Fighter/Clerics are pretty good but with extreme ability score we almost always preferred to go Ranger or Paladin, Dwarf Fighter/Cleric or Elven Ranger/Druids than do dual-class Fighter Clerics.
Combined with the fact that almost all of our campaigns ended between levels 7-12 and the potential gains from dual-classing were really weighted towards a very small percentage of the campaign.
Hmmm... I haven't played much, and what little I have played has only been Pathfinder, so I've not much to compare it too. So at best this is the opinion of a newcoming player voicing initial grievances, at worst this is the annoying prattle of a newb who doesn't know what he's talking about.
1. I read through the thread and I think 'MAD' is the word I'm looking for. I assume it means 'Mundane-Arcane Discrepancy', if so then yes, it's the word I'm looking for. I recognize in the fluff that magic is supposed to be fundamentally more difficult to pull off than swinging a sword, and I suppose that translates to it being more powerful than mundane combat, but equal levels should translate to roughly equal power, regardless of class.
Proposed Solution: There are really two ways to balance high powered magic with low powered mundane, one rests with the rules and the other rests with DMs. The solutions are Speed and Endurance, respectively.
Speed: Paizo could keep the high powered spells, hell they could make them even more powerful, but INCREASE casting times and make concentration more difficult. We're talking about fundamentally screwing with the laws of physics here, it IS rocket science, it's not done quickly and requires some real concentration to pull off. Maybe make the default casting time full-round actions, with increased casting times for higher level spells. This would lead to wizards and sorcerers who have to balance the weakness of their low level spells with the long casting time of their upper level spells.
This would mean the Wizard might be able to kill the boss with one hit--that is, if the fighters can keep him safe for the three rounds necessary to invoke that earth-shattering spell. This also means in a big fight the wizards would have the upper hand, whereas in one-on-one the up-close and constantly attacking fighter would have the advantage. I like the addition of the 'distruptive' breed of feats, because it follows the theme of up-close fighters making life hard for squishy wizards.
Endurance: This is something DMs can do individually. Make discretion and judgment necessary skills for the PCs by making each session a trial of endurance. One advantage mundane classes have is their ability to fight for much longer per day than casters. DMs!: Make this a valuable ability. Don't let the party rest after every 2 encounters, make each day a struggle and each series of fights long enough to make the wizard question whether or not he should blow his load early or save a fireball for 'just in case'. The medieval world is a dangerous place. A safe place where 8 uninterrupted hours of sleep and study can be had? That's a luxury! Treat it like one! The fighter is a sword, the sorcerer is a flintlock. The flintlock will always beat the sword, but the flintlock can only fire once! Make it feel like a big deal when the flintlock fires. However, I can't say I've DM'd much before, so I don't know how hard this is to do. I realize I might be asking something unreasonable here, and I apologize if I am. But at first glance, this seems like a good way for the players to take care of the 'MAD' problem. (assuming my interpretation of the phrase is correct!)
2. Grappling: I'm told Pathfinder simplified grappling rules from 3.5. What the heck were they in 3.5, written in Sanskrit? My quest to uncover the secrets of 'grappling' from the archaic tome of 'Core Rulebook' took me across three different chapters and an Appendix, each section telling me incomplete, sometimes vague and non-overlapping data that I eventually had to compile in a table myself to allow for easy reference whilst playing. So I'm the grappler, I can deal my unarmed strike or one handed light weapon damage to my grappled enemy, right? Is there still an attack roll or is it assumed I hit? If there's an attack roll, do I take penalties for being grappled though I'm the grappler? Can I cast spells as the grappler? What about Lay on Hands (or the AntiPaladin equivalent), Still Spell touch attacks, or Channeling? What happens to my 2 handed weapon, do I just drop it? If I have 2 claw attacks and a bite, do I use all of them? Which one do I use?
To be fair, I realize mechanically and fluff-wise, grappling is likely the most complicated, most difficult of maneuvers to translate into a mechanic and even more difficult to explain once translated. But spreading it out over 3 chapters and an appendix? Come on, people, think of the new players trying to figure this stuff out!
