This is a problem with every edition and clone, not least of all PF. I.e., "I can't be a real necromancer until I hit 5th/6th/7th/8th level and can...
That reminds me. If magic is powerful and common in the setting (in other words, if Spells = Solutions), and players can freely choose to play a mage, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
In that case, however, there shouldn't be a "Cleric" or "Wizard" class that allows any one player access to all the solutions. Instead, there should be specialized mages in each theme, like the old Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage. Pathfinder did exactly the opposite: Relaxing all the prohibitions on banned schools, and even introducing the Opposition Research feat.
I'd be way into that, I feel like they need a split up anyways as the uni mage can basically do anything, as in steal others schtick.
The biggest takeaway for me from this great thread is that they gave the same powers to too many classes; nothing is iconic anymore. It might be more flexible but kind of takes the special stuff of each class and passes it around until nobody feels clean touching it anymore. Sneak attack is the drunk college girl passed out in the alley beside the bar, not far from trapfinding, channel and uncanny dodge. I guess it's a lot safer and less time consuming to just spread around the same stuff, and kinda balances itself by not introducing new stuff, but it would be so much better if those catch all abilities were replaced by more identifiable powers.
I would like to see someone take 4e like Paizo did 3.5e and spruce it up. I steal so much from 4e that I actually feel bad that I didn't support the iteration like I should've. A lot of their powers are great add-ons to give a power creep in my game, especially at dead or useless PF levels. I use several things in the 4e DMG's in my PF games and even smaller scale stuff like bloodied. I never had a chance to play it because my group was entrenched in 3.5/PF but I thought the stuff leveled against it by detractors rang a little hallow in my ears.
I really liked a lot of 4e's design. As a game system it was very well designed. To me, it was the integration of game system and the fiction it supported where the complaints came in.
Plus, the initial marketing was, well, dog vomit.
I've never understood that particular complaint. Roleplaying isn't a function of the system. If can't roleplay in a 4E game, it's not 4E's fault. . . .Very true.
I, however, have had problems making the kind of character I wanted to make the few times I played 4th edition. That's why I didn't stick with it. 3.5/Pathfinder still has a similar problem at times. If you have to hit level 7 to be a good X, then there is a bit of disconnect between the character you want to play and the character you want to play until you hit X level.
This is a problem with every edition and clone, not least of all PF. I.e., "I can't be a real necromancer until I hit 5th/6th/7th/8th level and can take animate dead! And to be a really effective necro, I have to be a cleric rather than an actual necromancer."
4e is actually pretty good about making character concepts available from level 1 -- in fact one of the more absurd edition-warry complaints that's sometimes leveled against it are things like "What, rangers get a pet at level 1?! Boo!" . . . .
Nice. I've felt for a long time that rangers should have a pet from level one and druids should have shapeshift at first. Perhaps I should give some 4th a second look and see what I can pillage. However, I gave the hard copies I had acquired to a friend who has since moved... Here's to reading in a bookstore. :)
That reminds me. If magic is powerful and common in the setting (in other words, if Spells = Solutions), and players can freely choose to play a mage, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
In that case, however, there shouldn't be a "Cleric" or "Wizard" class that allows any one player access to all the solutions. Instead, there should be specialized mages in each theme, like the old Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage. . . .
I will agree. Warmage needs a boost though. Twenty different ways to do xd6 fire damage is garbage. Take out armored mage and add in defensive spells and a few of the abjurant champion prc features. Make clerics of different gods feel different by tailoring spell lists and altering channeling. (This can be easy. Make them spontaneous casters with access to their domain spells and two or three others of the general list per spell level. Make channeling function by god. A healing god? Channel positive energy. A craft god? Channel fire resistance or crafting bonus. A fire god? ...channel a firebomb?) Make magic common, but add some divisions.
Oh, and replace monks with air/earth/water/fire benders. (Just kidding. :D)
|
Frankly, when a game starts giving me rules on HOW to roleplay, that's when it starts to lose me. Which 3.x/PF essentially does with Appraise/Diplomacy/Bluff/etc...when talking to an NPC involves more dice rolling than actual talking, then THAT is the game that is becoming less of an actual roleplaying game.
In my less than humble opinion.
