Dont you think there is an issue with the way prestige classes were implemented then if they are completely incompatable with balanced 1-20 base classes?
Yes and no. As I said. I believe PF intentionally designed the Base classes to be incompatable with prestige classes. But I'm not disagreeing with you. I understand why PF designed the classes they way they did. That doesn't mean I dont miss prestige classes. Pathfinder classes are 5 course meals. They are delicious. Doesn't mean I dont miss the prestige class all you can eat buffet that was 3.5.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone call Aux so he can expound about how none of the hardcovers since the Gamemastery Guide have been GM books.
This is exactly what I've been waiting for since I first read that line.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of came to the game pretty late.
I started out with 3.5. I was immediately accosted with a ton of hardcovers I could barely comprehend and people describing options I could take. I resorted to describing what I wanted and having someone with the know-how to do so, make the character for me only to be told that what I wanted would seriously gimp my character and wound up with a character that I didn't understand with a progression plan I didn't get. I started off hating 3.5
I later tried it again when I got the box with the Monster Manual, Player's Guide and DMG just to keep things simple and get back to basics. I tried to learn a bit faster by DMing using just those books. I was immediately accosted with players groaning at not being able to play X or do Y and that I was crippling a lot of options. I started off hating 3.5 players.
My introduction to Pathfinder was the Beginner Box and some friends that found 3.5 too daunting to play. Overall my experience with Pathfinder has been way more positive. As I played I came to understand 3.5 rules more and I think my reasons for not missing 3.5 boils down to the following.
I am excited for the upcoming Advanced Class Guide but personally I believe that fewer broad classes are better than many narrow ones. I particularly dislike Prestige Classes because they require way more forethought than I want to impose on players or myself. Without a guide feat selection alone can be a headache. When I moved from the Core Rulebook to the APG The very concept of archetypes blew my mind and I embraced them way more than prestige classes as a means to narrow my character concept.
I don't exact NEED more books anytime soon. I currently own all the hardcovers and a number of Player Companions, these things have taken over 70% of my gaming bookshelf. I cannot imagine getting hardcovers out faster than they already are coming out, otherwise I'd be drowning in books. Also I feel that with what I have only a few concepts are really lost. Just one broad Engineer class and Psionic class and maybe a few new races would really allow me to make whatever character concept I want within the range of high fantasy; More if I take into account multiclassing. If Paizo stopped making books RIGHT NOW I'd have enough material to play for the next decade or so without getting bored.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd join in the opinion of those who disagree with everything the OP wrote (sorry!). It's almost a checklist of everything I disliked about 3.5 (feats strewn across multiple splatbooks willy-nilly, prestige classes generally, and a high number of hardcover books). I'm getting worn down by Paizo's current release schedule as it is - more hardcover books is the last thing I want.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I have no idea what you do in your home game. I was identifying an extreme that I think is by its very nature flawed. I can see no rational or objective reason to allow all paizo made material but have a blanket ban on 3rd party material. Even pfs doesnt do that. If you can think of a reason I have not thought of I'd love for you to enlighten me. But for me at least, I cant think of one.cool kolokotroni can you tell me more about what is wrong with my home game, since I would really like to do this individual and specific and individually unique thing the proper and correct way
The rule is easily adjudicated. The rule limits the costs of acquiring information. The rule helps organize what is and is not allowed when multiple people sometimes GM. Not my feeling, but animus to 3pp is pretty common. Some of that animus is rational given the content that came out during the 3.0 days. It isn't unreasonable to decide getting burned is a good reason to stop buying 3pp stuff. Conversely, some people may just prefer paizo and the corporate and design philosophy they advance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree about Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat. My point is that by the time Class Guide is released in August of 2014 it will have been three years since we got those great books.
Though you're also dismissing the Advanced Race Guide as a "player focused hardback," which was in June 2012.
As for the Ultimate Equipment it was a good book that I own. But I don't get inspired to make new characters or new worlds based on gear.
As long as we're in agreement that you're using a very unique definition of "player focused hardbacks" to mean "player focused hardbacks that inspire me to make a new character" (or new world, which isn't something players do...), instead of meaning "hardbacks that have a lot of useful material for players."