Proposed Solution: I like the idea of a single CMB score and corresponding defensive CMD. A single maneuver score is leaps and bounds over having to keep track of individual scores for each combat maneuver. Though it goes against what I just said, I like and recognize the necessity of feats and abilities that modify the CMB/CMD score for specific, individual combat maneuvers. Paizo has the challenge of keeping the list of available maneuvers comprehensive, but mechanically limited. The addition of the 'dirty trick' combat maneuver was a step in the right direction for handling 'creative' players. Mechanically, I think the grapple rules are sound, if still somewhat vague. Paizo needs to do their best to make one's options while grappled or grappling as obvious and clear as possible. When I'm the grappled, don't tell me 'you may do anything you could normally do with one hand' (loosely paraphrased), give me a finite list of options to choose from:
A. Deal unarmed or light weapon damage to grappler (still not sure if this still needs an attack roll)
B. Cast a (still?) spell with a concentration check (does casting spells still provoke AO's from the enemy even though someone with the 'grappled' condition [both grappler and grappled] cannot technically make any AO's)
C. Try to break grapple (I can do this with an Escape Artist check!) or become the grappler (Can I do THIS with an Escape Artist check? I would say no, but I don't believe the book specifies)
D. Attack a being not involved in the grapple (can this also be a grapple attack? Is it subject to the CMB penalties even though it's a grapple attack? Can I use a whip or one handed ranged attack to attack someone outside the grapple? If I can, do I provoke AO's from my opponent who technically can't take any AOs?)
E. Etc...
Once one compiles the grapple rules into a single table, they're pretty straightforward, if still somewhat vague and up for DM interpretation. Paizo needs to recognize the difficulty of the concept and compile grappling data into a single table or flowchart that can be easily understood by even the most distracted and unfocused of high-schoolers. They also need to provide definitive answers to some of these vagueness questions. A player shouldn't HAVE to consult the message boards to understand something as fundamental as grappling.
3. Crafting: It takes too long. Especially mundane traps. Oh God, Mundane Traps, don't get me started. Exactly why does it take me months to make the simplest of traps? This is a fantasy setting, people! I know making a mechanical arm for my amputee party member can't happen overnight, but still, in a world where wizards can synthesize fire out of nothing, monks leap ten stories, and barbarians punch through adamantine doors (provided they have the 'smasher' rage power) why does it still take years for someone with 20 ranks in craft:Trapmaking to make a box that shoots arrows at people? Especially when the fluff has the sensor and identification mechanism (you know, the only part that's actually hard to make) so well defined you could practically buy the things wholesale from Swords-R-Us!
Proposed Solution: I actually really like that the mundane trap sensor-mechanism is so well defined in the fluff. I've only DM'd a couple times, but once I gave a bunch of mundane trap sensors to the party rogue. Much fun was had by all =) Paizo needs to keep that bit of fluff, perhaps make the mundane trap sensor a separate entity that must be fashioned with difficulty or purchased at high cost independent of the mechanism, then dramatically reduce the price and crafting time of mechanisms devoid of a sensor/identifier. If a trap doesn't include a sensor and identification mechanism (like a trap that uses a pressure plate to trigger a swinging axe, for example) the price and crafting time should be greatly reduced. I like that spells can be used in place of or cast on a sensor. Though I find it unreasonable that magic traps are faster to build than mundane traps. Teaching an assembly of gears and springs to harness the arcane ley lines should not be easier than setting off the trigger to a propped up and pre-aimed crossbow.
4. Concentration Checks.
Keeping a level head under pressure is a skill, and should be a skill in-game.
But not a skill limited to spellcasting, perhaps the 'Concentration' skill should apply to doing anything difficult under threatening or difficult circumstances. Such as disabling traps or locks in combat, or disarming a trap when you know failure has dire consequences, overcoming fear or panic instincts, taking aggressive action when any normal person would be retreating or knowing to attack the summoner even though his minions are right next to you. I am reminded of the concept of the 'Leadership Check' in the Warhammer series. It's not just about casting spells under fire, it's about keeping your cool, for any reason, under any difficult circumstance.
Worst thing about pathfinder? Hmmm...
Ah!
It's rules heavy. And I mean that in the most literal sense: the core rulebook is big and thick enough for me to use as an effective murder weapon. Which might just happen one of these days if my powergaming players don't knock it off with the rules lawyering and just play the game without turning it into a competition to see which PC is most likely to "one shot" the other! That said, I feel I get a lot for my money when purchasing a book that requires its owner use Bull's Strength to lug it around.
