| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those of us who've been playing Pathfinder for 6 years have done so because we didn't want a new edition.
I've played PF for 6 years because as I was getting into tabletop, that's what the group I started playing with was doing. I hold zero "loyalty" (??) to any particular edition nor does changing editions sound scary to me.
At the same time, there's been no indication that they ever plan to actually correct the disparity, and the PDT continues handing down more martial nerfs while leaving casters untouched or buffing them.
Admittedly, I have also seen members of the PDT advance the line that the martial/caster disparity does exist, and is intentional because magic should be better than mundane. The end result is the same either way: the PDT is highly unlikely to ever address the problem.
You have a system that is dog fooded rather heavily. When regular NPCs can be the same classes as players, and you have the kinds of stories we have (ancient curses - magic, totalitarian runelords being BBEGs - wizards, gods getting crafty - magic/divine, etc.), then, yes, that would seem a natural state of things.
Thing is, the stories written don't tend to be magic against magic. It's magic against the "common" person (fighters, rangers, and so on) who needs saving.
I would think a few APs + a year or two for the PF playerbase to absorb it that wholesale flip this around would do a fair bit to change perceptions. But, I do think it is a perception issue.
If it were just commoners getting slapped around, I don't think the "heroic" classes would be the "problem." That the same classes someone wants to play gets to be the victim, that makes them a victim by association. Not many wizards and so forth are victims.
It's a pretty classic tale: "greater" powers take advantage of "weaker" ones. Martials just get typecast into that weaker role. That doesn't make them objectively weak. That's just how we think about them because those are the kinds of stories we've adopted in our minds about them to the point that we believe them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's among the strangest ideas ever held by any game design team if it's true. When class A gets U amount of usefulness for having experience X, and class B gets 2U amount of usefulness for experience X, then you've thoroughly messed up the function of experience points and/or levels.
The idea, which is largely the case in practice, is that while Casters get cool toys built-in, Martials get cool toys literally.
Casters, especially full-casters, derive almost all their utility from their spells, plus a few class options.
Martials, on the other hand, have the most magical gear designed for THEM, and thus get the most out of the loot when the fights are done.
Magical Weapons, Armors, and Shields are designed with Martials in mind, and indeed they tend to make the best use of them. Many/most pieces of worn Wondrous Items are also best utilized by Martials.
Some people would like Martials to be as badass while naked as a Caster, but that idea makes little to no sense in terms of the mythologies on which the game is based, and is a wholly-modern concept that's only existed for about 100 years.
"Martial" characters in legend and myth invariably have magical tools, very often several, at their displosal; even characters with what amount to "superpowers" in this day and age would be dressed with several magical arms:
Heracles had the Pelt of the Nemean Lion, his club, bow, and arrows.
Rama had between 50 and 70 distinct weapons at his disposal (the Astras primarily, mostly in the form of magical arrows).
Achilles, Aeneas, and Diomedes all had magical armor and several magical weapons.
Cuchulain and the other Ulstermen all had magical shields and weapons.
Beowulf had a magical armored shirt and 2 magical swords.
Sigurd/Sigfried had the tarnhelm, the andvarinaut, and Gram.
The three servants of Tripitaka - Zhu Bajie, Sha Wujing, and Sun Wukong - all had magical weapons, and Wukong especially had the Phoenix-feather helm, the golden chainmail, the Ruyi-jingu-bang, the cloud-stepping shoes, and ji-xuan-yun at his disposal. To say nothing of Tripitaka himself who had a magical monk's vestment and staff.
Just about every single one of the Knights of the Round Table had a magical object of some kind at their ready, with several of the chief knights like Gawain, Galahad, and Lancelot, having quite a number, and Arthur taking the cake at well over a dozen ALONE.
---
So, really, the idea that Martials shouldn't need magical gear is pretty laughable, and a mindset entirely unique to the 20th Century; magicians didn't need gear, at least not of the armor and weapon variety, but warriors did.
The result, then, is that D&D intends for Martials to get the bulk of the physical loot, while Full-casters get next-to-none but for things like scrolls, etc., and rely almost solely on their magical prowess.
6/9 casters, who basically didn't exist in 1st & 2nd Ed. (where there were 5th and 7th level casters filling similar roles), and even 3rd/3.5, are now the bulk of the spellcasting classes, since they're more in-line with Martials, and trade a fair chunk of upper-level spellcasting for being more versatile and able to use magical gear just about as well as Martials (though they tend to not have the wide range of armor choices, and their BAB is lower).
