| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
My overview on the Advanced class guide playtest
Stephen: Was very considerate and treated players with lots of respect as he worked together with the players to create fun and awesome classes.
Jason: More hands off, but based on changes made in the second draft it's obvious that he read through the entire thread and worked very hard to deliver something fun and flavorful
SKR: Ignored and hand waved criticisms, talked down to players,and went on his merry way. Based on changes in the second draft it's obvious that SKR doesn't care much for the Hunter or Brawler considering how bad both those classes are.
If I may return for a moment to this question with what I hope is a constructive suggestion:
What products should we cancel so the staff has time to playtest or re-playtest, re-design, re-develop, re-edit, and re-layout older products for this purpose, for free?
May I suggest a middle road? Incorporate the "errata" for older items in newer publications as well as errata. Many people regard the qingong monk as a "replacement" monk class, for example, and do not in the least regard it's publication as a separate archetype as detrimental to the class or the publication it came out in. OK, the monk still isn't fixed with the qingong, but I for one would not begrudge paying for an Advanced Class Guide that had a "fixed" monk in it, for example, instead of another "new" class. This way time and energy are not diverted from new publications while old problems that have started to really niggle at your long-term fan-base are addressed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My overview on the Advanced class guide playtest
SKR: Ignored and hand waved criticisms, talked down to players,and went on his merry way. Based on changes in the second draft it's obvious that SKR doesn't care much for the Hunter or Brawler considering how bad both those classes are.
Well, I admittedly didn't follow the Hunter thread very much, but I did follow the Brawler thread. I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you on a number of fronts.
1) It was quite obvious that people didn't read the thread, then posted their thoughts on how to "fix" things. Many people kept posting the same suggestions over and over. I'd probably get annoyed too if I had to post 500 times that Brawler's Strike overcoming DR was non-negotiable.
2) There were several changes that were made to the Brawler class that both improved its playability and demonstrated that the devs, SKR in this case, WERE listening. Read the last part of the closed thread. I favorited it so I could keep going back to it. Increased uses of martial maneuvers, earlier access to Knockout, size penalty to awesome blow gone, and Brawler's Strike changed to (Ex). I felt like the people who read the entire thread and contributed had all of their issues considered and many of them rectified.
3) The brawler is not a bad class, it's actually awesome.
Well, I admittedly didn't follow the Hunter thread very much, but I did follow the Brawler thread. I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you on a number of fronts.
1) It was quite obvious that people didn't read the thread, then posted their thoughts on how to "fix" things. Many people kept posting the same suggestions over and over. I'd probably get annoyed too if I had to post 500 times that Brawler's Strike overcoming DR was non-negotiable.
2) There were several changes that were made to the Brawler class that both improved its playability and demonstrated that the devs, SKR in this case, WERE listening. Read the last part of the closed thread. I favorited it so I could keep going back to it. Increased uses of martial maneuvers, earlier access to Knockout, size penalty to awesome blow gone, and Brawler's Strike changed to (Ex). I felt like the people who read the entire thread and contributed had all of their issues considered and many of them rectified.
I'd just like to say that Brawler Strike is kind of a bothersome point of contention. We wanted unique but instead got Ki Strike. The Cluster Shots mechanic discussed was an elegant and useful ability that was thrown out the window for the same reason the Rogue doesn't get buffs. Brawler Strike is functional(Badly so) so we don't get to ask for anything better.
When shown the numbers on Awesome Blow he finally relented a little. I don't want to feel like I have to fight the Devs to see reason. In Awesome Blows case, very obvious reason.
I have a bad feeling the Slayer is going to just come out "functional" since feedback was rather sparse on the brainstorming.
Well, I admittedly didn't follow the Hunter thread very much, but I did follow the Brawler thread. I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you on a number of fronts.
1) It was quite obvious that people didn't read the thread, then posted their thoughts on how to "fix" things. Many people kept posting the same suggestions over and over. I'd probably get annoyed too if I had to post 500 times that Brawler's Strike overcoming DR was non-negotiable.
2) There were several changes that were made to the Brawler class that both improved its playability and demonstrated that the devs, SKR in this case, WERE listening. Read the last part of the closed thread. I favorited it so I could keep going back to it. Increased uses of martial maneuvers, earlier access to Knockout, size penalty to awesome blow gone, and Brawler's Strike changed to (Ex). I felt like the people who read the entire thread and contributed had all of their issues considered and many of them rectified.
I'd just like to say that Brawler Strike is kind of a bothersome point of contention. We wanted unique but instead got Ki Strike. The Cluster Shots mechanic discussed was an elegant and useful ability that was thrown out the window for the same reason the Rogue doesn't get buffs. Brawler Strike is functional(Badly so) so we don't get to ask for anything better.
When shown the numbers on Awesome Blow he finally relented a little. I don't want to feel like I have to fight the Devs to see reason. In Awesome Blows case, very obvious reason.
I have a bad feeling the Slayer is going to just come out "functional" since feedback was rather sparse on the brainstorming.
