|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the product description it mentions a simplified action econom, monster creation, and crafting.Im not sure why people keep saying PF uncahined is going to be a simplified version of PF. I dont get that at all from what I have read about it. Can someone tell me how exactly PF uncahined is going to provide a separate and simplified versin of PF?To be fair, the OP doesn't actually say it's bad. In fact, he does say that this is great for other people. What he wants is a separate ruleset for Pathfinder that is simplified.
Other people in this thread, however, have said that.
Luckily, he will get his wish (somewhat) with Pathfinder Unchained, which will have modular add ons that simplify things such as crafting, action economy, and monster creation.
The description also mentions resource pools for all martials, a robust system for casters to modify their spells and oh so much more....
This lead me to believe that while there will be chapters on simplified systems, the book is not about streamlining pathfinder compeltely. While I think the OP will find some of these option interesting, I dont for a second think it will answer his call for a PF lite.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or if you want a simpler PF game, run it with the rules of the beginner's box, thats even simpler than the CRB
Quoted for truth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am NOT ready for a big change and hope Paizo does not make a v2. I love what they're doing. Maybe, just maybe when they branch out into Arcadia or Tian-Xia I would enjoy seeing a rehash; even then...no.
Personally, I came to this party late and have made significant investments to catch up with their products. If they made a sudden change I would probably move on. Well, who knows but it's possible.
Generally, it seems like a bad idea. I can't detail that better than some others here but it seems they would be making the same mistakes as other companies.
Don't you go a changing, Paizo, not when things are working!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those who think 5th Edition D&D simplifies things: That may be true right now, but wait a couple of years, and it will bloat right up -- just like 3.5 (in the last couple of years, Wizards of the Coast seemed to have been in a hurry to drive bloat).
|
The same thing happened to Pathfinder once they started releasing new material. So it's not just a problem that will happen to 5E.
So I ask the question again if the next edition will not change anything or very little how does one go about selling it. I mean why would myself or others buy the same thing twice. Which keeps getting ignored by the don't change anything group.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those who think 5th Edition D&D simplifies things: That may be true right now, but wait a couple of years, and it will bloat right up -- just like 3.5 (in the last couple of years, Wizards of the Coast seemed to have been in a hurry to drive bloat).
I think this depends on your definition of "bloat".
There's "good bloat", which is more options available where the options are all relatively the same level of power and complexity to run.
There's "bad bloat", where all of a sudden every player at your table is taking three to fives times as long to take their turns, perhaps as early as 2nd or 3rd level.
5E's core framework has some things that will prevent it from feeling "bloated" (as in slow to run as player turns take excruciatingly longer). I'm by no means a 5E fanboy, but I can see some huge benefits in their system that would make a Pathfinder game more enjoyable for both GMs and players.
#1. Every character gets a limited form of spring attack. The fact that any character can move half their movement, swing and then move again is huge. No longer will you have battles that exclude half of the party because they get bottlenecked in the entrance of a room. Now folks can move in, swing and then move again to get into a position, which then lets more characters get into the room and contribute in the manner they see fit.
#2. Many many spells require "concentration" which isn't like 3E concentration that requires an action to maintain. You can simply only maintain concentration on one spell at a time. This means you can't maintain concentration on all of bless, haste, heroism, fly each round. Interestingly, heroism is a 1st level spell now. What this means is that as each person takes their turn, they should have less "buffs" to have to add up each round. At mid to high levels, the amount of effects in play is staggering. This at least serves to make the game more tactical as you need to decide which ones are important and each character is really only providing/concentrating on one effect. This also makes it more of a "team game" as each person figures out what benefit they are going to provide to the party, since each character can no longer provided an unlimited series of benefits.
#3. In the same vein as #2 above, the math is simpler because a lot of things that would add +1, +2, +3 to your character and then force you to ask questions like "bless is a morale bonus right? and the bard song is a competence bonus? or was it an insight bonus? hold on..." Instead the bonuses are largely untyped, and they mostly take the form of the witch's Fortune hex giving you extra dice to roll. This means your in-play bonus stays the same. You know you always have +5 to hit, you just get to roll an extra dice to try to hit the 9 you know you need to connect to the monster's AC. Less math means each player takes faster turns, and individual players spend less time waiting for their turn to come around. Combine this with the fact that you don't have iterative attacks, you have straight up extra attacks as a fighter, barbarian - at your maximum bonus, and you're pretty much rolling your dice each round looking for the same number in order to hit, no more remembering which colored dice was which iterative attack and then adding different numbers (like +16, +11 and +6 ... wait I have furious focus, so the first was actually +19...) to each roll.
