PDA

View Full Version : What do you like/dislike about Pathfinder?



GoatToucher
2009-05-26, 11:07 AM
I read it. I dig it. I am not crazy about getting a new feat every other level, or the xp/level totals reminiscient of 1st ed, but overall, I like it.

What do you all think?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-26, 11:30 AM
It's better balanced, but they seem to have missed the point a bit. Some of their fixes ignored the balance problems, changing things that weren't broken(Power Attack), or making the broken classes better. I like the skill system fix and the better number of feats(7 over 20 levels? Really, WotC?), but the issues of 3.5 remain.

Another_Poet
2009-05-26, 11:30 AM
As I've stated in numerous other threads, I love it and am grateful it exists - not because it is perfect (it isn't) but because it keeps my favourite game alive and offers product support after WotC has ditched us.

Thank you Paizo!

:smallsmile:

ap

EarFall
2009-05-26, 11:36 AM
My only issue is if you use it, some of the other classes (Scout, Knight) need tweaked as well.

But overall, it's a good system, I think, I've implemented some of it, at least.

peacenlove
2009-05-26, 11:41 AM
Includes some very good and some very bad fixes to the classes. I think the overall result is good but could be better (then again what couldn't :smallbiggrin:)

Good ones: Variation to the sorcerer, new rage system for barbarians, new and improved paladin, rules (except grapple) are written in cleaner format, 1st level characters are much stronger and durable, some very interesting modifications to broken spells, higher base power level overall, less reliance on experience for spells and items.

Bad ones: Overbuffing of the wizard, fighter is just a "3,5 fighter but with more plusses around", it destroys some good feats eg Power atttack, removal of base prestige classes for no good reason (eg archmage), it should move around some spells (like the transition to 3 -> 3.5 edition did).

I personally use it because it contains many interesting ideas and its a default setting for my group, but i modify it with ideas from my own and other homebrew, and feedback gathered from many threads at wizards.

warmachine
2009-05-26, 11:46 AM
If I may be so rude as to hijack this thread, I'd also like to know which major balance issues people believe have been fixed and which have not been fixed.

DeathQuaker
2009-05-26, 11:58 AM
Overall I like it (and I imagine the final version will be even better). For me, it keeps what I like about 3.5 and improves what I didn't.

It isn't a good system for people who find the underlying structure of 3.5 flawed to begin with, but those people have 4th Ed (or previous editions) to play with instead.

General things I do like:

1) Eliminating dead levels in class advancement. No level where you don't get some kind of ability or improvement to an existing one. It makes leveling up a little more fun.

2) The new favored class system. The 1 Hit-Point-or-Skill-point per level in your favored class is a great way to boost people who want to work within a core concept of the race they're playing, while not actually restricting multiclass or other character concepts (and since all races get a choice of one of two favored classes, there's a little more flexibility). I know some would prefer to get rid of favored classes entirely, but it seems like the best compromise between those who like them and those who don't.

3) The skill system. Easier to track, and I love that once a class skill, always a class skill. Also, many of the streamlined/combined skills were much needed.

4) Generally a much better selection of core feats; it's easier to build a number of different combat styles with just core now.

5) I don't know how well they play, but sorcerer bloodlines seem like a very cool way to make sorcerers more unique and fun to play.

6) Combat maneuvers. Oh my lord. I am now able to run a Grapple without looking up the rules to make sure I have it right. Amazing.

Stuff I don't like:
1) The Fly skill. In a game where they overall have reduced the number of skills to a more manageable level and where certain mechanics have been streamlined, ADDING one generally useful to only a small subset of classes and only under certain circumstances seems counterintuitive. I'd rather see flight maneuvering as a feat/series of feats, or fold it into a Mobility-type skill that also incorporates seldom used modes of movement like Swimming.

2) They keep Escape Artist but not Use Rope? And still largely just to apply Escape Artist to combat maneuvers, which otherwise is handled by an entirely different kind of ability check. I don't like mixing skills with ability checks. Again, counterintuitive.

3) They folded Listen and Spot into Perception--yay! They then add sight/olfactory/touch/hearing subsets to Perception. BOO. Stupid to combine two skills into one only to redivide it, effectively, into four. It's fine in certain circumstances to take specific senses into consideration, but let Perception just be Perception, and leave HOW something was perceived to fluff (e.g., the gnome may smell the rank odour of the goblin sneaking up on them, the elf may spot him hiding in the darkness, but the end result is the same).

And there are numerous small tweaks I'd like to see to class abilities and spells, but overall apart from some skill issues I feel like they've done a nice job.

Other commentary: the tweaks to races and classes makes everyone a little more powerful starting off, but as long as you're aware of that and advance things at an appropriate rate, it's fine by me.

Mileage of course varies depending on your personal play preferences. People who want to bring in a lot of splats may get sick of conversion at some point, even if PF is supposed to be somewhat backwards compatible. It doesn't affect me personally, but I understand some players are finding that a challenge.

Eldariel
2009-05-26, 12:00 PM
They did a great job at a point and completely missed the mark at another. It's a decent start, but that's about it. They fixed the Polymorph-line, but they didn't fix Two-Weapon Fighting or Sword&Board, for example. And they fuxxored up Power Attack; now the feat is completely uncontrollable making it quite worthless.

They also left the blasting magic as is without making control spells any worse, so casters are still punished for going blasty. They also failed to fix:
-Moving & Attacking in combat (only one attack if not using full-round action)
-Most non-Trip combat maneuvers (Feint, Bull Rush, etc. still fail; and yes, Freedom of Movement still obsoletes Grapplers)
-Most combat feats (Weapon Focus, Dodge, etc.)
-Caster multiclassing (yes, you're still shooting yourself in the leg if you multiclass as a caster)
-Monk (they gave him few extra bonus feats. Whoppe-friggin'-doo? Quivering Palm is still 1/week)

Basically, they don't really have a clue of what's wrong in the system so they don't know what to fix. They also failed to include a few really handy feats in the Core (there's nothing to improve charging, for example) and meh...


I really appreciate what they're doing, but they just don't know all that's wrong in the system.

Epinephrine
2009-05-26, 12:14 PM
I really enjoy some elements of Pathfinder - teneleven quick things I like:

1.) Sundering - I like the new "broken" that can be applied to a weapon, making sundering useful without ruining the item completely. Then again, it's really easy to "break" an item, so it may need tweaking.
2.) Class changes - many classes have gotten nice facelifts, and it's less tempting to prestige out unless you need a particular ability.
3.) Favoured classes - there is a nice benefit to staying in a favoured class, making it worth doing.
4.) Standard actions for many combat maneuvers - fixes some issues, causes others though.
5.) Domains/Spell schools - I like that pretty much everyone has a standard action attack now, and I like the feel of domains much better.
6.) Feats - new feats such as vital strike, deadly aim, overhand chop add some interesting boosts to melee/missile builds. As well, the changes to feats like acrobatic and skill focus (foo) make them even more useful later on.
7.) Trip - I like that it's no longer just ability based. In fact, the CMB is a nice fix, making a single stat.
8.) Skills - overall, I like the streamlining of the skills. I do object to linguistics being folded in with decipher script and forgery, as I don't think it's sensible, but I can see the reasoning.
9.) Skill system - the change to class skills merely getting a +3 is amazing; it means that one can be competent without needing the class skill bonus - you just need ranks and a strong ability.
10.) Point buy system - ok, it's not that diffeernt, but by starting it at 10 players have to actually lower their stats to get a penalty. Additionally, the system increases the costs when you would attain a bigger bonus, actually providing a slight benefit to those who may choose an odd number and later rely on boosting the stat via their attribute bonuses from levelling. Yay, a reason to take an odd stat!
11.) Wildshape/polymorphs. Hurrah!

Things I dislike:
1.) The flight system. I like parts of it, but some of it is a little odd, I think it needs work. The fly skill is a cute idea, and I like the DCs for flying, but there are issues with it.
2.) Grappling. The standard action is a bit iffy, and really it has become impossible to make a decent grappler. It's especially punitive to creature grapplers. Having to make a grapple check just to continue the grapple each round also allows a possibility of escape without your opponent even trying to get away with his/her actions, so you don't want to try these things unless you have a real edge.
3.) Size modifiers for combat maneuvers. They're stupidly small. +1 for Large? +2 for Huge? Okay, theres a reason for weight classes in wrestling, and it's not "you weigh 8 times his mass, so you are in the next class". Weight is a HUGE deal, and if you wanted a realistic system you'd never get free if something that outweighs you by a factor of 64 grabbed you. We put it back to +4/+8/...
4.) Wind effects being weakened. Really?
5.) New power attack - I somewhat like it for speeding up play and making it dichotomous, but it's unreasonably penalising, and as such is likely not to see use. Also, it sucks on monsters, since they often have huge strength but mediocre BAB, and thus can't hit at all if they PA.
6.) Inconsistencies - can't tell if you can cast in a grapple, for example, and if so, at what penalty?
7.) New Multishot and Rapid Shot, and new Cleave and Greater Cleave. Sorry, just don't like them.
8.) Too many spells ported without change. Really, you change the way the wind system works, then keep gust of wind the same, which makes it not aligned with any given wind value?
9.) Lack of completeness - there are rules simply not spelled out in the book, and you need to resort to using 3.5 rules.