Agreed with the above. Brawler's Strike/Ki Strike functions... against DR/Magic, Cold Iron and Silver. Almost nothing has DR/Lawful and DR/Adamantine is overcome by +4 weapons, something acquired by most every class well before level 16.
I posted the Clustered Shot mechanic and it seemed well received by a lot of people as a fun, flavorful and fairly unique method for martials to overcome DR. The other popular choice was simply granting them Penetrating Strike and Greater Penetrating Strike as bonus feats at roughly 7th and 12th level or so.
Admittedly, the Brawler's Strike ability is more powerful than that of it's parent class, if only because you have choice other than Lawful for DR penetration.
Some people simply had issue with it being a Supernatural ability on an otherwise non-magical class. Others (myself included) had issue that the Brawler is able to bypass DR without either special materials or magic "because reasons". Monk's Ki Strike is powered by the strength of their Ki, a supernatural energy source and makes sense for them to be able to bypass magic, cold iron etc.
Brawler's, on the other hand, bypass it through the strength of their fists. Which makes no sense. The explanation was "Because they need a DR penetrating method" which is logic that wasn't really applied to other characters.
Any other unarmed or natural weapon class has to rely on things like the Amulet of Mighty Fists in order to penetrate DR, because outside of having something like silver or Mithral weapons, you need magic to penetrate DR/Silver. Brawler's are the sole exception to this, as far as I am aware.
So instead of trying to give the Brawler's a cool and flavorful DR penetration (such as the Clustered Shots mechanic), they instead get a mechanic that only barely functions at all, and one that defies just about all other mechanics in Pathfinder.
Well, I admittedly didn't follow the Hunter thread very much, but I did follow the Brawler thread. I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you on a number of fronts.
1) It was quite obvious that people didn't read the thread, then posted their thoughts on how to "fix" things. Many people kept posting the same suggestions over and over. I'd probably get annoyed too if I had to post 500 times that Brawler's Strike overcoming DR was non-negotiable.
2) There were several changes that were made to the Brawler class that both improved its playability and demonstrated that the devs, SKR in this case, WERE listening. Read the last part of the closed thread. I favorited it so I could keep going back to it. Increased uses of martial maneuvers, earlier access to Knockout, size penalty to awesome blow gone, and Brawler's Strike changed to (Ex). I felt like the people who read the entire thread and contributed had all of their issues considered and many of them rectified.
3) The brawler is not a bad class, it's actually awesome.
I pretty much agree with all of the above. I didn't get into the Brawler (and related thread) until the v2.0 Brawler, at which point I discovered a really cool change that I felt was largely overlooked in favor of (as you note) rehashing the same old points; notably, that the Martial Maneuvers ability was changed to allow for using any combat feat, and not just certain types of them- which I think opened up the class to a whole slew of different archetypes and playstyles that really made me excited about it. I always thought it was okay in the first version, but v2.0 wowed me, even with a few issues that I hope get ironed out.
I did pay a bit closer attention the Hunter thread in the v1.0 though I lost interest shortly thereafter, but Sean seemed fairly open and communicative there as well, even incorporating some of the suggested feedback in the v2.0 Hunter.
Just now saw this thread, and I only had a few major issues with the playtest. Overall, I felt that the criticism the community was well listened to. There were times when it felt like authors were stuck in the paradigm or the initial idea of the classes, or the concept of making hybrid classes over new mechanics, but those were the rare exceptions.
There was a larger problem I had with the playtest. When the classes were first shown to us, some were not ready, especially the warpreist. It was a class built specifically around using its deity's favored weapon, and yet it didn't even come with automatic proficiency in its deity's favored weapon. The Warpriest also initially lacked any source of alignment restrictions that come with every other divine character, which lead to hilarious concepts like Hellknight Warpriests getting bonus powers from Desna just because they were wielding a star knife actually working mechanically.
This meant that, especially with the delay (understandable because of the holidays), large amounts of time were wasted discussing classes that had some very basic problems that needed to be addressed before a proper play-test could begin. I suspect the playtest could have been more productive if it was released after the devs had a bit more time to edit the classes and after the holidays so that there wasn't a large amount of dead time.
I enjoyed taking part it in, even with the sometimes heated discussions, but would have preferred to have been given classes that felt more polished and had more time with the revised versions of the classes.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
What products should we cancel so the staff has time to playtest or re-playtest, re-design, re-develop, re-edit, and re-layout older products for this purpose, for free?
You guys already do errata for free, it's not like the crane wing revision meant cancelling any of your other products. And your fans already do these playtests where they figure out bugs in the system for you.
All you really need to do is just ake their suggestions without an antagonizing attitude.
What products should we cancel so the staff has time to playtest or re-playtest, re-design, re-develop, re-edit, and re-layout older products for this purpose, for free?You guys already do errata for free, it's not like the crane wing revision meant cancelling any of your other products. And your fans already do these playtests where they figure out bugs in the system for you.
All you really need to do is just ake their suggestions without an antagonizing attitude.
Indeed, there are dozens of monk-fix, rogue-fix, and fighter-fix threads out there. SOME of them must contain usable ideas, and these are house-rules people are PLAYING right now.