Frankly, when a game starts giving me rules on HOW to roleplay, that's when it starts to lose me. Which 3.x/PF essentially does with Appraise/Diplomacy/Bluff/etc...when talking to an NPC involves more dice rolling than actual talking, then THAT is the game that is becoming less of an actual roleplaying game.
In my less than humble opinion.
So you would rather fluff your way to being the most sly, diplomatic, frugal without putting in any finite resources to establish that "yes, this is something my character spends a lot of his efforts to be good at"; I think it also is about fairplay, maybe the GM may not like your excuse for the bluff and would fail you, if not for maxed out bluff and high die rolls.
So you would rather fluff your way to being the most sly, diplomatic, frugal without putting in any finite resources to establish that "yes, this is something my character spends a lot of his efforts to be good at"; I think it also is about fairplay, maybe the GM may not like your excuse for the bluff and would fail you, if not for maxed out bluff and high die rolls.Frankly, when a game starts giving me rules on HOW to roleplay, that's when it starts to lose me. Which 3.x/PF essentially does with Appraise/Diplomacy/Bluff/etc...when talking to an NPC involves more dice rolling than actual talking, then THAT is the game that is becoming less of an actual roleplaying game.
In my less than humble opinion.
I'd rather see someone roleplay a little bit before just saying "Yeah, whatever, I don't poop on his dinner plates during the formal dinner, and roll my +32 Diplomacy skill."
As a GM, I follow this principle:
"Unless There's An Interesting Consequence to Failure, Say Yes. Otherwise, Roll The Dice."
It doesn't matter if I happen to like the way they're doing the Bluff. If they're trying to Bluff Duke Rogevald by reading The TimeCube website in Pig-Latin, I'll probably stop them before other players throw dice at them...what matters is "Is there anything interesting that can happen if Rogevald says "no"?" If the answer is "No, there isn't..." the Bluff works. Otherwise, they roll the dice.
Agreed, MattR1986; that's not controversial. I was just making a quick rebuttal to Kthulhu, it wasn't by any means a comprehensive means of divining my approach to the issue.
This is a problem with every edition and clone, not least of all PF. I.e., "I can't be a real necromancer until I hit 5th/6th/7th/8th level and can...That reminds me. If magic is powerful and common in the setting (in other words, if Spells = Solutions), and players can freely choose to play a mage, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
In that case, however, there shouldn't be a "Cleric" or "Wizard" class that allows any one player access to all the solutions. Instead, there should be specialized mages in each theme, like the old Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage. Pathfinder did exactly the opposite: Relaxing all the prohibitions on banned schools, and even introducing the Opposition Research feat.
No no no no no. . .
Why does every one insist on taking away the option to play Wizard?
I don't want to play narrow minded necromancer, beguiler, war mage-- I want to play Wizard . . .
You are going to lose even more people than you automatically lose from going to a new system if you get rid of Wizards and Clerics and force people to play pale imitations of spell casters only.
|
|
So you would rather fluff your way to being the most sly, diplomatic, frugal without putting in any finite resources to establish that "yes, this is something my character spends a lot of his efforts to be good at"; I think it also is about fairplay, maybe the GM may not like your excuse for the bluff and would fail you, if not for maxed out bluff and high die rolls.Frankly, when a game starts giving me rules on HOW to roleplay, that's when it starts to lose me. Which 3.x/PF essentially does with Appraise/Diplomacy/Bluff/etc...when talking to an NPC involves more dice rolling than actual talking, then THAT is the game that is becoming less of an actual roleplaying game.
In my less than humble opinion.
I want someone to make an effort. Which might have a slight impact on the actual die roll.
Not bothering with an effort...that will definately have a big impact on the die roll.
This is a problem with every edition and clone, not least of all PF. I.e., "I can't be a real necromancer until I hit 5th/6th/7th/8th level and can...That reminds me. If magic is powerful and common in the setting (in other words, if Spells = Solutions), and players can freely choose to play a mage, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
In that case, however, there shouldn't be a "Cleric" or "Wizard" class that allows any one player access to all the solutions. Instead, there should be specialized mages in each theme, like the old Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage. Pathfinder did exactly the opposite: Relaxing all the prohibitions on banned schools, and even introducing the Opposition Research feat.
No no no no no. . .
Why does every one insist on taking away the option to play Wizard?
I don't want to play narrow minded necromancer, beguiler, war mage-- I want to play Wizard . . .
