Pathfinder Beta is Out!

[Waspinator]

I haven't had much of a chance to look through it yet, but it's out:
http://paizo.com/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy84o0
It's nice to see some 3.5 support and it's hard to beat the price of "free download".

[Chronicled]

Awesome! *Begins download*

[Mushroom Ninja]

Sweet! I'm on it!

[Morty]

Well. I've downloaded it, skimmed through it, and so far it looks like it makes the game a bit more interesting and well-rounded. It won't, however, solve any major balance problems. I mean, they made wizards actually slightly stronger.
EDIT: Also, Ranger's capstone ability sucks.

[tumble check]

So much work has been put into this. The heaviness of the rules has me drooling.


Awesome.

[Kurald Galain]

Agreeing with M0rt here. I reiterate that Paizo does their best to fix the problems with 3E while remaining ignorant of what those problems actually are.

But several of the new abilities are nice, so the book has some certain appeal here.

[Chronicled]

I mean, they made wizards actually slightly stronger.

Druids too. What gives?

What I'm seeing with the classes is an attempt to make them all interesting (especially by removing dead levels), but not nearly enough is being done with some of them. The Monk, for instance, has been given a bit of a boost... but still sucks. The Fighter got better without getting more interesting. I really like what they did with the Barbarian and Sorcerer, but the Wizard and Druid getting stronger left me :smallconfused:. I admit that once I've learned what they've changed with each spell I might not think it's quite as bad, but Paizo seems to not want to rock the boat too much--and the boat needs rocking.

[Morty]

Druids too. What gives?


They said themselves in one of the sidebars that they want to make core classes stronger to "match them with power of those from splatbooks". Which is funny, because most splatbook classes were either quite balanced or underpowered, except maybe Beguiler. And certainly none of them matched wizard or druid in power.
Well, the best way to use this book is to accept all class changes except wizards and druids, maybe also clerics, but I don't know what they did to them yet.

[ImperiousLeader]

I wonder how easy it'll be to run Pathfinder without running into edition confusion, it's deceptively close to 3.5, but some of those difference could bite. CMB threw me for a loop, and there's no nice "here's what we've changed" summary.

Overall, it's a nice effort, but I've no interest in running Pathfinder.

Also, :smallannoyed: love their changes to the Druid's wildshape. Let's reference a spell not actually on their spell list, and one of the things that I do like about 4e is that spell level = the level you get the spell, so it's particularly amusing to see "Beast Shape 1" as a 3rd level Sorcerer/Wizard Spell.

[Chronicled]

maybe also clerics, but I don't know what they did to them yet.

Mostly changed Turn Undead, domains, and how orisons work. All the rest is in the changed spell descriptions--which I'm not looking forward to relearning in their entirety :smallyuk:. There's a lot of redone spells to factor into class balance calculations.

Some things that rocked the boat I'm surprised at but glad they did--Paladins casting from Charisma, for instance, caught be off guard. And yet they couldn't bring themselves to give Monks full BAB, or have Quivering Palm work more than 1/week. And I just noticed that they didn't change the magic armor that lets you reroll... 1/week :smallyuk:.

Is there a list of what changes were made between Alpha version and Beta?

[Nero24200]

I'll be honest, they seem pretty silly in some of their attempts to make the game better, the obvious one being making wizards and druids more powerful.

It's also pretty ironic, I see alot of similarties between the Pathfinder RPG and 4th Edition...yet the anti-4th addition paizo forum seem to love this.

[Covered In Bees]

Most splatbook base classes range from downright bad to highly mediocre. A few are strong, like the Beguiler and martial adepts, but still pale in comparison to the Big Three in core. All the splatbooks WotC has ever published only have two classes on the level of the core Big Three.

My usual line: It's like Pathfinder is made by people who know that dark, terrible things happen in the depths of the CharOp boards, but have no idea of what those things actually are.

[Chronicled]

My usual line: It's like Pathfinder is made by people who know that dark, terrible things happen in the depths of the CharOp boards, but have no idea of what those things actually are.

+1

I appreciate the effort Paizo editors are making... but I'd appreciate it a lot more if that effort was going to have a meaningful effect on most games.

[Waspinator]

Well, luckily they seem to be trying to make everything reasonably intercompatible with normal 3.5, so it should be pretty easy to use some of the new versions of classes that you like and not change others.

[AlterForm]

Has anyone else had their download be missing pages? Every other page or so, I have a blank page (or a page with only a table). I tried repersonalizing it, but that didn't do anything. :smallconfused:

[CASTLEMIKE]

+1

I appreciate the effort Paizo editors are making... but I'd appreciate it a lot more if that effort was going to have a meaningful effect on most games.

Big ditto there.

[Tormsskull]

Has anyone else had their download be missing pages? Every other page or so, I have a blank page (or a page with only a table). I tried repersonalizing it, but that didn't do anything. :smallconfused:

Yuck. I didn't have that problem.


All in all, looks pretty interesting. I'd be interested in trying it out for sure. Ok, who is starting the Pathfinder PbP :smallsmile:

[Hurlbut]

Is there a list of what changes were made between Alpha version and Beta?I second that question.

[celestialkin]

At first I was thrilled about Pathfinder, but then after talking to Paizo's (albeit extremely unexperienced and uninterested) customer support I realized it is not really a continuation of 3.5, as it a whole new take on it. More of a 3.75.

One of the things which really gets me is that I simply can't add this material into my year-long ongoing campaign world/setting.

Another problem I have with it is that all future Pathfinder materials (splatbooks, adventures, etc) will be based on the "updated" set of rules, hence I can not use it without "upgrading" to the 3.75 rules.

The customer support woman (again, I doubt she is even a gamer...) told me that there will be no new products, or anything relating to Pathfinder/3.75 until August of NEXT YEAR. Yeah, in my opinion 3.5 is officially dead. I do not feel like waiting an entire year for this promised new material and continuation of 3.5.

[Covered In Bees]

Maybe you could just use some of the dozens and dozens of splatbooks WotC has already published for 3.x. If you're that desperate for more stuff, there are hundreds more books by third-party publishers out there.

[Waspinator]

Seriously. There's like six billion different variants made for 3.5. If you don't want to wait, why not try out Dragonstar or Dragonmech or something?

[Aron Times]

Or switch to 4E? 4E isn't the Antichrist, you know.

[ColdSepp]

I like 4E, but if the OP is in the middle of a year long campaign, it's not really viable to switch systems.

[expirement10K14]

Or switch to 4E? 4E isn't the Antichrist, you know.

Yes, but some people, like me, dislike its mechanics. Try the Frank&K tomes, I will try and find a link, for many fixes. Pathfinder is actually good fixes. I did an alpha play test and loved the fixes. There are tons of wizards books, I have 137, and I also have literal hundreds of third party books. With web enhancements and such there is so many different things.

Try Incarnum, ToB, ToM, or Psionics for new sub-systems (incarnum points/soul melds, pact magic, shadow magic, true naming, power points/psionics).

[arguskos]

Or switch to 4E? 4E isn't the Antichrist, you know.
Also, some of us just don't like 4e much, for our own reasons, and would prefer to see Pathfinder and other 3rd party supplements continue for our preferred edition.

On topic, Pathfinder seems... eh. I like some of it's upgrades, like what they did to the Fighter, Pally, Rogue, Ranger, etc. but someone over at Paizo seems to have forgotten that Druids and Wizards are the big threats to some semblance of balance, and made them better. That was... disappointing, IMO. Beyond that, I like Pathfinder, and may buy their final version of the core book, if only for some variety on my shelf.

