| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many have commented that the book's structure needs work. It's one thing to complain about a problem and another to contribute to the solution, so here's my suggestion for how to rearrange the book for clarity. This is not a list of minor nitpicks, rather it's a major reorganisation of the book. At the same time, none of this should be a change to the mechanics of the game rules themselves, only to how they're presented in the book.
To make it clearer, I've made a sample showing how I think it could look: download a PDF file here.
1. Focused, article-like sections
The game has a number of key concepts that need to be understood. Some of them are new, some of them decades old, and some are old concepts with a new twist, but we have to treat them all equally so new players aren't at a disadvantage. People don't need to memorise every detail of the game rules, but they need to have a basic grasp of each of these concepts, and be able to find the information for reference when playing.
Key concepts include:
- Ability scores and modifiers
- Actions and reactions
- Ancestries
- Archetypes
- Armor and shields
- Armor class and TAC
- Cantrips
- Class feats
- Combat manoeuvres
- Conditions
- Critical hits
- Dying rules
- Exploration and downtime mode
- Health and hit points
- Initiative
- Item bonuses and runes
- Proficiency
- Resonance
- Rest and sleep
- Rituals
- Saving throws
- Speed and movement
- Spells
- Traits
- XP and levelling up
At the moment, too much of the information on these subjects is scattered all over the book and hard to find, with a lot of cross-references back and forth, some of which turn out to be useless. There are even rules described in two places contradict each other (these are gradually being fixed in errata). This is a marked contrast to Paizo's blog posts that teased the new system, which each focused on a single concept or class and were much easier to follow, albeit deliberately incomplete.
My suggestion is that each of these concepts should have a short focused section describing it, not unlike a self-contained article. Information that's currently scattered around the different parts of book should be collected into the section for the concept. Each section should be one or more whole pages, rather than just text that flows freely from one to the next. If a player wants to check the rules critical hits, they should be able to go to the Critical hits section, which is probably a two-page spread telling them everything they need to know about critical hits. It might include an examples table with pictures of d20s and what the result means.
The classes and ancestries already do this to a degree, since each one is a self-contained article with all you need to know about it, from headline down to feats. I see this as an extension of the direction Paizo have already been heading. There will always be a degree of cross-referencing - every rule operates in the context of every other rule - but there needs to be more focus.
There is a cost to this approach, in that some information will need repeating. The rules for armour class interact with the rules for critical hits, for example, and while these sections can reference each other it may be clearer in some cases to include the information right there. The resulting book will be a bit fatter, but it'll be much easier to follow.
To see what such an article might look like, download a PDF file here.
There's another side benefit as well, in helping Paizo to debug the rules. If a section ends up too large to comfortably fit this article-like shape, it may be that the subject itself really is too complex and needs to be rethought.
2. The introduction is only an introduction
At present the introduction does double duty. It's simultaneously a first stop for new readers, and contains a certain amount of key information on game rules not found anywhere else. This means the introduction is larger than it needs to be, and it contributes to the amount of cross-referencing necessary as rules are broken up between sections.
My suggestion is that the introduction chapter should be an introduction and nothing else. None of the game rules should live in the introduction; they should all be detailed in the Playing the Game section, while the introduction merely refers to or summarises them.
The most significant rules that currently appear in the introduction and nowhere else are to do with character creation, such as ability scores and modifiers, but there are also key concepts like actions. While the introduction needs to touch on these, the full specification should be elsewhere.
It sounds simple, but I think it'll significantly cut down on the amount of cross-referencing required in the rules themselves, while making the introduction easier to read. Again, this will mean some repetition in the name of clarity.
3. Reduce the number of names used
A game as complex as Pathfinder - either edition - will always take a lot of learning, but addressing the learning curve is one of the primary goals of this system. One area I think the playtest falls down is in the use of names for things that shouldn't need to be named. Examples include [ ...] . What do all of those abilities do? The mark one more tick of proficiency. That's it. [...] doesn't [...] at all. Having all these names adds to the cognitive load of the system for new players, and it makes experienced players from Pathfinder and D&D 3.5 feel betrayed that the names they previously used for something awesome have been reduced to a boring +1. It also leads to a feeling that the classes, which provide fewer inherent abilities now that so much of their job has been moved to feats, have been padded with things that look like real abilities but aren't.
There's a visual accessibility factor here as well: a page with lots of headings that look the same can be harder to read.
My suggestion is that any class ability that provides a proficiency bonus should be clearly identified as such. Instead of "Uncanny Dodge", the ability should just be titled "Master in Reflex saves", and it should use a different style from the headline abilities that make each class unique. These items should be grouped under a level heading.
Classes also have a table detailing what they get at each level. In the first edition, this was easy enough to follow, with columns for BAB, saving throws, spells etc. The playtest cuts that table down to a single column table for most classes, and uses names for all the things, with the result that it reads as just a big pile of words. The table should be expanded out again, with a column for proficiencies, a column for feats, and a column for class abilities.
Again, to see what this might look like, download a PDF file here.
This isn't a change to the mechanics of the system, only to how it's described and named. Compared to the other two, this should reduce the total page count slightly.
---
I'm sure Paizo don't really want to rewrite the entire book like this, any more than they want to make vast changes to the game rules between the playtest and the final. But I think the current state of the rulebook is confusing and disorganised enough to justify putting the effort into this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just realised I never finished writing the post. Apologies. Let me fill in the gaps here:
3. Reduce the number of names used
A game as complex as Pathfinder - either edition - will always take a lot of learning, but addressing the learning curve is one of the primary goals of this system. One area I think the playtest falls down is in the use of names for things that shouldn't need to be named. Examples include Weapon Expertise, Graceful Mastery, Battlefield Surveyor, Legendary Spellcaster, Juggernaut, Indomitable Will, Evasion and Slippery Mind. What do all of those abilities do? The mark one more tick of proficiency. That's it. A few of those do other things as well, but not very impressive things. Indomitable Will doesn't make your will indomitable at all. Having all these names adds to the cognitive load of the system for new players, and it makes experienced players from Pathfinder and D&D 3.5 feel betrayed that the names they previously used for something awesome have been reduced to a boring +1. It also leads to a feeling that the classes, which provide fewer inherent abilities now that so much of their job has been moved to feats, have been padded with things that look like real abilities but aren't.
Sure, but I'm not here to talk about the rules, just about how they're presented. The use of so many awesome-sounding names for a mundane +1 increase in proficiency is what I object to.
One problem that I didn't have but that all four of my players had was the inclusion of powers into the spells chapter.
The paladin had problems finding 'Lay on Hands', kept looking in the Paladin section of the classes chapter like one logically would. Slowed down the game considerably because we were in the middle of combat and he didn't want to end up on the floor with a 'dying' score again.
The druid despised that aspect of the layout on principle. Spells should be where spells go, either give powers their own section or put powers back into their class descriptions.
The cleric agrees with the druid. Spells should be where spells go. Make a powers chapter. Feats get their own chapter, why not powers?
The alchemist also suggested alchemical items be split away from magic items better. Right now there's the issue of "wait, is this really alchemical?" Which isn't 'powers in the spells chapter' but it is symptomatic of the same problem. Consolidation for consolidation's sake doesn't help anyone. Please split things up so they make sense.
A powers chapter.
An alchemical items section.
An introduction that's just an introduction. No rules in the intro. Rules go in the rules section. Speaking of...
Put ALL the necessary rules in the rules section. No more hiding things in the introduction.