And I have many of the same complaints of that book as I do of the Race Guide, that a big portion of it is recycled from previous sources.
That is a fair criticism, though that also means your definition is "player focused hardbacks that inspire me to make a new character and aren't recycled from other sources (many of which never appeared in a core hardcover before this)."
Okay, late response here. Doing this quickly before I start trying to get back to sleep.
Cheapy: Like I said, it's not that non-Hero Lab stuff doesn't interest me. I love 3PP stuff, It's just less likely to get used if there's not Hero Lab files available. Given that I'm the person who buys almost ALL of the gaming products our group uses (not one other player in my group buys ANY Paizo products, I supply them all. The guys occasionally pay for some new HL content for me, but normally I buy that too) and (until recently) handled all prep, hosting and so on, as well as all cleanup afterwards, I think I've earned the right to try and make things a little simpler for myself when it comes to running the game. There's also the fact that my group agreed to this as fair, and were informed that if they wanted to use non-HL 3PP material, we could negotiate it and I'd see what I could do as long as it didn't cause me any major headaches. The HL files don't even have to be official ones, I'll accept community ones as long as I can test them to make sure things work properly.
Kolokotroni: Alright, fair enough, I can see your point when it comes to blanket bans. We tend to mostly stick to Paizo material anyway despite having a number of other publisher's stuff in HL, though my Shattered Star game does contain a Spell-less Ranger from Kobold Games. As for if my players told me that they'd added stuff to HL? Sure, that's awesome! But I'll be testing it first to make sure the maths and everything checks out. I tried entering some custom information into HL once... I work with some fairly complicated applications in a technical capacity on a daily basis, and I was still sitting there scratching my head... so it ain't easy or simple. But yeah, if they took the time to learn to use the editor and could demonstrate that their content worked properly, then I'd give it the seal of approval straight away.
As for the Ultimate Equipment it was a good book that I own. But I don't get inspired to make new characters or new worlds based on gear.As long as we're in agreement that you're using a very unique definition of "player focused hardbacks" to mean "player focused hardbacks that inspire me to make a new character" (or new world, which isn't something players do...), instead of meaning "hardbacks that have a lot of useful material for players."
Indeed, wouldn't the book that "inspires people to make new characters and worlds" be best represented by Ultimate Campaign? Which I didn't see BigDTBone mention and which IIRC only came out this past spring. Ultimate Campaign has a whole massive section on character backgrounds and using that alone can help you make some amazing character concepts, and then massive sections on kingdom building and so on (more player focused, but a) that seems to be what the poster wants, and b) certainly contains lots of material a GM could use to flesh out his or her world.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, the general changeover from prestige classes to archetypes and in-built class choices (i.e. bloodlines) is, to me, the best thing about Pathfinder.
What 3.5's prestige classes grew into was just so painfully restrictive. If there was a particular thematic vector you wanted, you'd look up the matching prestige class' requirements, and from there, generally, on top of your class(es), you'd have at least half your feats and skills locked in, and most likely half your stats locked in to qualify for those. It was almost like a logic puzzle, where you're reverse-engineering your whole character based on the prestige class you're aiming for, and it consumed so many customization options that after your feat requirements, and the skills/feats generally needed to effectively play your class, so there really isn't much of any wiggle room left to (mechanically) differentiate two characters with the same prestige class.
The way Pathfinder handles it, for any given base class, you have 1-3 major choices you make when first creating your character to give you a nice thematic vector, none of which make any demands on your skills, feats, or stats. So on top of having theme you start working towards right from first level, you can use all the rest of your options to either keep pushing in that direction or round out your character as you see fit. I can kinda see the logic that spelling everything out right off the bat makes, say, every Sohei Monk end up with the same general ability set but... that was even more true with prestige classes. It's just that here it's spelled out up front and not partially hidden as a requirement list.
And on top of all that, Pathfinder was specifically designed to be compatible with all things 3.5, so, if there's a particular prestige class you really want that doesn't have a Pathfinder equivalent, you can still play it. Unless your group has a policy against doing that, but that's something you'd want to take up with them.
I can see no rational or objective reason to allow all paizo made material but have a blanket ban on 3rd party material. Even pfs doesnt do that. If you can think of a reason I have not thought of I'd love for you to enlighten me. But for me at least, I cant think of one.