For all my complaining, I forgot to add that I really enjoy Pathfinder.
While I never played 3.5, I took a look through the books and decided Pathfinder was a significant improvement for a number of reasons.
The problems I have with Pathfinder are all things that can be fixed, both in house and with house-rules in the meantime. The rules are (relatively!) simple for a d20 system. As testament to this simplicity, once you build your character you typically don't need a copy of the rulebook out when you're playing (unless somebody decides to grapple, of course), and often can get by even in combat without having to look up the fine details on your character sheet, making it easy to maintain character, even in combat...With some exceptions (I'm looking at YOU, Inquisitor and Cavalier classes! Though getting rid of the Inquisitor's time-based bonuses was a step in the right direction to simplifying use of the class, the uneven growth of different Judgment bonuses is a recognizably necessary, if somewhat disorienting, hurdle that might be eased by changing a few things. Also what's the deal with the 'Slayer' Inquisitor ability, a relic from the Beta?).
Long story short, Pathfinder needs to fix:
1. Mundane-Arcane Discrepancy
2. The way they explain Grappling
3. Crafting mechanics, timing, and prices
4. Concentration Checks
but otherwise is a solid system I thoroughly enjoy.
That's just my opinion though..... like a hundred lines of it... >.>
Stuff about casters.
Maybe we should bring back the old prerequisites from 2E for specialist wizards. You need to have 15 in Strength (or something like that) to be an evoquer, 15 in Wisdom to be a necromancer, 15 in constitution to be a conjurer, etc. :P
I had a lengthy response composed in which I was going to exchange in a tit-for-tat with SKR, quoting posts left and right, but decided that would accomplish nothing other than make me appear even more petty than many already believe me to be. Instead, now that Erik has chimed in, whom I greatly respect, I'll drop the subject. I have posted my response to the title question of this thread ("What is the worst thing about Pathfinder?") and will leave it at that.
Thanks Erik once again though for Pathfinder. Even though I may gripe and complain from time to time, it does still provide me almost limitless enjoyment. Is it perfect? Hell no, but right now, its the closest thing I can find. I just friggin wish the few matters I frequently get frustrated about would improve.
That's about all on that subject! :)
1. I read through the thread and I think 'MAD' is the word I'm looking for. I assume it means 'Mundane-Arcane Discrepancy',
I have not heard that meaning. I typically hear it along with the acronym "SAD." I believe MAD and SAD mean "Multiple Attribute Dependency" and "Single Attribute Dependency." The former refers to a Class that has multiple ability scores that need to be high for the Class to play effectively, and the latter refers any Class that generally can get by with only one high ability score. A Wizard (for instance) really only needs a high Intelligence. Some Classes are extremely hard to play effectively unless you pump up more than one ability score.
Stuff about casters.Maybe we should bring back the old prerequisites from 2E for specialist wizards. You need to have 15 in Strength (or something like that) to be an evoquer, 15 in Wisdom to be a necromancer, 15 in constitution to be a conjurer, etc. :P
I'm not terribly adverse to that- but I think then its just railroading. Of course I'm not a game designer either- but surelyt here must be some smooth way to do it?
Maybe the answer is to remove some of the spells that let them ignore the attributes.. or, to streamline the melee types so that they only need two attributes. (letting heavy armor types get away with less dex, with dex types needing less str, and so on). I hate dump stats- but needing 3-4 stats at 14+ is also excessive even with generous point buys.
I'll leave the how to the folks who know how to design stuff- I'm clearly an armchair quarter back in that regard.. but I've made 3-4 characters in the past couple of months and between a combat rogue, an arcane duelist bard, a lame/lore oracle and a witch- the difference between them in attributes is readily apparent. Its just flat out easier to boost your primary stat with a caster since you can ignore so many of the physical stats. (ignore to 10 or 12, if not dump completely).
-S
A Wizard (for instance) really only needs a high Intelligence. Some Classes are extremely hard to play effectively unless you pump up more than one ability score.
The things is, it's only true at higher levels where you have contingency, mirror image, stone skin and other spells like that. If you're playing a wizard without Con or Dex bonus, you'll never survive the first level because you'll get killed by kobolds every time. :P
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.