-argus

[Jayabalard]

Or switch to 4E? 4E isn't the Antichrist, you know.Since his complaints are all related to difficulties in integrating it into his current campaign this seems like a useless suggestion.

The only thing that I can think of is that you're trying to get a rise out of the pro 3e crowd.

[shadow_archmagi]

I second that question.

I thirden it.

[DeathQuaker]

One of the things which really gets me is that I simply can't add this material into my year-long ongoing campaign world/setting

Another problem I have with it is that all future Pathfinder materials (splatbooks, adventures, etc) will be based on the "updated" set of rules, hence I can not use it without "upgrading" to the 3.75 rules.

Interesting, as the Paizo Website states the exact opposite:



These rules are designed with backwards compatibility in mind. Meaning that if you already own a bookshelf full of 3.5 rulebooks, the Pathfinder RPG is designed to work with only a minimal amount of conversion. In fact, the Pathfinder RPG is designed to smooth over a number of the rough spots of the 3.5 rule set, making a number of existing books even easier to use.
(Source: http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG - top of the page, third paragraph)

Which is NOT to say I don't believe you,as I absolutely do. But I am wondering where the discrepancy lies. Did the bad customer service rep (and it sounds like you really were talking to someone incompetent) give you the wrong idea of the game, or was she giving you the RIGHT idea, meaning the press releases are all talk?

Me, I'm going to download the free beta and see what I think of it, and see how convertible it would be for MY 3.5 campaign. If I have interesting results, I'll post.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Mostly they made it bigger (More pages) from a quick review and separated the spells.

[Waspinator]

Well, for one, it went from 162 pages to 410.

[shadow_archmagi]

Well, for one, it went from 162 pages to 410.

I see. And what was on the new 200 pages?

[CASTLEMIKE]

Well it didn't look like they fixed the sorcerer class anymore.:smallcool:



Alpha Release 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 2
Generating a Character 4
Races 8
Classes 12
Skills 52
Feats 66
Combat 74
Spells and Magic 80
Running the Pathfinder RPG 120
Nonplayer Characters 130
Magic Items 138
Glossary 148
Playtesting 156

New:
Chapter 1: Introduction 2
Chapter 2: Generating a Character 4
Chapter 3: Races 8
Chapter 4: Classes 12
Chapter 5: Skills 52
Chapter 6: Feats 76
Chapter 7: Equipment 98 Chapter 8: Description 120
Chapter 9: Combat 130 Character Sheet 404
Chapter 10: Magic 154
Chapter 11: Spells 170
Chapter 12: Running the Game 290
Chapter 13: Additional Rules 300
Chapter 14: Nonplayer Characters 332
Chapter 15: Magic Items 340
Chapter 16: Glossary 388
Chapter 17: Playtesting 402

[DrowVampyre]

Don't forget that the power of the wizard is in his spells, many of which have been changed (not all, but a lot of the problem ones work differently now). And druid's wildshape works much differently than before. So yes, they have more stuff in the class table, and at first glance they seem more powerful, but are they more powerful in play? I'm not sure yet...my only Pathfinder character is still level 4...

[Thurbane]

I would imagine most 3.5 splatbooks should be easy to use with Pathfinder, perhaps with a little tweaking required. Probably even less tweaking than using 3.0 splatbooks with 3.5.

Personally, I am really psyched about Pathfinder - it will extend the lifespan of the huge amount of 3.5 material I have on my shelves by quite a bit. :smallsmile: I'll be grabbing the hardcover as soon as it's released locally (on top of the PDF download). Can't wait! :smallbiggrin:

[DrowVampyre]

The customer support woman (again, I doubt she is even a gamer...) told me that there will be no new products, or anything relating to Pathfinder/3.75 until August of NEXT YEAR. Yeah, in my opinion 3.5 is officially dead. I do not feel like waiting an entire year for this promised new material and continuation of 3.5.

I think this, at least, is a miscommunication. The things they publish in the meantime will be published under normal 3.5, because the Pathfinder RPG final release is next August. But they're most certainly releasing product between now and then, set in their campaign world - multiple products per month, in fact.

[Covered In Bees]

Yes, but some people, like me, dislike its mechanics. Try the Frank&K tomes,

No. Putting Fighters and Monks at the same level as fully-twinked-out, Shapechange-abusing wizards is not the solution, and it's not okay.

[Thurbane]

No. Putting Fighters and Monks at the same level as fully-twinked-out, Shapechange-abusing wizards is not the solution, and it's not okay.
Indeed! Badwrongfun! :smallamused:

[ghost_warlock]

No. Putting Fighters and Monks at the same level as fully-twinked-out, Shapechange-abusing wizards is not the solution, and it's not okay.

If the system is balanced, what difference does it make if the characters are super powerful? If D&D characters are like superheroes, let them be superheroes.

[Waspinator]

If everyone is overpowered, then no one is.

[Deepblue706]

If everyone is overpowered, then no one is.

What about those poor, poor monsters???

Seriously: if Wizards are supposed to use Fireball, and Clerics are supposed to cast healing magic, and everyone else is supposed to keep doing what they're doing, CR kinda works.

If everyone makes everything else explode, those poorly-developed rules become even harder to use.

Plus, say, if everyone can drop an encounter in one turn, it just boils down to initiative. Thusly, you make combat in D&D 3.5 a single d20 roll. Fun.

[Covered In Bees]

If the system is balanced, what difference does it make if the characters are super powerful? If D&D characters are like superheroes, let them be superheroes.

Because most wizard's aren't fully-twinked out Shapechange-abusing Incantatrixes. These things are wrong for reasons that have nothing to do with party balance. Similarly, a Monk from that tome forcing a very high-DC Will save *and* Fort save vs. Death, without any kind of effect tag so there are no immunities that matter, on every attack is wrong. That monk being able to create a travel Gate to wherever and then fling an enemy through it with no save or opposed roll, every round, is wrong. And Fighters being able to negate two three standard actions a turn within 60 feet is wrong.

Those classes are nice for a game of OMFG LET'S ALL BE TOTALLY UBER WOOOO, but pretending they're a fix for 3.5's problems is rather disingenuous.

[Aron Times]

I gave the rules a read, and it's... okay. It's not as bad as I thought.

The main problem with the Pathfinder RPG is that its developers are bound by the limitations of the 3.5 ruleset. Yes, they made a lot of changes, but their desire for backwards compatibility limits what they can do.

Fighters are definitely much better, but spellcasters still have way too many options. They've consolidated a lot of skills, but the game still uses skill points. My main complaint is that while the fixes they implemented are excellent, they are too afraid of alienating their fanbase to make any of the needed drastic changes.

I might run a Pathfinder adventure to test it out after I finish my 4E adventure (I'm running a level 3 to 5 adventure for three people).

[quillbreaker]

I'm not really eager to make yet another forum account to download a PDF, so I'l have to go without. Let me know if it's awesome.

[Irreverent Fool]

...they are too afraid of alienating their fanbase to make any of the needed drastic changes.

I don't think it's that they're concerned about alienating their fanbase so much as keeping their modification of the core rules compatible with the existing 3.5 material. The modifications needed to stop things from happening that detract from the heroic fantasy game it is intended to be would ultimately change the game into something else entirely.

There are other systems and there are probably better systems, but if you're going to keep it compatible, there's no way you can scrap the base system entirely.

