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.
Oh SNAP!
Right on.
Along the 2E lines...
I wonder if it wasn't altogether a bad idea for each class to have its own XP chart. Some classes are inherently more powerful than others, and this was a decent way to control advancement...
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.
Oh SNAP!
Right on.
Along the 2E lines...
I wonder if it wasn't altogether a bad idea for each class to have its own XP chart. Some classes are inherently more powerful than others, and this was a decent way to control advancement...
Agreed. There's a new thread about that, called Scalar Experience, by the way. :P
Agreed. There's a new thread about that, called Scalar Experience, by the way. :PGood. 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.
Oh SNAP!
Right on.
Along the 2E lines...
I wonder if it wasn't altogether a bad idea for each class to have its own XP chart. Some classes are inherently more powerful than others, and this was a decent way to control advancement...
*high five*
Great minds, and all that... ;)
Reminder: This is a subjective thread, and what one person doesn't like about Pathfinder (or other game systems) is definitely going to vary. Please keep your disagreements civil.
Reminder: This is a subjective thread, and what one person doesn't like about Pathfinder (or other game systems) is definitely going to vary. Please keep your disagreements civil.
Yeah, I think a good guideline is to be certain you're adding to the thread with your post, not JUST "correcting" a previous posters "errors".
This is a volitile enough topic to begin with, we should all be extra careful not to sow conflict.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Ok and that justifies referring to it as a "feat tax"?
Perhaps a better way to say it is "It's a complete bummer for me to choose to pay a feat to wear heavy armor on my clerics because that is my personal RP preference"
Let me put it into perspective. If they changed Barbarians and removed Rage, but created a Feat called "Barbarian Rage" which required levels in Barbarian. Wouldn't that have been a feat tax? It is exactly what was done for Clerics. Take something away they have always had from 1E, 2E, 3.0E, 3.5E to now lose in 3.75E (PF)
Caster buffs across the board. Why would you do this?
Martial nerfs across the board. Again, why would you do this?
Caster Nerf (if you refer to diminished SoD spells) I agree, it is a shame. Any other nerfage on Casters, I'm not worked up about.
Bore us with the details (despite you saying you didn't want to) on how Martial's were nerfed. I see needed boosts only.
What saving graces do you see, though?
No particular order:
1) I like the 1/day and there are 3.5 rules to expand that beyond 1/day in a variety of interesting ways (Soverign Speaker, Spontaneous Domains, etc)2) It is compatiable with 3.5 rules (Divine Crusader PrC still works in addition to listed things in #1 above.)
3) It shouldn't be all that powerful, they are designed to lightly impact the Cleric power.
4) Etc...
[Do you really think I'm dismissive of this community or what its members have to say?
No, but I think his point is that some people will argue for days/weeks/months/forever over silly stuff and reject posts by developers (like you), posts to the FAQ ("because it isn't errata") and anything else short of RAW Errata.
I hated WotC's stance (virtually no errata and a "non-Binding" FAQ that didn't pick sides.) The DM doesn't have to agree with the FAQ, but the FAQ/Errata should pick sides.
Paizo is a far better product than 3.5 ever was, in large part because it is better written, with better support from employees (4am posts by you for example), and in my view saved RPG gaming from my perspective.
I just wish every "silly" thing had at least a forum post clarifying it (which I think you all do very well now.) This one had a post by you, so that should be sufficient. But these type of improvements over 3.5 WotC breed demand for more improvements. For that I'm sorry. I'll buy you a beer next PaizoCon ;-)
And it's pretty clear you don't really like Pathfinder, so see ya.
I'm so happy with the product that my major complain is over a silly issue with the Cleric (Heavy Armor.) If SKR takes me up on the beer, you are welcome to join. I'll buy you one too
I wonder if it wasn't altogether a bad idea for each class to have its own XP chart. Some classes are inherently more powerful than others, and this was a decent way to control advancement...
For the love of Sarenrae NO!
I played 9 years in a 1E game. I was 17th Level. I was the first in the party to reach 9th and the last to reach 12th level. When we ended because a PC reached 40th level (20th Fighter then Dual class into Wizard for 20 levels) I was left at level 17. I hated it. Balance the classes by their level not their XP chart.
Let me put it into perspective. If they changed Barbarians and removed Rage, but created a Feat called "Barbarian Rage" which required levels in Barbarian. Wouldn't that have been a feat tax? It is exactly what was done for Clerics. Take something away they have always had from 1E, 2E, 3.0E, 3.5E to now lose in 3.75E (PF)
Barbarians without rage aren't really barbarians. Rage is their schtick. Clerics without plate are still clerics. They're priests. They can heal. They can fight. You'll also notice that heavy armor proficiency does not require levels in cleric. If clerics needed to take a feat to cast cleric spells, and only clerics could take that feat, your analogy would hold up better.