You don't need to playtest, re-playtest, re-design, and re-develope at all. Just do some search-fu and read carefully, then contact the members involved for more detail on what they have tried and how they tested it, then take your choice.
Re-edit and re-layout aren't massive tasks, especially if you choose carefully.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many people have already stated they would GLADLY play money for a revised core rulebook that fixes the many long-standing open rules questions (mounted combat, charging, overrun, et al)?
And if it takes as much manpower as SKR implies to address these rules issues, then I have say the process is greatly flawed/inefficient. I am a web developer, and I think I can understand some of the challenges involved. From my own experience (~20 years), I have gained a great amount of specialization in "process (re-)engineering". I think Paizo should consider investing in some internal process re-engineering to allow their content that shows up in different media (SRD, PDF, print) to require less overall manpower to create/maintain.
I suspect that Paizo's current process for building pdfs is to use the Adobe suite as their core toolset (which seems a common practice). IMO, Paizo would be FAR better off looking for alternatives. There has been technology to convert html/xml to pdf for several years now (and it is pretty good). Hopefully Paizo isn't having the same rules text stored in multiple formats, because that would make maintenance a nightmare. It would explain (to me at least) why certain issues have yet to be addressed in any publicly-noticable way (looking directly at the charge/overrun/mounted combat rules here).
I was an outsider to this playtest and mostly read (as chance should have it, mostly threads in which Stephen was "in charge" of) rather than posting due to not playtesting any of the material myself this time around. It did seem like he did a better job with showing his work as far as acknowledging feedback and administrating the playtest in general than the last one I did participate in, the mythic playtest, which was a sore spot. Perhaps not perfect and I don't know whether attention was unevenly distributed (it seems likely and to some extent unavoidable, though) but certainly far better. There seemed to be much less of the voice crying out in the wilderness and more of the developers remaining engaged, and visibly so, with the process.
I agree with the raft of people saying that it seemed very surprisingly short, though maybe that was partly due to being up against an also short and hectic holiday season this year. I don't know how much I have to say that is really useful since I was just looking in on the whole process, but it did seem to be over almost before I noticed it had begun. Certainly it would have lasted only a handful of our weekly gaming sessions had we been playtesting it, which is not very much time.
But anyway, I mostly wanted to say, much better as far as I can tell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Work smarter, not harder, I guess?
I hadn't heard about the class book until today. I'm interested, but I certainly hope more work goes into balancing it, than we've seen in some cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Work smarter, not harder, I guess?
I hadn't heard about the class book until today. I'm interested, but I certainly hope more work goes into balancing it, than we've seen in some cases.
I think that was a joke and not the actual method they used to determine the balance aspect of weapon cords. It was more to stop dual wielding pistol shenanigans on the Gunslinger I imagine.
What, you want him to tie an actual sword to his arm and see how fast he can jerk that up at him? ;P
It'll all end in tears, I know it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that was a joke and not the actual method they used to determine the balance aspect of weapon cords.
I wish this were true but based on their recent track record and statements of balancing things "because realism"...
How many people have already stated they would GLADLY play money for a revised core rulebook that fixes the many long-standing open rules questions (mounted combat, charging, overrun, et al)?
^Raises Hand^
A Pathfinder 1.5? I think it's been around long enough now that this will look like a good idea and not be resented as an attempt to milk more money out of the fans. As long as it doesn't force massive overhauls of all existing material (that which can't be handled by errata, in any event) then I don't see it as anything but a good thing.
Seriously Paizo, you have a HUGE mass of talent here that can be crowd-sourced and is willing and happy to work for free. Don't just squander it on play-testing, get us involved in everything, 'cos we love you and we want to help make Pathfinder the best game ever.
How many people have already stated they would GLADLY play money for a revised core rulebook that fixes the many long-standing open rules questions (mounted combat, charging, overrun, et al)?
At this point? I probably wouldn't if it required the beginning of Pathfinder 1.5.
I have greatly enjoyed Pathfinder, and some of the initial supplements, but have enjoyed the products that have come out since less and less. I'm still not happy that the advanced class guide, by design, avoided bringing new mechanics to the table in favor of simply combining mechanics from two previous classes. I'm just not sold that I'd want to give more money to this company for a Pathfinder 1.5 or whatever.
And honestly, I'm not really interested in paying money for the 3rd revision of 3e rules. As someone who believes in there being balance issues, 3.X has problems at a basic level, and addressing that would require more than a cleaning up of existing rules.
Why does it have to be 1.5? Why couldn't it be a 1.1 update.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because 1.1 is too small of a step forward to fix a fraction of the problems with the system.
I think that was a joke and not the actual method they used to determine the balance aspect of weapon cords. It was more to stop dual wielding pistol shenanigans on the Gunslinger I imagine.Work smarter, not harder, I guess?
I hadn't heard about the class book until today. I'm interested, but I certainly hope more work goes into balancing it, than we've seen in some cases.
Show me the part where it's a joke. I'll wait.