GoatToucher
2009-05-26, 01:02 PM
but they didn't fix Two-Weapon Fighting or Sword&Board, for example.

Please explain this.

Dark_Scary
2009-05-26, 01:37 PM
Good:
1) Skill system is better in the +3 to class skills and no cross class ranks costing double. Also combining skills.

Bad:
1) Fixes to spells show little understanding. Save or dies are all ruined, but all the BC/debuff ect is as good as ever.
2) Polymorph fix is not fun. Just remove it from the game or come up with something fun.
3) Fly Skill: Crack smoking.
4) Buff Wizards, Nerf Fighters. Wow.
5) CMB is terrible. It's freaking impossible to ever actually use them. 30% success rate for ridiculous optimization is not worth your standard/attack actions.
6) Fixes to classes show little consistency. It's harder for a Barbarian to Rage at high level then low? WTF? Compare spending eight points for 1d6 elemental damage, to spending 2 points for +20 AB and +20 Damage at level 20. Why would you ever choose the former?

Eldariel
2009-05-26, 02:08 PM
Please explain this.

Two-Weapon Fighting still requires 3 feats, and Two-Weapon Defense is still worthless. Bonus damage is also hard to come by for non-Rogues and I don't see any measures taken to help this (Weapon Training-line helps a bit though; GL with Rangers). Also, the "you can only full attack when you don't move"-part hasn't been addressed, and two-weapon fighters haven't even been allowed to make an attack with both swords by default, meaning you'll only ever get any benefit of having two weapons when full attacking. Really, not fixing full attacks is the biggest thing although there's no reason not to roll the whole TWF-chain into one feat... Oh, and there's no feat to enable adding Dex to damage (and Weapon Finesse still costs a feat even though it should be available by default) meaning TWFers are still MAD as hell.

As far as Sword & Board goes, shields still offer no defense vs. spellcasters making the whole "wield a shield" pretty hit-or-miss. They also don't allow you to protect your allies in any way meaning again, the best way to protect your allies is to kill your opponent ASAP. The only thing they're good for is protecting yourself from martial types; offense does everything else better and that just as well. And there's no reliable way to deal decent damage with a one-handed single weapon. Oh, and Animated Shields are still in game.


Of course, it goes without saying that they have no support for non-Monk unarmed combat (at least include Superior Unarmed Strike-type feat in core so non-Monks could be decent at it) or one-hander style.

Epinephrine
2009-05-26, 02:12 PM
but they didn't fix Two-Weapon Fighting or Sword&Board, for example.Please explain this.

Well, TWF pays feat after feat to deal the same amounts of damage that a 2H weapon fighter uses, while also needing dexerity in order to take the feats. That's unfair.

Sword and Board has always been silly, thanks to animated shields. Even without a floating shield, the fact that AC can't easily keep up with attack bonuses means that the extra few AC available isn't much of a benefit to the fighter. Personally, I'd apply the fighter Armour Training to both Shield AC (so long as the shield is wielded) AND Armour AC, and I'd probably make the 19th level power Armour Mastery grant a larger DR for those wielding (not benefitting from) a shield as well.

Edit: Ninja'd

Oh - remembered that I like the change to enhancement bonuses on weapons: +3 enhancement bonus will punch through DR/cold iron/silver, a +4 bonus will punch through DR/adamantine, and a +5 bonus will affect DR/alignment-based. One nice benefit for not taking a frost/shocking/etc. weapon and using Greater Magic Weapon on it.

Morty
2009-05-26, 02:16 PM
I haven't looked through Pathfinder that closely, but there are two things I like very much, even if the rest of the system isn't as good as it could be. I'm talking about capstone abilities and cutting down on dead levels. The former especially gives some incentive not to PrC out of your class at the first opportunity.
What I really don't get is the changes to races. Buffing all of them up seems pointless.

Eldariel
2009-05-26, 02:18 PM
I haven't looked through Pathfinder that closely, but there are two things I like very much, even if the rest of the system isn't as good as it could be. I'm talking about capstone abilities and cutting down on dead levels. The former especially gives some incentive not to PrC out of your class at the first opportunity.
What I really don't get is the changes to races. Buffing all of them up seems pointless.

I wanna emphasize this. Pathfinder class design is about 10000 times better than Core 3.5. So if you take anything from Pathfinder, use Pathfinder classes over the Core classes (although skip the Monk; there's always Unarmed Swordsage for all the Monk-fans).

Although they haven't done anything about the fact that dipping is still great for melee.

Morty
2009-05-26, 02:47 PM
I wanna emphasize this. Pathfinder class design is about 10000 times better than Core 3.5. So if you take anything from Pathfinder, use Pathfinder classes over the Core classes (although skip the Monk; there's always Unarmed Swordsage for all the Monk-fans).


I wouldn't be so sure about that in case of wizards; sure, some abilities other than spells are good, but do wizards need anything more? Then again, on low levels they're not that strong unless min-maxed heavily, and on high levels it's not much of a difference anyway. I'm torn about the implement option; an extra spell is powerful, but having to make spellcraft check to cast a spell at all without it seems to be a good balancer.

Epinephrine
2009-05-26, 03:05 PM
I'm talking about capstone abilities and cutting down on dead levels.

I like the lack or reduction in dead levels; some of the capstone abilities strike me as horribly balanced.

The bard's ability? Make a difficult DC (10+1/2 level+Cha) or die, using a bardic music use? That's 20 times a day without investing in extra music. And if you make your save, be stunned for 1d4 rounds. So it's not even a save OR die, it's a stun or die, which is pretty nasty when you can throw them 20 times a day as a standard action (and it's (Su), so it bypasses SR nicely).

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-26, 03:18 PM
I like the lack or reduction in dead levels; some of the capstone abilities strike me as horribly balanced.

The bard's ability? Make a difficult DC (10+1/2 level+Cha) or die, using a bardic music use? That's 20 times a day without investing in extra music. And if you make your save, be stunned for 1d4 rounds. So it's not even a save OR die, it's a stun or die, which is pretty nasty when you can throw them 20 times a day as a standard action (and it's (Su), so it bypasses SR nicely).The save is pretty normal at that level(since you aren't able to go Sublime Chord, you won't have the SAD 32-34 in one stat, and you don't get Spell Focus, Veil of Allure, or similar), but weaker than a Wizard's SoD. It's the stun that's the issue. It pretty much turns insta-gibs anything without Immunity to Mind Affecting(which, granted, everything should have at that level). 20th level Rocket Launcher Tag at it's finest.

Dark_Scary
2009-05-26, 03:23 PM
Wait, so Bardic music death thing is mind affecting too? Meh. I was going to point out that at level 20 everything is immune to stun, but yeah, everything of level 10 is immune to mind affecting. Or can make that save on a 5.

Nero24200
2009-05-26, 05:22 PM
While theres alot of changes I like, it's completely overshadowed by the things I hate.

1. Ravid fanboys. Try talking about any legitamte problem on their forums and you'll see what I mean.
2. Channel Energy. I hate the healing aspect. The logic behind it just seems so off (Apparently granting the cleric more healing powers makes them less focused on healing).
3. Feats, I honestly dont' feel they needed such a boost to the number of feats gained. It comes across to me that they only did this to try and reel in the powergamers.
4. The power boost. Humans are already considered one of the most powerful races in 3.5, and they only made them better. What's more, the reasoning behind upping the power is heavily flawed, even in their own play-tests no one is using non-core races as-is. Each on is getting a boost to stats just to match, which makes me wonder what the point of boosting them in the first place was.
5. Alot of the logic behind various aspects of it. Boosting the classes to "compete with non-core" just seems very off to me considering 3 of "The big 5" just happen to be core. Cleric's apparently need less incentive to be played as healers...even though Clericzilla happened as a result of some players thinking "Hey, if I cast this instead, I won't need to heal since it'll just take the enemies out completely".