[Kurald Galain]

So why is it, exactly, that a system that is beta'ing right now is not due to be released for a full year? Because that's quite the ludicrous amount of time to varnish a ruleset.

[Breaw]

I'm very confused by all of this. Why the need for more books? I mean... I've played DnD for what, 12 years now, which means I've been playing 3.x for about 8 years... and I own 3 books. PHB, MM & DMG. Using those books I've played or DMed in 6 campaigns, no two of which were similar at all. Both my personal playing experience and the setting has been drastically different in every game I play.

Surely you must play the game 5 days a week to have run out material with the near infinite splatbooks that seem to be out there.

I'm not trying to attack here, simply understand... what is it that people look for in all these books? The options available in the most basic of the rulesets lead to countless unique and fun sessions.

-Breaw

[Kyeudo]

That allows time for playtesting corrections to the rules. This is Beta 1.0. Who knows what version the Beta will be on by the time the final version hits the printers?

[LordOkubo]

You guys should read Pathfinder forums.

These are people who genuinely disagree that Fighters are underpowered or that Wizards are too powerful.

These are people who say they would never play a Wizard at low levels because they are too weak. (Apparently the fact that they only have 3-6 uses of Color spray a day makes them weak.)

[BardicDuelist]

I'm very confused by all of this. Why the need for more books? I mean... I've played DnD for what, 12 years now, which means I've been playing 3.x for about 8 years... and I own 3 books. PHB, MM & DMG. Using those books I've played or DMed in 6 campaigns, no two of which were similar at all. Both my personal playing experience and the setting has been drastically different in every game I play.

Surely you must play the game 5 days a week to have run out material with the near infinite splatbooks that seem to be out there.

I'm not trying to attack here, simply understand... what is it that people look for in all these books? The options available in the most basic of the rulesets lead to countless unique and fun sessions.

-Breaw

For some people, they're looking for a specific way to model an idea that they can't seem to model, no matter how much imagination they have, within the existing options. They see published material as more viable than homebrewed stuff, often because of they or their DM having had a problem with homebrew in the past. Some people just don't have the time to homebrew either and have an idea that they hope to model.

For others, they're looking for some new trick that will make them "gods', or put them on par with the "gods" that they are playing with. For these people, published material is an excuse to say, "Hey, it's part of the rules, I didn't just make this ridiculous combination up!"

For many, they're looking for a fix to a problem that they noticed in the past and don't have the time or ability to fix themselves. This problem can be balance or thematic, or any combination in between.

And for annother group, they just enjoy reading the books. Some of the fluff can be like history...well history that has no practical application, but it can still be entertaining.

Especially when you're younger, it's very easy to fall into some of the buying traps. I'm sure many of us wish we would have never bought some of the useless things on our shelves.

[Jerthanis]

I'm very confused by all of this. Why the need for more books? I mean... I've played DnD for what, 12 years now, which means I've been playing 3.x for about 8 years... and I own 3 books. PHB, MM & DMG. Using those books I've played or DMed in 6 campaigns, no two of which were similar at all. Both my personal playing experience and the setting has been drastically different in every game I play.

Seriously... If I wanted to, I could pull my 2nd edition books off the shelf and run a game tomorrow. I've got WEG d6 Star Wars I could run, I've only got one book for that. Mutants and Masterminds and Shadowrun have a couple splats each, but none of them are really necessary. Some of the best RPG systems I know of have extremely thin books and are stand-alones.

People complain that 3rd edition isn't getting anymore splatbooks... but it's probably the best supported RPG system of any RPG ever, and if you've used all the material ever put out for it already, I'm honestly impressed. If in 10 years of owning all 3.5 books you've still got that one build you still never got the chance to try, I wouldn't be surprised.

That said, Pathfinder seems well enough in tune with 3rd edition from what I read to have backwards conversion with less effort than converting new 4th edition content would be. At this point I think that's pretty much the best you can ask for, and more than anyone who has followed a "dying" system past the end of its print run has ever been given.

[BardicDuelist]

Most splatbook base classes range from downright bad to highly mediocre. A few are strong, like the Beguiler and martial adepts, but still pale in comparison to the Big Three in core. All the splatbooks WotC has ever published only have two classes on the level of the core Big Three.

My usual line: It's like Pathfinder is made by people who know that dark, terrible things happen in the depths of the CharOp boards, but have no idea of what those things actually are.

Artificer, martial classes,and Beguiler (so actually five that are close enough, although not necessairly as good or better depending on specific build choices).

[Cainen]

Martial classes aren't anywhere near wizards, clerics, druids, or even sorcerors in power. They are, however, near them in flexibility - there's a difference.

[Covered In Bees]

Artificer, martial classes,and Beguiler (so actually five that are close enough, although not necessairly as good or better depending on specific build choices).

The martial adepts can't hold a candle to the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid, and anyone who suggest they can is probably fundamentally unaware of how D&D works. Neither can the Beguiler (much as it rocks the low-to-mid levels). The Artificer is one of the two I mentioned; Archivist is the other.

[Breaw]

For some people, they're looking for a specific way to model an idea that they can't seem to model, no matter how much imagination they have, within the existing options. They see published material as more viable than homebrewed stuff, often because of they or their DM having had a problem with homebrew in the past. Some people just don't have the time to homebrew either and have an idea that they hope to model.

For others, they're looking for some new trick that will make them "gods', or put them on par with the "gods" that they are playing with. For these people, published material is an excuse to say, "Hey, it's part of the rules, I didn't just make this ridiculous combination up!"

For many, they're looking for a fix to a problem that they noticed in the past and don't have the time or ability to fix themselves. This problem can be balance or thematic, or any combination in between.

And for annother group, they just enjoy reading the books. Some of the fluff can be like history...well history that has no practical application, but it can still be entertaining.

Especially when you're younger, it's very easy to fall into some of the buying traps. I'm sure many of us wish we would have never bought some of the useless things on our shelves.

I see, this makes a lot more sense to me now. I play with a group of people who like to haggle over the details, not in game... but over coffee or lunch or w/e. Looking at the classes/rules as they are, who suffers from them, and what they need to make them work.

I play with a pretty consistent and reasonable group of people, so we generally take the current DMs word as law (although will undoubtedly discuss with him/her later why what he/she did made no sense). It undoubtedly simply comes down to the group. We're more than happy (and seem to have the time) to homebrew any snag we find or anything outside the clearcut bounds of the books.

I guess I'll count myself lucky.

[Waspinator]

I like buying more books particularly when they're the more "fluffy" kind. Settings and campaign concepts and whatnot. It can be interesting reading at times.

Also, there's the books that give you completely new ideas to add on to the pre-existing game system (like Dragonmech).

[bosssmiley]

Yes, but some people, like me, dislike its mechanics. Try the Frank&K tomes, I will try and find a link, for many fixes.

See second link in my sig. Tome series, plus discussion of their reasoning by the authors.

Pathfinder (aka 3.P)? It has lots of potential (the art and layout are gorgeous!), but I fear it'll fail to live up to its potential as "3.5 done right". Why? Well, from what I've followed on the paizo.com forums there have been a couple of short-sighted, heel-digging decisions about backwards compatibility by the authors, as well as a disconnect over what 'playtesting' the Alpha release actually connotes. The efforts of the forums more often resembles the activities of a "You rock dude!!1!!" cheerleading claque than those of impartial, critical playtesters.


