Hi Folks,
This being my first post I want to thank everyone for the tons of commentary / discussions that have helped me adapt to Pathfinder after playing D&D since 1979 (mostly as the dm).
Now the question:
Is there anywhere a "designers notes" section of these boards? For instance somewhere where we can see *why* they changed a rule somewhere from the 3.5 SRD?
For example - why did they change damage reduction? I don't know whether to house rule it back to the 3.5 version, some other bastardization or just adopt the Pathfinder version.
And since I don't know the "why" I'm less likely to accept the RAW for something like this.
Same thing for not using XP for magic items or spells (major shift in power from the players to the dm)
For example I may not *like* what they did with the wish spell or the various polymorph spells (in our groups we *never* had the problems that everyone seems to complain about) but since I know *why* they changed them I can go with it.
JohnBear, who sees lots of changes and very few explanations
There is not an official "designer notes" section of the website. However, I think I can answer your questions. (Speaking as a member of the community, not a Paizo employee, since I work in the wrong part of the office for me to have an opinion as a Designer. And I didn't even work here when those decisions were being made.)
For the changes to damage reduction, I presume you mean the ability of higher + weapons to overcome various kinds of DR. This change was made for two reasons:
1) Reduce the golf-bag effect. Players are less likely to need 3 or 4 weapons to cover the various combinations of DR, especially at higher levels, when it become prohibitively expensive to have all those weapons enchanted to a meaningful degree. This doesn't mean that DR becomes meaningless at high levels, though, because two weapon fighters, or characters who don't prioritize offense as heavily will have lower weapon bonuses. And even fighters and barbarians may have elected for a +1 vorpal weapon (or something similar) instead of a +5 weapon.
2) Make numeric bonuses on weapons more attractive. Toward the end of the 3.5 era, it became clear that because greater magic weapon stacked with magic weapons, the correct choice, especially at high level (when 3rd level spell slots were cheap and durations long), was to get a +1 weapon with as many flaming, holy, dancing, etc properties as you could afford, because greater magic weapon would get you the numeric bonus anyway, while a +4 weapon got nothing. Under Pathfinder, the bonus from greater magic weapon explicitly doesn't overcome DR (except /magic). Which makes getting a +4 weapon more attractive, since it means you can ignore certain types of DR.
XP costs went away because:
1) It can be a bookkeeping problem, since it means every member of a party could have a different XP amount.
2) They interact weirdly with the three different XP tracks Pathfinder contains rules for.
3) De-leveling a character is a HUGE headache. (This is also why negative levels changed the way they did).
4) If you don't allow de-leveling, then you get the counter-intuitive case where a barely-20th level caster can't cast wish, even though the guy who hasn't quite hit 18th level can.
5) It didn't make a whole lot of sense (to me, at least).
Polymorph changed because:
1) Even in the best case, it was unclear what benefits were gained from certain forms. (How many times did WotC errata the polymorph rules?)
2) It also put a restriction on the designers of monster books to think about what happens when a character polymorphs into a given new monster, which was often ignored, which is what led to the problems some people had with it. It's pretty bad game design when a staple spell means you can't ever make a Monstrous Humanoid with a Strength of 30 and 10 HD, because it suddenly means that spell is too powerful for its level. (Str and HD numbers fabricated, but indicate the types of restrictions the spell generated.)
3) Breaking it into smaller spells means wizards who want a shapechanging schtick can get access to it earlier, instead of basically having two spells they ever want to cast (Polymorph and Shapechange)
4) Making polymorph abilities into bonuses instead of setting them to certain values means that wildshaping druids or polymorphing wizards can't just dump all their physical ability scores and expect to excel in melee anyway. It also makes a certain amount of sense: a weakling, anemic elf becomes a weakling, anemic bear, while a hulking half-orc becomes a bigger, stronger bear.
I'm not familiar off the top of my head with the changes to Wish, but if you care to explain what you're referrng to, I'd be happy to take a stab at it.
Wow, thank you Ross !
Now it's my turn ! :P
I want to know why cleave doesn't work the way it used to be. Since it requires your opponents to be within reach AND adjacent, it seems to me that it's now harder to use for the PCs than before (but it's now a better feat for the monster because they don't need to drop a party member anymore). If you're fighting 2 opponents, you can't use cleave because they will try the flank you, so they won't be adjacent, unless they're stupid opponents.
Anyone can answer this for me?
Adjacent can be in multiple directions -- if they are diagonal from each other, lined up in a narrow hallway, side by side since there are too many opponents to simply flank, or large sized opponents on a single medium opponent.
It can be tricky to set up but the likelihood of use is (in my opinion) higher.
Adjacent can be in multiple directions -- if they are diagonal from each other, lined up in a narrow hallway, side by side since there are too many opponents to simply flank, or large sized opponents on a single medium opponent.