Truthfully, as long as these things exist (particularly number 1) it just becomes so hard for me to see anything good in it, which is a shame since there are some good ideas in there.

Eldariel
2009-05-26, 05:42 PM
3. Feats, I honestly dont' feel they needed such a boost to the number of feats gained. It comes across to me that they only did this to try and reel in the powergamers.

This I disagree with. When playing standard 3.5, I mostly end up picking the feats I need for basic competence and PrC qualifications (that is, my Rogue is taking Weapon Finesse, Two-Weapon Fighting, etc. while my Wizard is taking Extend Spell, Quicken Spell and prerequisites.

There's just practically never room to take "interesting" feats outside Super Feat Heavy classes (that basically means the Fighter; of course, as that's its only class feature, getting "cute" feats isn't exactly enough to make the Fighter work out - those weaker feats should be bonuses); I've never had a Rogue pick Master of Poisons simply because I've never had the free feat slot (as poison mechanics are rather weak, it's not a strong enough addition to drop anything from a ranged or melee Rogue 20). And I've never had a two-weapon fighter pick up two-weapon rend since he's already so flooded.

And hell, Greater Spell Focus is a feat I almost never see because Wizards have more important feats to pick. Same goes for most metamagic feats really; outside überblast metamagic reducer builds, how many times have you really seen Twin Spell or even Maximize Spell put to use? Or Combat Cloak Expert [PHBII] or some such...

Point being, there's a ton of interesting, awesome feats that could give classes additional angles of action (Imperious Command, anyone?), but because of your progression, you can never really take them since the feats you need for your progression take all the slots. Flaws help this somewhat but most of the interesting feats can only be taken on higher levels and Flaws are only taken on level 1.

I feel this is specifically a boost for the people who want to build a good character without really having to optimize every feat slot in the build; when you have few more to play with, you can afford to spend them more haphazardly.


We've even played a game with this rule in place (non-pathfinder, might I add) and it's been awesome! Coupled with some feat chain combinations and eliminations (Point Blank Shot is a part of Precise Shot, Two-Weapon Fighting is a single chain, etc.), we've actually got characters who are decently competent at both, melee and range. That could never happen with non-casters in core D&D (without making it the sole point of your build, at any rate) simply because both require a large number of feats and you can't juts afford 'em.

A lot of stuff I don't agree with in Pathfinder, but I find this change to be for the best (although us using it has nothing to do with Pathfinder; we identified the matter on our own - much of the reason Humans are so nuts is because the value of feats is so insanely high especially as prerequisites).

charl
2009-05-26, 06:29 PM
I really, really hate the artwork. The last thing we need is more manga silliness in our Western roleplaying.

I do like the revised skill list. I haven't read much on the rules though.

Starbuck_II
2009-05-26, 06:37 PM
Bad:
1) Fixes to spells show little understanding. Save or dies are all ruined, but all the BC/debuff ect is as good as ever.

They changed Glitterdust to have Hold Person's mechanics. So save (free action) each round to be free of it.
So not as good as used to be.


5) CMB is terrible. It's freaking impossible to ever actually use them. 30% success rate for ridiculous optimization is not worth your standard/attack actions.

Maybe they didn't mean for you to use them?

Dark_Scary
2009-05-26, 06:48 PM
They changed Glitterdust to have Hold Person's mechanics. So save (free action) each round to be free of it.
So not as good as used to be.

Yes, they also nerfed glitterdust. They also didn't touch Stinking Cloud/Solid Fog/EBT/Web/Slow/ect. Which really just continues my point. Glitterdust get's nerfed for no real reason that shouldn't also apply to every other spell like it. They just arbitrarily nerfed one spell because they heard a lot about it.


Maybe they didn't mean for you to use them?

Yes. That makes sense. Their goal was to make it a really bad idea to use trip/bullrush/grapple/disarm. That makes sense. It explains why they kept those feats to make you better at the thing you should never do, and why they kept those in the game in a form that sucks, instead of just removing them.

Oh wait. It doesn't. They just have no idea what an acceptable percentage of success is.

Matthew
2009-05-26, 06:56 PM
Some of their fixes ignored the balance problems, changing things that weren't broken (Power Attack)

Looks like this has actually been changed for the final version (see the iconic preview), along with armour speed penalties, thank goodness! Best guess at the moment is that it is x1 with light weapons, x2 with heavy, and x3 with great, which should make things interesting. Possibly it is x2 with primary hand, x1 with off hand (limited by strength bonus or base attack value, whichever is lower).



I really, really hate the artwork. The last thing we need is more manga silliness in our Western roleplaying.

I actually do not mind the artwork, as I feel it gives Pathfinder its own identity and style. Some of the art for the current desert adventure path is astoundingly good and not very manga-esque at all!

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/6035/14elfatarruin2ug6.jpg
(C)2008 Paizo Publishing

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5593/2katapeshwz2.jpg
(C)2008 Paizo Publishing

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/9020/11solkuthecity3vc6pn8.jpg
(C)2008 Paizo Publishing

Taken from Jon Hodgson Art Thread (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=25522&start=45).

Hawriel
2009-05-26, 07:02 PM
Friend of mine picked up afew of their adventures at are local gaming store. The books are well organized and written. The simple clear statblocks are worth the price of the book itself.

I have no idea why there is alot of hate for the writers of Pathfinder. You do not know these peaple. Its as is you really believe they got some guys off the street. Had them read afew ego driven chat boards :smallwink: then react speradicly to what ever extream opinions where found. These peape weather you agree or not with their desisions put alot of thought into their product. I plan on checking out their core book when it comes out. I know I will not like 100% of it. However, I'm willing to wait and see for myself befor I start slamming them for ruining somthing. When I see peaple cry out some thing is ruined is it because the changes are broken, or because it stops an exploit abused by the crittic?

charl
2009-05-26, 07:03 PM
I actually do not mind the artwork, as I feel it gives Pathfinder its own identity and style. Some of the art for the current desert adventure path is astoundingly good and not very manga-esque at all!

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/6035/14elfatarruin2ug6.jpg
(C)2008 Paizo Publishing

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5593/2katapeshwz2.jpg
(C)2008 Paizo Publishing

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/9020/11solkuthecity3vc6pn8.jpg
(C)2008 Paizo Publishing

About half the artwork is pretty great actually. The rest (such as the ridiculous barbarian with huge sword or the cute gnomes and almost naked illustrations of the main races) just ruins everything for me,

Cedrass
2009-05-26, 07:21 PM
About half the artwork is pretty great actually. The rest (such as the ridiculous barbarian with huge sword or the cute gnomes and almost naked illustrations of the main races) just ruins everything for me,

Huh, guys... They are illustrations. Nothing else :smallannoyed:

What I hear is: "If D&D had the exact same system, but manga-esque illustrations, I would have never played that game".

Having said that, I'm still waiting for an actual campaign of Pathfinder to start so, I won't comment. Plus it's still the beta so, I'm hoping the game will only get better.

Starbuck_II
2009-05-26, 07:31 PM
Looks like this has actually been changed for the final version (see the iconic preview), along with armour speed penalties, thank goodness! Best guess at the moment is that it is x1 with light weapons, x2 with heavy, and x3 with great, which should make things interesting. Possibly it is x2 with primary hand, x1 with off hand (limited by strength bonus].


Did they change Vital Strike so it works with a Charge because the text in the Preview says he uses it.
Since you only get 1 attack on a charge one less would be 0 attacks if he used Vital Strike.

Is that mess up or a change to the feat?

Gorbash
2009-05-26, 08:35 PM
I really, really hate the artwork. The last thing we need is more manga silliness in our Western roleplaying.

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion... I disagree. Wayne Reynolds is my favorite D&D artist, along with Lockwood and Sam Wood and I think it's amazing that he does most of the artwork.

With that being said, here's my opinion.

When Pathfinder was announced, I was thrilled, because I didn't want for my favorite edition to be left in darkness and I also expected to see fixes which I expected would be in 4e. Such as:

Weapon speed - It annoys me that you attack with a greatsword or any other cumbersome weapon as fast as with a dagger.
Injury system - everyone knows it's silly that you're at full fighting capability whether you have 1 or 101 HP.

There were other flaws, but I forgot what they are lol. Anyways, since Pathfinder didn't actually bring any important changes asides making a core class playable to 20th lvl, the rest of the changes are neglible, I wasn't impressed and decided to stick b y 3.5 since it has what I adore - possibilities. With god knows how many core and prestige classes you could be anyone and anything. You could make 20 characters with the same base class and feats, items, spells, skills, prestige classes will make every character unique.

