Indeed. I think some one needs to go on a diet.
|
Just to put my two cents in Thank you pathfinder for: A) making a system with very few big edits from 3.5/d20 B) allowing open discussions on your own site, really i think this is huge. C) allowing lots of 3rd party content... awesome D) being creative and inventing the CMB CMD ditty it makes life sooooo much easier. E) Skills simplified and sensible (very few arguments with PC's over what is covered by what and so on...) F) Quite a wide variety of cultures and environs in Golarion with a well thought out history.
Now for my few complaints. A) Sorry but the summoner is a bit of a beast (I'm leaning towards overpowered especially once he is past 12th level). That being said i can also as DM say NOOOOO to PC's that want to play this class, in the future i will. B) I would have liked a globe for Golarion (i know i am picky)along with well thought out Latitude and longitude as well as (I am super picky sorry) seasonal temp changes and averages... kind of everything an atlas should be just, simplified... maybe it's out there i just haven't seen it. C) My final complaint, the maps should have better more accurate map legends (at least in Rise of the Runelords the distances are difficult to determine with the included maps)
Generally tho Pathfinder is awesome.... The only system i will buy for a loooong long time.
Which I then imagine they would lose in an impressive number of lawsuits over copyright infringement?I would have liked to see the multitude of game options streamlined. Backward-compatibility could probably have been maintained while reducing the information load. While they did introduce interesting new things I think it would have been nice if they had cut away others to reduce the total number of things one needed to keep track of in the head.I'd think if a 3pp took up the task of converting the 3.5 complete books to PFRPG, they'd make alot of money.Is it all closed content? If they can refresh the core rules and be backwards compatible, its not that big of a stretch...
That having been said I am in no way advocating illegal use of copyrighted IP...
Only one WotC book was ever actually open content: Unearthed Arcana. Monster Manual 2 contained two monsters that were open content (and were taken from 3rd party products in the first place.)
The SRD was open content, and while it contained (largely) the same material as the 3.0 (and later 3.5) core books, it is not technically the same thing.
I removed a couple posts in the interest of keeping this thread on an even keel.
Which I then imagine they would lose in an impressive number of lawsuits over copyright infringement?I would have liked to see the multitude of game options streamlined. Backward-compatibility could probably have been maintained while reducing the information load. While they did introduce interesting new things I think it would have been nice if they had cut away others to reduce the total number of things one needed to keep track of in the head.I'd think if a 3pp took up the task of converting the 3.5 complete books to PFRPG, they'd make alot of money.Is it all closed content? If they can refresh the core rules and be backwards compatible, its not that big of a stretch...
That having been said I am in no way advocating illegal use of copyrighted IP...
Only one WotC book was ever actually open content: Unearthed Arcana. Monster Manual 2 contained two monsters that were open content (and were taken from 3rd party products in the first place.)
The SRD was open content, and while it contained (largely) the same material as the 3.0 (and later 3.5) core books, it is not technically the same thing.
Thanks, Ross.
Wasn't referring to a particular thread, but was referring to PF. What else would I have meant?I do believe codzilla is talking about this behemothWhile I am not entirely sure what game CoDzilla is referring to I must say that I would have preferred for Paizo to swing a big stick at backwards compability and bring their full development genius to bear on pathfinder.
As it stands Pathfinder is a vast improvement over 3.5 and, for me, the best that currently exists, but still not "teh best evah" and everything I gripe over is very likely just there to provide backwards compability.
I didnt mean the thread, i meant the subject of the thread. I think it would be difficult to sum up in one post it's contents, so I linked the thread which details the subject to which you were referring.
|
Which I then imagine they would lose in an impressive number of lawsuits over copyright infringement?I would have liked to see the multitude of game options streamlined. Backward-compatibility could probably have been maintained while reducing the information load. While they did introduce interesting new things I think it would have been nice if they had cut away others to reduce the total number of things one needed to keep track of in the head.I'd think if a 3pp took up the task of converting the 3.5 complete books to PFRPG, they'd make alot of money.
Actually, you can't copyright mechanics (rules). Which is why OSRIC is still around and the retro clones can exist. They slap OGL on all of it just to be safe (which I don't understand, as far as I know the OGL only covers what's in the SRD, not older editions), but they really don't need to.
Someone could write books that function exactly the same as the "Complete" series as long as they use zero fluff from those books. Rename all of the feats, classes, prestige classes, give them all new fluff and they're fine.
Heck, if Paizo wanted to get fly, there's no reason why they couldn't have mind flayers or umber hulks that function exactly the same way mechanically (more or less), but with a different description and fluff.
Keep in mind that even though rules can't be copyrighted in the US plenty of companies sue despite having bad claims. Sometimes the mere threat of litigation from a company with deep pockets can bankrupt a smaller company. This tends to have a chilling effect even if the smaller company is in the right.
Further stripping out fluff text and publishing other people's crunch with some new fluff paragraphs is pretty lazy and honestly I'm not sure Paizo wants to be in the market of rehashing 3.x for all eternity.
Didn't really see a place for this. Post here your issues/complaints and even things that you like in Pathfinder that you think were done really well, and adversely, very poorly.