Perhaps to you full plate is some inherent part of the archetype. That's fine -- but it is an opinion.
Stuff.
+1
Just because cleric were ridiculously unbalanced in the past doesn't mean that they should stay that way.
A barbarian is a meleer. Meleeing is the only thing that he can do right. Even then, he can't wear heavy armor unless he spend a feat (or multiclass into fighter) to do so.
The cleric, however, is not a meleer. He is a full caster. Battle (or melee) cleric is only one kind of cleric that you can play. You can also build your cleric to be a healer (high charisma and wisdom) or something between these two extremes.
Reminder: This is a subjective thread, and what one person doesn't like about Pathfinder (or other game systems) is definitely going to vary. Please keep your disagreements civil.
I do appreciate the sentiment, but after the "see ya" and general accusatory attitude from other posters, I don't think I'll be doing much (if any) posting on the forums from now on. :/
Let me put it into perspective. If they changed Barbarians and removed Rage, but created a Feat called "Barbarian Rage" which required levels in Barbarian. Wouldn't that have been a feat tax? It is exactly what was done for Clerics. Take something away they have always had from 1E, 2E, 3.0E, 3.5E to now lose in 3.75E (PF)Ok and that justifies referring to it as a "feat tax"?
Perhaps a better way to say it is "It's a complete bummer for me to choose to pay a feat to wear heavy armor on my clerics because that is my personal RP preference"
I must be in posession of different 1e and 2e material. Barbarians had no such thing as "rage" AT ALL in 1e and perhaps had a "kit" (battlerager?) In 2e. Rage as an integral mechanic of the Barbarian is wholly a 3e thing.
From my POV, losing Heavy Armor Proficiency is insignificant. Armor and especially Weapon Proficiencies done the same as it was in 1e and 2e could have been implemented instead. Since clerics are the *only* CRB class with unrestricted access to Shield of Faith, the loss of Heavy Armor as compared to the sheer staying power and flexibility that clerics have is ... minor. :-)
Did 2E remove the rule that you couldn't gain a level without going back to town and spending time+gold to train?
As I recall, "training rules" were one of those "blue-boxed" optional rules; 2E had a bunch of optional stuff in the Player's Handbook/Dungeon Master's Guide.
My single biggest gripe is that the Golem didn't spawn Pathfinder a few years earlier.
|
|
The only thing that slows me down in playing more Pathfinder is the preparation time needed as a GM.
This however is purely a consequence of the sheer versatility of the rules system. The rules themsleves are great, but my time is limited more and more these days, and preparing for high level games (actually anything from about level 10 upwards) is very time consuming if I want to do it right.
I run AP's now, which cuts my prep time considerably, but I still need to read up on magic gear and spells for many baddies before running them properly.
Any way to mitigate that time tax would be great, but not something I demand nor expect I must say.
Keep up the good work, and thanks again for listening to your player base (as evidenced by your reply earlier abuot the FAQ thing.)
Now I have to stop prcrastinating and get back to marking adn report writing. <sigh>
Cheers
|
Someone once said 'Play the game, not the rules'. Sometimes I think he's right.
No, to argue earlier editions are better just requires that you prefer common sense and imagination to math homework.
Well, considering 3x is all rules, and the modern assumption of play has to allow for the inevitable rule look up delay...
|
|
As JJ has pointed out please get back to tpoic. LW do not let the other posters intimidate into not posting. I started this thread with the express purpose for those who want to post about what they dislike or is wrong with PF. I think it bore repating again. As long as one is civil toward other posters if they want to post that they hate anything and everything about PF this is the thread to do it. If you do not like that then start another thread or just do not bother reading this one.
And it seems this has turned into a general all purpose feedback thread for the developers of Paizo. Not my intended purpose for starting this thread yet if it will improve the game it makes me very happy.
I do feel a little bad though since this thread is so much longer than the Best thing about Pathfinder thread. Or it goes to show that their are things that some players want to see changed or improved. Which I never see as a bad thing.
I do feel a little bad though since this thread is so much longer than the Best thing about Pathfinder thread.
It doesn't mean that there are more things that are wrong with the system, however. Most of the time, someone isn't moved to say, "no, that's not the best thing" when someone posts their favorite part of the system, however, often there are those that will defend parts of the system they like when its deemed one of the "worst" aspects of the game.
A bunch of stuff.
Pretty much all of your assumptions are wrong, and half of recollection of the 2E rules is also wrong.