I agree with this criticism, to some extent. I wish we'd had the time and capability to spend as much time "innoventing" (to use a Jack Donaghy term) the way we present rules as we spent on fixing up bad rules. In many ways I think the weakest parts of Pathfinder are where we stuck to the same presentation style from third edition. A natural evolution given the origin of the game, of course, but something I'd love to have had the time to address the first time around.
The "basic game" product(s) we're working on will, I trust, address this to some extent, but it's difficult to address all of them without fully doing a new edition of the game, which is something I'd like to put off for a goodly while yet.
I'd like to see more development on this score, myself. I like Pathfinder, but dang, those books are intimidating. And this is from someone who used to play HERO and Rolemaster in their heyday...
-The Gneech
Stuff about casters.Maybe we should bring back the old prerequisites from 2E for specialist wizards. You need to have 15 in Strength (or something like that) to be an evoquer, 15 in Wisdom to be a necromancer, 15 in constitution to be a conjurer, etc. :PI'm not terribly adverse to that- but I think then its just railroading. Of course I'm not a game designer either- but surelyt here must be some smooth way to do it?
Maybe the answer is to remove some of the spells that let them ignore the attributes.. or, to streamline the melee types so that they only need two attributes. (letting heavy armor types get away with less dex, with dex types needing less str, and so on). I hate dump stats- but needing 3-4 stats at 14+ is also excessive even with generous point buys.
I'll leave the how to the folks who know how to design stuff- I'm clearly an armchair quarter back in that regard.. but I've made 3-4 characters in the past couple of months and between a combat rogue, an arcane duelist bard, a lame/lore oracle and a witch- the difference between them in attributes is readily apparent. Its just flat out easier to boost your primary stat with a caster since you can ignore so many of the physical stats. (ignore to 10 or 12, if not dump completely).
-S
Someone posted a great idea in the Homebrew section on increasing ability stats via a point-buy method, which basically makes already high stats harder to raise because they cost more.
That coupled with making physical stat boosting magic items cheaper than mental stat boosters might even out things out a bit.
|
g!& d@!n, man. You're a 2E fan? How's that even possible? You got almost everything about it wrong. And I'm not talking, we disagree about how good something was wrong, I mean the rule books say something and you say something else wrong.
But a couple things in specific:
First, your description of multi-classing glosses over a big thing: that at some point, you stop gaining additional levels forever. Weren't level limits a great idea?
No, I didn't get it wrong. You need to go back and point all that out to me otherwise it's just your usual smoke.
I didn't mind level caps for multi-classed PCs - it was a good way top keep that aspect of demi-humans in check + the game effectively ended at 14th.I understand exactly how dual classing works. Believe me, in the last good 3 or 4 years every PC in multiple 2E campaigns was dual-classed something. We went over those rules with a fine toothed comb because we were sure we were missing a drawback. We weren't.
Here's the trick: As long as the entire party doesn't dual class at once, the drawback isn't much of a drawback at all. Okay, so your 1st level wizard can't use his 7 levels of fighter. But, he's still got more hit points than a wizard otherwise would ever have. And because, up to a point, every level in 2E costs double XP, blowing through the first couple levels is quick. You're literally gaining levels every encounter, or as fast as your DM is willing to award XP. By the time your party gains a level or so, hey, you're now 7 fighter / 8 wizard and you can use all of your fighting, if you want to -- but at this point you're a wizard with a ton of HP, a fighter's high con bonus and exceptional strength if applicable, and as good of a THACO as wizard will ever have, along with being just one level behind the rest of the team.
It's a good deal, unless you don't have a party that's willing to carry you as slightly dead weight for a session in exchange for making you permanently tougher forever. Too good, really.
DMs being complicit or easing the game play to accommodate min/maxers was not the same game experience everyone else had.
So there, you explained it. You had a DM who agreed (and occasionally played) who "discovered" a hole in the system. Of course that isn't how the game was played in most circles. You blew through the first couple of new class levels without using your old class abilities while fighting 5th level encounters? Sounds like softball DMing to me.