Conclusion - I very much appreciate that Paizo decided to do this, but until they start stacking splatbooks with many beautiful prestige classes (Archmage, for starters :smallconfused:), I'm sticking with good ol' 3.5.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-05-26, 08:58 PM
I really, really hate the artwork. The last thing we need is more manga silliness in our Western roleplaying.

Emphasis mine. Did you seriously type that?

Whoah.

Matthew
2009-05-26, 09:03 PM
Huh, guys... They are illustrations. Nothing else :smallannoyed:

What I hear is: "If D&D had the exact same system, but manga-esque illustrations, I would have never played that game".

Whilst a game system needs to be good to begin with, there are many good game systems, consequently art direction really does matter because people can just choose a different game with art they prefer. One of the things that attracted me to Field of Glory, for instance, was the Osprey art, which encouraged me to purchase it over War Master.



Did they change Vital Strike so it works with a Charge because the text in the Preview says he uses it.

Since you only get 1 attack on a charge one less would be 0 attacks if he used Vital Strike.

Is that mess up or a change to the feat?

In the Beta Improved Vital Strike only works with a full attack, so it looks like the wording of the final version has indeed been changed so that either: a) there is no reduction in attacks, or b) iterative attacks are not possible when using Improved Vital Strike. The threads (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/pathfinderRoleplayingGamePreview2&page=1) at Paizo are mainly speculative, with Jason Bulmahn occasionally turning up to confirm that there has been no mistake in the previewed statistic block.



When Pathfinder was announced, I was thrilled, because I didn't want for my favorite edition to be left in darkness and I also expected to see fixes which I expected would be in 4e. Such as:

Weapon speed - It annoys me that you attack with a greatsword or any other cumbersome weapon as fast as with a dagger.
Injury system - everyone knows it's silly that you're at full fighting capability whether you have 1 or 101 HP.

Weapon speed would be a fun way to differentiate between weapons, but honestly weapon length has a similarly significant impact and it would be just one more modifier to remember in an already modifier heavy game. By the same token, I think that an injury system for D&D is (without wanting to resurrect the whole "when is a hit not a hit?" debate) an unnecessary layer of complication. I can definitely see the attraction, though.

charl
2009-05-26, 09:19 PM
Emphasis mine. Did you seriously type that?

Whoah.

Yes I did.

Not that I mind playing some manga-inspired games occasionally, but that is simply not what I want from my medieval European-themed RPGs. There's a place for every genre and theme, but DnD is simply not a cutsie, big-eyed manga game where people wield weapons larger than themselves. Not to me anyway.

That was what I meant when I said Wester roleplaying. I did not mean that Japanese fantasy is in any way inferior or anything. Just that I don't want my DnD to become it. That's what BESM is for. ;)

Starbuck_II
2009-05-26, 09:25 PM
DnD is simply not a cutsie, big-eyed manga game where people wield weapons larger than themselves. Not to me anyway.


But I'm pretty sure 3.5 D&D was made to be that game. Monkey Grip was invented in Complete Warrior and all (not that it is a good feat, but it does work for the visuals).

charl
2009-05-26, 09:34 PM
But I'm pretty sure 3.5 D&D was made to be that game. Monkey Grip was invented in Complete Warrior and all (not that it is a good feat, but it does work for the visuals).

And I don't agree with all the eastern flavour for 3.5 either, but the illustrations at least didn't look as... I don't know, silly I suppose. Some of the Pathfinder pictures just look way too cute for me.

Gorbash
2009-05-26, 09:35 PM
Weapon speed would be a fun way to differentiate between weapons, but honestly weapon length has a similarly significant impact and it would be just one more modifier to remember in an already modifier heavy game.

It doesn't have to be complicated. It could just be, for example, dagger-wielders have an additional attack, or something along those lines.


By the same token, I think that an injury system for D&D is (without wanting to resurrect the whole "when is a hit not a hit?" debate) an unnecessary layer of complication. I can definitely see the attraction, though.

Well, grapple and turning are also pretty complicated, and their complication doesn't really contribute to realism of the game, yet injury system would and be the first willing to try it out, even if it is complicated.

Starbuck_II
2009-05-26, 10:30 PM
It doesn't have to be complicated. It could just be, for example, dagger-wielders have an additional attack, or something along those lines.


So just daggers or all light weapons?

It would make them more used.

What about if a person has one in each hand: does he get an extra attack for both?

Would these extra attacks have a penalty to hit (like Flurry of blows) or not?

These are things you'd have to think about.

2E Weapon speed made Fighters want to specialize in darts. You got around 6-10 attack per round if I renember.

Matthew
2009-05-26, 10:41 PM
It doesn't have to be complicated. It could just be, for example, dagger-wielders have an additional attack, or something along those lines.

I think if you want to model this sort of thing "blow by blow" it is going to get complicated quickly.



Well, grapple and turning are also pretty complicated, and their complication doesn't really contribute to realism of the game, yet injury system would and be the first willing to try it out, even if it is complicated.

I am pretty sure those have been simplified for Pathfinder, rather than left complicated, so I am not sure their existence constitutes an argument for adding another sub system. That said, if you want more realistic (or rather detailed) combat I recommend Harn Master or Role Master. D20 is not really set up for it without some major rethinks; however, there is an injury optional rule on page 27 of the D20/3e DMG for specific injuries. Not sure if a version made it into Pathfinder.



2E Weapon speed made Fighters want to specialize in darts. You got around 6-10 attack per round if I remember.

The biggest problem was not the rate of attack, but that you added your bonuses to every attack. Multiplying your attacks is one of the key ways to "optimise" for combat in D&D type games.

Thurbane
2009-05-26, 10:43 PM
As I've stated in numerous other threads, I love it and am grateful it exists - not because it is perfect (it isn't) but because it keeps my favourite game alive and offers product support after WotC has ditched us.

Thank you Paizo!

:smallsmile:

ap
This ^ :smallwink:

Satyr
2009-05-27, 01:11 AM
I like Pathfinderm because of its ego-stroking quality. Pathfinder has shown me, that a large company with many years of experience in the field of RPG publishing can create a set of houserules that is pretty good compared to the original rules -and still be inferior to a set of rules that me and two friends wrote. Inferior in almost every single regard. Abd therefore, every times I see Pathfinder, I feel the urge to smile.

Kosjsjach
2009-05-27, 02:02 AM
I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate the merits of the modified rules, but I would like to give a thumbs-up to one aspect of Pathfinder: the flavor.

For me, the re-imaginings of the elves, dwarves and gnomes are huge blessing. Gnomes most notably, because they never felt like they fit in. The "underground-dwelling crafters" niche could be filled by the dwarves, and casting them as token-small-guys encroached on the halfling's role.
But casting them as formerly-immortal extraplanar refugees who require a constant influx of new experiences or they go insane and die... now that's pretty cool.

FatR
2009-05-27, 03:10 AM
I dislike it. It is different enough to ruin backwards compatibility, not different enough to make a better game (Beta added as much broken **** and unnecessary complications as it removed and made fighting classes suck even harder), and is different in a direction I don't care about (too much 4Ed-isms).

Tsotha-lanti
2009-05-27, 04:00 AM
It doesn't have to be complicated. It could just be, for example, dagger-wielders have an additional attack, or something along those lines.

How is a dagger faster than a greatsword? If you have a dagger and I have a greatsword, you can bet I'll hit you before you have any chance to hit me. Weapon reach is much more important for who hits first (or at all) than how light the weapon is.


I think if you want to model this sort of thing "blow by blow" it is going to get complicated quickly.

Not necessarily. Check out The Riddle of Steel (everyone who's actually interested in real combat and weapons should). Blow-by-blow modelling, but combat is both easy to learn, smooth, fast to resolve, and tactically interesting.


Yes I did.

Not that I mind playing some manga-inspired games occasionally, but that is simply not what I want from my medieval European-themed RPGs. There's a place for every genre and theme, but DnD is simply not a cutsie, big-eyed manga game where people wield weapons larger than themselves. Not to me anyway.

That was what I meant when I said Wester roleplaying. I did not mean that Japanese fantasy is in any way inferior or anything. Just that I don't want my DnD to become it. That's what BESM is for. ;)

I guess Dark Sun, Al Qadim, Oriental Adventures, Kara-Tur, etc. aren't real D&D or something? And certainly no one east of Germany plays D&D, and they damn well shouldn't, huh?