If you want to have it out in another thread I'm game; I'll endeavor not to post on that topic again in this one.
And on topic, where the game could be improved:
Mainly, because the game really kind of is a set of house rules / patches, it lacks a consistent, unifying vision and in some places that really shows. This is something I think 4E gets "right to a fault": they have an idea for about how good a feat should be, about how good a class should be, about how many stats a class should need to be high, and so on.
Part of that might be deciding what the game is being balanced for -- again, 4E IMHO gets this right to a fault in that they wanted to extend the 'sweet spot' of the game to be the whole game and (to me), ended up making none of the game the sweet spot -- but at least they had a clear idea of where they were trying to go. Maybe Pathfinder is supposed to only balance particularly well for a certain range of levels, or a certain range of player system mastery (low or high), or whatever. As players we don't know what that goal is (and it doesn't seem like there is one, exactly), so we each assume that what we want out of the game is what it's supposed to be trying to be.
I think Pathfinder as written is a step in the right direction, but I don't think it's yet quite where it needs to be. In some cases the APG helped even things out -- for example, I like the idea of rage powers but most of the ones in the core book aren't where they need to be, power-wise, to put the barbarian on par with the other melee classes much less the casters, and the APG powers help a lot in that area -- in other cases I think it's the core classes themselves that really just about need another full pass.
|
A bunch of stuff.
Pretty much all of your assumptions are wrong, and half of recollection of the 2E rules is also wrong.
If you want to have it out in another thread I'm game; I'll endeavor not to post on that topic again in this one.
Right - when you call someone a liar or incorrect the burden is on you to show where I lied or was incorrect. So again, I'll take this as just an unsubstantiated snipe with no backing supporting argument on your part.
Sometimes I think that the worst thing about Pathfinder is the behavior on these boards.
Please be good to each other. Let's get this thread back on topic—it's actually a helpful thread for us to find out where we can look at improving the game when the thread's doing its job.
Hangs his head in shame while keeping an eye out for Tom Rex ... in order not to be eaten.
|
|
I'm not a big fan of 3.5 and to some extent PFRPG. Obviously by my tags I show support for this company every month. I try only to by from Paizo because even though I have issues with the core design of 3.5 and PF, I think the staff and designers at Paizo have their heart in the right place.
I can also respect their influences and respect for the games heritage.
What I would have liked -and really wanted in the AGG was more rules, more detail about the rules. How can I design a solo encounter, and if not why not? I really would have liked to seen an Advanced Bestiary - not just monsters but the mechanics behind monsters and encounters and that doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon.
I wanted to see alternate rules and systems but instead I just got advice. The books are great, I just figured after the core rules came out you guys would have filled your backwards compatibility obligation and would have started to explore options with alternate rule systems (very happy with some new rules coming out in Ultimate Magic).
One thing that does bug me and had a chance being fixed is you should have had a system to assign values to feats and abilities for character creation.
Ex- Weapon focus vs. spell focus. I don't think these are even close to impact in character building economy yet they both cost the same - 1 feat. Same with the point buy system. Each attribute has a different impact on the game yet they all cost the same. It's almost as if everyone is ignoring the obvious disparities. I don't mind powerful casters, as long as they pay for that power somewhere. I didn't expect the rules to change much, but maybe actually acknowledge that some feats are just better than others and possibly supply a system to mitigate that (even an optional "Grey Box" suggestion).
That way the rules remain mostly intact, yet you address the fact that not all classes, abilities and feats are created equal.
PFRPG was a chance to fix all that but I think it missed the mark, the heart was in the right place and there were some good changes.
In any case I am in for the long haul with this company as long as they stay true to their influences and roots.
Reminder: This is a subjective thread, and what one person doesn't like about Pathfinder (or other game systems) is definitely going to vary. Please keep your disagreements civil.I do appreciate the sentiment, but after the "see ya" and general accusatory attitude from other posters, I don't think I'll be doing much (if any) posting on the forums from now on. :/
Your attitude toward a game that many people have worked years to create and unsentimental comments about it being basically a lost cause may have caused said statement.
Sucks after hearing something hurtful right? imagine all the designers that heard you say "Had a lot of potential but was a flawed product".
Yeah.
Maybe it is best you don't post on the forums of an RPG game company you apparently cant stand.
just a thought.
Here is my two cents:
I like most everything, seriously I think focusing too much on the rules takes away from any game.
"Screw you GRANDMA! I WANT BOARDWALK!!!!"
most people like monopoly, but if you get all caught up in the rules and winning the game then it becomes a head ache.
The best thing I could offer as advice is this:
continue to make this a RPG and not a I have a ton of ridiculous material game.