For me it's a matter of efficiency, combined with a respect for paizo's design team. I have nowhere near the system mastery to tell if an option is unbalancing or otherwise unsuitable for my game. I trust paizo's designers to catch most of those kinds of issues - certainly more than I would on my own.
I rely on them to check the new stuff they put out alongside the older stuff they've put out, but doubt they're considering how a paizo option might combine with a 3PP option. Hence, I allow any paizo material but no 3PP. It's not going to be perfect, but I think it will be perfecter than if I used my own judgement (and far, far quicker and easier).
I'm a big fan of the OGL and 3PPs, so I buy and read lots of their stuff. I just won't use any of it.
Just going on record that I love "most" 3PP. Goodman, Necromancer, Malhavoc, Green Ronin, etc. Mongoose was terrible (again YMMV) and somewhat unbalanced most of the time.
I completely agree about Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat. My point is that by the time Class Guide is released in August of 2014 it will have been three years since we got those great books.Though you're also dismissing the Advanced Race Guide as a "player focused hardback," which was in June 2012.
As for the Ultimate Equipment it was a good book that I own. But I don't get inspired to make new characters or new worlds based on gear.As long as we're in agreement that you're using a very unique definition of "player focused hardbacks" to mean "player focused hardbacks that inspire me to make a new character" (or new world, which isn't something players do...), instead of meaning "hardbacks that have a lot of useful material for players."
And I have many of the same complaints of that book as I do of the Race Guide, that a big portion of it is recycled from previous sources.That is a fair criticism, though that also means your definition is "player focused hardbacks that inspire me to make a new character and aren't recycled from other sources (many of which never appeared in a core hardcover before this)."
Please consider my comments to be in line with the discussion framed by the OP. That is new books that get me excited about doing new things with the game. As for ultimate campaign that did scratch the itch in the DM part of me, but it has been 2 years since the player in me felt the same way and will be three before I expect it will.
Namely, I understand and sympathize with the OP and have added the comment that the books released in the last two years compound this view. I don't think I am alone in this view, though possibly in the minority.
I'd join in the opinion of those who disagree with everything the OP wrote (sorry!). It's almost a checklist of everything I disliked about 3.5 (feats strewn across multiple splatbooks willy-nilly, prestige classes generally, and a high number of hardcover books). I'm getting worn down by Paizo's current release schedule as it is - more hardcover books is the last thing I want.
That. I agree wholeheartedly with this lovely unicorn. I'm already too swamped with the insane amount of feats and traits and archetypes (even though most of them are so specific and/or useless to the point they're ignored). I honestly think Paizo went a little overboard with traits and that doesn't seem to be changing too soon.
That itch I got from building super-weird characters in 3.5 can still be scratched in PF. God knows I've spent a couple days working on the paladin that could flank with himself and the halfling cavalier that buffed the entire party. It's just shifted from combining class dips and prestige classes to mixing feats, traits and archetypes.
Prestige classes didn't really do that much for me, specially since most were so generic (or had uninspired fluff) that I used them for their mechanics. That same prestige class you cited I looked over, said "nah" and moved on. The exception to be made were the few interesting setting-specific ones (FR had great Prestige classes specific to certain gods or organizations that combined good mechanics with flavorful abilities).
I'd join in the opinion of those who disagree with everything the OP wrote (sorry!). It's almost a checklist of everything I disliked about 3.5 (feats strewn across multiple splatbooks willy-nilly, prestige classes generally, and a high number of hardcover books). I'm getting worn down by Paizo's current release schedule as it is - more hardcover books is the last thing I want.That. I agree wholeheartedly with this lovely unicorn. I'm already too swamped with the insane amount of feats and traits and archetypes (even though most of them are so specific and/or useless to the point they're ignored). I honestly think Paizo went a little overboard with traits and that doesn't seem to be changing too soon.
That itch I got from building super-weird characters in 3.5 can still be scratched in PF. God knows I've spent a couple days working on the paladin that could flank with himself and the halfling cavalier that buffed the entire party. It's just shifted from combining class dips and prestige classes to mixing feats, traits and archetypes.