Development inspiration can come from strange places; the Millennium Falcon's final design was inspired by a cheeseburger. But, after some of the rules changes and flip-flops we've seen in PF, I'm not handwaving anything that isn't described as joke explicitly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does it have to be 1.5? Why couldn't it be a 1.1 update.
Honestly, I'd prefer the other direction. I'd rather Pathfinder 2.0, and give them a chance to really, from the ground up, look at the system and see the problems they need to fix and where to go from there, to fix them.
It's one of the big reasons I hope 5e does well, even though I'm not too interested in it myself. But if it starts doing well enough to provide actual competition with Paizo, maybe Paizo will actually get around to solving the systemic problems that PF has.
|
Why does it have to be 1.5? Why couldn't it be a 1.1 update.Honestly, I'd prefer the other direction. I'd rather Pathfinder 2.0, and give them a chance to really, from the ground up, look at the system and see the problems they need to fix and where to go from there, to fix them.
I agree, but one issue is that few people are going to agree on exactly what the big problems are that need truly fixed.
For example, I think the Monk and Grapple are fine, though I think that 3.5 Grapple (and not having the CMB/CMD for that matter) was so much better, clearer, and more intuitive than how Paizo handled it.
Overall, a nice addition to the Pathfinder RPG. I'll admit to being somewhat underwhelmed though, since I had hoped these would be something more of their own, rather than a pseudo-gestalt approach. To be perfectly honest, I was hoping for some uniquely (or close to uniquely) Tian Xia classes.
That said, some of these new classes fit very nicely into Tian Xia.
Arcanist - I picture their prepared spells as ofuda they write the spells to as part of the casting. Very cool and will be using this for my Tian Xia campaign (though with a different, more exotic name).
Brawler - These guys will be my elite Sohei (though I do hope their complexity is alleviated somewhat in the final...those martial maneuvers become nightmarish to manage at higher levels).
Shaman - All about spirits? Hell, right at home in Tian Xia. Renaming like the arcanist.
The rest can fit somewhere with a little creative license. I'm still eager to see some more Tian Xia classes/archetypes though.
Because 1.1 is too small of a step forward to fix a fraction of the problems with the system.
And what measure are we going on for how many revisions any given number increase equates to?
I am not sure where to put this, but reading through the warpriest, under the channel energy, there is a cut and paste error. :)
It starts by mentioning warpriest, but then says cleric a couple of times.
Just hoping that it gets caught before release. :)
Quoted from the warpriest section.
A good warpriest (or one who worships a good deity)
channels positive energy and can choose to heal living
creatures or to deal damage to undead creatures. An
evil cleric (or one who worships an evil deity) channels
negative energy and can choose to deal damage to living
creatures or heal undead creatures. A neutral cleric who
worships a neutral deity (or one who is not devoted to a
particular deity) channels positive energy if he selected
to spontaneously cast cure spells or negative energy if he
selected to spontaneously cast inf lict spells.
Because 1.1 is too small of a step forward to fix a fraction of the problems with the system.And what measure are we going on for how many revisions any given number increase equates to?
People's frame of reference for using those terms is obviously the AD&D 3rd Edition -> 3.5, which was the only edition to have a decimal based designation. When Pathfinder was released, it was often called "3.75" by many, in implicit contrast to Hasbro's 4th Edition (which was a much different game).
I don't see any reason why Paizo just wouldn't use "Pathfinder, 2nd Edition" when they release a revised version, HOWEVER MUCH they change or don't change. It's just more forthright and confident, releasing it as "1.1" or "1.5" is pointless, especially as RIGHT NOW it is 5 or 6 years after Pathfinder was originally released, and any new version will likely be released at least 8 years after the original.
But regardless of what Paizo will call it in actual fact when it's released, discussing it in terms of "1.1", "1.5", "2.0" is useful as shorthand for how much of a change it will be from the current game. I would bet that a "1.5" edition is the most likely, because it allows people to continue using existing setting and even rules products, at least to some extent. When Paizo does update those for Pathfinder 2nd Edition of course the new product will be better integrated, but until then they aren't losing access to the rich material they have published over the last 5 years. I don't think they need to hew to QUITE the same level of backwards compatability as they did with 3.5, but it can still work with 90% of material.
Why does it have to be 1.5? Why couldn't it be a 1.1 update.Honestly, I'd prefer the other direction. I'd rather Pathfinder 2.0, and give them a chance to really, from the ground up, look at the system and see the problems they need to fix and where to go from there, to fix them.
It's one of the big reasons I hope 5e does well, even though I'm not too interested in it myself. But if it starts doing well enough to provide actual competition with Paizo, maybe Paizo will actually get around to solving the systemic problems that PF has.
I think that backward compatibility was the big thing for Pathfinder, so if they "upgrade" the system it will have to retain backward compatibility with 3.5 and with Pathfinder 1.0. Therefore, massively overhauling the system isn't going to happen - and isn't actually necessary either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Backwards compatibility was a big deal when it first came out but at this point there is an actual problem with games that don't allow non paizo products at their tables. Paizo used to be considered third party themselves but as it currently stands I put more trust in them than pretty much any other publisher. If they did a 2nd edition the burden will more likely be on other publishers to make sure their new products are compatible with the new pathfinder stuff.