3.5's biggest problem was none of the rules stuff was play tested, attempted to be min/maxed before put into play. Paizo is testing, I love it. What better way to get results than testing a hypothesis.
You can crunch numbers all day, but concrete evidence comes from putting things in action.
Keep the slow book progressions, release innovative ideas that add variety to the game while making no real change to the power levels (atleast in a negative way like increasing distances between certain classes and others further).
I strongly encourage more books with combination roleplaying applicable rules, I really like the idea of the martial arts book in development, depending on the results.
Keep up the good work.
my personal opinion ^
I wonder if it wasn't altogether a bad idea for each class to have its own XP chart. Some classes are inherently more powerful than others, and this was a decent way to control advancement...For the love of Sarenrae NO!
I played 9 years in a 1E game. I was 17th Level. I was the first in the party to reach 9th and the last to reach 12th level. When we ended because a PC reached 40th level (20th Fighter then Dual class into Wizard for 20 levels) I was left at level 17. I hated it. Balance the classes by their level not their XP chart.
While it's clear that I played barely any AD&D compared to you, I'd like to write in my agreement from the point of view of a "casual user."
Alas, due to various factors in my life, I don't get to play PFRPG anymore :( But never mind, I didn't intend this to be a sob story...
I just meant to say that the only time I ever get to play any RPG anymore is when I play Basic D&D with my kids. And let me tell you, for young children, a unified XP chart is important! Kids will insist on thinking along the lines of "This elf is only first level, and that cleric is THIRD?!? The cleric is WAY more powerful!"
What with Paizo working on a "Pathfinder for children" kind of product, I just thought I would mention that point.
And one of the things I liked about 3E is that hearing "an X-level character" had more meaning. It's one of the reasons I haven't been able to go back to 2E.
Sometimes I think that the worst thing about Pathfinder is the behavior on these boards.
Yeah, In Before the Lock and all that...
Still, I might point out that the behavior on Paizo's messageboards is WAY, WAY better than on many other websites. There's a reason I got hooked on the messageboards of this website and no other.
(And getting hooked on these messageboards led to me buying Paizo products. I'm just sayin'.)
Your attitude toward a game that many people have worked years to create and unsentimental comments about it being basically a lost cause may have caused said statement.
Sucks after hearing something hurtful right? imagine all the designers that heard you say "Had a lot of potential but was a flawed product".
Yeah.
Maybe it is best you don't post on the forums of an RPG game company you apparently cant stand.
just a thought.
Okay, I will reply to this comment, purely because it's so ridiculous.
Paizo is a company. It's not your friends, it's not your next door neighbor, it's not the old lady down the street. This company sells a product...in this case, an RPG product. Like any product, it costs money. Also, like any product, the makers of said product are inherently responsible for the quality of the product. Thus, at any time, any customer who has purchased this product can freely make any complaint about it they wish. Whether or not the company goes along with it is up to them, but there are two absolute facts:
1. Those in service of a company, so long as the customer does not insult them personally or behave in an unruly manner, must at least listen to the customer's issue without dismissing them or copping an attitude.
This is basic customer service.
2. Other customers who like the product have no right to deny those who find fault in it to say so, or to criticize them for what they feel is a legitimate complaint.
The internet is too full of groups loving all over some particular thing and berating those who have a problem with it. It's childish and stupid and needs to stop.
I'm not happy with the current product, but I see the merit of the idea and the design. All I'm looking for is an alternative to suit the tastes of more than just one core group of gamers. That's called "shopping the product", and it's how companies grow. They attract one audience, then another comes along and says "hey do you have this?", and if the answer is no then the company decides if they want to expand their product or not.
As generally true as your post is LadyWurm, this one I'm going to have to dispute. A fair portion (I would consider it a majority) of Paizo's forum regulars ARE friends with the staff.
Not to mention that a few people that started out as fans are now staff. I'm all for maintaining objectivity, but I don't think you have to completely depersonalize all interactions in order to do so.
As generally true as your post is LadyWurm, this one I'm going to have to dispute. A fair portion (I would consider it a majority) of Paizo's forum regulars ARE friends with the staff.
While that fact may be true, it has no relevance to Paizo as a company, or Pathfinder as a product.
Sentiment is for matters between friends, not between customers and companies, and not on a forum for said customers maintained by said company. Other customers can have sentiment for a product (and most companies want this to happen, because it's good for business), which is perfectly fine...but that doesn't entitle them to speak out against other customers based purely on them not sharing that sentiment.
It's part of the responsibility of being a company.