Prestige classes didn't really do that much for me, specially since most were so generic (or had uninspired fluff) that I used them for their mechanics. That same prestige class you cited I looked over, said "nah" and moved on. The exception to be made were the few interesting setting-specific ones (FR had great Prestige classes specific to certain gods or organizations that combined good mechanics with flavorful abilities).
The prestige classes I miss were the specialists. One of my favorites was the force missile Mage from dragon magazine. I know some people will say the archetypes fill this role but I disagree. Why should I be forced into a particular class to specialize in that fashion? If FMM were a wizard archetype then sorcerers and magi are SOL. Not to mention a witch who takes two levels of pathfinder savant to get magic missile and then wants to become a force missile specialist. I liked the ability to specialize while retaining options in character building.
I'm starting to almost resent Hero Lab for that reason alone. It's pretty annoying to consistently see "Nope, not in HL so not interested."
I have different thought, for me it is "come on, why not make the data available in HL as well? It really is not all that hard to do!". I am of the (admittedly elitist) opinion that everything should be made available for Hero Lab. But I am selfish because I am legally blind in my good eye and I can not longer write legibly; computerized character management is the only way to go for me. I have also used Excel spreadsheets, and in some ways spreadsheets are actually better to implement certain house rules with. However I have found that overall Hero Lab is superior for use and entering data, and am willing pay someone to enter the data for me (I have yet to see a spreadsheet character sheet for sale).
Regarding prestige classes and multiclassing, they are indeed a different situation in Pathfinder. In 3rd edition it seemed to be a requirement to plan on having a plan to obtain a Prestige class at the earliest level possible (at least one of them, many of my characters had two or three).
Now, with archetypes, many of the character concepts are possible by staying the same class. That is actually a good thing. It means that a given class is worth it past level 2 or so.
Mystic Theurge is still a decent prestige class. I also like the Eldritch Knight.
But not every class is for everybody. You can still "shop the system" and get those abilities and feats that you want. The various Talented classes by Super Genius games are a wonderful idea. They are moddable classes that let you make YOUR own character without being slapped into as rigid of a mold.
I personally do not care for the Magus class. I have opted to turn many of its features into feats. For example, Spell Combat is a feat that requires Combat Casting, and it is available for any spellcaster. In my game, if you want to play a Magus, be a wizard. Ideally the character would eventually become an Eldritch Knight. But you can use Spell Combat for other characters, too, so those Clerics that are more geared towards fighting, or any other spellcaster for that matter, can benefit from its use.
Regarding prestige classes and multiclassing, they are indeed a different situation in Pathfinder. In 3rd edition it seemed to be a requirement to plan on having a plan to obtain a Prestige class at the earliest level possible (at least one of them, many of my characters had two or three).
Now, with archetypes, many of the character concepts are possible by staying the same class. That is actually a good thing. It means that a given class is worth it past level 2 or so.
Mystic Theurge is still a decent prestige class. I also like the Eldritch Knight.
But not every class is for everybody. You can still "shop the system" and get those abilities and feats that you want. The various Talented classes by Super Genius games are a wonderful idea. They are moddable classes that let you make YOUR own character without being slapped into as rigid of a mold.
I personally do not care for the Magus class. I have opted to turn many of its features into feats. For example, Spell Combat is a feat that requires Combat Casting, and it is available for any spellcaster. In my game, if you want to play a Magus, be a wizard. Ideally the character would eventually become an Eldritch Knight. But you can use Spell Combat for other characters, too, so those Clerics that are more geared towards fighting, or any other spellcaster for that matter, can benefit from its use.
I agree that the game desperately needed viable 20 level base classes. I just don't think that should invalidate the multiclassing ability that is built into d20. Most prestige classes from 3.5 aren't on par with the increased power level in PF (especially with new favored class rules) and the support for new prestige classes has been lacking. APG is the most recent RPG line product to have them and even in that book it is pretty clear they were trying to make what really amounted to archetypes. I miss that part of the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the thing Wizards gave us was choice. We were free to use and abuse, or to forbid and restrict as we ourselves saw fit. True, wizards was pumping out books like there was no tomorrow and some of the material where downright insane, but we had options and it was up to us to sieve through it to find the gold.