Because most wizard's aren't fully-twinked out Shapechange-abusing Incantatrixes. These things are wrong for reasons that have nothing to do with party balance. Similarly, a Monk from that tome forcing a very high-DC Will save *and* Fort save vs. Death, without any kind of effect tag so there are no immunities that matter, on every attack is wrong. That monk being able to create a travel Gate to wherever and then fling an enemy through it with no save or opposed roll, every round, is wrong.

All contingent on a successful melee attack roll. These are not automatic SoDs; they have more in common with rays.


And Fighters being able to negate two three standard actions a turn within 60 feet is wrong.

At 17th level? When wizards are throwing around time stop and wail of the banshee, clerics and druids are summoning CR 12 allies as speed bumps prior to HULKing out, and rogues are doing +8d6 sneak attack damage per hit? Why can't the fighter be allowed in the crazy town sweetshop too? I fail to see a problem. :smallconfused:

[Covered In Bees]

I... wow.

I just saw that Pathfinder druids can turn into Huge, not Large, animals at 8th level.

Wow.

[Jerthanis]

The martial adepts can't hold a candle to the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid, and anyone who suggest they can is probably fundamentally unaware of how D&D works. Neither can the Beguiler (much as it rocks the low-to-mid levels). The Artificer is one of the two I mentioned; Archivist is the other.

Beguilers are superior to Wizards in a fairly narrow, but significant band of levels between 4 and 8 or so. In those levels they have access to a greater number of spells across a range of schools that a Wizard wouldn't be able to keep up with without dumping his entire WBL into his spellbook, and those spells are pretty much a laundry list of every good Wizard Spell you could take at those levels. Above that their selection wanes and before that they're basically Charm Person the class, but since I played almost exclusively between the levels of 2 and 8-10 when I played 3rd edition, it became a problem for our group. When Wizards are just starting to kick in as Godmodders, Beguilers were right there with a Haste and a Hankie.

Now... I've heard some people have balance issues with Barbarians being too strong, so for certain your mileage may vary.

[Covered In Bees]

4 to 8 is a pretty strong point for Beguilers, yeah. They still don't get Grease, Ray of Enfeeblement, Stinking Cloud, Fly, Black Tentacles, etc etc, so it's not that clear, but spamming Will-save spells is a ridiculously effective tactic.
By level 9, though, I'd take the wizard.

Edit:

Before that, they're basically Charm Person the class

Um, Color Spray?

[DrowVampyre]

I... wow.

I just saw that Pathfinder druids can turn into Huge, not Large, animals at 8th level.

Wow.

Check pg. 172, though. Wildshape doesn't work the way it used to - you're mimicking the Beast Shape spell line, which gives specific bonuses, rather than you just getting to be whatever animal you turn into.

[Covered In Bees]

Check pg. 172, though. Wildshape doesn't work the way it used to - you're mimicking the Beast Shape spell line, which gives specific bonuses, rather than you just getting to be whatever animal you turn into.

Oh, yeah. Now they can turn into flying magical beasts with a big DEX bonus and a variety of other abilities, have a higher initiative, and rain down spellcasting death. They've got a *slightly* harder time meleeing themselves, but they're not really less powerful.

[DrowVampyre]

Oh, yeah. Now they can turn into flying magical beasts with a big DEX bonus and a variety of other abilities, have a higher initiative, and rain down spellcasting death. They've got a *slightly* harder time meleeing themselves, but they're not really less powerful.

At least they have to wait a little longer before the fleshraker + Venomfire death combo, though. >_> <_< And no magical beasts - the spell versions do it, but wildshape not so much.

Actually...interesting question. Beast Shape doesn't mention whether you get natural attacks of the form listed - certain abilities, such as pounce and the like (so I assume you get natural attacks, too), but it never says for sure about just claws and bites and such...

[Jayabalard]

So why is it, exactly, that a system that is beta'ing right now is not due to be released for a full year? Because that's quite the ludicrous amount of time to varnish a ruleset.because by "beta" they really mean "alpha"

[Dhavaer]

because by "beta" they really mean "alpha"

What did they mean by "alpha"?

[AstralFire]

I know any Homebrew Forum readers are gonna think that my only answer to designing is "THIS ALL SUCKS, TAKE IT BACK AND REBUILD IT ENTIRELY TO MY SELF-IMPORTANT STANDARDS" but I think total rebuilds of concepts like Wilder did to the Sorcerer (even if it's a little... hmm... well, wild surge scales against you) and ToB did to Pally/Monk/Fighter are going to help more than downloading the SRD and tweak-tweak-tweaking, even really elaborate tweaking.

'cuz honestly, sometimes the only way for a bone to heal right is to break it again.

[bosssmiley]

What did they mean by "alpha"?

Pathfinder Alpha = Jason Buhlman picking the brains of the paizo.com forums to see what houserules they use, then selling it back to them. /sarc'


<trim>

I think total rebuilds of concepts like Wilder did to the Sorcerer (even if it's a little... hmm... well, wild surge scales against you) and ToB did to Pally/Monk/Fighter are going to help more than downloading the SRD and tweak-tweak-tweaking, even really elaborate tweaking.

'cuz honestly, sometimes the only way for a bone to heal right is to break it again.

May I sig that?

[Storm Bringer]

At 17th level? When wizards are throwing around time stop and wail of the banshee, clerics and druids are summoning CR 12 allies as speed bumps prior to HULKing out, and rogues are doing +8d6 sneak attack damage per hit? Why can't the fighter be allowed in the crazy town sweetshop too? I fail to see a problem. :smallconfused:

and covered in bees does.

It appears that CIB would prefer that the classes you just mentioned are toned down, rather than the fighter et la are turned up to 11.

[Jayabalard]

Those classes are nice for a game of OMFG LET'S ALL BE TOTALLY UBER WOOOO, but pretending they're a fix for 3.5's problems is rather disingenuous.It is indeed a fix, even if it's a fix that neither you nor I would like. Pretending that it's not is rather disingenuous.

Personally, I think that it's just as valid a fix as 4e.

[tumble check]

It's a little nitpicky, but while I think alot of the art is cool, does anyone else think it's a little too Final Fantasy-esque?

I'm probably one of the few PnP RPG players that don't like RPG videogames.

[Dhavaer]

It's a little nitpicky, but while I think alot of the art is cool, does anyone else think it's a little too Final Fantasy-esque?

I've never played Final Fantasy, so I've no idea, but I don't like the Bard art at all. The rogue art, on the other hand, gets two thumbs up and then some. Definately an improvement on 3.5 there.

[DeathQuaker]

So why is it, exactly, that a system that is beta'ing right now is not due to be released for a full year? Because that's quite the ludicrous amount of time to varnish a ruleset.

I would assume it's because it's a very very open beta, and they have a lot of user feedback to sort through (hint to the people criticising the rules on this thread: go do it at Paizo's pathfinder boards, where your opinion actually may have an impact on the game :smallsmile:). So to do it properly, they're giving themselves a lot of time to absorb feedback and test and get it right.

Personally, I would MUCH rather any company taking their time and getting it right than having something rushed out the door that sucks. Makes the possibility of a "Pathfinder .5" showing up in 2010 much less likely.

[Another_Poet]

The cleric is the coolest cleric I have ever seen.

[AstralFire]

May I sig that?

I am, frankly, honored. Go for it! :D

[Arcane_Snowman]

It's a little nitpicky, but while I think alot of the art is cool, does anyone else think it's a little too Final Fantasy-esque?