You are going to lose even more people than you automatically lose from going to a new system if you get rid of Wizards and Clerics and force people to play pale imitations of spell casters only.
I want to see magic have a price, so that Gandalf the Grey isn't Gandalf the Grenade Launcher.
But that's not really something appropriate to PF 2e, where disconnected magic is so deeply woven into player expectations that your complaint represents a significant portion of the player base, even if it doesn't represent me.
This is a problem with every edition and clone, not least of all PF. I.e., "I can't be a real necromancer until I hit 5th/6th/7th/8th level and can...That reminds me. If magic is powerful and common in the setting (in other words, if Spells = Solutions), and players can freely choose to play a mage, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
In that case, however, there shouldn't be a "Cleric" or "Wizard" class that allows any one player access to all the solutions. Instead, there should be specialized mages in each theme, like the old Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage. Pathfinder did exactly the opposite: Relaxing all the prohibitions on banned schools, and even introducing the Opposition Research feat.
No no no no no. . .
Why does every one insist on taking away the option to play Wizard?
I don't want to play narrow minded necromancer, beguiler, war mage-- I want to play Wizard . . .
You are going to lose even more people than you automatically lose from going to a new system if you get rid of Wizards and Clerics and force people to play pale imitations of spell casters only.
Dare I call those players entitled?
You don't get to have every good spell in the book, just as you're not allowed all good saves, 9th level spells, full BAB, and d12 HD. You can't have all 18s as starting stats. You can't have max ranks in every skill.
Unless your DM houserules it so, in which case have at it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough, but I was just pointing out that they show an investment into that form of RP; and sometimes a player might not be as charismatic as his character. I know in my game I have a player that is definitely not as smart as his character is and he looks as if his PC is a dip-stick when its the player. The opposite is also true, lovable people dump-stating their charisma and trying to charm their way into everything; having a mechanic helps is all I'm saying; otherwise the most popular personalities at the table would always run the show because they RP well, even if they dumped any face abilities to show some investment.
A 3rd party 4e clone is very likely to happen, though, even if it is a different developer. Every edition since Basic has gotten numerous retroclones, 4e will probably fit the trend as well.Either way, Kthulhu is sadly right about a Paizo 4e clone never happening. :(Also, a Paizo 4E clone is not gonna happen. The reason that Pathfinder exists is that Paizo didn't really like 4E.I thought the reason Pathfinder exists is that 4e is a closed system and Paizo would have had to pay WotC to publish 3rd party material using it.
There are already a few 4e clone projects in progress, some more like spin-offs, some more like true clones -- they tend to get posted about on more system-neutral sites. There's also a finished 4e Modern game, though I haven't played it.
So I'm hopeful!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't resolve non-trivial combat by roleplaying alone, so why allow it for non-trivial conversation?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a problem with every edition and clone, not least of all PF. I.e., "I can't be a real necromancer until I hit 5th/6th/7th/8th level and can...That reminds me. If magic is powerful and common in the setting (in other words, if Spells = Solutions), and players can freely choose to play a mage, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
In that case, however, there shouldn't be a "Cleric" or "Wizard" class that allows any one player access to all the solutions. Instead, there should be specialized mages in each theme, like the old Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage. Pathfinder did exactly the opposite: Relaxing all the prohibitions on banned schools, and even introducing the Opposition Research feat.
No no no no no. . .
Why does every one insist on taking away the option to play Wizard?
I don't want to play narrow minded necromancer, beguiler, war mage-- I want to play Wizard . . .
You are going to lose even more people than you automatically lose from going to a new system if you get rid of Wizards and Clerics and force people to play pale imitations of spell casters only.
Dare I call those players entitled?
You don't get to have every good spell in the book, just as you're not allowed all good saves, 9th level spells, full BAB, and d12 HD. You can't have all 18s as starting stats. You can't have max ranks in every skill.
Unless your DM houserules it so, in which case have at it.
No? How on earth is a player "entitled" by wanting to play a high fantasy, high magic game?
I don't want to play pf/D&D with neutered mages-- I want to play with powerful wizards who can do wizard things.
That's not entitlement, its a choice of the game I want to play-- something which, by the way, you have been able to do in every edition of this game from OD&D on.
So no, its not me being "entitled" stating that I want to play a game where I can play a Wizard or Cleric-- its just me wanting to play THIS game, not some game where half of my options are stripped away.