This is not a good quality. Wizards "one core a month" lead to crappy titles like Dungeonscape, it led to glut, it led to them running out of ideas too soon and too quickly. This also led to an incredible lack of fluff, an impressive amount of typos and mechanical errors, and broken mechanics that were never properly playtested. That is not an ideal to live up to, that is a mistake to avoid, and Paizo seems to be doing a reasonable job of it. They're coming out with books at a reasonable pace, sometimes I think they need to slow down a little.
Paizo isn't perfect, by any means, but they're still moving forward and trying new things. Which Wizards wasn't exactly big on, WotC loved playing inside a nice save little box. They'd try new mechanics here and there, but they'd be tame, nothing like the creation of archetypes or the flexibility and variety available to many of the APG classes. Personally I think they need to overhaul their public playtest model, make it more like Green Ronins model for the Dragon Age RPG, which is a little more organized and doesn't seem to rely on who can yell the loudest on the forums (one of the reasons I left playtesting behind beyond the occasional perusal, it just got depressing to watch). That's just me though.
They're still making strides, each of their AP's features something new, a new mechanic they're experimenting with (exploration and mass combat in Kingmaker, the relationship system in Jade Regent, naval combat in Skull and Shackles) and they've been pumping out something interesting for Gen Con every year. Sure it might not appeal to everyone (I've a lot of friends who were not keen on the Mythic Rules for a variety of instance, I thought Ultimate Magic was their weakest entry to date, can't please everyone all the time), but they're *trying* they're still *inspired*. That they haven't gone to increase production volume or start rushing out new products by the truckload is a *good* thing.
You know what they did recently that was awesome? They took what is possible their weakest RPG line (the Modules) and completely revamped them. Before their modules were hit and misses with maybe half of them being easily written off and of a quality best described as 'Meh'(by my opinion, mileage may vary of course). They canned their old incredibly limited model and made a new 68 page model that has a phenomenal layout, a great story and design, and gave the writers room to play rather than the tight cramped space they had before.
They are "Big Boys" as you so condescendingly put it, and they are acting like it. They're growing their company, they're doing new and interesting things. Going back and polishing up flaws they could not take care of when they were smaller all while launching an awesome new card game, an interesting alternative to Epic rules (whether you like it or not, it is at least interesting, and give the mess the Epic rules were, quite better in my opinion) and more. Hardly call that hand holding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it funny about the whole "wizards gave us choice" thing because thats the same reason I play pathfinder. I wasnt there during the days of 3.5, and all the other games I've played are very simple & simplistic choice wise.
On the one hand, in pathfinder, you can make a character that is unique both in personality and in mechanics. You have so much more diversity than in any of the other games I've played (D&D next, Dungeon World, and the Dragon age RPG). There are dozens of significantly different ways I can play each class in pathfinder, unlike most other games, so I feel spoiled for choice already.
I think 3.5 spoiled people with tremendous quantity of choices (whether they where good or not), and now anything else seems "less diverse". To me, pathfinder is the best I've known, and they do a fairly good job in making archetypes/classes meaningful (with a few exceptions).
Plus, I love the fact that 90% of the rules/classes/options are on the d20pfsrd. I could never afford more than one of those kinds of books a year.
In any case, we're all here aren't we? We've all liked pathfinder for some reason or another. Might as well enjoy it rather than debating the merits of 3.5.
Personally the things I miss the most are: templates and level adjustment, the 3.5 skill system and the vast amount of prestige classes.
I just need to talk to my players and figure out how to make pathfinder more 3.5ish.
Templates are still out there, and LA can technically still be used - it's just typically one off, since a lot of formerly LA +1 critters are now on-par with the core races (Tiefling, etc.). Have to kind of eyeball it of course. I admittedly am more used to that system than PF's (IMO) weird "LA=CR" system.
I'm curious why you prefer the 3.5 skill system though - especially between the "must pay double for non-class skills" and "separation of skills that should be one skill like Stealth and Acrobatics", it was the first and best thing IMO that PF took a step toward fixing.
Yeah I certainly like the skill system more in PF. Far more simple and streamlined.
This is funny, as i love the skill change system, and i love archetypes becase they have more general flavor than prestiege classes (i dislike the way classes tied to factions or organisations, but thats just me)
OP and some people here seems to think opposite way.