The Cleric, Druid, Oracle, and Shaman are really the big "whoppsie..." classes, having a 3/4 BAB AND 9th-level spellcasting; but that's an unfortunate leaveover from 3.5 in which Paizo couldn't have returned them to 6th/7th-level Caster status without causing every Cleric from 3.5 to be unusable in PF...
---
Would the game benefit from a built-in mechanic which limits/determines how much loot you get and of how much quality?
Absolutely, to a degree; FantasyCraft uses a system pretty much exactly like that, and Pathfinder Society even adheres to a system not entirely unlike that.
However, such systems carry with them their own baggage - that being that you may very likely not be "allowed" to keep the crazy-awesome artifact you just got from your dungeon dive because your stat isn't high enough for that, or other some-such reasons.
4E also tried a system like that, and while it was balanced, it killed a lot of the "special coolness" of finding an awesome magic item in a monster's horde that you weren't expecting, because your Gear is built into your character, basically.
So while you mechanically can "balance" things out with such a system, it ends up killing a lot of the natural flow and mystique of the game at the same time.
Keep in mind though, 7th level Priest/Druid spells in 2nd edition equal 9th level Priest/Druid spells now. . .
As far as Martials with magic stuff, don't forget Arthur who had three different magic swords, a magic, spear, plus a magic dagger that made him invisible.
|
I still think they need to offer something new. With both 3.5 and PF those who want their 3E fix can get it. I just can't see a majority of those who have access to both editions buy another edition with no changes. Some will but the large amount that did so with PF. I don't think will IMO. They have existing RPGs to cater to their gaming needs. Why buy it a third time. That's the problem beyond current flaws in the rules. How to get gamers to buy the same product withitylr if any changes a third time. Both 4E and 5E offered something new and a reason for some to reinvest.
As for edition loyalty it's a very subjective and fleeting thing. Gamers who swore they never would touch anything from Wotc that included 4E material. Still ended up buying 5E. Edition loyalty does exist but not to the level that some people think it does IMO.
I'd like to see a divorce from the OGL, to be honest. Get rid of the backwards compatibility that holds the system back, and do what they want.You do understand that without the OGL, Pathfinder, and most likely Paizo itself would not exist today?
Keenly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no desire to learn a new system. If "PF 2E" is every released, I am out of the game, no more hardcover purchases for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as Martials with magic stuff, don't forget Arthur who had three different magic swords, a magic, spear, plus a magic dagger that made him invisible.
THREE?
More like 6, when you total all the myths and legends together.
Goswhit (Helmet)
Rohngomiant (Spear)
Crewennan (Dagger)
Wigar (Armor)
Wynebgwrthucher (Shield)
Llen Arthyr yng Nghernyw (Mantle)
Clarent, the Sword in the Stone
Excalibur, the Sword of the Lake
The Scabbard of Excalibur
Brownsteel (Sword)
Marmiadoise (Sword)
Chastiefol (Sword)
Morddure (Sword)
Prydwen (Ship)
Cool. That's basically my preference, but I didn't think it was popular among design afficionados.
Pathfinder isn't an aficionado's game. It's the cheap and popular RPG; marketed and designed for mass consumption.
Pathfinder is Yellow Tail, not Penfolds.
Cool. That's basically my preference, but I didn't think it was popular among design afficionados.Pathfinder isn't an aficionado's game. It's the cheap and popular RPG; marketed and designed for mass consumption.
I meant I'm surprised (pleasantly) that s design team member has said that's one of paizo's goals. (Although I don't know who Chengar Qordath was citing, I consider pretty much any full-time, professional RPG game designer to be an aficionado).
I meant I'm surprised (pleasantly) that s design team member has said that's one of paizo's goals. (Although I don't know who Chengar Qordath was citing, I consider pretty much any full-time, professional RPG game designer to be an aficionado).Cool. That's basically my preference, but I didn't think it was popular among design afficionados.Pathfinder isn't an aficionado's game. It's the cheap and popular RPG; marketed and designed for mass consumption.
Sure, I'm sure the folks that produce yellow tail know their stuff about wine too. Also, I'm not suggesting that yellow tail isn't a perfectly fine product; just that it is what it is.
I'm not really sure what we're talking about now (I don't drink wine at all). I wasn't making any comment about Pathfinder or its' target market, so I didn't really understand your initial reply.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those of us who've been playing Pathfinder for 6 years have done so because we didn't want a new edition.
