Wait, wait a second.
The OP said that there may be options for running PF as a rules lite game?
Did I hear that right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter specifically has his niches he can fill, and if you want a fighter that can do those things, the Lore Warden and Tactician grant extra skills, and the Lore Warden crossed with Martial Master essentially fixes the fighter, albeit at the cost of armor.The slayer covers almost all of the fighter niches. He is non-magical, He hit harder, he have a lot of feats, he can hit hard all day long (AKA not nova class), he can master basically every fighting style in the game (mounted combat, TWF, THF, Archery, Swoard and board, and a lot more after inner sea combat). THe only thing the slayer can not really do is to use heavy armor and that is because rogue talents mostly sucks and the ranger feat are the obvious best option.
And yet the slayer have three times more skill points. In what world can that be balanced?
Maybe the problem is with the fighter. The fighter really should have 4 skill points and more class skills. In addition I think he should have had the ability to trade out feats or gain temporary ones without needing an archetype. If I had been a part of the playtest for PF Beta I would have pushed for it then since I said the same thing when I was playing 3.5.
As for hitting harder I agree that he might be ahead when TWF'ing, but I doubt that is true for two handed weapons.
edit: I know the fighter can trade out bonus feats on a permanent basis, I meant trade feats on a daily basis. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, wait a second.
The OP said that there may be options for running PF as a rules lite game?
Did I hear that right?
I said I've seen people assuming that.
In a thread discussing an interest in a rules-light edition, people kept saying "I'll wait for unchained", as though it was assured to address it. That's a part of why I made the thread, I was seeing alot of expectations grounded in nothing more than speculation and desire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At best I've seen description of rules for faster action resolution but that does not mean rules-lite. Those people are just upping their expectations for no reason.
The best bet for Rules-lite Pathfinder is to expand on Beginner Box.
|
Reading Mark's mention of the Occult Adventures made me realize I'm not even excited about the playtest... sigh... :/I've been completely disinterested in the last three playtests -- but it wasn't Paizo's doing. It was the participants.
If it's any consolation, it seems Paizo was also disinterested in at least one of them, not bothering to tell anyone the playtest was over.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ the OP:
no. it will likely be just as ill-designed as every other book, and completely miss the point that martials are affecting the world within arms reach while casters do so on a cosmic scale (both at level 20).
if there are any issues present in the book, the will never be addressed or touched on again, since this "is just some extra stuff", much like wordcasting in ultimate magic being abandoned entirely.
any complaints on the matter will be ignored until the next book release, at which point they will be drowned out entirely by the flood of problems/complaints for THAT book.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ the OP:
no. it will likely be just as ill-designed as every other book, and completely miss the point that martials are affecting the world within arms reach while casters do so on a cosmic scale (both at level 20).
if there are any issues present in the book, the will never be addressed or touched on again, since this "is just some extra stuff", much like wordcasting in ultimate magic being abandoned entirely.
any complaints on the matter will be ignored until the next book release, at which point they will be drowned out entirely by the flood of problems/complaints for THAT book.
It doesn't sound like you actually like Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair if I didn't take what's said on the forums with a grain of salt I'd wonder why the game is so successful.
That said I've noticed things I would have edited differently starting with my first Core Rulebook so it could be said that every book has problems that will guarantee forum rage.
Unchained will undoubtedly cause forum rage, that's a given. From what I see from the product thread some people do have unreasonable expectations out of it so its definitely going to burn some people really bad.
@ the OP:
no. it will likely be just as ill-designed as every other book, and completely miss the point that martials are affecting the world within arms reach while casters do so on a cosmic scale (both at level 20).
if there are any issues present in the book, the will never be addressed or touched on again, since this "is just some extra stuff", much like wordcasting in ultimate magic being abandoned entirely.
any complaints on the matter will be ignored until the next book release, at which point they will be drowned out entirely by the flood of problems/complaints for THAT book.
I appreciate your very direct statement of your feelings.
Out of curiosity, is there a book you do think was well done?
Not that other guy, but as someone who is also a bit jaded with Paizo I would like to answer Scythia too.
The only FULL books I consider 100% or close to 100% well done are the Campaign Setting, AP, Player Companion, and the hardcovers of Ultimate Campaign+Inner Sea Gods.
Aside from that there are plenty of bits from books that I find well done.
Bards, Inquisitors, Magus, Skalds, Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins, Slayers, Brawlers, Hunters, Shamans, Oracles, Sorcerors, Alchemist, Investigator, and Bloodrager are the classes I find to be most well designed and playable. I love those classes.
All of the others, even with great flavor like Summoner and Witch, have many mechanical issues that I have problems with.
I don't like how Paizo designs cool subsystems and abandons them.