I think you may be missing how much backlash there would be on an incompatible 2nd edition, from the "I spent all this money on books that no longer work with the new edition" perspective - which was one of (but certainly not the only) the driving reasons behind a lot of people that moved from D&D to Pathfinder.
Thing is, there's really very little at the true core (which is far less material than people tend to think it is) that would ever need to change. For example - you can completely rewrite how combat works as long as you leave stat blocks untouched. You can replace as many classes as you want with completely redesigned versions. You can rewrite how every feat works. The majority of existing material can work with any new edition just so long as the developers want it to (which is one of the major arguments I have with publishers that so obviously make unnecessary core changes simply in the name of obsoleting existing books, just to be able to sell replacements to anyone that wants to remain "current".)
"Pathfinder 2.0" also means vastly different things to different people. Call of Cthulhu went through something like six editions without any changes big enough to relegate older material to the archives. D&D has been more a case of replacing entire shelves of material.
Making a new Pathfinder edition a viable, affordable option that works with the existing Golarion sourcebooks and majority of rulebooks is a good way to retain customers, while making it a complete replacement is a good way to aim at a new audience that don't enjoy the current version (note that in this comparison I'm not judging either direction as right or wrong, simply pointing out it's a choice they'd have to consider.)
All of that said, Paizo staff have been quoted as saying they inherited a too complex system with 3.5e that defines far too many things and doesn't leave enough room for GM interpretation, and I have to find myself in agreement there. Thing is, my own houseruled variant of Pathfinder is far less complex while still rewriting major parts of the game, and still works with the majority of existing material. If I can do that, I'm pretty sure they can too ;)
Backwards compatibility was a big deal when it first came out but at this point there is an actual problem with games that don't allow non paizo products at their tables.
You are missing the point here that Paizo themselves are the publisher who wants their material to stay more or less compatible. Paizo make money selling adventures, that is their meat and drink and that is where WotC got it horribly wrong with splatbooks and new editions. Paizo will want to sell their 3.5 and Pathfinder 1.0 adventure paths and modules and PFS material concurrent with any new versions of Pathfinder without having to revise it.
Hence they are not wanting to re-write classes extensively, and why my own monk changes do not go beyond relatively minor alterations.
I think that backward compatibility was the big thing for Pathfinder, so if they "upgrade" the system it will have to retain backward compatibility with 3.5 and with Pathfinder 1.0. Therefore, massively overhauling the system isn't going to happen - and isn't actually necessary either.Why does it have to be 1.5? Why couldn't it be a 1.1 update.Honestly, I'd prefer the other direction. I'd rather Pathfinder 2.0, and give them a chance to really, from the ground up, look at the system and see the problems they need to fix and where to go from there, to fix them.
It's one of the big reasons I hope 5e does well, even though I'm not too interested in it myself. But if it starts doing well enough to provide actual competition with Paizo, maybe Paizo will actually get around to solving the systemic problems that PF has.
Eh, I'm probably in the minority then. One of the big selling points to me about PF was all that they changed from 3.5. Sure, It was based off the d20 system, but it changed a lot of what could be changed about 3.5. Backwards compatability is what kept it, in my mind, from being even better than it ended up being.
Eh, I'm probably in the minority then. One of the big selling points to me about PF was all that they changed from 3.5. Sure, It was based off the d20 system, but it changed a lot of what could be changed about 3.5. Backwards compatability is what kept it, in my mind, from being even better than it ended up being.
I don't disagree with your reasoning at all (and you'll find some agreement within Paizo itself). The thing is, Paizo created the Pathfinder RPG pretty much as a way of keeping their Adventure Path product (their main seller at the time) viable. As such, compatibility with those was their main objective, the RPG was just something they needed to put out there so people could still play the APs after the 3.5 rulebooks went out of print.
As customers, we all had varying reasons for picking up Pathfinder, ranging from "I want to keep using my library of 3.5 books while playing a current, supported game" to "Everyone else is playing Pathfinder now, so I need a copy" to "This is like having a 3.75, it fixes quite a few issues" to "It was on the shelves at the store and looked cool" to "I couldn't find a 3.5 PHB on sale anywhere any more" Obviously the latter is now a non-issue, but the others still remain.
In computing terms, it's like the move between Operating System versions. Some people stay on the older versions because they have so many things they still want to run that still need it, some will dual-boot and split their time, some just hate the newer version, sometimes the newer version is too broken, and some people happily forge ahead on the latest and greatest to gain the new features and are quite happy not using their old stuff any more.
