|
The last thing I want is for Pathfinder to have a stack of books to go with it.
People shouldn't have to be "good at" this game. Being light in rules is one of the virtues of the game. But, when it comes to non-core add-ons, there are plenty of options.
Yeah. I'm currently engaged in a campaign to get Super Genius Games to produce a Mad Scientist / Steampunk / Girl Genius Spark / Tesla-esque class. It's somewhat possible already with a high-level character and a heavy investment in feats and skill points, but it'd be nice to have a dedicated class that wouldn't suck for ~10 levels of the build.
|
|
Yeah. I'm currently engaged in a campaign to get Super Genius Games to produce a Mad Scientist / Steampunk / Girl Genius Spark / Tesla-esque class. It's somewhat possible already with a high-level character and a heavy investment in feats and skill points, but it'd be nice to have a dedicated class that wouldn't suck for ~10 levels of the build.The last thing I want is for Pathfinder to have a stack of books to go with it.
People shouldn't have to be "good at" this game. Being light in rules is one of the virtues of the game. But, when it comes to non-core add-ons, there are plenty of options.
Have you looked at this?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-cla7sses/artificer
Can't look at it at the moment, but I believe I've looked it over before, and was not impressed. Mainly because it's specifically stated as being magic + technology. Yeah, it's mostly a matter of fluff, but I'd like to see one presented as purely technology-based.
Hiya.
Didn't have time to read all 400+ posts...so I'll just say:
*Not enough Options*
I'm talking about options in how things are done, not in how many things you can choose. In other words, having 200 feats gives you a lot of options to choose feats...but I'd like to have seen a 'sidebar' detailing some method of using feats differently, or not at all, for example.
All the things they "wanted to do but couldn't because it just wouldn't be [worldsmostfamousfantasyrpg]". Things like having an option to NOT use Alignment. Or having a way to use some kind of 'magic points' in stead of the classic Vancian-style system for spellcasters. That kind of thing.
Oh well...still an improvement over 3.5e if you ask me. :)
^_^
Paul L. Ming
|
|
Hiya.
Didn't have time to read all 400+ posts...so I'll just say:
*Not enough Options*
I'm talking about options in how things are done, not in how many things you can choose. In other words, having 200 feats gives you a lot of options to choose feats...but I'd like to have seen a 'sidebar' detailing some method of using feats differently, or not at all, for example.
All the things they "wanted to do but couldn't because it just wouldn't be [worldsmostfamousfantasyrpg]". Things like having an option to NOT use Alignment. Or having a way to use some kind of 'magic points' in stead of the classic Vancian-style system for spellcasters. That kind of thing.
Oh well...still an improvement over 3.5e if you ask me. :)
Definetly an improvement overall. I also think that lacking a book like 3.5s Unearthed Arcana is an issue. At the very least taking a look at the issues that are constantly coming up here like Alignment, Item Creation issues, Cleric, and Save or Dies.
|
I think other posters here are right...Pathfinder is pointless unless you want to play a game that clings vehemently to D&D's "past glory", while 4E is way too much of a "omg lol cool powers" video game. Dragon Age is even worse than Pathfinder, and Warhammer Fantasy is even worse than that (plus it's stupidly expensive).
It seems to me like there's a huge gap in fantasy gaming, something that neither Pathfinder nor 4E fill, but they both skirt the edge of. Too much of a jump between them. There should be a good game filling that gap, and if Paizo was willing to give a little, Pathfinder could easily do that.
However, it's blatantly obvious that neither Paizo nor most Pathfinder fans have any interest in doing so, so my topic is moot.
So your most hated thing about Pathfinder is that it is d20 based, and you wish it weren't. And you're suprised that both the core fanbase and company don't want to change that?
Kinda like saying you don't like Chevys because they don't make a Honda Civic...
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Considering the additional feats that are given (compared to 3.5) in pathfinder why not just spend a feat on heavy armor proficiency?
Yes, I've heard this and I've built characters that do this.
But this is essentially "I need to take this feat to be a Cleric, so I have this feat tax."