Because the core game has different bones, they support a game that is more efficient to run once more options become available. Pathfinder really has no blame in some of the "clunky" bits of the system - iterative attacks are a mechanic from the 3E era. I certainly don't consider them a sacred cow. Once you are playing a system which uses a variant extra attack system (whether its 1E/2E or 5E, with your extra attacks coming at the full bonus), there's a good amount of the player base that takes faster turns, and you can appreciate this subtle difference this has on a game night. Suddenly, you start getting an extra encounter or two in the night and it feels very satisfying to tackle 7 battles in 5 hours instead of 3-4 battles.
Those who think 5th Edition D&D simplifies things: That may be true right now, but wait a couple of years, and it will bloat right up -- just like 3.5 (in the last couple of years, Wizards of the Coast seemed to have been in a hurry to drive bloat).
Again the simplicity in 5e DnD has nothing to do with the volume of rules available. The gameplay itself has been simplified, much less math, almost all temporary modifiers result in you maybe rolling an extra die here or there and that's it, on the off chance someone has resistance or weakness to some form of damage you might actually multiply someting by two or halve it. In PF you start adding subtracting, multiplying and doing all sorts of other things to your nbumbers before you roll.
And also again, all additional rules to be released will be just as optional as they are with pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the new 1.5e core rulebook were demonstrably better, i.e., better organized and indexed, and easier to use at the table, then I think plenty of existing players, myself included, would happily purchase it, even if there were no new rules.
Just as importantly, if they could also make the intro to the game less intimidating and confusing for new players, perhaps by integrating some material from the Beginner Box and this fall's Strategy Guide, I think the game would be able to compete for new players much more effectively. As it is, the core rulebook is very intimidating and confusing to someone new to RPGs, and the same ruleset with a better layout would be an easier sell and would grow the player base.
It would also be easier to use at the table, which to me is a paramount concern.
I do not understand the current rules-light fad.I don't know that I'd call it a fad. Hell, most of the popular gaming systems since 1974 have been simpler than 3.x/Pathfinder. If either of the two is a fad, it's the rules-heavy systems.
I'm not among the oldest Grognards. I started towards the end of 2nd ed, which was plenty complex. Bought all the books I could. Loved the skill point system. Seems to me that was plenty popular too.
Mostly I meant that for a while with 3.x everyone really seemed to buy into it, and then I noticed a whole bunch of retro-clones popping up. It is to the retro-clones that I refer when I speak of a current rules-light fad. Did not mean it to be pejorative, but I can see I came across as insensitive. It seems to me from playing about twenty years or so that the pendulum of public interest seems to swing back and forth, but I should not have referred to it as a fad.
I hate going back to square one, and I love the complexity. That's why I play Pathfinder. There are rules-light systems out there. Pathfinder is not one of them.There's nothing that says that a rules-light system can't be complex, because complexity isn't about the length or number of rulebooks. Complexity is about having decisions, and is only rewarding when those decisions have real weight that goes beyond one decision being "right" or "wrong." There are a couple good rules-light systems that do complexity well. There are also plenty of rules-heavy systems that don't. Pathfinder happens to be the latter. The way the mechanics are presented leaves too few real choices, too many things that are either too good not to choose or too bad to justify choosing, which actually severely limits its complexity.
This is not necessarily a bug. Complexity is a value-neutral quality. A more complex game is not automatically a better one, and a less-complex game is not automatically a worse one. Pathfinder isn't a bad game, but despite all the math and tables, it isn't really that complex.
By complexity, I mean complex rules with layers of options. That has at least something to do with the number of rulebooks and their length. Not sure how you could make it more complex otherwise? Not referring to the complexity of the story, if that's what you mean - you can obviously have a deep and complex plot with simple mechanics if done well.
I agree that complexity by itself is value neutral, but it will appeal to some people more than others, and some will be put off by it. That's exactly what I was trying to say. What I am saying is: I like complexity. It appeals to me. Simple rules bore me and put me off. Not a value judgment, I know some people feel the opposite. Seems to me Pathfinder is designed to appeal to the former, not the latter, and I'd like it if it stayed that way. Plenty of simple options out there right now, as I alluded to above.
I always remind GMs, you don't have to know the ins and outs of every class that exists. You just need to be passably familiar with the 4-6 classes that will be sat at your table. If something seems hinky just say: "Can you show that to me in the book/PRD?" A simple search function should answer most questions at the table fairly quickly.
This is a great concept but falls apart pretty quick when Paizo uses all those new resources in APs. If you run PFS then you need a general awareness of everything as you have no guarantees as what's in one session to another.