And never mind that wielding weapons bigger than yourself has been going on for decades in, I don't know, Warhammer art? Manga-influenced, is it?

I can't believe you do not see how offensive this is, but whatever.

charl
2009-05-27, 04:23 AM
How is a dagger faster than a greatsword? If you have a dagger and I have a greatsword, you can bet I'll hit you before you have any chance to hit me. Weapon reach is much more important for who hits first (or at all) than how light the weapon is.



Not necessarily. Check out The Riddle of Steel (everyone who's actually interested in real combat and weapons should). Blow-by-blow modelling, but combat is both easy to learn, smooth, fast to resolve, and tactically interesting.



I guess Dark Sun, Al Qadim, Oriental Adventures, Kara-Tur, etc. aren't real D&D or something? And certainly no one east of Germany plays D&D, and they damn well shouldn't, huh?

And never mind that wielding weapons bigger than yourself has been going on for decades in, I don't know, Warhammer art? Manga-influenced, is it?

I can't believe you do not see how offensive this is, but whatever.


Ok, first of all, read what you respond to. I wrote that I didn't mind manga-like games occasionally, so I don't (and how Dark Sun is "manga" in any way I have no idea, but sure, whatever.) Plus I thought I was pretty specific about it being my own preferences. I don't care what other people do in the privacy of their gaming rooms.

Who said anything about me liking Warhammer art? I get just as annoyed by that, but that is not the only thing that I don't like about the Pathfinder illustrations.

And if it is offensive for me to not like a particular art or genre style, then I guess I must be a HUGE "art-ist". There are lots of genres I don't like for different occasions, so I guess that makes me a bigot then? Hey, I don't want cubist illustrations in all my roleplaying books, that must mean I hate all French people (yes I am aware Picasso was not actually French), am I right? What about the Japanese people who don't like manga (of which I am sure there are many). Are they hating themselves?

Explain to me how not liking manga in my DnD is offensive to anyone except manga artists (of all nationalities) please.

Morty
2009-05-27, 04:27 AM
I like Pathfinderm because of its ego-stroking quality. Pathfinder has shown me, that a large company with many years of experience in the field of RPG publishing can create a set of houserules that is pretty good compared to the original rules -and still be inferior to a set of rules that me and two friends wrote. Inferior in almost every single regard. Abd therefore, every times I see Pathfinder, I feel the urge to smile.

Woah, talk about modesty.
And I don't see anything offensive in Charl's dislike of manga-like style. I too like about the half of Pathfinder artwork and dislike the other half. I mean, druid and barbarian illustrations are atrocious, but wizard, ranger and fighter illustrations are okay. I like how ranger is pictured by a hardened, gruff dwarf tracker rather than an elf archer for once.

Satyr
2009-05-27, 04:40 AM
Woah, talk about modesty.

You expect modesty? From me? In regard for my long time pet project? No way. I am quite content with the things I did, and we actually solved some of the typical D&D problems, like the unjustified intrinsic superiority of spellcasters over mundane characters, a gap that isn't closed in the slightest by Pathfinder.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-05-27, 04:41 AM
I couldn't care less what anyone thinks of any particular style of art, but the idea that D&D is somehow specifically and exclusively "western," and/or needs to be protected from "eastern" influences (and that art that someone thinks looks like manga makes it more "eastern" and less "western") is incredibly offensive.

The comparison to Warhammer art was to point out that no, big huge weapons (and, indeed, even shoulders three times the size of your head) are in no way a feature of manga.

Morty
2009-05-27, 04:43 AM
You expect modesty? From me? In regard for my long time pet project? No way. I am quite content with the things I did, and we actually solved some of the typical D&D problems, like the unjustified intrinsic superiority of spellcasters over mundane characters, a gap that isn't closed in the slightest by Pathfinder.

I think everyone's perfectly entitled to the opinion that their work is better than someone else's. But saying outright that your work is "superior in almost every single regard" to something else... it comes off as arrogant whether it's true or not, is what I'm saying. It's like it's considered a bad form for a writer to say that his book is blatantly superior to a book by some other author, even if it's true.

charl
2009-05-27, 05:13 AM
I couldn't care less what anyone thinks of any particular style of art, but the idea that D&D is somehow specifically and exclusively "western," and/or needs to be protected from "eastern" influences (and that art that someone thinks looks like manga makes it more "eastern" and less "western") is incredibly offensive.

The comparison to Warhammer art was to point out that no, big huge weapons (and, indeed, even shoulders three times the size of your head) are in no way a feature of manga.

It has more to do with the manga style being very silly and cutsie than it being eastern though. I just don't want to have to look at a cute gnome with huge eyes that looks like he belongs on the Teletubbies when I want to play a (relatively) serious and grown-up game. I'm sure that is some peoples' cup of tea, but you can't honestly think that it is appropriate for DnD as a whole. It isn't cute. It's medieval European-style misery, violence, disease and death. Manga gnomes have no place in that other than to die from being brutally stabbed in the first two minutes of gameplay and left to bleed to death on a dirty city street.

bosssmiley
2009-05-27, 09:09 AM
I like Pathfinderm because of its ego-stroking quality. Pathfinder has shown me, that a large company with many years of experience in the field of RPG publishing can create a set of houserules that is pretty good compared to the original rules -and still be inferior to a set of rules that me and two friends wrote. Inferior in almost every single regard. And therefore, every times I see Pathfinder, I feel the urge to smile.

I knew there was something I liked about you Satyr: your sheer, brass-necked chutzpah. :smallamused:

Pathfinder? Yeah, it's a heck of an achievement. I mean, getting people to pay for the beta release of your personal 3E houserules on the basis of pretty artwork and some jedi mind trick doublethink is really something. Those guys must have been taking reality manipulation lessons from Steve Jobs.

"We have both fixed the problems of 3E and kept our system reverse compatible with its brokeness. You will buy it. Twice." *handwave*

Cue horde of Paizils shambling toward the Paizo GenCon booth like sheep to the slau- lemmings to a cli- zombies happy and well-contented fans with excellent critical faculties. :smallwink:

Next up, those zany guys from Paizo sell sand to the Sultan... :smallbiggrin:

Tengu_temp
2009-05-27, 09:21 AM
It has more to do with the manga style being very silly and cutsie than it being eastern though. I just don't want to have to look at a cute gnome with huge eyes that looks like he belongs on the Teletubbies when I want to play a (relatively) serious and grown-up game. I'm sure that is some peoples' cup of tea, but you can't honestly think that it is appropriate for DnD as a whole. It isn't cute. It's medieval European-style misery, violence, disease and death. Manga gnomes have no place in that other than to die from being brutally stabbed in the first two minutes of gameplay and left to bleed to death on a dirty city street.

1. A lot of manga is not cutesy and kiddy just because the characters have large eyes.
2. DND is not medieval European-style misery, violence, disease and death - it's idealized heroic fantasy.

charl
2009-05-27, 09:37 AM
1. A lot of manga is not cutesy and kiddy just because the characters have large eyes.
2. DND is not medieval European-style misery, violence, disease and death - it's idealized heroic fantasy.

1. I'm aware of that. Doesn't change the fact that half the Pathfinder artwork is.
2. Not to me it isn't. Plus even if that is the case manganese cutiness has no place in Tolkienesque heroic fantasy either.

Satyr
2009-05-27, 10:00 AM
I think everyone's perfectly entitled to the opinion that their work is better than someone else's. But saying outright that your work is "superior in almost every single regard" to something else... it comes off as arrogant whether it's true or not, is what I'm saying. It's like it's considered a bad form for a writer to say that his book is blatantly superior to a book by some other author, even if it's true.

See? There is modesty. I only said in almost every regard... No sseriously, any author who is slighty content with his or her work and do not proclaim its quality probably tries in coquetry with the audience. That is played modesty at best. And Serpents and Sewers is certainly not perfect or the ultima ratio regio of roleplaying games, and there is much homebrewing that is just plain better than mie (I am, for example, impressed, jealous and intimidated by Fax' approach) but if I would not hold to the belief that the final (or at least the contemporary) result of almost three years of work was actually worth it, I would probalby feel slightly depressed, and therefore I brag to compensate.

Glyde
2009-05-27, 10:01 AM
Charl: People can play or interpret games however they want, and your opinion isn't going to change theirs.

Also, Berserk is the cutest manga ever. Right?


OT: I've never actually played pathfinder, though I *am* interested. Until I can gather funds to take a looksie, I'll be sticking to my own houserules.