I've been playing Pathfinder for 6 years, but that isn't why. You're welcome to your opinion, but please don't claim to speak for others.
I'm not really sure what we're talking about now (I don't drink wine at all). I wasn't making any comment about Pathfinder or its' target market, so I didn't really understand your initial reply.
You made a comment about design aficionados and pathfinder.
I tried to use an analogy to say that you shouldn't make assumptions about what is popular among aficionados based on how pathfinder is designed, because pathfinder is a broad-appeal kitchen-sink game. It is NOT designed for aficionados.
You thought I said that the people behind pathfinder are not aficionados.
I double downed the analogy to say that you can be an aficionado and still make a product for people who aren't. I then tried to reiterate that being broad-appeal isn't bad.
So basically, I was trying to tell you that you were right in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really sure what we're talking about now (I don't drink wine at all). I wasn't making any comment about Pathfinder or its' target market, so I didn't really understand your initial reply.You made a comment about design aficionados and pathfinder.
I tried to use an analogy to say that you shouldn't make assumptions about what is popular among aficionados based on how pathfinder is designed, because pathfinder is a broad-appeal kitchen-sink game. It is NOT designed for aficionados.
You thought I said that the people behind pathfinder are not aficionados.
I double downed the analogy to say that you can be an aficionado and still make a product for people who aren't. I then tried to reiterate that being broad-appeal isn't bad.
So basically, I was trying to tell you that you were right in the first place.
Cheers.
It's not terribly important but I wasn't meaning to infer what is popular among afficionados based on pathfinder's design. I was meaning to express surprise that an afficionado would express a view so close to my preference.
I also didnt think you were making any statement about the design team's afficionadoness - I was struggling to clarify my first post, since I didnt understand yours.
I definitely agree that Pathfinder is designed to appeal to a wide audience.
I don't see a Pathfinder 2E as likely, at least in the foreseeable future. I think a revised edition would be much more likely than a second edition.
Setting aside Paizo's stated desire to not render current material obsolete, a *lot* of gamers love Pathfinder for the D&D 3rd/3.5 nostalgia. Not only that, Pathfinder preserves its predecessor's charm while substantially revising and improving upon the source. That's quite an accomplishment to risk throwing away.
Balancing the need to change the game enough to justify charging us for new books against the need to preserve that D&D 3.5 charm and feel would be a massive challenge.
I've been playing Pathfinder for 6 years, but that isn't why. You're welcome to your opinion, but please don't claim to speak for others.
You are equally welcome to your opinion, good sir, but don't pretend that we're not speaking for a lot of fans, either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
Im not sure there is a difference between Revised or Second Edition. A new Edition, Revised or Second does not need to follow the D&D modle, and really thats one of the few cases where an Edition is radically different than the ones before it. Heck, it might honestly be the only case, but its not the norm. Can we stop pretending that a new Edition would likely outdate older books and setting? I mean none of the FAQs, Errata, or new printings have except in a few cases like with the ACG. Its not really that realistic of a possibility, so can we stop assuming it is, please?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im not sure there is a difference between Revised or Second Edition. A new Edition, Revised or Second does not need to follow the D&D modle, and really thats one of the few cases where an Edition is radically different than the ones before it. Heck, it might honestly be the only case, but its not the norm. Can we stop pretending that a new Edition would likely outdate older books and setting? I mean none of the FAQs, Errata, or new printings have except in a few cases like with the ACG. Its not really that realistic of a possibility, so can we stop assuming it is, please?
Except that World of Darkness also followed this suit, and the Old World of Darkness books generally don't mesh at all with the New World of Darkness books.
Warhammer 40k, for not being an RPG, has also fallen into these problems - while the minis themselves are still usable, some armies (Da Orkz) have done for several rules iterations without updates, and other armies have had such radical redesigns for their units' functions that older books and codexes are no longer valid.
Champions going from 5th to 6th Edition caused a lot of builds to become really mangled when converting from the old edition to the new.
Shadowrun moving from their 3rd to their 4th Edition caused a lot of snarls, considering how radically the entire base system was redesigned.
D&D is the most-prominent game to have this "Edition Wars" problem, but it's hardly the only - it's actually fairly common in tabletop games, and it's a legitimate concern for a lot of fans.
---
You are right in that there ARE ways for there to be a Pathfinder Revised CRB that radically change some basic aspects of the game without affecting the text or applicability of subsequent books, but doing so will take quite a bit of ducking and weaving by the devs regardless.