In most circles you had players come and go from campaigns, some would die (especially saddling the party with junk PCs looking to dual-class) so pulling off a LEGIT dual classed character was not an easy thing to do. If your DM is soft-balling then yeah, might as well started everyone at 5th level. Otherwise you were joining a group with normal PCs and you had to accommodate to the module which was wholly unforgiving of lower level PCs. That or play at a difficulty associated with the rest of the group of normal PCs with a lower powered character.
So it sounds like your DM catered to padding his game for his players. I wonder if every human NPC encounter you had was with Dual classed bad guys, my guess based on your posting and play style - probably not.
If we played in a campaign and killed our share of npcs guess what? Some of their buddies from their gang, cult, order, church, etc would maybe come after us. They didn't care if we were trying to get through our second class up an beyond our 1st. Their levels/xp value were current with how much damage and work we had put in the world. Lower level assassins were not sent to accommodate our efforts to dual class.
Also with your complicit DM you must not have played many modules. See for me when a module says 6-9 I just didn't look at the levels, I looked at the xp it took to get there -and dual class PCs often fell short. Short on ability, gear, everything. I'm sure your DM soft-balled all of that to accommodate this "discovery". Your DM basically said ok get to level 5 then we will start playing over again as if you were 1st level with 5th level hp and ignore everything else. Everyone.
Softball.
Well at least you were honest in saying that as a whole group (DM included) you all worked to soften the hard points, it explains a lot. Unfortunately in less forgiving circumstances (without protective DMing) your PC would have had a much harder time pulling off Dual-classing and getting anywhere.
I understand exactly how dual classing works. Believe me, in the last good 3 or 4 years every PC in multiple 2E campaigns was dual-classed something. We went over those rules with a fine toothed comb because we were sure we were missing a drawback. We weren't.Here's the trick: As long as the entire party doesn't dual class at once, the drawback isn't much of a drawback at all. Okay, so your 1st level wizard can't use his 7 levels of fighter. But, he's still got more hit points than a wizard otherwise would ever have. And because, up to a point, every level in 2E costs double XP, blowing through the first couple levels is quick. You're literally gaining levels every encounter, or as...
Did 2E remove the rule that you couldn't gain a level without going back to town and spending time+gold to train?
Though it's fine, mechanically, the vagueness of hp sometimes irritates me. If you shoot someone in the brain, they die, even if they're really tough, reflected by their # of hp.
I think the only reason they call them hit points is because it happens when you hit. If you Constitution (your general health) only adds a few points to HP and does not make up even close to all of them.
This is where I interepret hitpoints as the sword swing that grazed your hair, the stopping the blow with your shield but barely fending of the swing, the heat singed clothes after a failed reflex save.
Just my PO
No, to argue earlier editions are better just requires that you prefer common sense and imagination to math homework.
The imagination also helps when it comes to misremembering the bad parts of earlier editions, too. ;-)
For all my complaining, I forgot to add that I really enjoy Pathfinder.
While I never played 3.5, I took a look through the books and decided Pathfinder was a significant improvement for a number of reasons.
The problems I have with Pathfinder are all things that can be fixed, both in house and with house-rules in the meantime. The rules are (relatively!) simple for a d20 system. As testament to this simplicity, once you build your character you typically don't need a copy of the rulebook out when you're playing (unless somebody decides to grapple, of course), and often can get by even in combat without having to look up the fine details on your character sheet, making it easy to maintain character, even in combat...With some exceptions (I'm looking at YOU, Inquisitor and Cavalier classes! Though getting rid of the Inquisitor's time-based bonuses was a step in the right direction to simplifying use of the class, the uneven growth of different Judgment bonuses is a recognizably necessary, if somewhat disorienting, hurdle that might be eased by changing a few things. Also what's the deal with the 'Slayer' Inquisitor ability, a relic from the Beta?).
Long story short, Pathfinder needs to fix:
1. Mundane-Arcane Discrepancy
2. The way they explain Grappling
3. Crafting mechanics, timing, and prices
4. Concentration Checksbut otherwise is a solid system I thoroughly enjoy.
That's just my opinion though..... like a hundred lines of it... >.>
If you truly are a newcomer I am impressed.
Some not so bad observations. I particularly like the casting time uping, but that means for a few rounds in combat mister wizard has to take the back stage. Not necesarily bad but still something to keep in mind.
grappling... +1 comment, any plans to help rectify this Paizo?