Dark_Scary
2009-05-27, 10:09 AM
I couldn't care less what anyone thinks of any particular style of art, but the idea that D&D is somehow specifically and exclusively "western," and/or needs to be protected from "eastern" influences (and that art that someone thinks looks like manga makes it more "eastern" and less "western") is incredibly offensive.

Sorry, what? It is explicitly a western RPG. It is exclusively in the since that non westerners playing it doesn't make it not a western RPG. Just like me playing Final Fantasy doesn't make it not a JRPG.

Western RPG is a genre classification. It includes Morrowind/Oblivion/Gothic/Arx Fatalis/Witcher/D&D sometimes/ect.

Saying that he prefers the Western RPG aspects of D&D is no different then preferring the heroic fantasy parts to the high magic and vice versa.

And yes, certain genre conventions make D&D less Western, And yes, he can not want those genre conventions.

Thrawn183
2009-05-27, 10:10 AM
While I liked some of what they did, I had a few problems.
- Characters are strong enough now that I can't just use posted CR's. I mean, at level one, no CR 1 monster is actually a threat or anywhere close.
- I felt like the fighter got a lot of +'s and -'s to things but it didn't change the problems inherent to the class (my level 1 fighter almost drowned with a maxed out strength and swim skill because swim is still busted if you wear armor).
- I feel like it's poorly written: The stuff my friend has brought to me and asked to be allowed in the game is riddled with spelling mistakes and the like. The adventure I played in for some reason had pseudodragons keeping down the imps when pseudodragons are pretty much incapable of actually harming an imp.

In the end, I realized that I wasn't going to have any more fun playing Paizo, and I'd just end up paying a bunch of money and trying to learn new rules for no real gain.

I also really, really hate trying to DM for Paizo characters.

Dark_Scary
2009-05-27, 10:13 AM
Also, Berserk is the cutest manga ever. Right?

Heck yeah! (Also, Berserk is explicitly a manga that borrows from western conventions and creates that sort of world which meets western RPG genre conventions.)

Glyde
2009-05-27, 10:15 AM
Heck yeah! (Also, Berserk is explicitly a manga that borrows from western conventions and creates that sort of world which meets western RPG genre conventions.)

But heaven forbid if it ever happens in the other direction.

Epinephrine
2009-05-27, 10:22 AM
OT: I've never actually played pathfinder, though I *am* interested. Until I can gather funds to take a looksie, I'll be sticking to my own houserules.

You know that the beta is a free download, right?

Glyde
2009-05-27, 10:26 AM
I did not know that. Going to check it out now, then. Haha

sonofzeal
2009-05-27, 10:30 AM
1. I'm aware of that. Doesn't change the fact that half the Pathfinder artwork is.
2. Not to me it isn't. Plus even if that is the case manganese cutiness has no place in Tolkienesque heroic fantasy either.
How is this (http://paizo.com/image/content/RiseOfTheRunelords/Harsk-DwarfIconic_360.jpeg) more cutesy than this (http://www.criticalgamers.com/archives/pictures/DnD.5.6.06.jpg)? And what do either of those have to do with this (http://whinar.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/grave-of-the-fireflies_000.jpg) or this (http://www.anime.com/Cutie_Honey/images/cutey-honey-perfect-book.jpg)? I'm sure there's some "cutesy" Pathfinder art out there, but I haven't seen any of it yet. Feel free to link and refute me.

As for Tolkienesque fantasy, you've got this (http://www.majorspoilers.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08a/BilboInTheHobbit.jpg) and this (http://www.informationen-bilder.de/der-herr-der-ringe/frodo-auenland.jpg), which are both pretty darn cutesy.

(also: is this (http://www.tokidokijournal.com/images/8de5a0293ad46a204413fc3769350874.jpg) or this (http://static.diary.ru/userdir/6/0/6/5/606568/31189596.jpg) un-cutsey enough for you, even though they're "anime"?)

Epinephrine
2009-05-27, 10:30 AM
- I felt like the fighter got a lot of +'s and -'s to things but it didn't change the problems inherent to the class (my level 1 fighter almost drowned with a maxed out strength and swim skill because swim is still busted if you wear armor).

Have you ever tried swimming in armour? I have. Not easy.
In just a gambeson and a mail byrnie I could do a lap or two and tread water for a few minutes, but:

a) I'm a solid swimmer even now, and had done my bronze medallion (pre-lifeguarding certification here) at the time.

b) It was in a very controlled situation, an apartment building swimming pool. Trying it if I had to fight through waves, currents, or a creature?

c) That was only a bit of armour (chain shirt, what's that, -4 penalty after doubling it for swimming), and no equipment. Had I been wearing more I doubt I would have been able to keep myself from sinking (add a pack, a shield, weapons on a belt, or heavier armour?).

Don't like people drowning? Change your rules. Houserule that armour in your world is buoyant. But you can't seriously object to the armour penalty being harsh when swimming if you want to simulate armour/water interactions. Heck, make metal float, it'll keep adventurers from losing items in water.

As it is, get disarmed near the rail of a ship on the open seas and you can kiss your sword goodbye. You're not recovering a weapon from a mile down. Even with water breathing and a swim spell, you take 1d6 damage per minute per 100 feet of depth, with a fort save to resist that is cumulative.
Diving down one mile (being able to exactly pinpoint the object, so no time wasted searching) and immediately returning would entail:

6d6 Fort DC15 neg.
12d6 Fort DC16 neg.
18d6 Fort DC17 neg.
24d6 Fort DC18 neg.
30d6 Fort DC19 neg.
36d6 Fort DC20 neg.
42d6 Fort DC21 neg.
48d6 Fort DC22 neg.
52d6 Fort DC23 neg.
46d6 Fort DC24 neg.
40d6 Fort DC25 neg.
34d6 Fort DC26 neg.
28d6 Fort DC27 neg.
22d6 Fort DC28 neg.
16d6 Fort DC29 neg.
10d6 Fort DC30 neg.
4d6 Fort DC31 neg.

Not exactly easy.

charl
2009-05-27, 11:36 AM
You know what? Screw this. I don't like some of the artwork, and some people think my aesthetics are offensive to them. Fine. Let's agree to disagree.

Leon
2009-05-27, 12:05 PM
H
As it is, get disarmed near the rail of a ship on the open seas and you can kiss your sword goodbye. You're not recovering a weapon from a mile down.

Down if your lucky, if not its dragged off in a current as it goes and that will result in very large are a of water to look in

nightwyrm
2009-05-27, 12:07 PM
This topic has gotten way off track. Let's try to get it back on track by looking at some of the previews put out by paizo:
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog

So...they made casters better while fighters are still crap, yeah...

Matthew
2009-05-27, 12:11 PM
How is this (http://paizo.com/image/content/RiseOfTheRunelords/Harsk-DwarfIconic_360.jpeg) more cutesy than this (http://www.criticalgamers.com/archives/pictures/DnD.5.6.06.jpg)? And what do either of those have to do with this (http://whinar.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/grave-of-the-fireflies_000.jpg) or this (http://www.anime.com/Cutie_Honey/images/cutey-honey-perfect-book.jpg)? I'm sure there's some "cutesy" Pathfinder art out there, but I haven't seen any of it yet. Feel free to link and refute me.

As for Tolkienesque fantasy, you've got this (http://www.majorspoilers.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08a/BilboInTheHobbit.jpg) and this (http://www.informationen-bilder.de/der-herr-der-ringe/frodo-auenland.jpg), which are both pretty darn cutesy.

(also: is this (http://www.tokidokijournal.com/images/8de5a0293ad46a204413fc3769350874.jpg) or this (http://static.diary.ru/userdir/6/0/6/5/606568/31189596.jpg) un-cutsey enough for you, even though they're "anime"?)



You know what? Screw this. I don't like some of the artwork, and some people think my aesthetics are offensive to them. Fine. Let's agree to disagree.

As usual people are getting a bit caught up in "wording", which is problematic because Charl is trying to articulate what he doesn't subjectively like about a given art style with a limited number of adjectives to choose from. As it goes, I think I do know what he means, and I would say that this (http://paizo.com/image/content/RiseOfTheRunelords/Harsk-DwarfIconic_360.jpeg) more "cutesy" than this (http://www.criticalgamers.com/archives/pictures/DnD.5.6.06.jpg), but describing why I get that feeling is no easy task.