The day Paizo announces PF 2.0 I will never again buy a Paizo product.
I came here because I didn't want to switch editions not so I could pour money into a bunch of hardcovers then be told they were all garbage and I should buy them again.
|
|
Loved the skill point system. Seems to me that was plenty popular too.
This reminds me of one of the big reasons folks made the switch from 3.5E to Pathfinder : the streamlining of the skills system.
Using stealth was a pain with having to roll Listen vs Move Silently and Spot vs Hide.
You could argue that less skills meant "dumbing down" the system or that there were less options (and there certainly were... if the skill system from 3.5E was kept intact in Pathfinder, there'd be a lot more traits as there's be a lot more skills to modify). But what it really did was streamline play in a good way. You didn't need to have a 6-person party and a GM roll 24 dice each time they tried to avoid a guard's detection.
Stealth is still kind of clunky in the 3.5/PF era, which is why Paizo has the Stealth Playtest rules around for a revision/overhaul to the system.
As many folks have said in this thread, Pathfinder Unchained is undoubtedly a way to introduce "Pathfinder 1.5" rules without explicitly calling them "Pathfinder 1.5 Rules". Many folks are already talking about using the expected rules within and calling it PF1.5.
I do not understand the current rules-light fad.I don't know that I'd call it a fad. Hell, most of the popular gaming systems since 1974 have been simpler than 3.x/Pathfinder. If either of the two is a fad, it's the rules-heavy systems.I'm not among the oldest Grognards. I started towards the end of 2nd ed, which was plenty complex. Bought all the books I could. Loved the skill point system. Seems to me that was plenty popular too.
I am "one of the oldest Grognards", I guess. But PF is not as complex as AD&D with Skills and Powers and is also less complex that full blown 3.5.
Chivalry and Sorcery makes all of these look like Candyland. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chivalry and Sorcery makes all of these look like Candyland. ;-)
:)
And the well named Aftermath, because you could only play after the math was done. :D
As I agreed earlier, complexity not guaranteed to equal fun. The skills system in 2nd was indeed clunky but entertaining in the extreme. On the other hand I never could get into Rifts, despite liking the setting.
Alternity, though... there was a game. I'd have played that forever.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stealth is still kind of clunky in the 3.5/PF era, which is why Paizo has the Stealth Playtest rules around for a revision/overhaul to the system.
Do you honestly believe that anything is ever going to come of a thread that lasted a month three years ago? That wasn't a play test, that was Paizo throwing something out there to quiet the criticism of how poorly written the Pathfinder stealth rules are for a little while.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always remind GMs, you don't have to know the ins and outs of every class that exists. You just need to be passably familiar with the 4-6 classes that will be sat at your table. If something seems hinky just say: "Can you show that to me in the book/PRD?" A simple search function should answer most questions at the table fairly quickly.This is a great concept but falls apart pretty quick when Paizo uses all those new resources in APs. If you run PFS then you need a general awareness of everything as you have no guarantees as what's in one session to another.
You have a strong point about PFS. But then again I avoid Organized Play like the plague.
But Paizo using their own material in AP's or adventures isn't much of a hinderance if you're a GM, have pre-read the material that you're going to run and have an internet connection.
I'd say that if you're running a pre-written adventure of any kind without reading it thoroughly first, you're doing yourself and your players a disservice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would also be easier to use at the table, which to me is a paramount concern.If the new 1.5e core rulebook were demonstrably better, i.e., better organized and indexed, and easier to use at the table, then I think plenty of existing players, myself included, would happily purchase it, even if there were no new rules.
Just as importantly, if they could also make the intro to the game less intimidating and confusing for new players, perhaps by integrating some material from the Beginner Box and this fall's Strategy Guide, I think the game would be able to compete for new players much more effectively. As it is, the core rulebook is very intimidating and confusing to someone new to RPGs, and the same ruleset with a better layout would be an easier sell and would grow the player base.
Yeah I dont even reach for the core rulebook anymore these days. I have my tablet or phone and just use either the PFR or PFRPG rd apps for quick reference.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The day Paizo announces PF 2.0 I will never again buy a Paizo product.
I came here because I didn't want to switch editions not so I could pour money into a bunch of hardcovers then be told they were all garbage and I should buy them again.
I'm not paizo, but I feel comfortable guaranteeing that, when they release a second edition, they wont be telling you that all their previous books were garbage.
Having said that, would you mind explaining your position a bit? The way I read it was "I switched editions because I didnt want to switch editions..." which is obviously not what you meant, but I'm curious what you DID mean.