This is a problem with every edition and clone, not least of all PF. I.e., "I can't be a real necromancer until I hit 5th/6th/7th/8th level and can...That reminds me. If magic is powerful and common in the setting (in other words, if Spells = Solutions), and players can freely choose to play a mage, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
In that case, however, there shouldn't be a "Cleric" or "Wizard" class that allows any one player access to all the solutions. Instead, there should be specialized mages in each theme, like the old Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage. Pathfinder did exactly the opposite: Relaxing all the prohibitions on banned schools, and even introducing the Opposition Research feat.
I'm of two minds, here. I see the logic behind the "All casters are specialists" idea, but at the same time I think generalist casters could be done well. Or at least better/balanced than they currently are.
I'd certainly rather play a game where all casters are specialists than play a game where generalist casters are only mostly generalists. I seem to be mentioning this a lot lately, but it drives me bonkers that a spell has different levels for each spell list it's on -- and might arbitrarily be absent from one generalist spell list or other. Wizards should be able to heal dagnabit! ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generalist casters can be fine, as long as they have a limited number of spells known.
It makes sense for Mages to be able to heal. With all the other things they can do, healing isn't even close to the most difficult or impressive. Hell, they can already indirectly heal by summoning creatures with healing SLA's.
But I would move it out of Conjuration, perhaps into Necromancy (as a "master of life and death" sort of deal). As they said in 3.5, Conjuration does everything. Transmutation does everything else.
I look for things like Dungeon World's playbooks because I can throw them on the table, the stats have the same name and I can get Pathfinder players to try it as a change-of-pace game...I'll have to give Dungeon World another look. It left me cold reading the rules (we were set for a game but aborted at the start of week one).
Wheres a good place to get an exhaustive list of the rules, these "playbooks" and any other supplements? Are they available in print?
Dungeon World SRD. This has all the text of the Dungeon World PDF in an SRD format.
All of the core classes are there.
The playbooks for the core classes in the rules.
A "playbook" is nothing but a character sheet with all the options available for characters of a given class to check off. It's one of those cases, like "Move" where the designers decided to differentiate themselves by using a different word for something fairly common.
Playbook Templates in DOCX and ODT formats
Use this if you want to make a variant playbook. Note that everything linked so far is free to use.
If you're willing to spend $3.99, and want to see what non-Vancian takes on the Wizard and Cleric would look like, this comes highly recommended:
Dungeon World Alternative Playbooks
The single biggest drawback that Dungeon World has is that the designers didn't start with a good glossary of their own terminology, and in the development process, nobody sat down and said "How would you explain this to someone who's relatively new to RPGs?"
In a lot of ways, even though the text (and even some of the odd...
Thanks very much -I didn't expect you to go to so much effort on my behalf. :)
I presume there aren't hard copy options easily available?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generalist casters can be fine, as long as they have a limited number of spells known.
So again. . . you are saying that I should never again be allowed to play a Wizard like I was able to do in 2nd edition AD&D, in 3.0, in 3.5 and in PF-- that option is just erased and I have to use some weaker, less interesting version.
Why do you think me or anyone who enjoys playing Wizards in PF now is buying the book that takes that option away from them?
You want an 2nd edition I can get onboard with? It needs to have these factors:
1. 100% compatible with current rules sets.
2. No reprints-- no Ultimate Magic, no ARG, ect, ect.
3. None of the feats from those books reprinted in any new book
4. No reprinted monster books/rehashes of the same monsters again with minor changes-- so the next Bestiary would just be the next bestiary number (i.e. bestiary 5)
5. No reprinted core rule book; or an alternate book with a much lower cover cost that has just the changes so I don't have to pay $50 for the same magic items because a few things in other chapters have changed.
6. Take absolutely no options away. NONE.
But why do that as a new edition at all?
You want an upgraded fighter/rogue? Why not have a book with an updated fighter and rogue along with new feats/archetypes/ect that doesn't require a new core rulebook.
You want alternate rules systems? Again, why does that require a new edition and flushing everything that we already have down the drain-- you could publish a book with new updated combat options, with alternate spellcasting systems, ect, ect, ect without destroying the game and forcing people to move to a new, supposedly better game which won't fit everyone's tastes.