Have you ever tried swimming in armour? I have. Not easy.
In just a gambeson and a mail byrnie I could do a lap or two and tread water for a few minutes, but:

a) I'm a solid swimmer even now, and had done my bronze medallion (pre-lifeguarding certification here) at the time.

b) It was in a very controlled situation, an apartment building swimming pool. Trying it if I had to fight through waves, currents, or a creature?

c) That was only a bit of armour (chain shirt, what's that, -4 penalty after doubling it for swimming), and no equipment. Had I been wearing more I doubt I would have been able to keep myself from sinking (add a pack, a shield, weapons on a belt, or heavier armour?).

That is interesting, we were recently talking about this over in the Weapons and Armour thread. I think it is fair to say that the D20/3e rules do not really very well reflect the fatigue of swimming encumbered, and I do not think Thrawn183 was suggesting that swimming in armour should be easy (or in some case even possible). It might be interesting to see a longer analysis of the statistics involved in doing so in D20/3e.



So...they made casters better while fighters are still crap, yeah...

I think the general consensus is that casters aren't the core problem, but the spells themselves. Some spells have been changed for the Pathfinder Beta, I will be interested to see which ones have been "unbroken" in the final version!

Epinephrine
2009-05-27, 12:19 PM
This topic has gotten way off track. Let's try to get it back on track by looking at some of the previews put out by paizo:
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog

So...they made casters better while fighters are still crap, yeah...

Interesting changes to dispel magic....

Though I admit, I still find mirror image stupid. You know the hex, just close your eyes and swing.

charl
2009-05-27, 12:20 PM
As usual people are getting a bit caught up in "wording", which is problematic because Charl is trying to articulate what he doesn't subjectively like about a given art style with a limited number of adjectives to choose from. As it goes, I think I do know what he means, and I would say that this (http://paizo.com/image/content/RiseOfTheRunelords/Harsk-DwarfIconic_360.jpeg) more "cutesy" than this (http://www.criticalgamers.com/archives/pictures/DnD.5.6.06.jpg), but describing why I get that feeling is no easy task.

I still take it as a personal insult when people tell me I'm being offensive because I don't like a certain style of art. That's like telling me that I'm a bigot because I don't like the taste of coca cola. It's beyond absurd.

Glyde
2009-05-27, 12:23 PM
I still take it as a personal insult when people tell me I'm being offensive because I don't like a certain style of art. That's like telling me that I'm a bigot because I don't like the taste of coca cola. It's beyond absurd.

I think they were getting offended more at your use of the discrepancy between 'eastern' and 'western'. Dark Sun, and various other D&D settings, are certainly 'eastern' inspired.

Still: It's a silly thing to get offended by.

Matthew
2009-05-27, 12:28 PM
I still take it as a personal insult when people tell me I'm being offensive because I don't like a certain style of art. That's like telling me that I'm a bigot because I don't like the taste of coca cola. It's beyond absurd.

Well then, both parties are offended! :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, though, I doubt any offence was intended on either side, the fixed text format of the internet is sometimes unforgiving in what it manages to communicate and what is omitted. Genres and styles are especially disagreeable. The anime "problem" is something that orbits around games like Exalted and supplements like Tome of Battle. By problem, I of course mean a failure of dialogue to convey misgivings and the whys and wherefores of their origin. Too "comic booky" might be a similar turn of phrase, but then many comic books present very "uncomicbooky" art.

nightwyrm
2009-05-27, 12:32 PM
I think the general consensus is that casters aren't the core problem, but the spells themselves. Some spells have been changed for the Pathfinder Beta, I will be interested to see which ones have been "unbroken" in the final version!

Unless most spells have been drastically nerfed (which I really don't see Paizo doing), casters aren't gonna lose their dominance. Heck, for some unknown reason, they decided to give casters a free +1 DC when you use metamagic and gave Ice Storm a minor upgrade.

Matthew
2009-05-27, 12:39 PM
Unless most spells have been drastically nerfed (which I really don't see Paizo doing), casters aren't gonna lose their dominance. Heck, for some unknown reason, they decided to give casters a free +1 DC when you use metamagic and gave Ice Storm a minor upgrade.

I am not holding my breath, but they did surprise me against all the odds with regard to power attack and movement in armour, so you never know...

Eldariel
2009-05-27, 12:52 PM
I am not holding my breath, but they did surprise me against all the odds with regard to power attack and movement in armour, so you never know...

Meh, they didn't make Power Attack fair, they made it unusable; kinda sucks considering how many monsters relied on the feat for melee damage.

Dark_Scary
2009-05-27, 12:52 PM
But heaven forbid if it ever happens in the other direction.

He's allowed to not want his anime in his D&D. It's totally allowable.

Personally, I like my D&D to be high magic, and that trumps western vs eastern, and actually mostly prevents it from conforming to the genre conventions of western RPGs, but if someone does want to conform to them, I'm not going to declare their desire bigoted any more then when someone plays gothic instead of final fantasy.

Cedrass
2009-05-27, 12:53 PM
Unless most spells have been drastically nerfed (which I really don't see Paizo doing), casters aren't gonna lose their dominance. Heck, for some unknown reason, they decided to give casters a free +1 DC when you use metamagic and gave Ice Storm a minor upgrade.

Well I know the Paizo boards aren't a friendly lace, especialy if you criticise (spelling?) their work. Fans get crazy, mods won't listen and stuff, BUT! that's not something that should stop us from giving feedback.

I think we should start a thread where we list all what we think should be nerfed/boosted or changed or added, and how. I know there are a lot of awesome hombrewers here and some people that know the system almost more than WotC does! I'd gladly start such a thread, but I fear I know too little of 3.5 to really have the "authority" to do it.

I don't know when they'll stop taking suggestions though, so maybe it's too late, or maybe we still have a week or two, it'd still be better than staying silent.

Dark_Scary
2009-05-27, 01:00 PM
Pathfinder on spells:

1) Hey, I heard Glitterdust is too good. Let's make it save every round! Yeah, Glitterdust is now mostly unusable! Should we apply that same standard to every other AoE Save or Suck spell with a duration? Naw, why bother, no one uses those spells, they aren't as good as Glitterdust.

Result: Everyone uses the second best choice, spells are still awesome.

2) I heard the Polymorph line is broken because you can dumpster dive. Let's just make it give specific buffs when you cast it that all pretty much suck and aren't worth casting.

Result: No one uses Polymorph except to gimp their character for flavor. Why not create something useful, or fun? Or just remove the spells from the game?

3) Save or Dies make Fighters look bad at high levels because Wizards kill things. Let's just make them all do a crappy amount of damage on a failed save. Yeah, it should be an amount that kills most things, but leaves some of them alive so that Fighters who do 20 damage a round can still feel cool.

Result: Save or Dies suck. AoE Save or Loses? Still just find. What where you saying Mass Hold Monster? Oh, Nothing, okay. So we can still build "iconic" fighters that do about 30 damage a round at level 14 and pretend we matter.


some people that know the system almost more than WotC does!

I believe you are confused. Some does not fit here. I believe you meant 'way way way.'


I don't know when they'll stop taking suggestions though.

I think it was about the time Jason Buhlman started writing the rules. His official response to any and all suggestions on what to change is "Screw you we aren't going to."

Matthew
2009-05-27, 01:01 PM
Meh, they didn't make Power Attack fair, they made it unusable; kinda sucks considering how many monsters relied on the feat for melee damage.

You may be thinking of the Beta. We don't actually know exactly what they have done to power attack in the final game, but the preview looks promising.

ChelArmgo
2009-05-27, 04:02 PM
Like:
Skills are streamlined and the +3 is a nice cushion. I like that I can take cross class skills without a huge penalty.

The magic item identification system is nice. no longer waiting on the wizard to find enough pearls to crush up to find out that the items are cursed is definitely nice.

It does not make all my 3.5 stuff irrelevant. They have sources to help you convert 3.5 prestige classes to pathfinder and it is really nice.

Dislike:
Some of the CMB system. I do like that they have rules for a one handed grapple, but it still takes up a lot of time.

FLY... enough said

Starbuck_II
2009-05-27, 04:50 PM
Interesting changes to dispel magic....

Though I admit, I still find mirror image stupid. You know the hex, just close your eyes and swing.

Closing eyes gives target 50% miss chance. I don't see that as a useful option :smallbiggrin:
They weakened Mirror Image by making it removed if opponent misses. Although, they have no listed AC (will they still be 10 + Dex).

Dispel magic no longer has a level cap, but only 1 spell. You can choose which that your caster roll is eligble for.

G, Dispel Magic: affects 1 spell/4 levels.

Staffs are better as they can be recharged. Quicken no longer has increased casting time for spontaneous casters. Bards rejoice!

lesser_minion
2009-05-27, 05:31 PM
While the beta may have gone too far with power attack, I'm not sure about the idea that it didn't need changing.