Sentiment is for matters between friends, not between customers and companies, and not on a forum for said customers maintained by said company. Other customers can have sentiment for a product, which is perfectly fine, but that doesn't entitle them to speak out against other customers based purely on them not sharing that sentiment.
It's part of the responsibility of being a company.
Yes, fanboys are annoying. No offense, but so are people who think it is their job to teach the Internet business 101. :P
As generally true as your post is LadyWurm, this one I'm going to have to dispute. A fair portion (I would consider it a majority) of Paizo's forum regulars ARE friends with the staff.While that fact may be true, it has no relevance to Paizo as a company, or Pathfinder as a product.
Sentiment is for matters between friends, not between customers and companies, and not on a forum for said customers maintained by said company. Other customers can have sentiment for a product (and most companies want this to happen, because it's good for business), which is perfectly fine...but that doesn't entitle them to speak out against other customers based purely on them not sharing that sentiment.
It's part of the responsibility of being a company.
I find it ridiculous instead of acknowledging your response was a personal attack on the company ("this is a flawed product" comment does just that) you devolve this into an arguement about company responsibility.
you can try and say "its there job to take my shit" all you want but to be honest I will never agree with that.
Its part of YOUR responsibility of being a civil human being.
Yes, fanboys are annoying. No offense, but so are people who think it is their job to teach the Internet business 101. :PSentiment is for matters between friends, not between customers and companies, and not on a forum for said customers maintained by said company. Other customers can have sentiment for a product, which is perfectly fine, but that doesn't entitle them to speak out against other customers based purely on them not sharing that sentiment.
It's part of the responsibility of being a company.
I am far from a fan boy, I am just willing to acknowledge when I like something and when I dont like something.
When it is the latter I state why and in a civil manner.
"I dont like this because of X,Y, and Z" which lady wurm did in prior posts.
The comment that tweaked me was the one where she just made a blatant attack.
That is ridiculous and those guys work hard, I dont show up to your job and tell you that you suck at what you do, so where do you get off???
I am far from a fan boy, I am just willing to acknowledge when I like something and when I dont like something.
When it is the latter I state why and in a civil manner.
"I dont like this because of X,Y, and Z" which lady wurm did in prior posts.
The comment that tweaked me was the one where she just made a blatant attack.
That is ridiculous and those guys work hard, I dont show up to your job and tell you that you suck at what you do, so where do you get off???
Where do I get off? That's a little personal, don't you-- oh wait.
I didn't mean to call you (or anyone) a fanboy; I was generally acknowledging that some times overzealouness can be trying.
I think perhaps we should all just let this one rest, eh? This thread doesn't need more drama (from any of us). :P
Where do I get off? That's a little personal, don't you-- oh wait.
haha thanks for lightening the mood, sorry for my venom spiittle
I think perhaps we should all just let this one rest, eh? This thread doesn't need more drama (from any of us). :P
agreed.
Lets get this forum back on the topic of improving the game, after all the best benefit for pathfinder in my opinion is the consumers ability to contribute to the products through this medium.
Lets not waste that medium.
The whole full attack and standard action attack thing could use a revamp, standing still to get multiple attacks doesnt make sense. fencers are constantly moving and martial artists move countless places.
Even barbarians sword fought over countless grounds.
The movie 300 is also a good example of movement and full attack.
I imagine he wasn't referring to you bugleyman, although I could be mistaken.
I didn't think he was, at least not with the "get off" part. It just led into my poor attempt at humor... :P
The whole full attack and standard action attack thing could use a revamp.
Agreed. Though I suspect changing that would have had so many ripple effects that backwards compatibility would have suffered. But that's just a guess.
I find it ridiculous instead of acknowledging your response was a personal attack on the company ("this is a flawed product" comment does just that) you devolve this into an arguement about company responsibility.
You can't personally "attack" a company, you can only attack a person. Hence the term "personal". A company is a seperate entity that employs a given number of people, and is run by a given number of people. It's a collection of documents and licenses sitting in drawers and computers somewhere. You can't insult a company because it's not a person (except maybe for Apple. Jury's still out on that one).
Now, if I came on here and said "James Jacobs is a terrible designer and a stupid-head!" (sorry to use you as an example, JJ ^_^), then I would be guilty of a personal insult, and people would be perfectly justified in calling me on it.
Saying "this is a flawed product" however, means that the company produced something I consider unfortunate given the potential and/or expectations of said product. A game book is produced by the whole company...writers, editors, creative designers, artists, playtesters, consultants and so on and so on. If a customer thinks the product is flawed, it could be anyone's or everyone's fault. I could be noone's fault at all. Maybe something got lost in transition, or maybe the advertising was misleading, or a thousand other things.
Simply having issue with a company's product is never personal.