I just think Nathanael Love made an excellent counter, one that hasn't occurred to me. My question though is: can we have high fantasy games where wizards aren't relegating the rest of the party to useless because he can do everything? I would love each class to have unique abilities, and mages aren't the only offender here either.
@AdAstraGames, I really don't mean any offense at all, but in interests of full disclosure, are you a paid spokesman for DW or are you just THAT happy with the game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You want an upgraded fighter/rogue? Why not have a book with an updated fighter and rogue along with new feats/archetypes/ect that doesn't require a new core rulebook.
Whilst I'm not a fan of a new PF edition, I think this would be problematic.
If there's a "new improved rogue" in book A, options for that new-rogue in book B and a rogue in the core book, it's going to get confusing for newcomers. They buy the core book and book B yet can't work out how the rogue options apply.
You can't really fix problems in the core book without redoing the core book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm...off the top of my head (and with the understanding that no two opinions will be alike):
- Clean up the rules in language and presentation...make the rules look more like the Beginner Box.
- Re-organize, banishing the "two books smashed together" feel. Alternatively, actually have two books: a PHB and a GMG.
- Do a pass over the entire rule-set removing unnecessary complexity. For example: Consolidate conditions. Get rid of full attacks. Clean up the action types.
- Put another $10 into the binding of the physical copies. I'd happily pay for it.
- Make the art more traditional high fantasy. More cool backgrounds, fewer 100lb swords (apologies to WAR).
Unlike many RPG gamers, I do not have a strong aversion to new editions. If they make for a better game, the sooner the better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My question though is: can we have high fantasy games where wizards aren't relegating the rest of the party to useless because he can do everything? I would love each class to have unique abilities, and mages aren't the only offender here either.
I think it would be possible if the Paizo team took a good careful look at each spell, and weren't afraid bash things into shape with the nerf bat. 95% of the problem with casters is the spells, not the classes themselves.
Ideally, they also wouldn't be afraid to buff the weaker spells either!
Thanks very much -I didn't expect you to go to so much effort on my behalf. :)
I presume there aren't hard copy options easily available?
Dungeon World Hardcopy Rulebook
According to the publisher, they have a shipment en route to Indie Press Revolution. The guy who runs IPR is at a convention this weekend, so it should be back in stock next week.
Playbooks and such are always PDFs, since they're consumables. It's assumed that you'll print the ones you need and hand them to your players.
I'm slowly building archives of freely distributed playbooks and assembling them into both a master set, and thematically appropriate subsets.
There are also third-party settings for Dungeon World with their own specific playbooks. I'm seriously considering making one for the Trojan War setting I use for convention games...
Thanks.
But I would move it out of Conjuration, perhaps into Necromancy (as a "master of life and death" sort of deal). As they said in 3.5, Conjuration does everything. Transmutation does everything else.
Haha, oh god yes! I began playing in 2e D&D, and conjured heals still make no freaking sense. And seriously, even if they did make sense, why then are inflict spells not conjurations?
And as long as we're making magic schools a little more sensible, let's kill Abjuration and give its stuff to the others. It's the one school defined by its ends rather than its means. And hey, 7 is a nice magical number!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The version is weaker (which I suppose can make them less interesting, to some people) because the previous version was overpowered.
Options aren't automatically good by axiom. CoDzilla is no more. Polymorph spells aren't as broken as all hell. Full casters aren't allowed to be better Fighters than the Fighter. Pathfinder "erased" those options, and here you are.
Clearly, they didn't "destroy the game". I would argue that leaving those options in would be more damaging than "erasing" them. A game's reputation does more than any marketing department.
I'd be all for a book with an updated Fighter and Rogue, but something tells me that's not forthcoming. Look at what happened when the Investigator threatened to be the Rogue That Should Have Been.
One thing I will agree with is that the next edition should be an incremental improvement like 3.0 to 3.5, not a ground-up overhaul like 3e to 4e. Frankly, I don't see Paizo making sweeping changes even if a new edition does come out. Your vehemence makes me wonder if you really suspect they'll nerf the Wizard. Maybe, just maybe, because it could use it.
I won't argue this further with you, because from what I've seen in other threads, you will never be convinced of anything. The argument just gets more and more shrill until the thread is locked. So I'll just say that no one player should have access to the entire solution space. If you disagree, whatever.
I'd rather discard divination, like the Runelords lol.