Yeah I did note that the CR=LA but its gets very grey when players want to play something like a graveknight/deathknight which is CR+2. As for the skills I loved having a massive list of skills plus 3.5 had
skill synergy which was awesome.
Archetypes are a mix bag for me, I like them and hate them at the same time. I actually really like prestige classes. I made a massive story around a desert goblin( or someother race) that became a dry liche with the help of a shadowy organization detailed in the PrC. I feel it just helps make you tied abit better to a setting rather than Gnome giant slayer...But that being said is just my opinion.
I have no idea what you do in your home game. I was identifying an extreme that I think is by its very nature flawed. I can see no rational or objective reason to allow all paizo made material but have a blanket ban on 3rd party material. Even pfs doesnt do that. If you can think of a reason I have not thought of I'd love for you to enlighten me. But for me at least, I cant think of one.cool kolokotroni can you tell me more about what is wrong with my home game, since I would really like to do this individual and specific and individually unique thing the proper and correct way
The rule is easily adjudicated. The rule limits the costs of acquiring information. The rule helps organize what is and is not allowed when multiple people sometimes GM. Not my feeling, but animus to 3pp is pretty common. Some of that animus is rational given the content that came out during the 3.0 days. It isn't unreasonable to decide getting burned is a good reason to stop buying 3pp stuff. Conversely, some people may just prefer paizo and the corporate and design philosophy they advance.
I think people may have misunderstood my qualifiers. I didnt mean anything in the rpg line, I meant anything in the paizo library. That includes the campaign setting, and companion lines. I understand the desire to limit or simplify the volume of options available in a game, and to reduce spending on products. Its not my preference but I get the need to cut down on the complexity of options about. Allowing all paizo material doesnt do that. It would be far cheaper to selectively include certain 3pp products (which tend to be cheaper though either without hard copy forms or with lower production quality then paizo's) would be drastically cheaper and provide a greater reduction of available material, then a blanket allowance of all things paizo.
As for being burned in the 3.0 days, and thus having good reason to no buy 3pp stuff, no that isnt rational. If I bought a bad car 15 years ago from Mitsubishi, and thus I refuse to buy anything but Fords today (and thus excluding many many car manufacturers domestic and foreign who had nothing to do with that bad car 10 years ago) I am not being rational.
Also if you agree with and prefer paizo's corporate philosophy and that is a driving force behind your rpg purchasing, you might want to note that they not only strongly support 3rd party publishers in basically giving them free advertising on their front page, they use 3rd party material in paizo products, have staff members that write for 3rd party publishers, and have staff members that ARE 3rd party publishers. So what is it in their coorporate philosophy that lends itself to you not being interested in using 3rd party material?
I guess the one thing I can see is that it is easier. Paizo only, no need for further consideration. But given the fact that there are lots of problematic rules written by paizo (see endless debates on the relative power of the summoner, the specific traits/spell/feat/class combinations that are often reffered to as 'broken' written by paizo, categorically allowing everything paizo publishes seems to have difficulties of its own.
|
|
Yeah I certainly like the skill system more in PF. Far more simple and streamlined.
That is one of the best improvements PF made over 3.5, though personally I would have preferred skill consolidation to have gone a bit further.
If I were to houserule 3.5 it is one of the things I would change to be more like PF.
Yeah I certainly like the skill system more in PF. Far more simple and streamlined.That is one of the best improvements PF made over 3.5, though personally I would have preferred skill consolidation to have gone a bit further.
One thing I did off the top of my head was go ahead and roll Climb and Swim into Acrobatics along with Balance and Tumble. It seemed odd to me that half the "athletic" type things got into Acrobatics but the other half remained separate.
Dear Paizo,
Please stop following the business model that catapulted you into success as the industry leader. Instead, I want you to adopt the strategy that killed the previous industry leader.
Also, stop listening to your fans--those idiots don't know what they really want.
Thanks,
The OP
Ok, I know I've seen this post before. Where have I seen this before? This is driving my nuts :(
One thing I did off the top of my head was go ahead and roll Climb and Swim into Acrobatics along with Balance and Tumble. It seemed odd to me that half the "athletic" type things got into Acrobatics but the other half remained separate.Yeah I certainly like the skill system more in PF. Far more simple and streamlined.That is one of the best improvements PF made over 3.5, though personally I would have preferred skill consolidation to have gone a bit further.