Absolutely correct. If having to spend a feat for armor proficiency on an already powerful class is one of the biggest drawbacks to pathfinder then I am a very happy camper!
That post shows a clear misunderstanding of my position. I couldn't care less about the power. If you value the Cleric at 100 power points, and Heavy Armor at 5 power points (or 25 or 99) then take something of more power away. I don't care.
But if someone wants to play a Cleric (regardless of the mechanics of what a "Cleric" can do) the one thing most people I know think of in our mind is someone in Full Plate. I shouldn't have to spend a feat to play a class. It is similar to Druids with Natural Spell. You don't play a Wild Shaping Druid that casts without taking the feat. But in that case (Natural Spell) not every Druid might want it.
This is why I think some Archetype is the fix. Some Cleric "gain Heavy Armor for X" and pick an X that everyone screaming about "cleric is too powerful to give them Heavy" all agree is more powerful than Heavy.
In other pick something. If we agree that 9th level spells are equal to Heavy? Fine. A Heavy Plate Cleric gain no 9th level spell slots at 17th level. I don't care. See?
The absolute worst thing about PF, in my opinion, is the Cleric.
Domains flat out suck ... Should be much more like the Sorcerer Bloodlines
I couldn't disagree more. I'd wager I wouldn't be playing PF if they hadn't left Domains alone.
That post shows a clear misunderstanding of my position. I couldn't care less about the power. If you value the Cleric at 100 power points, and Heavy Armor at 5 power points (or 25 or 99) then take something of more power away. I don't care.
But if someone wants to play a Cleric (regardless of the mechanics of what a "Cleric" can do) the one thing most people I know think of in our mind is someone in Full Plate. I shouldn't have to spend a feat to play a class. It is similar to Druids with Natural Spell. You don't play a Wild Shaping Druid that casts without taking the feat. But in that case (Natural Spell) not every Druid might want it.
This is why I think some Archetype is the fix. Some Cleric "gain Heavy Armor for X" and pick an X that everyone screaming about "cleric is too powerful to give them Heavy" all agree is more powerful than Heavy.
In other pick something. If we agree that 9th level spells are equal to Heavy? Fine. A Heavy Plate Cleric gain no 9th level spell slots at 17th level. I don't care. See?
I understand your position, James: That full-plate is an iconic part of the cleric. I just don't agree with it.
Either way, it's hard to reasonably call what amounts to a matter of opinion a "feat tax." A feat tax is a feat that a class must have to function, while a cleric works perfectly well without heavy armor proficiency.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
A feat tax is a feat that a class must have to function, while a cleric works perfectly well without heavy armor proficiency.
Let me rephrase, the fest tax I refer to is:
"A feat one must take to play a iconic Cleric"Our "in the mind eye" image of a Cleric is wearing full plate. We don't imaging "he has this domain power" but instead we imaging "he is embolden by the Sun" (Sun domain) and "he can transport allows across planes" (Plane Shift)
The actual rules in use only matter for the character sheet. So in order to sit down and build a "Cleric" I have this one thing that doesn't come from my "Cleric construction kit" (the PHB class) and it is this fiddly feat called Heavy Armor Proficiency. Fine, I'll go ahead and take the feat to make my character "legal" and correct.
A feat tax is a feat that a class must have to function, while a cleric works perfectly well without heavy armor proficiency.Let me rephrase, the fest tax I refer to is:
"A feat one must take to play a iconic Cleric"Our "in the mind eye" image of a Cleric is wearing full plate. We don't imaging "he has this domain power" but instead we imaging "he is embolden by the Sun" (Sun domain) and "he can transport allows across planes" (Plane Shift)
The actual rules in use only matter for the character sheet. So in order to sit down and build a "Cleric" I have this one thing that doesn't come from my "Cleric construction kit" (the PHB class) and it is this fiddly feat called Heavy Armor Proficiency. Fine, I'll go ahead and take the feat to make my character "legal" and correct.