I'm probably one of the few PnP RPG players that don't like RPG videogames. Final Fantasy-esque? Not entirely, a bit "silly martial arts I announce my moves"-esque, certainly if you look at it from that perspective. Some of the exploits can be made into more cinematic moves, unfortunately not all can be totally rationalized as such.
On the other hand, I liked Tome of Battle, and like that book, 4e provides a more interesting alternative than the ever so increasingly interesting options of "I do a full round attack", "I charge" etc. (never a dull moment there.) vs. "Celerity", "Time Stop", "Cloudkill", Wild Shape and the list goes on... (the monotony is overwhelming.)


It is indeed a fix, even if it's a fix that neither you nor I would like. Pretending that it's not is rather disingenuous.

Personally, I think that it's just as valid a fix as 4e. Honest question (because I don't know), does the Tomes books (or whatever they are called) provide new monsters/fixes to the older monsters to increase their power to match that of the PCs, as to provide an actual challenge without too much DM intervention and manipulating?
Because if they don't, those books are merely moving the problem from individual PC balance, to total party balance problems.

To the OP: I've had a little peek at Pathfinder and it seems interesting enough, but I have yet to look at any substantial data so I can't give you an honest opinion. Currently I've personally been working fixing the alternative casting systems of Tome of Magic, as I never had any particular love for the standard vancian casting (neither mechanically nor balance wise).

[tumble check]

Actually, I was saying that the art is too FF-esque, not the system itself. I love the system. The wealth of rules makes me drool.

[Arcane_Snowman]

Oh the art, I see. Well, I suppose. :smallconfused:
I hadn't really thought of it that way :smallwink:

[CASTLEMIKE]

You guys should read Pathfinder forums.

These are people who genuinely disagree that Fighters are underpowered or that Wizards are too powerful.

These are people who say they would never play a Wizard at low levels because they are too weak. (Apparently the fact that they only have 3-6 uses of Color spray a day makes them weak.)

I agree many of those same people say Sorcerers don't need any additional known spells at lower levels to make them more fun to play. Not that they ever seem to play one since they generally cite a Sorcerer - 20 for an example or how the Dragon claws rock now for mixing it up in melee with your D6, Poor BAB, Unarmored Spellcaster at low levels. I did some some playtest feedback that as cool as it seemed when the playtesters tried it out their sorcerers died which seems to have disappeared instead of dragon claws. The head designer has posted several times he is opposed to using a Paizo Battle Sorcerer Variant as an option or giving the class any more known spells. The sorcerer class is also penalized at Pazio in the way some of the spells like Alter Self and Polymorph have been diluted and changed into numerous spells with their limited known spell lists.

[LordOkubo]

(hint to the people criticising the rules on this thread: go do it at Paizo's pathfinder boards, where your opinion actually may have an impact on the game :smallsmile:).

I wouldn't recommend it. They pretty much just jump you if you attempt any kind of criticism. Pathfinder is long past any point where criticism has any effect, if it ever did.

Now it just comes down to whatever Buhlman comes up with today.

(My favorite was when all Save or Die spells where removed from the game but Bards where given a untagged AoE Save-or-Die with a DC equal to their Perform check.)

[Kurald Galain]

Just flipping through the rulebook and noting some things...

* Allowing an ability score of 7 at a cost of -4 is not so good; it allows characters to improve themselves by further dumping what is already a dump stat.
* I note that standard point buy is now 15 points; that should affect game balance in favor of the SAD classes.
* Why is there a picture of a dwarf in his underwear? :smallbiggrin:
* Oh crud, are they still doing the "five different perception scores for the five senses" thing? That so does not fit in any game below the GURPS/FATAL/Hackmaster complexity level.
* Half-elves still suck, as do half-orcs.
* Three different experience point tables are another sign of overcomplexity. It is already a given that DMs can be stingy or lavish with XP.
* Barbarians now have to keep track of "rage points". Most of the rage abilities cost too many rage points to keep longer than a round or two. I think this is unnecessarily complex as well.
* Cleric orisons are a nice touch.
* I think the pattern here is that every class must gain some extra ability at every level. I haven't read all those abilities and I'm sure many of them are cool, but the overall result looks, well, messy.
* Skill folding is good, we knew that already.
* They appear to have fixed diplomacy.
* They appear to have not fixed UMD (in that it's still the best skill in the game).
* There is a feat called "razor sharp chair leg". SRSLY.

So far I'm mostly unimpressed. It certainly isn't bad, but it really isn't especially good either. Primarily, that means that I see no real reason for buying this book instead of using the free texts on d20srd.org. The overall feeling I get is that their design is based on adding whatever cool stuff they can think of, without realizing that solid design is broader in scope than that. YMMV, of course. I'll write some more when I feel like it.

[DeathQuaker]

I wouldn't recommend it. They pretty much just jump you if you attempt any kind of criticism. Pathfinder is long past any point where criticism has any effect, if it ever did.


Examples? I've been reading over the forums and didn't notice anything like that, but I might have just been in the wrong thread.

[Kurald Galain]

I wouldn't recommend it. They pretty much just jump you if you attempt any kind of criticism. Pathfinder is long past any point where criticism has any effect, if it ever did.

I haven't noticed the former, but agree to the latter. Criticism simply isn't being listened to, probably due to the rather low signal-to-noise ratio of those forums. Simply put, every opinion is confirmed by some and contradicted by others. It's hard to gather decent feedback out of that, and it's easier for the designers to just listen to the side that agrees with them.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Lot of good points.

I mostly like the new point buy system with all ability scores starting at 10 with 15 points and no lower starting ability than 7 (additional +4 points in point buy) I really like the 7 minimum.

Basically starting stats at 14, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10 before Paizo racial. Definitely abuseable but slightly less abuseable than standard point buy.

In Pazio everyone can have UMD if they really want it.

[Matthew]

I have two main gripes. I am not happy with Power Attack (or Combat Expertise, for that matter), and the fighter is still too slow in heavy armour. He doesn't need more AC, but he could do with +10' movement...

[edit] Three actually, still no Offensive/Aggressive Fighting option. Okay, actually, not enough of my D20 House Rules, that's my main complaint. :smallbiggrin:

[SpikeFightwicky]

* Barbarians now have to keep track of "rage points". Most of the rage abilities cost too many rage points to keep longer than a round or two. I think this is unnecessarily complex as well.

OMG WTF??!? This is just a rip off of the WoW warrior mechanics... Holy crap videogame much?

On a more serious note: What's Paizo? It kind of sounds to me like a revised 3.5. (Paizo's site is apparently blocked from my current connection).

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Warning triple thread merge above. Please see the post titles for help in sorting them out.

[Tengu_temp]

I'd love to download it, point out the imbalances myself and laugh, but I can't be arsed to make an account on that site. So keep coming with the juicy parts you fished for my amusement, people!

[Hurlbut]

OMG WTF??!? This is just a rip off of the WoW warrior mechanics... Holy crap videogame much?
Rage point/token isn't new, Iron Heroes Berserker use it.

[Tengu_temp]

Rage point/token isn't new, Iron Heroes Berserker use it.

WoW is older than Iron Heroes.

[Matthew]

On a more serious note: What's Paizo? It kind of sounds to me like a revised 3.5. (Paizo's site is apparently blocked from my current connection).