The day Paizo announces PF 2.0 I will never again buy a Paizo product.
I came here because I didn't want to switch editions not so I could pour money into a bunch of hardcovers then be told they were all garbage and I should buy them again.
I'm not paizo, but I feel comfortable guaranteeing that, when they release a second edition, they wont be telling you that all their previous books were garbage.
Having said that, would you mind explaining your position a bit? The way I read it was "I switched editions because I didnt want to switch editions..." which is obviously not what you meant, but I'm curious what you DID mean.
I didn't switch to Pathfinder because I wanted a new edition. I didn't come the year it was released it was several years later after continuing to play just 3.5 more.
My group wanted more options to add to our 3.5 games, so I started looking at/buying 3.5 third party stuff which lead me to pathfinder.
You see, in our home games, any option from Pathfinder as well as most options from 3.5 are on the table-- so you can tell that more options is not a problem in my opinion (am also starting to pickup more third party stuff now that I have almost all the PF hardcovers like Deep Magic, ultimate Rulership/Battle, backed the Witch & Warlock KS stince its a favorite class of one of my players and it doesn't hold up very well as a direct import. . . ect)
So yeah, I switched to PF because it was backwards compatible-- the first "PF" game I ran was under 3.5 rules because we made the "switch" at 10th level.
IF they announce PF 2.0, tell me I need to buy a new core book, a new bestiary which updates all the monsters in bestiary 1, then announce their next set of books-- an Advancedier Advanced players guide that updates Summoners and Oracles to PF 2.0! Get exited!
Then you see the pattern very easily-- update Ultimate this, Update Ultimate that, order new art for the books and revise them, but at the end of the day how much new material will someone who has the PF hardcovers be getting out of the new PF 2.0 hardcovers?
That's assuming that PF 2.0 is pretty backwards compatible still. And if its not? Then you either have to buy the new or have to stay with the old, and in that paradigm I'm sticking with the old.
Keep in mind, I've been through edition switches before and seen it both ways and dislike both ways of doing it, and every company I've ever seen do an edition switch has had to follow one of those two paths-- 1. so different its a new game (AD&D 2nd ed to DnD 3.0, 3.5 to 4th edition) or a more compatible approach (3.0 to 3.5 or Werewolf second edition to Revised edition).
JUst a glance of what edition changes I've played through:
D&D/PF:
AD&D 2nd edition-3.0-3.5-PF
Shadowrun:
1st edition-2nd edition-3rd edition (when 4th edition came out we just said no, though after not playing at all for several years we are running a 5th edition SR game)
Vampire/Werewolf/Mage:
2nd edition-revised edition-new World of Darkness (And after one small attempt at that we now run games in revised edition.)
So needless to say, I have seen editions change a lot. . .and there is not any way I can see it happening where I'm going to continue with it--
either my books I already bought can't be used so I'm not buying it at all, or my books start getting reprinted and I'm not buying reprints.
Thanks.
I kind of considered 3.5 to PF "switching" - so your first post sounded a bit odd. The way you describe it (more as an expansion than a switch) makes sense. Cheers.
The choice between backwards-compatible and a completely fresh approach is a difficult one. Definitely a case of not being able to please all the people..
ANd maybe I'm wrong that Paizo will have to make one of those choices-- the Pathfinder Unchained book might offer a third path where they never have to switch to PF 2.0 but can update some of the things they feel needs updated.
I really hope so because all of the new ideas in PF I have liked-- most of the classes in APG, UC/UM and ACG I dig, I loved mythic, I am using two of the systems in Ultimate Campaign in my current game, ect.
And if they do a Core Rulebook 2.0 or a Players Guide that has the stuff from the Core book incorporating a few changes, and sliding in this "new fighter, rogue, barbarian" while leaving the rest the same then continue publishing new material I'd stay. . .because that's what I want, after all, new PF/3.X material.
If not, I am sure that Dreamscarred Press, or Frog God, or Legendary Games or some other third party publisher would see the oppotunity would put out a slight update and take over from Paizo as Pathfinder falls into an editions switch malaise of reprints and retreads.
|
|
In the end if the majority if fans want a new edition. With the current version becoming unprofitable they should do a new edition. They are not going to please everyone. Not should they lies money just because some want to stick with a older edition , I only ask that this time around they have a proper play test. The last one was hijacked by a very very vocal minority that wanted no change. Who did they damn best to chase away anyone who disagreed with them.