So the only reason a Cleric must have heavy armor prof is because they always have up to this point?
|
Sorry James, but my first contact with D&D was the Red Box, and my iconic Cleric will forever be the tragic Aleena
She's wearing chainmail. For me, Pathfinder made right the thing that other versions of D&D were doing wrong for oh so many years.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Sorry James, but my first contact with D&D was the Red Box, and my iconic Cleric will forever be the tragic Aleena
She's wearing chainmail. For me, Pathfinder made right the thing that other versions of D&D were doing wrong for oh so many years.
Mine too, bought red box in 1983.
Again, she (Aleena) wasn't "rich" enough to wear it. If you play higher level games/modules, you find almost all clerics in all books (1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e) have Full Plate Clerics.
Yes you can find some examples of them in chain but chain is cheap and those with chain are predominately lower level.
So the only reason a Cleric must have heavy armor prof is because they always have up to this point?
Whether or not "they always have" is irrelevant. The issue is that if you ask me to describe a 10th level Cleric, one line will be in every description "wearing shiny full plate". You don't make a distinction between these two I imagine.
MY iconic Cleric casts only 7th level and lower spells (from AD&D 2nd E). I think it was a good idea to remove the Heavy Armor Proficiency from the Cleric, making it a unique class feature of the Fighter and Paladin.
Now the Barbarian, the Cleric and the Ranger wear medium armor, and that makes much more sense than creating a whole category of armor (medium) exclusive to only one class (the barbarian from 3.X).
However, I do agree with James on one thing : a ''battle'' cleric variant is something that the APG lacks.
HAHA! Mine was the 1981 purple boxed set! So now everything I say is more genuine!
:D
Sorry James, but my first contact with D&D was the Red Box, and my iconic Cleric will forever be the tragic Aleena
She's wearing chainmail. For me, Pathfinder made right the thing that other versions of D&D were doing wrong for oh so many years.
Same here. Don't forget that cool ink drawing of the female cleric by L. Elmore in the cleric description.
MY POV to the crowd who doesn't like the cleric armor prof. change:
3.5 introduced more distinctions in armor types than the previous two editions. PF appears to have looked at those distinctions objectively with regard to class, and IMO chose right with all the classes with regard to armor proficiency. Medium armor proficiency in theory grants access to some serious combat armor.
However, the translation of domain powers is pretty unspectacular IMO. I like the 3.5 versions better. Many domain powers seem silly. If PF wanted to give a nod to clerics of earlier editions donning heavy armor, it would have been a good move to have the War Domain grant heavy armor proficiency and martial weapon competence. Instead, we get a bunch of goofy touch-like abilities rather than a nice mix of skill related abilities, feat related abilities, and extraordinary and supernatural abilities.
Thinking long about this topic before I posted:
this is my 2cp
The "cloud" has little effect on the "crunch"
After the use of "bonus dice" in games like Exalted I would like to see the system have a more mechanical impact on the dice rolling for good description/RP whether in combat or not.
A mechanic for "grand objectives" vs "task based". IE a system of clear and fast rules for determining:
If your ragtag group of villagers you have somewhat trained to use slings can hold the line against a group of marauding orcs saving the city.
A system to plead/try a case when the PC's are accused (or accuse an NPC) of a criminal act.
A system that perhaps allows for accumulation of X number of sucesses with modifers for things like "surprise witness/reinforcements" to create a narrative flow to the events without playing out an epsode of law and order and everything depending on one dice roll; or having to make so many "crucial rolls" that the law of averages means you will fail one eventually (less of an issue in high level play of course).
So the only reason a Cleric must have heavy armor prof is because they always have up to this point?Whether or not "they always have" is irrelevant. The issue is that if you ask me to describe a 10th level Cleric, one line will be in every description "wearing shiny full plate". You don't make a distinction between these two I imagine.
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" rather than implying not wearing heavy armor breaks clerics somehow...It's just your opinion, as this is mine.
However, the translation of domain powers is pretty unspectacular IMO. I like the 3.5 versions better.
The serious problem with the 3.5 domain powers, which I think Pathfinder does fix, is that the domains were terribly balanced against each other, especially with regards to whether you needed additional cleric levels or not.