It can be tricky to set up but the likelihood of use is (in my opinion) higher.
Well, if there's more than 2 opponents on a single PC, it is likely that those opponents are quite weak and easy to drop (for the PC's sake), so the ''old'' cleave would work just fine on them.
I'm not saying that the ''new'' cleave is worst than the ''old'' one, but I would like to know the reason behind the change (and the -2 to AC).
EDIT: Cleave was always a circumstantial feat. They just traded one circumstance (dropping your foe) for another (two opponents must be adjacent). The likelyness of those circumstances depends of what you're fighting against (so it depends of the DM style). But, even if you meet the 2nd circumstance, you still have to take -2 to AC when using the feat. It's a fair trade I guess, unless you're a raging barbarian. :\
Well, if there's more than 2 opponents on a single PC, it is likely that those opponents are quite weak and easy to drop...I think that's a bad assumption. Perhaps the opponents are using better tactics than the PC(s) or have exploited an opportunity of the encounter-space.
-Skeld
You're right. But then again, if you're surrounded, and maybe flanked, by 3 or more TOUGH opponents, taking a -2 penalty to AC is maybe not the brightest move, unless you think you can drop at least one of them with your cleave attack, and if you do, then the ''old'' cleave could have helped you in the same way.
I must say that I only runned one game since we converted to Pathfinder (we play only once in a month or less), so I didn't have time to notice if the ''new'' cleave was more or less useful than the ''old'' cleave.
I do like how the ''new'' cleave works however, but I miss my ''old'' cleave too. Maybe we will see a feat called ''Killing Spree'' in Ultimate Combat, that would be kewl! :D
I would point out that with "new cleave" you have "greater new cleave" which can function like whirlwind attack -- with less investment.
Also with cleave you can make some maneuver checks instead -- so rather than simply hit those people you could instead trip three of them -- either they stand up and provoke from you or take a -4 to hit you (makes up for some of that AC penalty that way) to full attack. You don't *have* to rely on damage for it.
I would point out that with "new cleave" you have "greater new cleave" which can function like whirlwind attack -- with less investment.
Also with cleave you can make some maneuver checks instead -- so rather than simply hit those people you could instead trip three of them -- either they stand up and provoke from you or take a -4 to hit you (makes up for some of that AC penalty that way) to full attack. You don't *have* to rely on damage for it.
I wasn't aware of that. It gaves me an all new perspective of the feat now. Thank you!
Talking about cleave, I don't know if you're a backward compatibility fan or not, but I was wondering if it would be balanced to allow both the 3.X and PF cleaves in the same game. You could even have both of them and use both in the same round. Would it be game breaking? :\
I don't think it would be game breaking.
"new" Cleave is really useful for the following:
Multiple hits while taking a move action.
Average BAB characters with a single weapon (for these characters it lasts up until about level 20 in all honestly since it gives two attacks at full bonus).
Combat maneuvers against multiple opponents.
killing Mooks.
Drawing attention -- hitting multiple targets and taking a hit to AC draws attention -- most things will turn and attack you back especially if you hit them and their buddy -- while you might not what to do this often it can get "aggro" off of your buddies long enough for them to get in a better position.
Hi Ross,
Thanks for the great post. And thanks to everyone else for jumping in too.
There is not an official "designer notes" section of the website. However, I think I can answer your questions. (Speaking as a member of the community, not a Paizo employee, since I work in the wrong part of the office for me to have an opinion as a Designer. And I didn't even work here when those decisions were being made.)
'Sokay <smile>
For the changes to damage reduction, I presume you mean the ability of higher + weapons to overcome various kinds of DR. This change was made for two reasons:1) Reduce the golf-bag effect. Players are less likely to need 3 or 4 weapons to cover the various combinations of DR, especially at higher levels, when it become prohibitively expensive to have all those weapons enchanted to a meaningful degree. This doesn't mean that DR becomes meaningless at high levels, though, because two weapon fighters, or characters who don't prioritize offense as heavily will have lower weapon bonuses. And even fighters and barbarians may have elected for a +1 vorpal weapon (or something similar) instead of a +5 weapon.
2) Make numeric bonuses on weapons more attractive. Toward the end of the 3.5 era, it became clear that because greater magic weapon stacked with magic weapons, the correct choice, especially at high level (when 3rd level spell slots were cheap and durations long), was to get a +1 weapon with as many flaming, holy, dancing, etc properties as you could afford, because greater magic weapon would get you the numeric bonus anyway, while a +4 weapon got nothing. Under Pathfinder, the bonus from greater magic weapon explicitly doesn't overcome DR (except /magic). Which makes getting a +4 weapon more attractive, since it means you can ignore certain types of DR.