Because they are strenght based? Honestly I think swim and climb should be rolled together with a 2nd version of jump as a strength based athletics skill.
Someone call Aux so he can expound about how none of the hardcovers since the Gamemastery Guide have been GM books.This is exactly what I've been waiting for since I first read that line.
Maybe if we're very quiet, he won't notice that we're here...
|
Dear Paizo,
Please stop following the business model that catapulted you into success as the industry leader. Instead, I want you to adopt the strategy that killed the previous industry leader.
Also, stop listening to your fans--those idiots don't know what they really want.
Thanks,
The OP
Of course, one of the problems with listening to fans is that they are most certainly not a single unified voice. As this very thread proves, the things that appeal to some about Pathfinder are the very things that others wish that Paizo would get rid of.
I guess the one thing I can see is that it is easier. Paizo only, no need for further consideration. But given the fact that there are lots of problematic rules written by paizo (see endless debates on the relative power of the summoner, the specific traits/spell/feat/class combinations that are often reffered to as 'broken' written by paizo, categorically allowing everything paizo publishes seems to have difficulties of its own.
You're right, of course - i dont mean to claim that by using paizo material exlusively, i never run into a problematic rule or combination. My simple, quick method still allows some rules in to the game which later get amended or retracted. However (bearing in mind that I have no interest or skill in evaluating such situations myself), that brings up another advantage of paizo material over other 3PP material: there is a vast, engaged community of rules experts looking over it, arguing about it on the forums and clamouring for clarifications/corrections from the design team. Plus paizo have an excellent FAQ system and a reasonably regular update whenever a rule book is reprinted.
Whilst its arguable that a just released rpg book, viewed in isolation, is likely to be more heavily play tested if it comes from a 3PP rather than from paizo. None of them can match the ongoing critique, debate and "official resolution process" that paizo provides.
As I said - I'm an outlier in that I don't like complicated rules with lots of options (in contrast to most PF fans, I suspect). Nonetheless, I think a paizo-only policy is quite rational for my table.
Because they are strenght based? Honestly I think swim and climb should be rolled together with a 2nd version of jump as a strength based athletics skill.One thing I did off the top of my head was go ahead and roll Climb and Swim into Acrobatics along with Balance and Tumble. It seemed odd to me that half the "athletic" type things got into Acrobatics but the other half remained separate.Yeah I certainly like the skill system more in PF. Far more simple and streamlined.That is one of the best improvements PF made over 3.5, though personally I would have preferred skill consolidation to have gone a bit further.
On the one hand I guess I can see the sense in that, on the other that didn't stop them rolling together Dex-based Open Lock and Int-based Disable Device.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because they are strenght based? Honestly I think swim and climb should be rolled together with a 2nd version of jump as a strength based athletics skill.One thing I did off the top of my head was go ahead and roll Climb and Swim into Acrobatics along with Balance and Tumble. It seemed odd to me that half the "athletic" type things got into Acrobatics but the other half remained separate.Yeah I certainly like the skill system more in PF. Far more simple and streamlined.That is one of the best improvements PF made over 3.5, though personally I would have preferred skill consolidation to have gone a bit further.
I've always felt that way too. The Strength-based part isn't all of why but I do see the "how" you do some of these moves as important.
It always feels like Acrobatics does too much and is one of THE most used, most useful skills in the game, because it's got balance, tumbling, jumping, which all get used a lot.
Swim hardly gets used save in very specific circumstances; Climb more often but still not as often as Acrobatics.
What I really want is
Athletics: Swim, Climb, Jump -- basically, athletic forms of movement, things you need to have certain degree of power in your body to do. What unites them is movement and athletic ability to perform them well. Could also be the skill you need for stuff like riding a bicycle or whatever (not that Pathfinder has bicycles, but still). This would become a more valuable skill to have in its diversity.