Death domain? I hope you're planning to be all cleric with no PClasses or the death touch turns to crap awful fast.
Luck domain? One and done. A compelling dip choice even for people with no real interest in being a cleric.
The worst thing? Well I really like the system, so I'll say that the Golarion deities are not to my tastes. Not from a DM or player perspective, not thematically as a whole and not mechanically in the way they play a part in lives of their clerics. But this is just a matter of taste.
|
|
The worst thing? Well I really like the system, so I'll say that the Golarion deities are not to my tastes. Not from a DM or player perspective, not thematically as a whole and not mechanically in the way they play a part in lives of their clerics. But this is just a matter of taste.
I don't really care for the deities either, but that is more because of RL religious reasons and I feel that they are way to restricted as far as allowing for Divine concept characters <minor issue for me overall>.
But, I am interested in hearing what you would rather it be like? Do you want more of a personal influence, or maybe more like Eberron where no one even knows if they exist. Or something else completely like philosphies?
I am assuming that the mechanics you refere to are related to Alignment and Channeling, but also violating religious ethics. Is that correct?
|
|
The absolute worst thing about PF, in my opinion, is the Cleric.
Domains flat out suck ... Should be much more like the Sorcerer Bloodlines
I couldn't disagree more. I'd wager I wouldn't be playing PF if they hadn't left Domains alone.
Just curious what it is you like about PF Domains? To me, they are completely boring and lackluster, even more when comparred to the great changes nearly every other class had. Since 3.0, the biggest complaint about Domains is that they didn't actually add those spells to the Cleric's list, so where always 1/day, basically. That continues. The various Domain Powers, with a few exceptions (see the few good options note above :) ), are basically cookie-cutter 1d6 +1 whatever, # + Wis/Day. The others are for anyone but the actual character themsleves, which is infuriorating rather than an attempt to get people to play Clerics. The few that are good are generally too good, even in my opinion.
What saving graces do you see, though?
The absolute worst?
The addictiveness.
Seriously, I was, like, lying in the hallway in my house between the bathroom and my bedroom, scratching my arm, when my wife came out of our bedroom and stepped over me. She then stopped, and seeing the condition I was in, said "Have you not gone to sleep yet? It's 3 in the morning!", and I was all "Let's just game for a few more minutes, please, baby, I need it, please?", and she got this mingled look of pity and disgust in her eye, and said "How about we retire to the bedroom, and have some fun, and then I'll make your favorite breakfast?" in her sexiest tone of voice, and I was all "NO! I'm too tired for that, I haven't slept since Monday, I just need to game a little bit and then I'll be fine, you'll see, I just need a little, I can quit any time." She looked angry, hurt, and dubious, and I was all like "You know I love you baby, right?", and then I passed out in a pool of Mountain Dew and my own stink.
The rehab was difficult, and I ultimately only beat my addiction by taking up a pretty nasty heroin habit, but I'm happy to say that I only game twice a week now, and that the shakes prevent me from driving, but the doctors say I'll be able to go back to work cataloging glass vials filled with rare samples at the infectious disease lab in a couple of weeks, once both of my eyes can focus on the same object again.
I can't warn people in strong enough terms: THIS STUFF IS ADDICTIVE ON A MASSIVE SCALE! But with my wife's help, and enough heroin to keep me semi-conscious most of the time, I think I'll get through this.
So your most hated thing about Pathfinder is that it is d20 based, and you wish it weren't. And you're suprised that both the core fanbase and company don't want to change that?
Kinda like saying you don't like Chevys because they don't make a Honda Civic...
How on earth did you get that out of what I was saying? This reply doesn't even make sense. :P
I want to see d20 evolve, because I like d20. The problem is that 4E "evolved" into something unrecognizable, while Pathfinder is determined to sit on the porch like an old man and go nowhere. Calling it "3.75" is a total lie. It's still 3.5, just with more polish and baubles.