You're correct as to the changes I was referring to. And while I've never seen the "golf-bag" effect I guess some players would go that way <shrug> and complain about it; we just always acknowledged that you sometimes had to use a less optimal weapon.
This then also raises the question of what's the point of having the 2 feats: Penetrating Shot and Greater Penetrating Shot. Why waste the feat slots when I can just buy (or make) a better weapon? I know when I first read those feats my first thought was *cool*. Now the feats are (essentially) wasted. Unless a considerable number of critters in the beastiary have DR x/-...
It looks like DR will wind up being a discussion in our group about how we want to house rule it.
XP costs went away because:1) It can be a bookkeeping problem, since it means every member of a party could have a different XP amount.
2) They interact weirdly with the three different XP tracks Pathfinder contains rules for.
3) De-leveling a character is a HUGE headache. (This is also why negative levels changed the way they did).
4) If you don't allow de-leveling, then you get the counter-intuitive case where a barely-20th level caster can't cast wish, even though the guy who hasn't quite hit 18th level can.
5) It didn't make a whole lot of sense (to me, at least).
While I agree that #2 is a major roadblock, and #4 *is* a little squirrley condition, the major downside of the change is the HUGE shift in power from the players to the DM (#1 was solved with spreadsheets <g>).
As the DM I can always create scenarios which take away cash and components from the party. But the XP were always there for the player to use. They earned it. Now, I can all too easily make many spells uncastable just by limiting the cashflow.
Plus it's now the case that the spellcasters can "cast themselves" into the poor house and fall well below the wealth by level guidelines while the other classes just keep humming along...swords and armor are never "used up". Casters always had to contend with the fact that part of their "wealth" was tied up in spell components. The current system has exacerbated this greatly
Whereas (even if we allow de-leveling, which we never did btw) the experience system was self-correcting
And let's not even mention the Vow of Poverty from BoED.
I smell another gaming group discussion/house-rule session coming up.
Polymorph changed because:
I was actually just using that as another example, but one where the case had been made directly (and so often as you pointed out <grin>) in terms of game system balance that We can run with it - even though we may not agree with *all* the changes. But we can see where the changes fit into the new system.
I'm not familiar off the top of my head with the changes to Wish, but if you care to explain what you're referrng to, I'd be happy to take a stab at it.
Specifically, the old wish spell also let you spend the 5000xp to create either 25,000gp worth of stuff -or- create/upgrade a magic item. It just cost you double the xp to make the item. So an item that normally took 5,000xp to create (and 125,000gp) instead cost you 15,000xp (5000xp for the spell and 10,000xp for the item)
Thanks again for taking the time to explain what you think.
JohnBear
Wow, thank you Ross !
Now it's my turn ! :P
I want to know why cleave doesn't work the way it used to be. Since it requires your opponents to be within reach AND adjacent, it seems to me that it's now harder to use for the PCs than before (but it's now a better feat for the monster because they don't need to drop a party member anymore). If you're fighting 2 opponents, you can't use cleave because they will try the flank you, so they won't be adjacent, unless they're stupid opponents.
Anyone can answer this for me?
My thoughts:
1) Cleave became somewhat lackluster at higher levels
2) This allows the "stupid Xena trick" where you can wack a whole bunch of guys with one shot - which is kinda cool
JohnBear
XP costs went away because: ...Additionally, I remember Jason and/or James mentioning on several occasions that they wanted to end the practice of PCs using XP as a commodity to be traded in for power.
Thanks Skeld. While I may not agree with them (or the solution the chose), at least it's a reason. <shrug>
JohnBear
Penetrating Strike and Greater Penetrating Strike mean a fighter can go up against things like Barbarians with DR/-, or can more easily get a +1 Flaming Sword of Speed instead of a +4 sword and still fight things with DR.
I don't know about the changes to Wish.
I find it interesting you worry about casters casting themselves into the poor house, when before the situation was they could spend their XP and not wealth, and end up above the WBL guideline (and then, at least partially, catch up on XP since you get more when you're lower level.)
I find it interesting you worry about casters casting themselves into the poor house, when before the situation was they could spend their XP and not wealth, and end up above the WBL guideline (and then, at least partially, catch up on XP since you get more when you're lower level.)
Yes, they would advance slower and (sometimes) have greater wealth than the WBL if they relied on those spells. But that "excess wealth" also allowed them to use items to stay alive; the fighters knew that they could get better combat effectiveness when the casters were able to cast spells from their wands and staves even though the spells weren't always as high a level as they would have liked. It all evened out...
personal anecdote on
I distinctly remember a time when I missed going up a level by exactly 300xp - the exact amount of the limited wish I used to save a party members butt. The slime gained *his* level and didn't even buy me a beer afterwards. grrrrr
personal anecdote off
But the real issue that concerns me was less about the wbl and more about the power shift. If I (as the dm) choose to be stingy in the cash department (I'm sorry we're out of diamonds today. How about some nice rubies instead?) Or even not putting anything in the game, the casters are screwed.