I can agree a new version of Windows is vastly improved over an older one, but if it refuses to run Steam I'm not going to be using it ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess, using the operating system analogy, I'm a bit more like this: I learned linux (aka, hero system, M&M, other point buy universal/semi-universal systems), but my games won't run on it, so I have to choose Mac or PC. I used Mac for a while, but got frustrated with places where it limited you for no apparent reason, so I moved on to Windows, which was good for a bit, even though I didn't like the previous version, but it's got too many legacy elements from the old version for me to like, and I just can't see why they can't release a new version which replaces the bad legacy elements with new things, but instead, they just keep releasing "update" packs which make problems I have with it even more difficult to ignore.
Granted, the metaphor falls apart a bit at Windows, since windows 8 introduced new problems that weren't at all to do with legacy elements from 7, but essentially, I guess a big thing that I have frustration with is it comes down to a "System you mechanically enjoy; Freedom to create the character you want; System you can actually get people to play: pick 2", where 4e gets the "system you mechanically enjoy" and "System you can get people to play" it completely loses me with its restrictiveness in terms of character concepts. And PF gets "Freedom to create the character you want" and "System you can get people to play" but I have massive problems with the system, that, based on designer quotes, don't seem to be going away. Meanwhile, I've got a ton of HERO system books, which fill the "System you mechanically enjoy" and "Freedom to make the character you want" but it's a hard system to get into (at least at first glance; I don't find it particularly difficult, but it's a dense book that can be somewhat intimidating to people), so it lacks the "System you can actually get people to play" side.
So given all that, to basically get the system I'd want, it'd have to come down to a)being able to somehow fix 4e's restrictiveness, b) find a group that isn't scared off by HERO system, or c) fix the problems with PF. Since the problems with pathfinder aren't too terribly difficult, it seems like that should be the easiest, since it mostly comes down to evening narative power disparity between martials and casters, fixing a few classes, and adding some more interesting tactical mechanics to pure martials. These are all things that other systems do well, and that Paizo could use as inspiration. However, they haven't been doing that, and the best reason I've seen is "We don't want to fix these issues ten rulebooks in", which is why I'd welcome a new edition, backwards compatability be damned.
Backwards compatibility was a big deal when it first came out but at this point there is an actual problem with games that don't allow non paizo products at their tables. Paizo used to be considered third party themselves but as it currently stands I put more trust in them than pretty much any other publisher. If they did a 2nd edition the burden will more likely be on other publishers to make sure their new products are compatible with the new pathfinder stuff.I think you may be missing how much backlash there would be on an incompatible 2nd edition, from the "I spent all this money on books that no longer work with the new edition" perspective - which was one of (but certainly not the only) the driving reasons behind a lot of people that moved from D&D to Pathfinder.
Which is hilarious, when you look around and see the number of PF tables that don't allow 3.5e material, many of which are "PF-only."
When PF first came out, I encouraged my longtime 3.5 group to move to it and use it to expand our current game. The group jumped in PF eventually, and now disallow any non-PF products. Might as well have just gone with 4e, if I know I was going to wind up with the same result(not being able to use my 3.5 library). I don't blame PF for this, necessarily, it's all anecdotal. But still, I feel like I've created a monster.
Backwards compatibility was a big deal when it first came out but at this point there is an actual problem with games that don't allow non paizo products at their tables. Paizo used to be considered third party themselves but as it currently stands I put more trust in them than pretty much any other publisher. If they did a 2nd edition the burden will more likely be on other publishers to make sure their new products are compatible with the new pathfinder stuff.I think you may be missing how much backlash there would be on an incompatible 2nd edition, from the "I spent all this money on books that no longer work with the new edition" perspective - which was one of (but certainly not the only) the driving reasons behind a lot of people that moved from D&D to Pathfinder.
Which is hilarious, when you look around and see the number of PF tables that don't allow 3.5e material, many of which are "PF-only."
When PF first came out, I encouraged my longtime 3.5 group to move to it and use it to expand our current game. The group jumped in PF eventually, and now disallow any non-PF products. Might as well have just gone with 4e, if I know I was going to wind up with the same result(not being able to use my 3.5 library). I don't blame PF for this, necessarily, it's all anecdotal. But still, I feel like I've created a monster.
My group doesn't really allow the use of 3.5 material because PF material is better written and better balanced. There's some notable exceptions (like the Magic Item Compendium), but for the most part, we don't have to worry about really odd-ball or game breaking materials.
That's not to say that Pathfinder is perfect, it isn't. Pathfinder has some very powerful options in them, but nothing to the tune of taking a prestige class and getting 9 spell levels of casting, or free metamagic all the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group doesn't really allow the use of 3.5 material because PF material is better written and better balanced. There's some notable exceptions (like the Magic Item Compendium), but for the most part, we don't have to worry about really odd-ball or game breaking materials.That's not to say that Pathfinder is perfect, it isn't. Pathfinder has some very powerful options in them, but nothing to the tune of taking a prestige class and getting 9 spell levels of casting, or free metamagic all the time.
But, I like the oddball stuff...
See, the really oddball stuff was what I was all about in 3.5e. I am a huge fan of Magic of Incarnum, Shadowcasting(from Tome of magic), Weapons of Legacy, etc. I realize how alone I am in that sentiment, but it's what I like, and PF has no real equivalent for any of those systems(since they are not OGL I don't think). So for me, PF has some huge, gaping holes that 3.5e had covered. PF feels very lacking to me; I just don't dig much material past Core and a few splats.