A true 3.75 game would have a core system that ties in with 3.5 so that they're compatible, but adds features that act as a base for expansion. Then, the game adds content that is totally incompatible with 3.5 because it's something entirely new, but the core system provides the setup for this new content to work with it.
In other words, you'd have a Pathfinder corebook that is 3.5 compatible, then expansion books that are true 3.75 material and have content that only works with the Pathfinder game. That way, people can still use their 3.5 books with the core game, but the additional Pathfinder books would be totally new content.
My big complaint about Pathfinder, therefore, is that it's just fanservice for people who flail at progress and don't want anything truly new.
I expected 3.75, and I just got more 3.5.
Lol@sockpuppets
Haha no joke, it's like I've been reading the same Pathfinder Power Attack is the suxxor, 3.5 Power Attack + Leap Attack + Shock Trooper is the only way martial characters can compete !!!!!!!!! for the about the zillionth time and interestingly enough they all seem to use the same terminology over and over.
Stuff.
At least Pathfinder is a greater improvement from 3.5 than 3.5 was from 3.0. There's so little differences between 3.5 and 3.0 that they should have called it 3.1 and PF would be 3.3 or 3.4.
I agree with you on the fact that Pathfinder was not daring enough. The Bestiary is the biggest failure of Pathfinder IMO. Except for a little more hp here and a little more feats there, all the monsters are exactly the same. PF had the opportunity to remake them more fun to run for the DM and more fun to fight for the PCs, but it didn't take that opportunity.
Because of this, I have huge expectations for Ultimate Combat. I hope to see some older ideas (armor as damage reduction, AC that scales like BAB, Tome of Battle's maneuvres, etc) redone, PLAYTESTED and improved so that they could actually work with the game mechanics (because stuff like armor as DR don't work right now). I wouldn't mind if they throw in some new ideas too, as long as they're good ideas. (;
I expected 3.75, and I just got more 3.5.
I take it you weren't around for the switch from 3.0 to 3.5, then.
(If I assume you were, then your post seems, I'm sorry, utterly ridiculous, and I'm going to give you more credit than that.)
I expected 3.75, and I just got more 3.5.I take it you weren't around for the switch from 3.0 to 3.5, then.
(If I assume you were, then your post seems, I'm sorry, utterly ridiculous, and I'm going to give you more credit than that.)
Yep, the only reason why I converted from 3.0 to 3.5 is because having only one set of core books was slowing down the game to much when every players needed to consult them at the same time. :P
I agree with you on the fact that Pathfinder was not daring enough. The Bestiary is the biggest failure of Pathfinder IMO. Except for a little more hp here and a little more feats there, all the monsters are exactly the same. PF had the opportunity to remake them more fun to run for the DM and more fun to fight for the PCs, but it didn't take that opportunity.
Because of this, I have huge expectations for Ultimate Combat. I hope to see some older ideas (armor as damage reduction, AC that scales like BAB, Tome of Battle's maneuvres, etc) redone, PLAYTESTED and improved so that they could actually work with the game mechanics (because stuff like armor as DR don't work right now). I wouldn't mind if they throw in some new ideas too, as long as they're good ideas. (;
Exactly! What I want out of Pathfinder is actually very simple:
I want things in Pathfinder that didn't exist in 3.5.
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.
...and yes, new races. Balanced races that have some heart and flavor put into them (not the pitiful footnote provided by the Bestiary). I honestly don't want to hear any more replies of how "we don't need no non-humanlike races in our fantasy", or any mention of the word "furry". 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.
I take it you weren't around for the switch from 3.0 to 3.5, then.
Ah...so, based on that comparison, you're saying that Pathfinder really didn't fix much, came out too soon on the heels of it's predecessor, and wasn't much more than a money grab? :D
I take it you weren't around for the switch from 3.0 to 3.5, then.Ah...so, based on that comparison, you're saying that Pathfinder really didn't fix much, came out too soon on the heels of it's predecessor, and wasn't much more than a money grab? :D
In fact, it's more the other way around. 3.5 SHOULD have been like Pathfinder, but it was more like this : ''Hey guys, check that, we got new stuff! Cold iron and silver DR! Oh, and now, the Ranger has only 1d8hp/level. Well, I guess that's all. Give us your money now!''