Crafting mechanics came up in my game, as a DM I just changed it. It says on alot of them they are up to a DM's descretion anyways.
Concentration checks changed to apply to many things sounds like the way they should have gone instead of elimintating it entirely, personally if you made it so that you could take ten if you rolled high enough on a concentration check that would make the stat worthwhile to really anyone.
No, to argue earlier editions are better just requires that you prefer common sense and imagination to math homework.The imagination also helps when it comes to misremembering the bad parts of earlier editions, too. ;-)
I'm a Paizo customer for things *other* than the rules. The adventure paths, the setting material, and now Pathfinder Society. The customer service is also excellent.
I do hope, however, that the future will see a new edition of Pathfinder that greatly streamlines the math and GM workload. Early editions of D&D offered this reduced workload, but only at the cost of internal consistency. In some ways 4E brought simplicity and internal consistency, but it fell down in enough other ways to make 4E a lateral move (to me).
I hope Pathfinder will continue to evolve into the game that has it all: consistency, simplicity, a strong organized play program, and outstanding support. It's not there yet. Don't get me wrong -- it remains the best option -- but that doesn't mean there isn't signifcant room for improvement.
I agree with this criticism, to some extent. I wish we'd had the time and capability to spend as much time "innoventing" (to use a Jack Donaghy term) the way we present rules as we spent on fixing up bad rules. In many ways I think the weakest parts of Pathfinder are where we stuck to the same presentation style from third edition. A natural evolution given the origin of the game, of course, but something I'd love to have had the time to address the first time around.
The "basic game" product(s) we're working on will, I trust, address this to some extent, but it's difficult to address all of them without fully doing a new edition of the game, which is something I'd like to put off for a goodly while yet.
Honestly, I see Pathfinder as a flawed product that had great potential. I've purchased the Corebook, the Bestiary, and the APG...and you know what? I would totally buy an improved version of the game that really "innovented" a lot more. Happily.
I would rather spend money on a better version of a game I already bought than spend it on more books for a product that didn't remotely live up to expectations. Personally, I'm done buying PF books. The game isn't going anywhere I care about. :/
I think this thread was meant to highlight things that are correctable. If you hate the entire game and all of the rules as a general point, then why are you on the message boards for a game you hate?
pointing out no problems that are correctable and just "yeah the whole game is pretty overrated and i was lied to about how good it was"
in my personal opinion is not only not fair, it is unthoughtful of all the designers that take lots of time working on this for a living.
Think about what you say, if you hate this game then you are one of few that I have met and with that said you probably shouldnt dance the pathfinder/paizo message boards since you dont care for it and intend to buy no more books in the future.
You don't like the game, then go be productive and make one instead of just saying "this one isnt going anywhere".
To all the designers:
I think you are doing amazing, not perfect but that is only human.
|
|
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.
+1
I mean, as I was reading that list, I kept wondering if he'd ever actually played 2e.
Anytime you want to list what I posted was wrong, go right ahead. I ran 2nd ed from the time it came out till long past wotc stopped supporting it.
So give me a list before you join the rest of the troll tools.
Anytime
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.
+1
I mean, as I was reading that list, I kept wondering if he'd ever actually played 2e.
Anytime you want to list what I posted was wrong, go right ahead. I ran 2nd ed from the time it came out till long past wotc stopped supporting it.
So give me a list before you join the rest of the troll tools.
Anytime
This is like two historians arguing over the death of lincoln hahaha
|
|
Create a new thread and I will. I don't want to further threadjack this thread.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.
+1
I mean, as I was reading that list, I kept wondering if he'd ever actually played 2e.
Anytime you want to list what I posted was wrong, go right ahead. I ran 2nd ed from the time it came out till long past wotc stopped supporting it.
So give me a list before you join the rest of the troll tools.
Anytime
Respond to what I posted, cite where I was wrong or drop the attacks.
|
|
Stop trying to threadjack, create another thread, and I will respond.I disagree with you. That's not the same as attacking you.
Stop looking for an out.
You said I don't know s!+$ about 2nd and what I posted was wrong and I want you to respond to what I posted that was incorrect.You took the time to slander and say I didn't know what I was talking about so take the time to correct what I posted.
I won't hold my breath.