If I were going to make non-class based changes to PF:
1) I'd completely rewrite combat. Not patch the mess they have. Rewrite it. I've grown to dislike Pathfinder's initiative and move-or-fight sequencing.
2) I'd rewrite Stealth and Perception while I'm at it.
3) Rewriting combat also means rewriting the interfaces where other rules (most of them) interact with combat.
Once that's done, then we talk about revising classes. :)
If I were going to make non-class based changes to PF:
1) I'd completely rewrite combat. Not patch the mess they have. Rewrite it. I've grown to dislike Pathfinder's initiative and move-or-fight sequencing.
2) I'd rewrite Stealth and Perception while I'm at it.
3) Rewriting combat also means rewriting the interfaces where other rules (most of them) interact with combat.
Once that's done, then we talk about revising classes. :)
The thing is that you're advocating a whole new system (basically another game, which you are not shy about) while I think a lot of other people just want a few changes and a power creep for the older stuff. I'd like changing out some too often seen abilities, I'd totally settle for an update to classes (and prestige classes from core and APG, seriously assassin is a joke) to scale with the general power creep we've seen with the newer books. I am in favor of feats scaling better, combat maneuvers being viable while not being as feat intensive, but a whole different approach to combat is to me throwing out the baby with the bath water.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The version is weaker (which I suppose can make them less interesting, to some people) because the previous version was overpowered.
Options aren't automatically good by axiom. CoDzilla is no more. Polymorph spells aren't as broken as all hell. Full casters aren't allowed to be better Fighters than the Fighter. Pathfinder "erased" those options, and here you are.
Clearly, they didn't "destroy the game". I would argue that leaving those options in would be more damaging than "erasing" them. A game's reputation does more than any marketing department.
I'd be all for a book with an updated Fighter and Rogue, but something tells me that's not forthcoming. Look at what happened when the Investigator threatened to be the Rogue That Should Have Been.
One thing I will agree with is that the next edition should be an incremental improvement like 3.0 to 3.5, not a ground-up overhaul like 3e to 4e. Frankly, I don't see Paizo making sweeping changes even if a new edition does come out. Your vehemence makes me wonder if you really suspect they'll nerf the Wizard. Maybe, just maybe, because it could use it.
I won't argue this further with you, because from what I've seen in other threads, you will never be convinced of anything. The argument just gets more and more shrill until the thread is locked. So I'll just say that no one player should have access to the entire solution space. If you disagree, whatever.
Again, it won't matter because I simply won't play that game the same way I simply didn't play 4e. . .
No, you will never ever convince me that the game I have been playing is garbage and needs to be thrown away, or that I am having fun the wrong way by playing the Wizard as it has been printed in 2nd edition, in 3.0, in 3.5 and in PF-- four editions playing the Wizard over the course of 20 years, in dozens of games, with dozens of players and dms in various combinations and absolutely zero games where a player has complained about the Wizard being overpowered and zero things that have made me think we need to throw everything out and start over.
I don't see how you could convince me to purchase the book with the much down graded or in your concept "fixed" wizard-- its not what I want. If I wanted that, again, I would go play any of the dozens of other systems out there that have that.
As long as you keep suggesting that I should not be allowed to play the game in the way me and my groups enjoy and we need to bow down to your narrow concept of what Wizards should be able to do I will argue that I don't want to as loudly and as often as I have to.
TO reiterate--
I don't want PF 2.0
If it comes anytime soon I am out on anything this company ever publishes ever again, as are my game group, and I suspect a large portion of the game community.
Wizard doesn't need to be destroyed, nerfed, or otherwise ruined for this game to work.
Not arguing, just setting the record straight: I never said the game is garbage.
I said the game can use improvement in some ways, rather than being wholly rebuilt. Who equates "this can be improved" with "this sucks and is awful and I hate it, it's garbage"?
Not arguing, just setting the record straight: I never said the game is garbage.
I said the game can use improvement in some ways, rather than being wholly rebuilt. Who equates "this can be improved" with "this sucks and is awful and I hate it, it's garbage"?
When you start saying that the magic system needs completely redone, that generalist need "way less spells known" and that spell casters should be limited to extremely niche that's basically what you are saying.