It's like having a player take a wizard and then the dm never allows them to add spells into their spell book beyond the 2 they get every level because the only monsters they face are sorcs or clerics.
When XP were used, *the player* had control over whether they wanted to cast the spell or not. Because (as the dm) you *have* to award XP - the players earned it. You don't have to give them cash or anything useful at all (artwork anyone). And as a player, I can choose to stay at my current level to bank XP for casting.
And thanks to Skeld for the XP as commodity reminder - because as my brother the economist would say - XP *are* a commodity. They are the currency of power. By gaining xp you gain power. The ultimate "gold standard" if you will.
Thanks again for jumping in on this.
As for the DR rules - I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll be house-ruling it as we move forward. I'll post what we eventually decide to do here.
JohnBear
Just to point out for the OP, while there is no official section where developers posted their thoughts, they do respond to questions here on these boards at times. And a large number of their responses to various questions were collected here
|
On a side note the cost of the spells is the same as the cost to pay an NPC or simply get an item of the spell. Under the old rules (3.5) the cost of 1xp point from an NPC was 5GP so the 5000XP for wish became 25,000 XP. Same for the item creation. it still costs the same amount of money, just no xp. This is the main reason I feel for the change because any caster who could craft these items would not actually pay XP, he would pay for the spell from someone else. IE why cast wish from a slot and lose the xp when you can get a scroll or ring of 3 wishes for an equivilent cost. It doesn't lose any of the gp cost from the old edition, it is just removing an XP cost that most casters would avoid in most cases anyways.
|
When XP were used, *the player* had control over whether they wanted to cast the spell or not. Because (as the dm) you *have* to award XP - the players earned it. You don't have to give them cash or anything useful at all (artwork anyone). And as a player, I can choose to stay at my current level to bank XP for casting.And thanks to Skeld for the XP as commodity reminder - because as my brother the economist would say - XP *are* a commodity. They are the currency of power. By gaining xp you gain power....
By all standards you are supposed to give treasure to the party as well. The WBL tables are guidelines certainly but they are the guidelines that Paizo follows in their Adventure Paths and in Pathfinder Society. They are recommended values so that your PCs have an appropriate amount of resources to allow them to use their abilities but also to make sure they don't have to much.
The other thing it helps explain away is how there are so many magic items in the world. One thing that needs to be kept in mind with EXP cost systems is that many players have a hard time SPENDING experience. In truth why would I want spend my experience? Not only is it going to slow down my progression but not every dungeon master is going to like the idea of 'oh lets go kill some monsters to get back our experience points' or grinding as it were. This helps put the world into a better context as well... why is it, in a big enough city, I can buy this really expensive item that would have cost my 400 exp or 800 exp or more so very easily and yet the people who are making these items for me are just sitting in their towers?! Why are they so willing to lose their experience points to make an item for me? (the answer btw is Barghests make great targets for lesser planar binding and since they are 'called' and not 'summoned' it means when you kill them you really kill them and they generally aren't that hard to kill for a 9th level wizard or so since they are CR 4)
Personally I play in a expless game where we level up when the DM says we level up. The fact that we can use gold instead of exp to make items or cast spells makes things easier for us.
|
Plus it's now the case that the spellcasters can "cast themselves" into the poor house and fall well below the wealth by level guidelines while the other classes just keep humming along...swords and armor are never "used up". Casters always had to contend with the fact that part of their "wealth" was tied up in spell components. The current system has exacerbated this greatly
I would rather have my GP than my XP go into the party pool of resources. At least that way I could recoup the GP that I dump into the party gear. You can't say to the fighter, "Hey, I need 500 XP for that sword I crafted."
Losing XP as a resource is one of the best changes made in Pathfinder.
I would rather have my GP than my XP go into the party pool of resources. At least that way I could recoup the GP that I dump into the party gear. You can't say to the fighter, "Hey, I need 500 XP for that sword I crafted."
Losing XP as a resource is one of the best changes made in Pathfinder.
Interestingly, WOTC put up a web article with various spells and items that allowed you to use someone else's XP to craft items somewhere in the course of 3.5, which I adopted, if only because it made explaining Thayan Enclaves in my FR game a little easier, and made for some sinister reasons for why they might need higher level slaves to replace other slaves at the Enclave.
("We can't leech anymore of the experiences and memories out of this one, we'll need another one to replace him.")
It was difficult to explain, "in game" what happened when you spent XP. I tried to explain it as your memories and experiences "going gray," as if they had happened to someone else.