So, I still like to use bits and pieces from those systems. Problem is, DM's I play with panic about it, because they can't be bothered to take 2 seconds to read over the material, and see where I'm drawing ideas from. Our current DM doesn't bat an eyelash at the Barbarian dropping 50 points of damage per swing, but if my character can shape a Soulmeld that allows me to do 4d6 acid damage as a standard action, it's "broken/OP/unbalanced/PF-ONRY!"
My current group was PF only, but the DM eventually allowed some 3.5 material in. Now, he's closed off the game to PF-only again, and it really irks me. Which, is a group problem, not a system one. I'm just venting, I guess.
I'm hoping this new class book can make up for some of the 3.5 material we'll never get a real update for. Pretty eager to give it a try.
My group doesn't really allow the use of 3.5 material because PF material is better written and better balanced. There's some notable exceptions (like the Magic Item Compendium), but for the most part, we don't have to worry about really odd-ball or game breaking materials.That's not to say that Pathfinder is perfect, it isn't. Pathfinder has some very powerful options in them, but nothing to the tune of taking a prestige class and getting 9 spell levels of casting, or free metamagic all the time.
But, I like the oddball stuff...
** spoiler omitted **I'm hoping this new class book can make up for some of the 3.5 material we'll never get a real update for. Pretty eager to give it a try.
I think the big problem is a lot of GMs were overwhelmed with the sheer amount of cheese available in 3.5 to the point it became harder and harder to keep track of what was, and wasn't broken (either OP or UP). It became a real chore having to wade through the mess to separate the overpowered and underpowered from the regular stuff, and having to listen to players complain about the GM 'nerfing their character'.
I mean, my group played several campaigns in 3.5, but many of them (at that point) were veterans with 20+ years in D&D and 2E. They didn't believe me when I said a Cleric could be total machine of destruction in melee if they put their mind to it. Largely because the people playing Clerics played them in different ways. It wasn't until I took control of the GM-PC Cleric (and chose her spells and stuff) and we had time to prep that I opened their eyes to some of the ridiculousness a Cleric could pull off.
Most of the stuff I used was just from the Core Rule Book, though there was some supplementary stuff in there. But when the Cleric started dealing something like 65+ points of damage per swing (where as my character, the Ranger, was dealing only 35+) the GM and the party were gobsmacked.
So to me, banning most (if not all) of 3.5 comes down to people not wanting to have to deal with wading through all the cheese again. That's the primary reason my group switched to Pathfinder in the first place. Why would we switch to a, in our opinion, better system, only to keep the faults of the previous system relevant by allowing all the backwards compatibility.
The two big things we are fond of from 3.5 is Stormwrack, Magic Item Compendium and the Spell Compendium. We really don't use anything else from 3rd edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I allow 3.5 content on a limited basis, but I ask to look over the material first and reserve the right to say no.
I occasionally also dumpster-dive into 3.5 books as an option to surprise my players with items or spells they might not be familiar with.
There is a colossal wealth of awesome feats, prestige classes, spells and items sprinkled across the eight(?) years 3rd edition were publishing things, but with it came a lot of stuff I'd rather not have to deal with - Mind Rape, DMM, Persist Spell, or Leap Attack for instance.
There's also numerous options that would interact very weirdly with Pathfinder stuff, such as the various 3.5 feats that affected or altered Smite Evil.
Finally, 3.x material is not available on the PFSRD and the original SRD is... Well, let's call it extremely limited. After having played with the PFSRD readily available for anything I need to check for so long I couldn't imagine going back to a game where I'd routinely have to look up stuff in individual books.
I allow 3.5 content on a limited basis, but I ask to look over the material first and reserve the right to say no.
I occasionally also dumpster-dive into 3.5 books as an option to surprise my players with items or spells they might not be familiar with.
There is a colossal wealth of awesome feats, prestige classes, spells and items sprinkled across the eight(?) years 3rd edition were publishing things, but with it came a lot of stuff I'd rather not have to deal with - Mind Rape, DMM, Persist Spell, or Leap Attack for instance.
There's also numerous options that would interact very weirdly with Pathfinder stuff, such as the various 3.5 feats that affected or altered Smite Evil.Finally, 3.x material is not available on the PFSRD and the original SRD is... Well, let's call it extremely limited. After having played with the PFSRD readily available for anything I need to check for so long I couldn't imagine going back to a game where I'd routinely have to look up stuff in individual books.
I already haul around Ultimate Magic, Combat, Equipment, Advanced Players Guide, CRB, Bestiary 1 - 3, and I'm fixing to pick up Bestiary 4, Mythic Adventures, Mythic Origins, Advanced Race Guide and Advanced Class Guide. In addition, I have several books from the Golarion line and flip-maps. I'm also the source of several of the PC minis for the group and I supply the dice for 3 players, including myself. Then lets toss the snacks I've brought to every session, without fail, for the last 10 years...