Let's just say that as a DM/GM, I'm looking to give my PCs the best experience possible.
You made the wrong thread! You're a horrible person!
No, really. (The above comments are meant to be sarcastic and in humor)
Welcome to the boards.
Like:
Skill system much more streamlined than 3.5 and makes character building much more flexible
All classes get new, cool, flavorful options; particularly love Sorcerer Bloodlines
CMB/CMD system makes special combat actions much, much easier to comprehend and implement, and work very well.
Many spells rebalanced in a way I like, keeping their usefulness while removing "win buttons"
Beautiful art and presentation; excellent section for game masters.
Staff is responsive on boards.
A lot of little tweaks I like, too numerous to mention, but for example, stuff like you die at the negative value of your constitution score rather than 10.
Dislike:
While I understand why they did it, stealth and light types got a little overcomplicated.
Fighters should have "Fighter talents" instead of bonus feats at every other level, where "fighter only feats" were among the talents plus new ones, and one option for the talents would be to take a combat feat.
I don't like all the ability descriptions at the bottom of the statblock
There's a TON of "see also" and "as xyz" to save space, and while I understand the need to save space, the sheer amount of cross referencing, especially in spells and in the bestiaries, is overwhelming, time consuming, and frustrating.
TWF and Vital Strike should be a single feat that scales with level/BAB rather than a series of three separate feats to be taken individually
Uncanny Dodge was better in 3.5; it's actually too powerful now, making someone completely immune to flat footedness is insane.
|
|
Keep in mind that even though rules can't be copyrighted in the US plenty of companies sue despite having bad claims. Sometimes the mere threat of litigation from a company with deep pockets can bankrupt a smaller company. This tends to have a chilling effect even if the smaller company is in the right.
Further stripping out fluff text and publishing other people's crunch with some new fluff paragraphs is pretty lazy and honestly I'm not sure Paizo wants to be in the market of rehashing 3.x for all eternity.
I know, I'm just saying it's theoretically possible. Of course, I wouldn't mind WotC going all "Lorraine" on the industry, I already look at them like I did TSR post 1e. And that look is usually described as "stink eye".
|
Power hasn't been about HP damage since 2nd edition. Damage isn't how you solve fights.
That is a failure of the system and you can thank the creators of 3rd edition for that one.
If anything was Caster Edition it was 3/3.5 - garbage splats with game destroying spells and abilities, SoDs supported by broken DC system - yeah, great game design.Place the blame on the proper parties - WotC. PFRPG at least attempts to convert some SoD content into the hp track, casters are still too powerful but it's much better than the train wreck which was 3.5
Still needs to hit casters really hard.
SoDs supported by broken DC system - yeah, great game design.
As an aside, there are guys posting in some of the witch threads going on this week who think SoDs are junk because saves are much too easy to make and are mulling over house rules to raise save DCs.
<--- PFRPG Fanboiii!!!1
Seriously though, a pretty good game overall. A tad bit over-balanced for my taste, but ok.
<stalks into thread, glowering>
Pathfinder??? The trouble with Pathfinder is that Jason Bulmahn has still not acknowledged our dread lord Asmodeus' input to compiling the rules. I mean, honestly, you would have expected Paizo to see the marketing opportunites possible for the book in putting the name of the Prince of Darkness, the Master of the Nine Hells, the Gaoler of Rovagug right there at the top of the list of credits, but no, he doesn't even rate a mention.
Well, Asmodeus' memory is long, and his schemes subtle, and due punishment will be meted out in the fullness of time...
<skips into thread dragging a sack of fish and wearing a large jellyfish>
Did someone call me? What's that? What's wrong with Pathfinder? Well, I haven't seen any rules yet for using starfish as weapons. I mean I know there are the improvised objects rules, and all that, and you could probably rule of thumb it, but what happens if it's a five armed star-fish, and what happen's if it's not because it's damaged? I mean there's a whole world of difference to the things when you're throwing them depending on whether they're complete or not.
Plus there's the poison. Some starfish are poisonous, and they're reflexes and grappling abilities vary wildly. Throw a Elysian Bluestar at someone, and the knobbly bits will slice and graze them, but then the starfish will just flop to the ground and not do much more. Throw an Abyssal Whelkstar at someone on the other hand, and whilst it's a bit unwieldy, if it hits them in the face odds are it'll latch straight on and start chewing them away with a bite laced with the third most toxic starfish venom known to man. (Obviously, though, those men are a bit lazy as there are plenty more starfish more venomous than that. They probably spent all their time down at the Hagfish Arms chatting and swilling Old Gurfkins instead of properly researching these things.)
Starfish don't get anywhere near enough love and attention in my opinion.
<starts to sulk, then notices Nstrivaxon, and brightens up>
Oh no.... Not you!
Hi, Nstrivaxon. Yes it's me...
That sack... Oh no, those aren't Jollywobbler Pirhanas?
No! They're EXTRA LARGE HALF-DRAGON JOLLYWOBBLER PIRHANAS!
