3e and Pathfinder, faulty assumptions by developers.

[Stefan Hill]

DrDeth wrote:

Now, yes, I am playing here with the more advanced rules with Segments casting times, and what not. You may have played with the simpler rules.

Shouldn't you also then quote the Weapon Speed Factors vs Spell Casting section of the rules? These have a marked effect on the chance of a spell being cast.

[LazarX]

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

Disagree. PF's designers are responsible for themselves, they're supposedly capable enough to write rpg rules and systems/subsystems. No one forced them to make things identical to 3E, nor did they. Even if they needed to still "follow the d20 mold" or whatever, they could have easily curbed caster power if they had wanted to. Save or lose spells that weren't touched at all like Pyrotechnics and Baleful Polymorph could have been nerfed. Spells/day could have been reduced (or reduced more, in the case of cleric/druid, since they did get slightly reduced). No playable races could have been given bonuses to mental stats. New buffs PF added like wizards casting from opposed schools and concentration "ranks" being given out for free could have never been done. It's on PF's designers and them alone that casters are still so unbalanced, if not more so than before. They didn't have to attain perfect balance, I don't think anyone serious expected or even *wanted* that. Just close the gap a bit. They didn't even do that.

You're presenting your premises as established standards of game design. They aren't they're your opinion. It's been pointed elsewhere that a significant number of spells in Pathfinder have been markedly changed from 3.x that were major power breakers in the earlier editions such as the Polymorph spells and the Wildshaping mechanics. You may argue that the changes weren't major enough, but you can't reasonably argue that no change was made at all.

[StreamOfTheSky]

LazarX wrote:

It's kind of amusing....

The bulk of the vocal posters here have in the past spent their time venting against 4th edition, proclaiming how superior 3.X was, and now they're ragging on Pathfinder BECAUSE of it's 3.X structure?

There really isn't any pleasing the lot of you, is there?

3E is my favorite system, but it still has a lot of flaws and is far from perfect. And it's just human nature to put more effort into pointing out things that are wrong than talking about all the stuff you love and that works exactly as it should. Especially on the internet.

If PF had actually improved noncasters and weakened casters while still being a 3E-based game, it would have become my favorite system, no doubt. Instead casters got a bunch of new benefits and all the cool martial toys beyond "do more damage" got beaten down. Which makes people upset - When you take an existing game, market that you've improved it, and actually made it worse or at best no different.

LazarX wrote:

The only time I have ever seen Pathfinder or 3.X become Caster Edition is because of DM's who simply didn't follow the guidelines on being properly strict on magic and let the spellcasters run away with the game. Yes, 3.X did have Codzilla and Druidzill built into the system, but Pathfinder effectively hit them both with the balance bat. I've played PFS through 12th level so far with a variety of groups and I've yet to see the game become where the main spellcaster is Dr. Who and the non-casters merely companions.

Maybe it does become more problematic at the uber high levels, but that's been an issue with every version of D+D since First. Most DM's find away to deal with the sudden shift in game paradigms. Others just either restart at lower levels or play different games. The Adventure Paths however should provide a good working lesson on how to transition a game into the higher levels.

Casters can dominate from the low-mid levels (like level 6) and do far better at the earliest levels than you give them credit for. They may not have enough color sprays to win every single fight that day, sure. But they can still outright win a few of them with it.

PF may have nerfed druid (cleric is largely untouched), but both can still replace a fighter in the party very easily. They just won't be (as) superior to a Fighter anymore, necessarily. More of an even swap. For melee combat, of course. Out of combat utility they're still leagues and oceans more useful.

[DrDeth]

LazarX wrote:

It's kind of amusing....

The bulk of the vocal posters here have in the past spent their time venting against 4th edition, proclaiming how superior 3.X was, and now they're ragging on Pathfinder BECAUSE of it's 3.X structure?

There really isn't any pleasing the lot of you, is there?

The only time I have ever seen Pathfinder or 3.X become Caster Edition is because of DM's who simply didn't follow the guidelines on being properly strict on magic and let the spellcasters run away with the game. Yes, 3.X did have Codzilla and Druidzill built into the system, but Pathfinder effectively hit them both with the balance bat. I've played PFS through 12th level so far with a variety of groups and I've yet to see the game become where the main spellcaster is Dr. Who and the non-casters merely companions.

Maybe it does become more problematic at the uber high levels, but that's been an issue with every version of D+D since First. Most DM's find away to deal with the sudden shift in game paradigms. Others just either restart at lower levels or play different games. The Adventure Paths however should provide a good working lesson on how to transition a game into the higher levels.

I am with you. I have seen this at uber high levels, but I also see martials rule at low levels. Where do we play more often? I don’t think it’s a huge problem, certainly not one where we need to completely destroy the game to “fix”. I can see a few tweaks, sure.

But by and large, the players and buyers of PF product seem mostly happy with how it works. Again, I have seen NOTHING so far in this thread that equals “faulty assumptions by developers”. Yes, some would prefer less magic, other want this or that. But little agreement and no consensus.

[ciretose]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Only if you are caught...

The beauty of modern law is that you can look up what's illegal even if you haven't committed, and don't plan on committing, a crime. We don't (or at least, aren't supposed to) arrest people and then make up a new crime to prosecute them under after the arrest takes place.

Cough *gitmo* cough...

[Tequila Sunrise]

LazarX wrote:

It's kind of amusing....

The bulk of the vocal posters here have in the past spent their time venting against 4th edition, proclaiming how superior 3.X was, and now they're ragging on Pathfinder BECAUSE of it's 3.X structure?

I can't help being amused for the very same reason, or keep myself from thinking "So many Paizonians would be so much happier playing 4e..."

But I don't have any business judging anyone for railing against 3.x (PF included), even as they anticipate next week's game day using that very edition. Everyone has personal preferences, and it's possible to love something despite obvious flaws.

3.0 and then 3.5 were my favorite editions until 2008, and I railed about them and house ruled the frak out of them in an effort to patch up the wrinkles. Sometimes I still think "3.x would be so much better if..." even though I hardly ever play it anymore, because it's in my blood.

And hey, I've railed about 4e's math flaws -- because as StreamofSky says, you can't help seeing the flaws in your favorite game.

Overall, I think all too often there's this political attitude of "Don't admit to flaws in our edition, or the other guys win!" in every edition camp. 3.x (again, including PF) is a great edition -- but it's deeply flawed, and it could be so much more than it is.