Paizo is the company that published Dragon and Dungeon before Wizards of the Coast ended the paper versions. They now publish Path Finder, which is essentially a subscription to a line of modules, from what I can tell. They are producing the Path Finder RPG, which is basically supposed to be 3.5 revised.

[LordOkubo]

Examples? I've been reading over the forums and didn't notice anything like that, but I might have just been in the wrong thread.

Well to be honest, I'm sure most of the people who were getting jumped have left by now, I know I did. I don't know if anyone new has tried presenting criticisms recently.

You are welcome to try though, just go ahead over there and try to explain to them that Wizards are too powerful, or that their Sorcerer claws are pretty much total crap. See how many people jump on you for being a horrid munchkin that plays the game all wrong.

And don't even try to explain that Fighters can't keep up against higher level opposition, they will go ballistic telling you that you play D&D all wrong.

[Hurlbut]

WoW is older than Iron Heroes.Don't go around and saying that IH ripped off WoW :smallyuk:

[Tengu_temp]

Don't go around and saying that IH ripped off WoW :smallyuk:

They didn't?

[Prophaniti]

Well, I've found the class retooling to look very nice on paper. I'll have a more clear view once I've had a chance to play it, but it looks good.

Buffing fighters/monks/etc. all looks great, and as for the claims that wizards would still dominate... Not according to the spell list I read. Now, I think I have the Alpha, in .pdf, so there may have been changes for the final product, but the problem with wizards has always been the brokeness of the spells rather than the class itself, and all the big problem ones seem to have been fixed or eliminated. I didn't see Time Stop in there at all, and Wish has had the more idiotic options (create magic items with no limit) removed. Polymorph spells seem to have been cleaned up very nicely, and since the Druid's Wild Shape ability now functions as the relavent Polymorph spell, that kinda nips his cheese down, too.

All in all, when I read through it, I see what WotC should have released in the first place with 3.0, or at the very least all the fixes that should have happened in 3.5. All it would have taken was some critical examination and more playtesting. But, what's done is done. Pathfinder looks good, and I will use it to augment my 3.5 material, at least.

[DeathQuaker]

You are welcome to try though, just go ahead over there and try to explain to them that Wizards are too powerful, or that their Sorcerer claws are pretty much total crap. See how many people jump on you for being a horrid munchkin that plays the game all wrong.

And don't even try to explain that Fighters can't keep up against higher level opposition, they will go ballistic telling you that you play D&D all wrong.

If it's the publishers acting like this, pooh on them for saying they accept feedback and then don't.

If it's the fans saying this, I can't say I'm shocked that gamers are acting the way gamers always do on message boards. Doesn't mean the right folks aren't still reading.

[LordOkubo]

Honest question (because I don't know), does the Tomes books (or whatever they are called) provide new monsters/fixes to the older monsters to increase their power to match that of the PCs, as to provide an actual challenge without too much DM intervention and manipulating?
Because if they don't, those books are merely moving the problem from individual PC balance, to total party balance problems.

It's based on the principle that Monsters will be played more intelligently then is the normal standard, and probably expects you to redo feats for most monsters because the standard ones suck.

That said, even if it didn't, Wizards are generally on par with the standard monsters of the later Monster Manuals, whereas Fighters and such are not. Raising them to Wizard level just puts everyone up there together. Most DMs just play Monsters stupider to make up for the fact that most PCs can't compete.

[Prophaniti]

Oh, yeah. Now they can turn into flying magical beasts with a big DEX bonus and a variety of other abilities, have a higher initiative, and rain down spellcasting death. They've got a *slightly* harder time meleeing themselves, but they're not really less powerful.You may want to take a deep breath and check it again. No Natural Spell feat, which means no spells while in animal form. Like I said, these are the fixes that should have been done with the original release of 3.5

[Knaight]

WoW is older than Iron Heroes.

Could be coincidence. I actually came up with a point system for fudge at one point where you got points for smacking people then spent them on abilities(because my constant gaining of focus in combat that allowed different tricks every turn really didn't work well for when people come into combat later without keeping track of multiple focus tracks for each person.), after WoW had come out. At the point I had never played WoW, only warcraft, which uses a mana system anyways. So when someone said that it looked like WoW I was honestly surprised. I just used it because I saw an opportunity in Fudge's relative degree mechanic for combat, which predates WoW(1994 was when Fudge was first relased, and I think relative degree was 1992, 1994 brought in some stuff like scale and stances).

[Tengu_temp]

Could be coincidence.

Possibly. My post was fairly tongue-in-the-cheek. Also, I know how it feels when you come up with a new and original idea and then it turns out someone else out there has made something incredibly similar. I had that too many times.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Well to be honest, I'm sure most of the people who were getting jumped have left by now, I know I did. I don't know if anyone new has tried presenting criticisms recently.

You are welcome to try though, just go ahead over there and try to explain to them that Wizards are too powerful, or that their Sorcerer claws are pretty much total crap. See how many people jump on you for being a horrid munchkin that plays the game all wrong.

And don't even try to explain that Fighters can't keep up against higher level opposition, they will go ballistic telling you that you play D&D all wrong.

They also pulled a lot of threads from the boards if you spend a little time looking around lots of threads are missing.

[Knaight]

Possibly. My post was fairly tongue-in-the-cheek. Also, I know how it feels when you come up with a new and original idea and then it turns out someone else out there has made something incredibly similar. I had that too many times.

That usually doesn't bother me that much, at least until the word "rip-off" enters. Then it gets frustrating.

[Eldariel]

One of the biggest lackings in the Paizo-comprehension seems to be how casters work and specifically why the multiclassing needs to be fixed. More specifically, the fact that caster advancement is exponential - not only do you get more spells and your present spells get more powerful, but you also actually get more powerful spells in the process. If you multiclass from a caster into another, you lose all those progressions; effectively you start from level 1. Wizard 5/Cleric 5 is about equivalent to Gestalt Wizard 5//Cleric 5, only with extra HP, skills, BAB and saves (in other words, extras in the stuff that doesn't matter).

Since a Gestalt character is about CR 1 higher than a non-Gestalt character and those extra bonuses are worth about another level, as a wizard 5/Cleric 5, your effective Character Level is 10, but you're equal to about a level 7 character in power. It's actually quite simple to fix by giving the classes half advancement in casting class level from non-casting classes, quite like ToB-classes. Maybe bit different mehcanics since we're talking about casters, but that's the gist of it.

[Tengu_temp]

Does Pathfinder handle multiclassing differently than DND 3.x?

[Eldariel]

Does Pathfinder handle multiclassing differently than DND 3.x?

Not yet. And it seems like the forumites cannot quite comprehend why it'd need to be handled.

[Morty]

Im general, I'd say that guys who designed this know how to fix and improve things, they just have a rather blurry idea what they are supposed to fix. Making races stronger, for example, seems completely unnecessary. A shame really, because some things there are really good, such as giving rangers, fighters and rogues capstone abilities- even if ranger's suck.

[Covered In Bees]

You may want to take a deep breath and check it again. No Natural Spell feat, which means no spells while in animal form. Like I said, these are the fixes that should have been done with the original release of 3.5

Natural Spell is right there in the Beta feats section. Sorry, but fail.

[Starsinger]

I can't help but notice that some of the changes are rather reminiscent of 4e...

But other than that, it doesn't seem like it really fixed 3.5's issues, just added better artwork than the 3.5 PHB and gave more abilities for classes.

And seemed to knock "Save or Die" off the pedestal, leaving "Save or Suck" to reign supreme.