You trying to take away all the classes I enjoy most from the game and tell me I should be happy for it and thank you for "making improvements".
|
You do realize that no one is forcing you to buy anything right. Or be happy about it. Paizo should not be held hostage to fans who don't want anything changed. I'm not saying it had to be different like 4E. I'm not wasting money on rehash with new cover art because if tradition or a fear if change. I'm done with paizo if they don't at least include some new material. Why do some fans automatically assume the worst.
There are plenty of versions of D&D for those who don't want anything to change that can still be played.
|
You do realize that no one is forcing you to buy anything right. Or be happy about it. Paizo should not be held hostage to fans who don't want anything changed. I'm not saying it had to be different like 4E. I'm not wasting money on rehash with new cover art because if tradition or a fear if change. I'm done with paizo if they don't at least include some new material. Why do some fans automatically assume the worst.
There are plenty of versions of D&D for those who don't want anything to change that can still be played.
I assume they assume the worst because some of the wish lists here are pretty radical. Not sayin, just sayin.
Paizo shouldn't be held hostage by people who just want to accelerate the edition carousal either.
Why is my asking for Paizo to keep publishing more pathfinder books instead of making a new game holding them hostage but you saying "we have to start over and have them spend the next five years publishing a new core book, then replacements for the books we have an no new ideas" is somehow noble?
Should pathfinder be held hostage by people who only complain about and pick apart their game and tell them how its not good enough and they need to make a new edition every few years?
I just want Paizo to keep making pathfinder books. . . why is that so bad?
|
|
I assume they assume the worst because some of the wish lists here are pretty radical. Not sayin, just sayin.
Good point.
Yet I'm assuming the same thing was said by 2e players about the changes in 3E. I don't think that rehashed edition with new cover and interior art will sell this time around. With gamers having access to 3.5 and PF paizo will need something new to make players try a future edition. In the end gamers complain about a rpg not having enopugh changes or too much changes. It's a catch-22. Damed if you do and damned if you don't.
At the same time we as fans can't assume that something new will mean the doom of D&D either.
|
|
I assume they assume the worst because some of the wish lists here are pretty radical. Not sayin, just sayin.Good point.
Yet I'm assuming the same thing was said by 2e players about the changes in 3E. I don't think that rehashed edition with new cover and interior art will sell this time around. With gamers having access to 3.5 and PF paizo will need something new to make players try a future edition. In the end gamers complain about a rpg not having enopugh changes or too much changes. It's a catch-22. Damed if you do and damned if you don't.
At the same time we as fans can't assume that something new will mean the doom of D&D either.
On the contrary many folks would say D&D has already been doomed. PF really didnt change a whole lot from 3.5 and with all the APs and splats now going a new direction might be a big turn off. Once again not sayin, just sayin
What if pathfinder 2.0 was just 4ed rewritten to be just as mechanically sound but re-fluffed to not feel like a MMO wargame when I read the rules?Honestly I kinda like 4e. If there was a greater roleplaying emphasis and not a need to buy every damn thing and have a subscription to the dang character builder I'd play it more.I've never understood that particular complaint. Roleplaying isn't a function of the system. If can't roleplay in a 4E game, it's not 4E's fault...it's obvious that you are looking for a reason to dislike the system, and have decided the ridiculously nebulous "I can't roleplay under this system" is your excuse for disliking it.
Wow. I've played 4e. I've enjoyed portions of it. I had a really good time in one game too through roleplaying a diplomacy check. Combat is extremely well done and Boss monsters are "Done right!" in 4e.
That said, skills, skill challenges, and everything outside of combat is very...sparse.
Skill challenges are just "Roll X X and X. Okay well done you get to move on." Yes, I can fluff it up through description but ultimately it's kinda boring.
4e demands a grid which makes power of imagination play difficult. I play a homebrewed Final Fantasy D6 I found online and it is amazing in comparison. None of these silly 5ft square nonsense. Stuff is either short range, medium, or long and you only need to know where you are in relation to stuff.
That said, I like Pathfinder because it finds a nice balance between focus on combat and focus on story. Paizo's adventures rock.
Paizo shouldn't be held hostage by people who just want to accelerate the edition carousal either.
Shhh, it's okay, shhh.
There there, Nate. Whatever outlandish opinions you imagine your fellow PF fans to have, be assured that you're the only one who thinks that there's even a remote chance that Paizo will do something as radical as removing vancian casting. It's just not in the cards, so chill.