If not and the majority want more if the same than they stick with the current rules. In the end in not licked into any one rpg.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stealth is still kind of clunky in the 3.5/PF era, which is why Paizo has the Stealth Playtest rules around for a revision/overhaul to the system.Do you honestly believe that anything is ever going to come of a thread that lasted a month three years ago? That wasn't a play test, that was Paizo throwing something out there to quiet the criticism of how poorly written the Pathfinder stealth rules are for a little while.
Actually, I do. I can see stealth being addressed in Pathfinder Unchained, since the whole point of the book is to look at problem areas that exist due to backwards compatibility. And issues people have had. They have confirmed changes to the rogue, monk, and fighter. So I have some faith in the content.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Kthulhu. After seizing what we got with Sacred Geometry and Slashing Geace I'm not holding my breath on the revised Stealth rules.
On the other hand, we got the Slayer and Investigator as actual good skill classes that can contribute more than most martials can.
All any of this proves is that there are examples of good mechanics and bad mechanics that are in Paizo books. Though it's my opinion that editing aside, ACG has a great deal of good options, with a few that admittedly boggle the mind.
After quite a few years of happily playing in Paizo's awesome sandbox -- a huge fan of Pathfinder, Adventure Paths, and Golarion -- I suddenly realized this summer that I'm ready for a big change.
Paizo, I think, has followed the same company arc that we've seen so many RPG brands navigate. They started by publishing a great rule system and a great setting.
Then, to keep the cash flow going (which is a good thing, not a bad thing) and because they are creative people, they've elaborated upon that rule system to the point of near exhaustion.
The latest book offering TWENTY new core classes? That pretty much stopped me in my tracks. As a DM, my table and my game group were already creaking under too many options, too many complex mechanics.
I would prepare a story, or gear up to run one of Paizo's adventures, and I never knew what circus menagerie was going to wind up in the party of PCs.
I'm a decent DM. I know the core rules really well. But I was always one step behind my players when it comes to how all their powers and abilities work.
Meanwhile, to heighten my desire for something different, Numenera and D&D 5.0 arrived in the gaming world, both with far more math-and-fine-print light, far more story-heavy architectures.
I ran a Numenera game last weekend and I have to say, it was a liberation. Preparation was easy and focused almost entirely on story, not stat blocks. Battles took a quarter the time to run and were far more fun and dynamic and cinematic.
Players, meanwhile, had a ton of fun making up PCs using a far simpler, more story-based series of templates. Half the crunch and still far more unique. My sense of D&D 5.0 is that it moves in the same direction.
So why not just switch? Why not jump ship if I want something a little different? (A lot of you are probably already typing a reply telling me to get the hell out of the sandbox...)
The truth is that I want to stay with Paizo and Pathfinder, for much the same reason that I stayed with Pathfinder as 3.0...
"circus menagerie" puts it very succinctly. Nicely done.
I do not understand the current rules-light fad.I don't know that I'd call it a fad. Hell, most of the popular gaming systems since 1974 have been simpler than 3.x/Pathfinder. If either of the two is a fad, it's the rules-heavy systems.I'm not among the oldest Grognards. I started towards the end of 2nd ed, which was plenty complex. Bought all the books I could. Loved the skill point system. Seems to me that was plenty popular too.
Mostly I meant that for a while with 3.x everyone really seemed to buy into it, and then I noticed a whole bunch of retro-clones popping up. It is to the retro-clones that I refer when I speak of a current rules-light fad. Did not mean it to be pejorative, but I can see I came across as insensitive. It seems to me from playing about twenty years or so that the pendulum of public interest seems to swing back and forth, but I should not have referred to it as a fad.
...I hate going back to square one, and I love the complexity. That's why I play Pathfinder. There are rules-light systems out there. Pathfinder is not one of them.There's nothing that says that a rules-light system can't be complex, because complexity isn't about the length or number of rulebooks. Complexity is about having decisions, and is only rewarding when those decisions have real weight that goes beyond one decision being "right" or "wrong." There are a couple good rules-light systems that do complexity well. There are also plenty of rules-heavy systems that don't. Pathfinder happens to be the latter. The way the mechanics are presented leaves too few real choices, too many things that are either too good not to choose or too bad to justify choosing, which actually severely limits its complexity.
This is not necessarily a bug. Complexity is a value-neutral quality. A more complex game is not automatically a better one, and a less-complex game is not automatically a worse one.
"Trend" is probably a better word to use than "fad", to use a word with less negative connotation behind it.
You guys seriously believe that Paizo will never do a new edition, even if they have to lay off half their staff to please you? You guys seriously believe that they can subsist on adventure related stuff alone at the level they are now?