My impression was that (in the existing rules) the majority of melee characters end up with the feat, which could imply that it is badly designed.

There are a few things I didn't really like as well:


Bloodlines. While they are an interesting decision, I hate them. This is a fluff problem really - I can see the argument for using them from a crunch perspective.
Wizards - who thought building metamagic reducers into the class was a good idea? This gets even worse when getting those reducers also gives you free choice of any nine spells to cast for free.
CMB - While an improvement, I don't think this really solves the problems with special attacks
Natural Spell wasn't well-designed to start with and it hasn't improved.

Matthew
2009-05-27, 05:45 PM
While the beta may have gone too far with power attack, I'm not sure about the idea that it didn't need changing.

My impression was that (in the existing rules) the majority of melee characters end up with the feat, which could imply that it is badly designed.

It definitely needed changing. What they may have gone for in the final version is:

Light = x1
Heavy = x2
Great = x3

It is not clear yet from the preview.

lesser_minion
2009-05-27, 06:03 PM
The idea of re-allocating your character's BAB between attack, defence and damage isn't bad in principle - that didn't really need changing.

The fact that the feat seemed compulsory did, but the dev team didn't really adopt the best method for fixing it.

I'd have liked to see the Pathfinder team accept that 3.5 is not in every way and improvement on 3.0 (I don't think the 3.5 developers actually understood some of the rules that they changed), and roll back a couple of things.

The new system might be interesting, but I think power attack should probably go back to being a flat bonus for all weapon types. The x1/x2/x3 thing serves only to make numbers larger, without removing the problems I had with 3.5 PA in any event.

Matthew
2009-05-27, 06:14 PM
The idea of re-allocating your character's BAB between attack, defence and damage isn't bad in principle - that didn't really need changing.

I agree.



The fact that the feat seemed compulsory did, but the dev team didn't really adopt the best method for fixing it.

Honestly, I think the whole feat system was a bad fit. It went from cool extras for your character to "defining" your character and "cannot do withouts". A great pity.



I'd have liked to see the Pathfinder team accept that 3.5 is not in every way and improvement on 3.0 (I don't think the 3.5 developers actually understood some of the rules that they changed), and roll back a couple of things.

The new system might be interesting, but I think power attack should probably go back to being a flat bonus for all weapon types. The x1/x2/x3 thing serves only to make numbers larger, it doesn't actually fix the fact that it is much better to power attack with a massive sword than with a dagger - even though a more damaging dagger strike could be justified.

I agree with this as well. The 1:1 power attack exchange tended to favour weapon and shield over two handed weapons in 3.0, but it was never as unbalanced as what the 3.5 version resulted in. My house rule remains to not allow power attack with the off hand, and to give two handed weapons +1 to hit and +1 to damage (instead of +1/2 strength bonus).

It is possible that Pathfinder is granting x2 with the "on hand" and x1 with the "off hand". It's not entirely clear from the preview.

Starbuck_II
2009-05-27, 06:21 PM
I agree.
Honestly, I think the whole feat system was a bad fit. It went from cool extras for your character to "defining" your character and "cannot do withouts". A great pity.


We could make power Attack a natural combat option like Combat expertise (Fighting defensively) is.

Fighting Recklessly: -4 hit for +2 damage (+4 damage two handed)
Fighting Defensively: -4 hit for +2 dodge AC (+3 AC with 5 rank dodge)

The feats just unbound it to up to BAB instead of the base ability. The feats then make you better at it instead of making you only able to do it.

Matthew
2009-05-27, 07:00 PM
We could make power Attack a natural combat option like Combat expertise (Fighting defensively) is.

Fighting Recklessly: -4 hit for +2 damage (+4 damage two handed)
Fighting Defensively: -4 hit for +2 dodge AC (+3 AC with 5 rank dodge)

The feats just unbound it to up to BAB instead of the base ability. The feats then make you better at it instead of making you only able to do it.

I agree, that is how I would have preferred feats had worked. It is tough to make them interesting and balanced, though. A good example of a feat for me is "oversized two weapon fighting". Nicely fulfils a purpose without being required, effectively giving a character +1 average damage by using two long swords instead of a long sword and short sword, or two short swords (if weapon focus and specialisation are a concern).

sonofzeal
2009-05-28, 10:01 AM
I still take it as a personal insult when people tell me I'm being offensive because I don't like a certain style of art. That's like telling me that I'm a bigot because I don't like the taste of coca cola. It's beyond absurd.
I'm not offended, and I didn't mean to imply that you were being offensive. I just don't really grok what you mean by "cutesy" (or "anime", beyond the occasional oversized sword), based on the limited sample of Pathfinder art I've seen. Honestly, most of it reminds me of the art in Eberron Campaign Setting - do you have the same complaints there?

Jayabalard
2009-05-28, 11:14 AM
Huh, guys... They are illustrations. Nothing else :smallannoyed:Art in D&D isn't a small issue for some people.

Gorbash
2009-05-28, 11:32 AM
Huh, guys... They are illustrations. Nothing else

Right. Just imagine how much lamer would dragons be, if they hired this guy to do their artwork:


That's a rat next to a what seems to be a Human, but also could be a Dwarf
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/cx_gallery/86352.jpg

What's this? Some sort of short, underdark-dwelling Valkyrie?
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75403.jpg

And of course an elf that shoots spears out of his bow.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75404.jpg



In contrast, we have Sam Wood, who put D in D&D.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG86.jpg

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG81.jpg


Or one other particular artist I'm fond of, who makes uncannyingly realistic fantasy drawings.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/cx_gallery/86353.jpg


So yes, artwork is a big deal.

Epinephrine
2009-05-28, 11:34 AM
Art in D&D isn't a small issue for some people.

Maybe, but I wouldn't have thought it'd be a big issue in a forum on a site that featuers D&D stick figure comics :smallwink:

Note - not a criticism of the Giant's art or choice of style - it totally works. I just think it's ironic that the art rather than the substance of Pathfinder would be important to those who can nonetheless immerse themselves in a comic about stick figures.

Cedrass
2009-05-28, 11:36 AM
So yes, artwork is a big deal.

For you. Personaly, I couldn't care about the illustrations or whatever. I want the system to be good, the rest: extras.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-28, 11:42 AM
Maybe, but I wouldn't have thought it'd be a big issue in a forum on a site that featuers D&D stick figure comics :smallwink:

Note - not a criticism of the Giant's art or choice of style - it totally works. I just think it's ironic that the art rather than the substance of Pathfinder would be important to those who can nonetheless immerse themselves in a comic about stick figures.The Giant's art is good despite being stick figure, it's visually interesting, and it's in a format(webcomics) where the art isn't supposed to be incredibly realistic so much as just a fun and interesting vehicle for the joke(XKCD, Cyanide and Happiness, and Partially Clips are perfect examples of lacking art that works for the strip). Pathfinder art is in a format(D&D books) where we expect the art to be high-quality western high-fantasy art, able to inspire our fantasies. The art, unfortunately, is deficient in some cases.

sonofzeal
2009-05-28, 11:46 AM
Art in D&D isn't a small issue for some people.
Actually, while I don't understand the specific complaints, the nature of them does actually make sense to me. Art defines tone and fluff to a large extent. We look at the picture for monsters and go "ooo so that's what it's like". We look at the sample characters for classes and prestige classes, and even races, when we try to figure out what those classes and races are actually like over and above the fluff. If Halflings were all drawn as Belkar, with vicious grins and pointy daggers and standing astride a mountain of eviscerated corpses... well, that would change how many (many, not all) groups would perceive the race. If all the art had a Paranoia (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/product_images/full_size/paranoiacover.jpg)type of irreverent slapstick feel, people would start playing the game in a much more slapstick way.

Image shapes perception. Game designers know this, which is why they put so much effort into the art. And while it's easy to homebrew a different flavour, it's still going to have an effect on a lot of groups and a lot of players. The rules tell you how to play the game, but the art tells you what sort of game the designers expect you to be playing.

(and all this from someone who's on the other side of the debate. :P)

Scaboroth
2009-05-28, 12:10 PM
You know what? Screw this. I don't like some of the artwork, and some people think my aesthetics are offensive to them. Fine. Let's agree to disagree.

What??? You can't do that - this is THE INTERNET! You must fight to the death now!

Epinephrine
2009-05-28, 01:47 PM
What??? You can't do that - this is THE INTERNET! You must fight to the death now!

Or at the minimum, keep arguing (http://xkcd.com/386/).