[DeathQuaker]

Im general, I'd say that guys who designed this know how to fix and improve things, they just have a rather blurry idea what they are supposed to fix. Making races stronger, for example, seems completely unnecessary.

Did you read the "Designer's Notes" box that explained the boosting of the races? They note that many 3.5 splats introduced playable races that were ultimately stronger or more interesting to play than the core races. Rather than try to account for players using an infinite number of 3.5 (and other Pathfinder) resources to bring in stronger races and keep core races "bland," they boosted the core races to make them desirable to play again.

Mind you, I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking, but they did actually have a reason for doing it, and it looks like they did put some thought into it.

I think the reason why I don't like it in fact IS the assumption of competing with splatbooks. I can understand why they took that into consideration, but it does seem to skew the design decisions.

(Overall, though, I have to say I like a lot of what I've seen in the beta. Not everything, but a lot of stuff makes sense, and some things like eliminating things like XP costs in spells and consolidating certain skills were house rules I was already implementing. I imagine how much you'd want to convert would be how much Pathfinder conflicts with how you like to play 3.5 to begin with.)

[AstralFire]

They note that many 3.5 splats introduced playable races that were ultimately stronger or more interesting to play than the core races.

Problem with that is that I am 100% sure human and 90% dwarf are the respective #1 and #2 slots for non-theoretical optimization races. Bonus feats be ridiculous, yo.

[FMArthur]

Did humans actually improve though, or was it only the really weak races? I'd have to say that the only race I've ever played whose benefits could compete with Human Bonus Feat was the Changeling. It's because a +2 bonus here and there doesn't really scale with your character, whereas you can pick feats that do.

Still, I might consider picking this up and seeing how things go.

[Starsinger]

Did humans actually improve though, or was it only the really weak races? I'd have to say that the only race I've ever played whose benefits could compete with Human Bonus Feat was the Changeling. It's because a +2 bonus here and there doesn't really scale with your character, whereas you can pick feats that do.

Still, I might consider picking this up and seeing how things go.

Given that it's beta, (and free to download) I believe it's perfectly okay for me to say exactly what humans got.

+2 to one ability score
bonus feat
extra skill
free martial weapon proficiency of your choice.

[Killersquid]

Given that it's beta, (and free to download) I believe it's perfectly okay for me to say exactly what humans got.

+2 to one ability score
bonus feat
extra skill
free martial weapon proficiency of your choice.

The same extra skills as before? If so, its still the only race worth choosing if you want to min-max (and reinforced).

[AstralFire]

Pretty much the only way to make me not consistently go to human from a min-max standpoint on any non-adamantium plate wearer (those are dwarves) would be for them to take a -2 penalty to Con with no bonus.

[Covered In Bees]

But other than that, it doesn't seem like it really fixed 3.5's issues, just added better artwork than the 3.5 PHB and gave more abilities for classes.


Yep.

The Barbarian class has its own subsystem, complete with points expenditure that necessitates round-to-round tracking, a variety of abilities that range from okay to lame to overpowered at high levels... it doesn't help the game, and in fact giving everyone their own subsystem just slows it down.

[FMArthur]

Given that it's beta, (and free to download) I believe it's perfectly okay for me to say exactly what humans got.

+2 to one ability score
bonus feat
extra skill
free martial weapon proficiency of your choice.

...

What splatbook races could possibly necessitate buffing the best race with even more customizable bonuses?

[Covered In Bees]

...

What splatbook races could possibly necessitate buffing the best race with even more customizable bonuses?

Whisper Gnomes?

[Kyeudo]

Looking over some of their ideas, I see stuff I really like, such as their upgrade for the Sorcerer (except for the claws) and Paladin, and then they do something retarded like improve Humans, Wizards, and Druids.

I'm interested to see if they will fix their problems and keep the good stuff.

[Prophaniti]

Natural Spell is right there in the Beta feats section. Sorry, but fail.
Curious, it's not in the one I downloaded. I've checked three times now.

[Starbuck_II]

They nerfed Glitterdust to be like 3.5's Hold person: You get to save every round to get the effect off.

Grease seems unchanged like Color Spray.

Giant Form I seems sucky for the benefits (7th level spell?):
Sure, it acts like Shapechange in it gives regeneration if choose a Giant with Regeneration (Troll for example)...but other than that is kinda poor in Str bonus/Dex penalty.

None of Beast Form spells mention gaining natural attacks

Alter Self gives +2 Str no matter the Meduim race you turn into.
Why does an Elf who turns into a Human gain +2 Str?

They explain the polymorph changes for two times... was it neccessary to do it twice (there are like 10 pages in between I think)?

[Covered In Bees]

Curious, it's not in the one I downloaded. I've checked three times now.

p.92 of the PDF, between Mounted Combat and Overhand Chop.

[DrowVampyre]

The same extra skills as before? If so, its still the only race worth choosing if you want to min-max (and reinforced).

I wouldn't quite agree with that. Elves now get +2 Dex and Int, -2 Con. But the better thing is a free +2 to caster level checks for beating SR. So for a wizard, they're...pretty nice. Int boost and free spell penetration that stacks with normal and grater spell penetration...

[turkishproverb]

p.92 of the PDF, between Mounted Combat and Overhand Chop.

Page 80, too. Shame. Getting rid of that would cause fixing to a lot of stuff.

[Kurald Galain]

Looking over some of their ideas, I see stuff I really like, such as their upgrade for the Sorcerer (except for the claws)

They probably read the Start of Darkness strip with the S-Men, and decided that yes, they should do that.

[DeathQuaker]

The same extra skills as before? If so, its still the only race worth choosing if you want to min-max (and reinforced).

The same single bonus skill point, but they only get 1 extra skill point at 1st level too.

The reason I think why they got the other thing (the martial proficiency and the bonus to ability) is because Favored Classes have been altered (you just get a bonus if you take levels in that class, and the other races have more choices), so "Any favored class" isn't quite the cool ability it used to be.

Dwarves didn't change much, IIRC, but I like the idea that armor doesn't slow them down.

[AstralFire]

The same single bonus skill point, but they only get 1 extra skill point at 1st level too.

The reason I think why they got the other thing (the martial proficiency and the bonus to ability) is because Favored Classes have been altered (you just get a bonus if you take levels in that class, and the other races have more choices), so "Any favored class" isn't quite the cool ability it used to be.

Dwarves didn't change much, IIRC, but I like the idea that armor doesn't slow them down.

Favored class should have just been abolished. I have never spoken to, played with, or otherwise interacted with someone who mentioned the fact that they used the favored class and multiclassing rules. The fact that Favored Class isn't an advantage of humans anymore doesn't really change anything, as a result.

There is a chance that stating this will bring some of you out of the woodwork, but I'm fairly sure you're a minority.

[ImperiousLeader]

The reason I think why they got the other thing (the martial proficiency and the bonus to ability) is because Favored Classes have been altered (you just get a bonus if you take levels in that class, and the other races have more choices), so "Any favored class" isn't quite the cool ability it used to be.

Huh, I managed to completely miss this change and had to hunt for a few minutes to find it.

This is my biggest peeve with Pathfinder, there's a lot of edition confusion and most of the changes are, to me at least, nonsensical. Consolidating skills, that's good. Adding Fly?

Okay, my second major peeve is that it's not the most clearly written book. Druid's Wildshape is a mess of cross referencing, I still don't understand the Vital Strike Feat chain, and a lot of the minor changes between Pathfinder and 3.5 are kinda hidden, like Favoured Class.