They will likely do a new edition but they recently have been touting products for next year and beyond that "show the vast amount of design space left." So they are implying that they think there is still a lot of room for innovation and addition within the current rule set. Will they likely have a new edition probably eventually. But remember, I am sure Paizo does that they captured market share by continuing a system that catered to existing open license content. They still sell 3pp stuff. One of the most attractive things about PF is that the rules are known and shared over thousands of books not just their own but 3e content, ogl content, and newer 3pp content. Lastly considering that they publish most of their character generation material on the PFSRD they are already strongly banking on the fact that adventures, game aids, and Gol content will lift the bottom line.
|
I agree sadly; too many splatbooks eventually kill a system.
All of the books are very well-written standalone, but you grab one thing that snuck by from one book and one thing from another, and suddenly you have melee-types doing 300+ damage and 150 point fireball oracles and other nonsense that are really starting to crop up. The arms race has fallen apart.
They can also make skills more interesting than 3.5 ever allowed for; and maybe shore up the caster vs melee weakness (which isn't bad anymore, they've done great; but, say, give more power to the skill-based classes that are still "lacking"). I don't think it has to change a lot, but I do think it is time for a reset. Much as I love the Advanced Class Guide :).
|
|
On the other hand, we got the Slayer and Investigator as actual good skill classes that can contribute more than most martials can.
All any of this proves is that there are examples of good mechanics and bad mechanics that are in Paizo books. Though it's my opinion that editing aside, ACG has a great deal of good options, with a few that admittedly boggle the mind.
Don't get me wrong there are good things. Though with the Investigator we might as well just have a tombstone with the heading Rogue RIP 2014 IMO. No reason to take a Rogue anymore. Slayer is good as well. I just think that in the end feedback is useless IMO. As for better or worse the devs will do their own thing.
I think the problem that is being un-addressed here is that the complexity of the system which may not be the same as more options but that certainly may be issue for some. Rather I think the issue is that DMs are hesitant to bar material from their table because someone wants to play a class that can do this and this and this. Well that is best fit by x class but if you want to do this and this you will need levels of class y. If you believe that things are breaking down at your table you need to limit the options. Also I would suggest that different campaigns and different regions even in a Sandbox like Gol should feel different. There are options for Jade Regent that I don't think fit Kingmaker that don't fit Skull and Shackles.
However people LOVE new content. I mean look how excited people are on the boards about the release schedule for next summer. I bet the WOTC threads are a buzz about when 5e savage species comes out or which campaign world will get a revisit.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get me wrong there are good things. Though with the Investigator we might as well just have a tombstone with the heading Rogue RIP 2014 IMO. No reason to take a Rogue anymore. Slayer is good as well. I just think that in the end feedback is useless IMO. As for better or worse the devs will do their own thing.
On the other hand, we got the Slayer and Investigator as actual good skill classes that can contribute more than most martials can.
All any of this proves is that there are examples of good mechanics and bad mechanics that are in Paizo books. Though it's my opinion that editing aside, ACG has a great deal of good options, with a few that admittedly boggle the mind.
That's also not true. Feedback was taken into account and applied during the playtest and after. For example, the action for studied target on the Slayer was changed in regards to the feedback given.
The thing with any beta is that the feedback isn't always right or matches with the design vision of the company. For better or worse, a company sifts through the feedback and sees what aligns with it. Of course I don't agree with their decisions all the time (like Dex to damage). But from the previous books we've read they do listen and apply what feedback fits in the game.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get me wrong there are good things. Though with the Investigator we might as well just have a tombstone with the heading Rogue RIP 2014 IMO. No reason to take a Rogue anymore. Slayer is good as well. I just think that in the end feedback is useless IMO. As for better or worse the devs will do their own thing.
On the other hand, we got the Slayer and Investigator as actual good skill classes that can contribute more than most martials can.
All any of this proves is that there are examples of good mechanics and bad mechanics that are in Paizo books. Though it's my opinion that editing aside, ACG has a great deal of good options, with a few that admittedly boggle the mind.