Gymnastics: Balance, Tumble, Escape Artist -- Everything to do with swift, delicate movement and getting through difficult areas via agility rather than force. Escape Artist is another skill that at least I have hardly ever seen used, and if at all, it's to escape a grapple, and it's always sat as nonintuitive/wrong for a skill to be used versus a combat maneuver, as they're built mechanically different. Even then it's hardly used that I've experienced (since 3.0 came out 13 years ago), so I'd rather just see its function (which when it circumstantially is needed) combined with other stuff.
Still even so I dramatically prefer PF's skills to 3.x's.
I'd be agreeable to that as well.
|
Someone call Aux so he can expound about how none of the hardcovers since the Gamemastery Guide have been GM books.Or SincubusGancanagh so he could say that the yearly release schedule should contain 6 Bestiaries, preferably without stats or text to get in the way of art. ;-)
Well I'd take the six Bestiaries, but with the stats still. :)
What I really want is
Athletics: Swim, Climb, Jump -- basically, athletic forms of movement, things you need to have certain degree of power in your body to do. What unites them is movement and athletic ability to perform them well. Could also be the skill you need for stuff like riding a bicycle or whatever (not that Pathfinder has bicycles, but still). This would become a more valuable skill to have in its diversity.
Gymnastics: Balance, Tumble, Escape Artist -- Everything to do with swift, delicate movement and getting through difficult areas via agility rather than force. Escape Artist is another skill that at least I have hardly ever seen used, and if at all, it's to escape a grapple, and it's always sat as nonintuitive/wrong for a skill to be used versus a combat maneuver, as they're built mechanically different. Even then it's...
Excellent idea.
What does everyone think of the Fly skill? It's inclusion bugged me.
I think you have the same issue I do with Pathfinder. They abandoned Prestige Classes. Instead they balanced the classes to have powerful upgrades from 1st to 20th. In most cases it is highly ineffective to multiclass in PF. In 3.5 there was no reason to stay in a base/core class past 5th level. You jumped into a Prestige class as soon as possible.
The optimizer in me loved the 3.5 model. As you said... you could poor through all the splat-books, mixing and matching different builds. Most thought it powergaming but I always felt it a meta-game within the game. A thought exercise to give you the Table top RPG fix inbetween games. Alot of the combo's I created I would never have played in a game (though I did use them alot when I DMed), but they where fun to create.
You cant do that in PF. You are almost required to stick to a base class. Your archtype is picked at first level and fills the role Prestige classes did from a RP standpoint but fail horribly from an option standpoint. I can understand why they went this route. Its much easier to balance. In 3.5, every splat book that introduced new prestige classes usually led to someone figuring out a new crazy combo that blew the power level away. But that was what the DM was there for... to say No. In PF they take it upon themselves to make sure it is balanced and they do that by limiting options.
Pick Race - Pick Class - Pick Archtype - Level to 20.
Balanced - Yes. Fun - Yes. Good for Optimization junkies - No.
And thank goodness for that.
What does everyone think of the Fly skill? It's inclusion bugged me.
I like it. Of course I use several homebrew races and a few of them have racial flight speeds, so the skill sees a bit more use at my table than it might at others'.
What does everyone think of the Fly skill? It's inclusion bugged me.
I like that it's in there for those who have a use for it, especially for anyone playing in a setting of gnomish flying machines. I'm torn 50/50 as to whether it should apply to anyone using a spell to fly as it makes sense in some ways from knowing how aerodynamics, etc work - but also sets an uneasy precedent in others as spells tend to "just work" without the use of skills.
What does everyone think of the Fly skill? It's inclusion bugged me.
It does seem to be a silly skill. I would base it on Athletics for wings or Gymnastics for non-winged flight. I swear every new player sees it and thinks that they can fly "wow my character can fly?".
What does everyone think of the Fly skill? It's inclusion bugged me.It does seem to be a silly skill. I would base it on Athletics for wings or Gymnastics for non-winged flight. I swear every new player sees it and thinks that they can fly "wow my character can fly?".
Which is why the skill description very clearly states "you must have a natural or magical source of flight to take ranks in this skill". Anyone who doesn't read the descriptions, well, probably deserves the misunderstanding.
Maybe so, but very few new players read before playing. I know veteran players that have only read bits and pieces of the rules.
I read the rules as little as possible.
there are rules?