If it seems like there's a cacophony of fans clamoring to tear down everything you love about the game, it's because you're not hearing the cacophony of fans throwing themselves against the bulwark of tradition right alongside you. In an anonymous environment like the internet, people tend to notice contrary opinions much more than agreement. I assure you, I hear the cacophony of fans like you, and it's deafening compared to those clamoring for change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want PF 2.0
If it comes anytime soon I am out on anything this company ever publishes ever again.
That sounds totally reasonable. Let me try:
"If Paizo doesn't introduce Pathfinder 2.0 immediately and make it just the way I want, I'll burn all my Pathfinder books, and then pull out my own fingernails."
See? It just sounds ridiculous. Don't do it.
[
You want an 2nd edition I can get onboard with? It needs to have these factors:
1. 100% compatible with current rules sets.
2. No reprints-- no Ultimate Magic, no ARG, ect, ect.
3. None of the feats from those books reprinted in any new book
4. No reprinted monster books/rehashes of the same monsters again with minor changes-- so the next Bestiary would just be the next bestiary number (i.e. bestiary 5)
5. No reprinted core rule book; or an alternate book with a much lower cover cost that has just the changes so I don't have to pay $50 for the same magic items because a few things in other chapters have changed.
6. Take absolutely no options away. NONE.
But why do that as a new edition at all?
You want an upgraded fighter/rogue? Why not have a book with an updated fighter and rogue along with new feats/archetypes/ect that doesn't require a new core rulebook.
You want alternate rules systems? Again, why does that require a new edition and flushing everything that we already have down the drain-- you could publish a book with new updated combat options, with alternate spellcasting systems, ect, ect, ect without destroying the game and forcing people to move to a new, supposedly better game which won't fit everyone's tastes.
If the game was to incorporate changes for some classes or rules, more than likely Paizo would have a free PDF that would list all the changes. So that if you didn't want to buy a whole new core rulebook...you wouldn't have to. Assuming that any PF future edition was an incremental change more along the lines of 3.5-4 (Which I hope it is).
Relegating changes to the core system to a book that isn't the new "core book" is a bad idea for reasons previously stated: If the new default rogue isn't in the core, there is going to be a lot of confusion on the rules and make it harder for newbies to enter.
Like I have previously stated, I like the current rules and don't really foresee a need for ground up revisions. Upgrade Monks, Rogues, and Fighters, revise the Summoner, tweak some spells and items, and fix a few minor things in how combat works, and you are good to go. To be honest I would rather see a major shift in how the Core rule book is laid out and written than a shift in the rules.
That said, skills, skill challenges, and everything outside of combat is very...sparse.
It depends on your attitude toward skills, really. There are fewer skills, but they cover more area, which allows characters to be good at more things. There are fewer social skill rules; which if you're comfortable with the old fashioned way -- "Let's role play this out, and roll a skill check at the end" -- is better than say, the 3.x Diplomacy rules.
Skill challenges are just "Roll X X and X. Okay well done you get to move on." Yes, I can fluff it up through description but ultimately it's kinda boring.
Yeah, skill challenges as presented are more or less just "Roll several skill checks instead of the traditional one skill check," though other 4e fans have taken this crude framework and really ran with it. I hear the fan-made guidelines are much better.
4e demands a grid which makes power of imagination play difficult. I play a homebrewed Final Fantasy D6 I found online and it is amazing in comparison. None of these silly 5ft square nonsense. Stuff is either short range, medium, or long and you only need to know where you are in relation to stuff.
I'm skeptical of these kind of combat zones, because the grid really focuses my imagination. I've played 'theatre of the mind,' and it tends to get confusing fast.
Paizo's adventures rock.
That they do!
I'm also not a fan of the "cookbook" example on a previous page. Simply put, anyone can use a cookbook. All you need is the ingredients. If a Wizard isn't special in their ability to "fuel" a spell, then why can't a Fighter learn how to cast a Fireball just by finding the spell and learning it's "ingredients?" Not spellcasting in general, mind - Just a Fireball.
But if a Wizard is special in their ability to "fuel" a spell... Then why can't they "fuel" it multiple times?
You need to read "Authentic Thaumaturgy". Or "The Tome of the Shek-Pvar". The former explains why magic is hard and only a few can do it. The latter does the same, but in terms of Hârnmaster, which is not much like Pathfinder/DnD at all.4