I am noticing a patern with your posting Mem. Just becuase the DEVs dont run with your ideas doesnt mean they are not listening to feedback. Also, when they do listen to folks, whom you happen to disagree with, that doesnt automatically make them a "vocal minority". Who cares about the rogue if you now have "rogue" viable classes? I get that folks are upset because the rogue sucks. Paizo decided to leave the rogue as is for people who play CRB or 3.5 comp only but add optional new classes for the rogues sucks crowd. sounds like win/win to me. Especially, since unchained is going to offer a new rogue. Patience is a virtue. I am pleased that Paizo takes a conservative approach to changing the game. Something folks on the internet rarely want to wait for. /shrug.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am noticing a patern with your posting Mem. Just becuase the DEVs dont run with your ideas doesnt mean they are not listening to feedback. Also, when they do listen to folks, whom you happen to disagree with, that doesnt automatically make them a "vocal minority". Who cares about the rogue if you now have "rogue" viable classes? I get that folks are upset because the rogue sucks. Paizo decided to leave the rogue as is for people who play CRB or 3.5 comp only but add optional new classes for the rogues sucks crowd. sounds like win/win to me. Especially, since unchained is going to offer a new rogue. Patience is a virtue. I am pleased that Paizo takes a conservative approach to changing the game. Something folks on the internet rarely want to wait for. /shrug.
I guess you were not here for when they playtested the core. Anyone who tied to post any major changes were chased away by a very vocal minority who wanted no changes. It happened.
Here the thing about feedback if the fans ask and ask for a proper dex to damage feat and they don't deliver why would it look like they listen to feedback. They were told over and over again by some fans not to allow Gunslingers to target touch AC yet in the end they still did. I'm not saying they have to listen to me or others feedback. Just don't ask for feedback if in the end the devs are going to do their own thing.
Then again to me anyway it's just a good PR exercise. Make the fans think their feedback means something then do the opposite. It makes the fans feel good yet the devs do what they want. To be honest they don't have to listen to feedback. They can take it into account when developing new material. Yet at the end of the day they can and will do their own thing. I may not like it. I can respect it.
At this point we are seeing much more levels of frustration from the fanbase. When they still can't find a proper middle ground on developing new things well it can be frustrating. I have never seen the boards being so very vocal imo. Asking for patience when the end result is the same is also frustrating. It's been how many years they just keep repeating the same mistakes imo.
As for the Rogue the Investigator is so much better in all ways. Except for their version of Sneak attack which still requires a melee weapon. I get your point about the Rogue yet im owe will see a lot more Investigator builds than Rogues in the future.
I'd say that if you're running a pre-written adventure of any kind without reading it thoroughly first, you're doing yourself and your players a disservice.
You completely missed my point and strawmanned your own. The point I was making is that you need those different books to run those adventures effectively. If you're running an adventure tied to a new book, it's not going to be on the PRD on release day. Paizo has yet to be on top of things to that degree. It usually takes a week up to several months depending on how busy they are. Internet connections aren't always a given either. I'm in a major city and there are plenty of places where you can't get either wireless because they're private or cell due to horrible building geometry. So, even if you generally prep at home with a connection, if you need to game at a store (super common and again you can't assume their wireless is available publicly) you can't always do an impromptu check on a rule. You're left with needing to buy the requisite book if you have to deal with any of these issues or you can't effectively run the adventure.
|
|
That's also not true. Feedback was taken into account and applied during the playtest and after. For example, the action for studied target on the Slayer was changed in regards to the feedback given.The thing with any beta is that the feedback isn't always right or matches with the design vision of the company. For better or worse, a company sifts through the feedback and sees what aligns with it. Of course I don't agree with their decisions all the time (like Dex to damage). But from the previous books we've read they do listen and apply what feedback fits in the game.
I guess we will have to disagree then. They do listen yet imo they do when it suits them to do so. And that's okay because in the end they spent the money on making the rpg from the ground up.
It's hard to feel like they listen when Sacred Geomtery is given the green light. Yet slashing Grace is really not worth it imo. Same thing with Craft Ooze. I wanted a feat that allowed me to create and use oozes in combat. Instead it's a very situational trap feat. I guess the frustration from myself is that their seems to be no proper middle ground on the design process. Either something is very good or very bad. Never a mix of the two imo. At this point with the experience in designing new material they should be finding the proper middle ground in their sleep.
|
|
I am noticing a patern with your posting Mem. Just becuase the DEVs dont run with your ideas doesnt mean they are not listening to feedback. Also, when they do listen to folks, whom you happen to disagree with, that doesnt automatically make them a "vocal minority". Who cares about the rogue if you now have "rogue" viable classes? I get that folks are upset because the rogue sucks. Paizo decided to leave the rogue as is for people who play CRB or 3.5 comp only but add optional new classes for the rogues sucks crowd. sounds like win/win to me. Especially, since unchained is going to offer a new rogue. Patience is a virtue. I am pleased that Paizo takes a conservative approach to changing the game. Something folks on the internet rarely want to wait for. /shrug.I guess you were not here for when they playtested the core. Anyone who tied to post any major changes were chased away by a very vocal minority who wanted no changes. It happened.