Pathetic...
As for playing minotaur/tauren shaman, I don't mind if they release a book for that (and they will), but I won't buy it, because I don't play WoW, and I will never do. Beside, you can use your 3.X material for that kind of stuff anyway, since it's supposed to be compatible (I still use the Underdark 3.5 version of Drow, because Drow of Golarion are worthless wimps). In fact, I don't see what changes they could make for playing monsters as PCs. Level adjustment? It's already in 3.X. Slower level progression? You can easily house-rule it.
Oh, and by the way Lady, you can check the Truespeech in Tome of Magic for skill related spellcasting. The idea behind truespeech was good, but the way it worked and the in-game mechanics were awful. Maybe the new Word of Power system from Ultimate Magic will do better...
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.
But peanut-butter cups are my favorite candy ever :(
This is PFRPG. If you want taht stuff, go play that.
Keep your damned chocolate outta my peanutbutter.
Exactly! What I want out of Pathfinder is actually very simple:I want things in Pathfinder that didn't exist in 3.5.
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.
...and yes, new races. Balanced races that have some heart and flavor put into them (not the pitiful footnote provided by the Bestiary). I honestly don't want to hear any more replies of how "we don't need no non-humanlike races in our fantasy", or any mention of the word "furry". 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.
You should check out Fantasy Craft. It's a d20 game and has many of the things you describe. It's very much a d20 toolbox.
Cough... the monsters are not the same. Please compare with the 3.5 Monster manual. You might find out that the beasties have actually lost quite some hps and gained abilities that are not accessible to the PCs.
As for all those variants - that's NOT core stuff. The Core Rulebook is around to keep somewhat streamlined 3.5 material in play. If there were any radical changes (skill-based magic, ...), the backwards compatibility would go to... eww. Variant systems will appear in supplements, like the Ultimate Magic (see below), but they are not core for a 3E revision. Espcially when everything had to be fitted in some pre-set page count. Throwing in an Unearthed Arcana could have easily added anther 100 pages of material, which would be optional only and not exactly meant for organised play etc.
Ultimate Magic includes: New player character options for all 14 spellcasting Pathfinder RPG base classes, including alchemist discoveries and bombs, specific bard performances, specialized uses for channel energy, expanded druid domains and rules for vermin companions, new inquisitor archetypes, ki tricks, alternative oracle curses and revelations, new sorcerer bloodlines, additional summoner eidolon abilities and eidolon templates, new witch hexes and patrons, wizardly arcane discoveries, and more!
# The Magus, a brand-new 20-level base class that mixes wizardry with martial skill
# Extensive overviews of new and existing magic subsystems such as condition-based magic, cooperative casting, magical organizations, unpredictable primal magic, counterspelling, binding outsiders, crafting golems, etc.
# Lots of new familiars
# Premade spellbooks suitable for use at all levels of play
# Tons of new feats specifically designed for magic-using characters
# Brand new “words of power” alternative magic system
# More than 100 brand new spells!
# …and much, much more!
You should check out Fantasy Craft. It's a d20 game and has many of the things you describe. It's very much a d20 toolbox.
I was just looking at it today, actually. It's not bad, really fleshes out the game a lot. Sadly, it lacks Pathfinder's beauty and polish, but it still seems like a very solid game redesign.
I'm also going to investigate Essentials once all the material for it is out. Who knows, it might pull off a miracle. :)
# Extensive overviews of new and existing magic subsystems such as condition-based magic, cooperative casting, magical organizations, unpredictable primal magic, counterspelling, binding outsiders, crafting golems, etc.
A lot of this sounds like useless fluff, but some of it may help address an issue or two. Specifically the primal magic and organizations. This line doesn't make me hold my breath, though.
# Brand new “words of power” alternative magic system
From what I've heard about it, it sounds even more needlessly complicated than the current Vancian system (combine X source with X form and X location for Y effect). I don't much care for an RPG that feels like the cover is branded with the words "You must be this smart to play."