<beams, open sack, and starts throwing vicious blue-green, bulgy eyed fish at Nstivaxon; as they fly through the air, some of the fish slobber and drool acidic goop>
I'll set my lawyer on you... Well at least I will as soon as Paizo come up with some decent rules for litigation, and malicious assault with fish cases... Damn them, they haven't provided rules for that either yet!
<runs from thread, doing his best to fend off fish as he does so>
<runs from thread also, pursuing Nstrivaxon, throwing fish, and whooping wildly>
Smurf it all and smurfing no regrets.
Right, how comes Pathfinder hasn't got smurfs?
Smurfs are Diminutive Fey.
Right, how comes Pathfinder hasn't got smurfs?
I don't think xvarts are Open Content. They're not in the Tome of Horrors, are they?
Smurfs are Diminutive Fey.Carty, even your smurf replacement should have a proboscis. It's weird seeing you talk sans proboscis.
This seems like a good way for someone at Paizo with Photoshop to spend a Friday.
Frankly I never liked the proboscis, it's just the only avatar with a cool hat.
Smurfs are small and blue. Therefore: Derro.
Am I the only person who thinks "Are we not men?" when they think of Derro.
Am I the only person who thinks "Are we not men?" when they think of Derro.
+1 I even have a blue energy dome.
EDIT: Proof.
Smurfs are small and blue. Therefore: Derro.
O wow... ok, please dont close this thread down MOD peoples... yes theres a lot of unhelpful info here, but theres actually plenty that id like to read about, although the smurf takeover is a little unsettling, lol
anyway, to anyone who said something like "be more specific" or whatever... i say, no, this is exactly what i wanted, smurfs notwithstanding
Am I the only person who thinks "Are we not men?" when they think of Derro.
What about the Svirfneblin? hell, they practically have "Smurf" in the name! well, Svrif/Smurf, pretty close anyway.
Smurfs are small and blue. Therefore: Derro.O wow... ok, please dont close this thread down MOD peoples... yes theres a lot of unhelpful info here, but theres actually plenty that id like to read about, although the smurf takeover is a little unsettling, lol
anyway, to anyone who said something like "be more specific" or whatever... i say, no, this is exactly what i wanted, smurfs notwithstanding
Problem is the game changes greatly based on your expectations. So without KNOWING where you are coming from, how can we give you accurate information? All you are going to get is a bunch of fringe criticism from the raggedy edge of the fora.
edit - wow, the smurf avatars bizarrely match my general disposition as I post ....
Smurfs are small and blue. Therefore: Derro.O wow... ok, please dont close this thread down MOD peoples... yes theres a lot of unhelpful info here, but theres actually plenty that id like to read about, although the smurf takeover is a little unsettling, lol
anyway, to anyone who said something like "be more specific" or whatever... i say, no, this is exactly what i wanted, smurfs notwithstanding
Problem is the game changes greatly based on your expectations. So without KNOWING where you are coming from, how can we give you accurate information? All you are going to get is a bunch of fringe criticism from the raggedy edge of the fora.
edit - wow, the smurf avatars bizarrely match my general disposition as I post ....
It's demon smurf magic.
Problem is the game changes greatly based on your expectations. So without KNOWING where you are coming from, how can we give you accurate information? All you are going to get is a bunch of fringe criticism from the raggedy edge of the fora.
Where I'm coming from is functional issues with the entire system, regardless of what they are.
There have been good posts... Barbs suck (wish i knew his reason)
So all i need is specific this sucks and why you think so
I said Barbarians are mediocre. Not in and of themselves, but in comparison to the update other classes got. I would say the same with Monks but the are mediocre in and of themselves.
I said Barbarians are mediocre. Not in and of themselves, but in comparison to the update other classes got. I would say the same with Monks but the are mediocre in and of themselves.
Ahhh but as if often the case on these boards, people equate mediocre with suck. Just sayin ....
Problem is the game changes greatly based on your expectations. So without KNOWING where you are coming from, how can we give you accurate information? All you are going to get is a bunch of fringe criticism from the raggedy edge of the fora.Where I'm coming from is functional issues with the entire system, regardless of what they are.
There have been good posts... Barbs suck (wish i knew his reason)
So all i need is specific this sucks and why you think so
Well, ok. My advise is to play it and see for yourself. Anecdotal evidence of rules balance is only good if it applies the game and characters within it. If none of your players makes a barbarian or never faces off against one, barbarians don't matter much to your math.
The other thing to keep in mind is that much of what is discussed here as "problems" are really "minutiae", at least in my experience. Don't let exuberance of some of the discussion inflate the weight of what is being discussed.
Well, ok. My advise is to play it and see for yourself. Anecdotal evidence of rules balance is only good if it applies the game and characters within it. If none of your players makes a barbarian or never faces off against one, barbarians don't matter much to your math.
This.
There's a barbarian in my party, and she does just fine as the primary damage producer. I suspect she might have some problems if there is a fighter in the party also, but there isn't.
You only need to worry about envelope-pushing-balance if you and your players really push the envelope. If you do, then refer back to CoDzilla's post, it is probably good advice if you live in his world. I don't, so I don't bother worrying with the stuff he harps on.