Here the thing about feedback if the fans ask and ask for a proper dex to damage feat and they don't deliver why would it look like they listen to feedback. They were told over and over again by some fans not to allow Gunslingers to target touch AC yet in the end they still did. I'm not saying they have to listen to me or others feedback. Just don't ask for feedback if in the end the devs are going to do their own thing.
Then again to me anyway it's just a good PR exercise. Make the fans think their feedback means something then do the opposite. It makes the fans feel good yet the devs do what they want. To be honest they don't have to listen to feedback. They can take it into account when developing new material. Yet at the end of the day they can and will do their own thing. I may not like it. I can respect it.
At this point we are seeing much more levels of frustration from the fanbase. When they still can't find a proper middle ground on developing new things well it can be frustrating. I have never seen the boards being so...
I think you are mistaking fanbase with forum-base. The only people that talk about PF problems at PFS are forum goers IME. The folks that just show up to game are quite happy with PF and its direction. Its possible that you and yours are not, but I urge caution in trying to make a case for the majority. It might just be the case you and Paizo/PF are not a good fit. Though numbers wont lie despite making the same mistakes over and over, PF remains successful and popular.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are mistaking fanbase with forum-base. The only people that talk about PF problems at PFS are forum goers IME. The folks that just show up to game are quite happy with PF and its direction.
Right up until they're not, and they just stop showing up. And no, many of those people don't come to the forums...they just go away. In fact, many people refuse to come to these forums because this isn't a friendly place if you're even perceived as being at all critical of Pathfinder. But that's another thread.
Its possible that you and yours are not, but I urge caution in trying to make a case for the majority. It might just be the case you and Paizo/PF are not a good fit. Though numbers wont lie despite making the same mistakes over and over, PF remains successful and popular.
Yes, Pathfinder is popular. So is McDonald's. Personally, I play Pathfinder in spite of the rules, not because of them. Neither of us has any idea how many others feel the same.
|
|
I think you are mistaking fanbase with forum-base. The only people that talk about PF problems at PFS are forum goers IME. The folks that just show up to game are quite happy with PF and its direction.Right up until they're not, and they just stop showing up. And no, many of those people don't come to the forums...they just go away. In fact, many people refuse to come to the forums at all, because this isn't a friendly place if you're even perceived as being at all critical of Pathfinder. But that's another thread.
Its possible that you and yours are not, but I urge caution in trying to make a case for the majority. It might just be the case you and Paizo/PF are not a good fit. Though numbers wont lie despite making the same mistakes over and over, PF remains successful and popular.Yes, Pathfinder is popular. So is McDonald's. Personally, I play Pathfinder in spite of the rules, not because of them. Neither of us has any idea how many others feel the same.
Well there are quite a few people who dont like the rules, setting, or even the people that work for Paizo yet they post daily. However, you agree with my point I was making towards Mem,
"Neither of us has any idea how many others feel the same."
You can argue there needs to be changes made but as long as Paizo continues to make money and be successful with their current startegies thats not going to happen; Regardless of your opinon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can argue there needs to be changes made but as long as Paizo continues to make money and be successful with their current strategies, that's not going to happen; Regardless of your opinion.
I'm sorry, but the tone of your post is very much "if you don't like how things are, shut up, because they aren't changing" and I just can't agree with that. Customers can and should offer feedback, whether you agree with that feedback or not. In the case of play tests, Paizo is explicitly asking for feedback.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are mistaking fanbase with forum-base. The only people that talk about PF problems at PFS are forum goers IME. The folks that just show up to game are quite happy with PF and its direction.Right up until they're not, and they just stop showing up. And no, many of those people don't come to the forums...they just go away. In fact, many people refuse to come to these forums because this isn't a friendly place if you're even perceived as being at all critical of Pathfinder. But that's another thread.
I think it's just the opposite. "...this isn't a friendly place if you're even perceived as being at all a Pathfinder fan."
|
|
You can argue there needs to be changes made but as long as Paizo continues to make money and be successful with their current strategies, that's not going to happen; Regardless of your opinion.I'm sorry, but the tone of your post is very much "if you don't like how things are, shut up, because they aren't changing" and I just can't agree with that. Customers can and should offer feedback, whether you agree with that feedback or not. In the case of play tests, Paizo is explicitly asking for feedback.
You are right. I think Paizo should take their fan's opinons seriously. As long as those opinons are not "rewrite the system from the ground up or you will go bankrupt".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are right. I think Paizo should take their fan's opinons seriously. As long as those opinons are not "rewrite the system from the ground up or you will go bankrupt".
I take that opinion seriously, for as long as I need to consider it.
I rarely have to consider it very long.