Ah...so, based on that comparison, you're saying that Pathfinder really didn't fix much, came out too soon on the heels of it's predecessor, and wasn't much more than a money grab? :D
No.
PF is at least as different from 3.5 as 3.5 was from 3.0.
Therefore it's your choice of reason to be just plain wrong to claim PF isn't even different enough to be a "3.75".
I mean, okay, it's not what you wanted it to be, we get that, but that's no reason to just say crazy crap that has no basis in reality.
As for all those variants - that's NOT core stuff. The Core Rulebook is around to keep somewhat streamlined 3.5 material in play. If there were any radical changes (skill-based magic, ...), the backwards compatibility would go to... eww. Variant systems will appear in supplements, like the Ultimate Magic (see below), but they are not core for a 3E revision. Espcially when everything had to be fitted in some pre-set page count. Throwing in an Unearthed Arcana could have easily added anther 100 pages of material, which would be optional only and not exactly meant for organised play etc.
That's why I'm waiting for Ultimate Combat. :P
Maerimydra: Seconded
Ladywurm: That thing should probably offer some options, it's not like the autors can copy/paste any more material from somewhere else, so either you'll take the system you like from somewhere else, or take what you have. Inclusion of some already published systems is not likely.
A lot of needless fluff? Well, it could be surprising, but there were quite a few magic variants in 3E that gathered some following and it’s really horrible that Paizo didn’t choose the ONE perfect system. In a book about magic there SHOULD be some space for thingst that you’ll never use, but another might. Some people won’t ever touch the elemental magic schools, but they are there.
Just saying that the Core Rulebook wah a reedition of the core rules that were released under OGL and that’s the system in which Paizo likes to do their adventures at the moment. They are not big enough yet to support a brand new game and wanted something that could support their older books as well. Core Rules couldn’t be a radical departure, publishing something like this would be too risky.
There has been some talk about Pathfinder 2.0, which could be a more radical redesign, but this system was just a thought construct that would be done after letting current system run for quite a few years (up to ten) and from what I saw on the boards most people definitely wanted it to be at very least five years.
P.S. I like the essentials a lot more than 4E, but I’ll keep an eye on wht I’ll allow flavor-wise. I want to keep this thing as a travel system when I don’t really want to bother with anything.
No.
PF is at least as different from 3.5 as 3.5 was from 3.0.
Therefore it's your choice of reason to be just plain wrong to claim PF isn't even different enough to be a "3.75".
I mean, okay, it's not what you wanted it to be, we get that, but that's no reason to just say crazy crap that has no basis in reality.
That was a joke, hun. :P
It's what a lot of people said about 3.5 when it came out, and since the poster made a comparison to the difference between 3.0 and 3.5, the joke was "are you really sure you want to make that comparison?". Because of all the flack 3.5 got.
Thank you for the sockpuppet. It bringed to me a smile, I was sad thinking to Aleena.
Cursed, cursed Bargle...
About the new systems: it depends from what you want from the game. I like 3.X and PF because are a big toolbox - each time you start a campaign, you use this or that rule to obtain a campaign different in mechanics and flavour.
So, even if I wouldn't use ALL for each campaign, new subsystems are a big help for DMs to create worlds.
Actually, I just remembered a very legit complaint about Pathfinder, and one that really should be passed on to Paizo: The wording of things.
Pathfinder suffers from a lot of really terrible wording on how certain parts of the game work. A good example would be misses on splash damage weapons. The book reads:
"Then, count a number of squares in the indicated direction equal to the range increment of the throw."
Our poor DM took this literally. As in, since the range increment was 20 squares, it missed by 20 squares, and wound up right at the Alchemist's feet! Unfortunately, it does kinda read that way.
It should have read:
"Then, count one square per range increment the throw traveled in the indicated direction."
Here's another one:
"Half-elves count as both elves and humans for any effect related to race."
So...does that mean that half-elves can take human feats and favored class benefits, and elven ones too, and half-elf stuff?
Since the term "effect" isn't really defined, it could mean anything that has game impact applies.