I really don't want to haul all of my 3.5 books around too :'(
Spoilering to keep the off-topic stuff out of sight:
I agree, there was some cheese in 3.5 that should've never seen the light of day. But, there was some really good stuff in there, too. I've spent a considerable amount of time on various Char-op boards singling out the worst offenders, so I could keep those broken builds out of games.
Really though, you could break near anything if you put your mind to it. There are so many little loopholes and closet-cases that can go wrong, in any system. One of my most powerful 3.5 characters ever created, was a Shadowcaster/Warmage; two of the weakest classes in the entire system, and I was able to completely curbstomp every encounter that came our way. I voluntarily retired the character to save the DM some sanity.
I just like to have lots of options available. There were lots of sub-systems in 3.5 that are completely compatible with PF, but many DM's just can't be arsed to take 5 minutes and look it over(anecdotal, but it's been every PF Dm I've played under). As much as everyone crows about how unbalanced and broken 3.5 was, they seem to forget that PF came directly from that same mess, and the quality of those "fixes" are subjective at best.
PF is nothing but a glorified set of house rules to me; a total side-grade. Sure, they fixed some stuff, but for every fix I've found, something else got broke.
Any word yet on an explanation for why Brawlers can just bypass DR? Are we still settling on "just because," or did I read that wrong?
I already haul around Ultimate Magic, Combat, Equipment, Advanced Players Guide, CRB, Bestiary 1 - 3, and I'm fixing to pick up Bestiary 4, Mythic Adventures, Mythic Origins, Advanced Race Guide and Advanced Class Guide. In addition, I have several books from the Golarion line and flip-maps. I'm also the source of several of the PC minis for the group and I supply the dice for 3 players, including myself. Then lets toss the snacks I've brought to every session, without fail, for the last 10 years...
I really don't want to haul all of my 3.5 books around too :'(
And I bring my tablet. :-)
Which also means I'm able to set up spur of the moment games, such as when I'm having a quiet shift at work.
By the way, the Advanced Race Guide is a great book - well worth picking up. I looked over Mythic Adventures but found it a little overwhelming, so no hands-on experience there. Bestiary 4 was fun, but I haven't had a chance to put anything from it into play yet.
I already haul around Ultimate Magic, Combat, Equipment, Advanced Players Guide, CRB, Bestiary 1 - 3, and I'm fixing to pick up Bestiary 4, Mythic Adventures, Mythic Origins, Advanced Race Guide and Advanced Class Guide. In addition, I have several books from the Golarion line and flip-maps. I'm also the source of several of the PC minis for the group and I supply the dice for 3 players, including myself. Then lets toss the snacks I've brought to every session, without fail, for the last 10 years...
I really don't want to haul all of my 3.5 books around too :'(
And I bring my tablet. :-)
Which also means I'm able to set up spur of the moment games, such as when I'm having a quiet shift at work.
By the way, the Advanced Race Guide is a great book - well worth picking up. I looked over Mythic Adventures but found it a little overwhelming, so no hands-on experience there. Bestiary 4 was fun, but I haven't had a chance to put anything from it into play yet.
If I had a PDF of everything, or access to Wi-Fi (for the SRD) everywhere I go (I live in Alaska) I'd absolutely bring my laptop everywhere. As it stands, I don't because I purchase all my books through the hobby store (to help support them) and Internet in Alaska is still pretty expensive.
I have the fastest internet available to a non-business owner in my town at 10 Mbps with unlimited downloads. It costs roughly ~$100 a month. I could get slightly faster (up to 17), but I would then have a download limit, which I won't take. Most businesses around here can't afford to have free Wi-Fi so that's not really an option. This basically limits me to carrying around physical copies of all my books.
If I had a PDF of everything, or access to Wi-Fi (for the SRD) everywhere I go (I live in Alaska) I'd absolutely bring my laptop everywhere. As it stands, I don't because I purchase all my books through the hobby store (to help support them) and Internet in Alaska is still pretty expensive.
I have the fastest internet available to a non-business owner in my town at 10 Mbps with unlimited downloads. It costs roughly ~$100 a month. I could get slightly faster (up to 17), but I would then have a download limit, which I won't take. Most businesses around here can't afford to have free Wi-Fi so that's not really an option. This basically limits me to carrying around physical copies of all my books.
I absolutely feel your pain! I own at least 8 hardbacks but I ran into the same problem you did (so heavy!), especially since I don't own a car.
Luckily I live in an area with fairly well developed infrastructure (well, apart from the roads) so unlimited internet is cheap (I have double your DL speed at just over half the cost and living expenses are generally quite a bit higher than the US over here) and finding Wi-Fi is normally not an issue. I packed my books and sent them to the winter cabin (which barely gets cell phone reception) and went completely digital about a year ago.
I didn't actually spend that much money rebuying the PDFs - my (awesome) players realized the weight was a problem before I did and everyone chipped in $20 apiece - with seven players spread across two different games that came to just over $140. PDFs of the hardcovers only cost about $10, so that money covered the majority of the stuff I picked up.