I don't like how disjointed and broken the ACG is. By the time I finished reading through I said to myself "It's like three teams of people wrote this book with almost no communication between them." As you note above some of my favorite classes come from ACG, but that does not excuse the poor excuse of the Feat and Archetype sections.
I'm not one of those irrational haters, I just want the most successful role playing publisher to publish books that befit their status. This is especially true when they release such high profile Hardcovers. I'm careful with my money and after the ACG I am going to be even more careful with it when it comes to Paizo releases.
Once again I'm not saying that I am boycotting Paizo. I am saying I'll wait several weeks after a major release and spend time making a well researched decision so that I don't ever make the mistake of buying a sub-standard product like the ACG. I want at least APG level products, and if possible something as good as Inner Sea Gods. Also, as funny as this sounds, Paizo should really strive to release books as well edited and complete as Ultimate Psionics by Dreamscarred Press.
It doesn't sound like you actually like Pathfinder.@ the OP:
no. it will likely be just as ill-designed as every other book, and completely miss the point that martials are affecting the world within arms reach while casters do so on a cosmic scale (both at level 20).
if there are any issues present in the book, the will never be addressed or touched on again, since this "is just some extra stuff", much like wordcasting in ultimate magic being abandoned entirely.
any complaints on the matter will be ignored until the next book release, at which point they will be drowned out entirely by the flood of problems/complaints for THAT book.
don't get me wrong, i love the system (it's much more streamlined than 3.5, and not as bubble-wrapped as 4e).
i just also find that a great many of the choices (and excuses of why they refuse to fix their mistakes) happen to be staggeringly dumb from time to time, and that larger matters in the system--the lack of scope between how martials vs casters affect the world, the rogue and monk classes' hundreds-if-not-thousands of threads showing that they NEED to be fixed, how some styles of play are completely shunned off of the planet (unarmed combat is a huge moneysink for no reason, whips dont come online until 7+, throwing weapons are near-useless and unsupported in both fields, crossbows, etc.)--to name a few, are completely ignored.
this is only made worse when paizo DOES look it over and make a ruling, they miss the point entirely and only make things worse (MoMS causing trouble in our houserule set (PFS)? let's ruin crane wing! instead of, you know, just banning MoMS in PFS and giving a rebuild for established characters who use it).
@ the OP:
no. it will likely be just as ill-designed as every other book, and completely miss the point that martials are affecting the world within arms reach while casters do so on a cosmic scale (both at level 20).
if there are any issues present in the book, the will never be addressed or touched on again, since this "is just some extra stuff", much like wordcasting in ultimate magic being abandoned entirely.
any complaints on the matter will be ignored until the next book release, at which point they will be drowned out entirely by the flood of problems/complaints for THAT book.
I appreciate your very direct statement of your feelings.
Out of curiosity, is there a book you do think was well done?
as i dont own all the books i couldn't say for certain. off the top of my head the APG doesn't seem to be raising any horrific flags in my head, but someone will likely point out how i'm mistaken on that.
introduced competent new classes, as well as fresh directions for both the older material and the newer, more options (feats, spells, rage powers, rogue talents--even if most are still trash) for both as well, and so on.
Wait, wait a second.
The OP said that there may be options for running PF as a rules lite game?
Did I hear that right?
Forget everything else, this is what I want to know more about.
I'm wary. It's very difficult to make something simpler by adding rules, even if they attempt to streamline and consolidate. Anyone familiar with my posting history on this site knows I've tried.
One type of saving throw referred to as "The Saving Throw". Add the modifiers of Will, Reflex, and Fort together, then divide by three, then round down. There is your save versus any and every harmful effect.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
the rogue and monk classes' hundreds-if-not-thousands of threads showing that they NEED to be fixed,
All by the same few posters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's also the very same few posters who claim that Rogues and Monks are fine...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues are definitely not "fine."
I just don't bother participating the those conversations much because they're pointless. :/
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meanwhile the rest of the forums are like "WTF mate?"
Or more like "Oh this again". ∅
Topic?
What will Unchained's streamlined rules look like? Sounds like they might actually have me on board for the playtest.
Surely you mean no OPEN playtest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things I want are an end of feat trees, an end to feat taxes, and feats that scale with BAB. A combat maneuver system that doesn't require heavy investment to be useful. A revamp of the skill system that allows skills to compete with spells at higher levels. Clarification or nerfing of problem spells. Some real class features for the rogue, and fighter.
Yes, all of that. I would also like to see redundant feats trimmed out.
I just started playing a Brawler. Having the ability to temporarily add combat feats on the fly has made me realize how much work feats need.
One type of saving throw referred to as "The Saving Throw". Add the modifiers of Will, Reflex, and Fort together, then divide by three, then round down. There is your save versus any and every harmful effect.
Ha ha, oh wow.