[Prophaniti]

p.92 of the PDF, between Mounted Combat and Overhand Chop.

Page 80, too. Shame. Getting rid of that would cause fixing to a lot of stuff.
Hmmmm... Really not sure what's going on with mine then... Seriously it's not here. Mine goes from Mobility to Overhand Chop. No Mounted Combat feat either. Maybe I have an earlier version?

[Gaiwecoor]

Hmmmm... Really not sure what's going on with mine then... Seriously it's not here. Mine goes from Mobility to Overhand Chop. No Mounted Combat feat either. Maybe I have an earlier version?

I had a similar problem last night. It took me about twenty minutes to find the spell awaken. Eventually, I figured out it was there.

This is a strange case, though. (I'm not saying it's there and you don't see it... it's just strange)

[Matthew]

Hmmmm... Really not sure what's going on with mine then... Seriously it's not here. Mine goes from Mobility to Overhand Chop. No Mounted Combat feat either. Maybe I have an earlier version?

It's newly introduced in the Beta version, as far as I can tell. My previous Alpha documents don't contain it.

[Prophaniti]

That makes sense. I think I did get the Alpha one. I'll hit up the site again for the Beta and compare 'em. Sounds to me like they were really doing a good job of cutting the cheese, then changed their minds. That sucks. Guess I'll just do like I always do and take what I like and ignore what I don't.

[Dhavaer]

Favored class should have just been abolished. I have never spoken to, played with, or otherwise interacted with someone who mentioned the fact that they used the favored class and multiclassing rules. The fact that Favored Class isn't an advantage of humans anymore doesn't really change anything, as a result.

There is a chance that stating this will bring some of you out of the woodwork, but I'm fairly sure you're a minority.

I like the change to favoured classes. I agree with you that they were useless as written in 3.x, but working as a bonus instead of averting a penalty, and having them work for single-classed characters, makes it a useful mechanic, if not a good one.

[Kyeudo]

Since the bonus is 1 skill point per level, Humans just became the ultimate skill monkey race. Human Rogue with his ability bonus in Int and his favored class as Rogue can be slinging around 15 skills maxed out.

I like that the standardized and simplified all of the different combat tactics you can perform. It looks like it gives Fighters a decent chance of performing a bull rush or trip without being specialized in either.

I don't like the change to Wizard specialization. It feels wonky. I don't mind giving specialist Wizards special traits instead of bonus spell slots, but not making them give up any schools of magic to get those abilities feels wrong. Being a generalist has no real advantage anymore.

[Dhavaer]

I don't like the change to Wizard specialization. It feels wonky. I don't mind giving specialist Wizards special traits instead of bonus spell slots, but not making them give up any schools of magic to get those abilities feels wrong. Being a generalist has no real advantage anymore.

Eh? As I read it, they still have to choose two schools as banned schools. The difference is, instead of not being able to cast the spells, they don't get their special traits if they prepare them.

[AstralFire]

I like the change to favoured classes. I agree with you that they were useless as written in 3.x, but working as a bonus instead of averting a penalty, and having them work for single-classed characters, makes it a useful mechanic, if not a good one.

I dislike the entire idea of a favored class. It defeats the point of a free class system.

[Aquillion]

Eh? As I read it, they still have to choose two schools as banned schools. The difference is, instead of not being able to cast the spells, they don't get their special traits if they prepare them.
Yeah, but then... how can you be a generalist? There's no way to be a generalist specifically; you could just be a specialist and rarely prepare your spells in ways that give you your special traits.

(Although perhaps this is deliberate -- honestly, do wizards really need a bonus for keeping access to every spell school, beyond simply keeping access to every spell school? Still, it means that you're pretty much forced to pick a school even if you're not going to use the bonus, unless you want to cut the bonus off purely for RP purposes.)

[Morty]

Yeah, but then... how can you be a generalist? There's no way to be a generalist specifically; you could just be a specialist and rarely prepare your spells in ways that give you your special traits.


Being a generalist gives you bonuses as well. If you don't specialize, you get Universal school special abilities.

[Kyeudo]

Eh? As I read it, they still have to choose two schools as banned schools. The difference is, instead of not being able to cast the spells, they don't get their special traits if they prepare them.

The school is not prohibited if you can still pick from it. You arn't really giving up anything at all.

Also, why did memorizing a necromancy spell mean you can't create your abjuration ward today? Why would memorizing an evocation spell mean you can't use your divination special abilities? It makes no sense from an in-game perspective.

If they had just gone "specialist wizards get special abilities based on what school they want to focus in, while generalists get these other, equal bonuses" that would make sense. But one spell mucking up the discipline of the Batman Archmage?

[Tsotha-lanti]

I like the change to favoured classes. I agree with you that they were useless as written in 3.x, but working as a bonus instead of averting a penalty, and having them work for single-classed characters, makes it a useful mechanic, if not a good one.

What kind of bonus?

One of my favorite bits of Conan d20 were the bonus feats (at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th levels) for taking levels in your favored class. No XP penalty of any sort. (The idea, of course, is to encourage multiclassing and dipping. Conan is a Barbarian/Thief/Soldier/Pirate himself. Conversely, though, the game has very, very few prestige classes, and those are mostly for sorcerers, who probably wouldn't want to take levels in anything but the Scholar class anyway.)

[Kyeudo]

What kind of bonus?

A bonus skill point.

[Dhavaer]

What kind of bonus?

1 skill point or hit point each level.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Okay, that's pathetic and worthless. Well, at least they got rid of the XP penalty.

[ImperiousLeader]

One would hope, but that's not necessarily true, there are no multiclassing rules in the book.

[Aquillion]

Okay, that's pathetic and worthless. Well, at least they got rid of the XP penalty.I assume you posted at the same time as Dhavaer? One extra skill point per level is far from worthless; that's basically another maxed skill for free. Even one extra hit point per level isn't so bad for someone who gets d4s.

Sure, I wouldn't choose my race based on it exclusively, but it's a nice fringe benefit.

[Kyeudo]

Even one extra hit point per level isn't so bad for someone who gets d4s.


No one gets a d4 anymore. The smallest hit die is a d6.

[Aquillion]

No one gets a d4 anymore. The smallest hit die is a d6.Whoops. Well, still, a few extra hp at low levels doesn't hurt if you don't have a use for the skill points.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Has anyone here messed with the Pathfinder rules yet? I downloaded the Beta rules (free from Paizo), and have been reading through them. So far, they seem pretty good, and the introduction discusses Paizo's decision to stick with 3.5 SRD and their own modifications....

Does anyone like, hate, or are completely indifferent towards these rules? Feel free to post your thoughts, and I'll toss in my own thoughts as they come to me. :smallsmile:

[Tsotha-lanti]

The thread from two weeks ago (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87815). (Technically posting there is thread necromancy. Go figure why; "3rd page" and "6 weeks" don't intersect. That's from page 7.)

[Jerthanis]

Well, since the old thread is beyond legal or ethical recovery, starting a new thread on the topic is probably fine.

I downloaded the Beta, but haven't been able to really get down and read it straight through. The thing is, it just isn't how I'd fix 3rd edition. I get the overwhelming impression it's being made by people who know 3rd edition has flaws, but doesn't see the big picture as to what those flaws really ARE. As such, it seems like if I did get the book in it's finished state, it'd be used as a bunch of variant rules similar to Unearthed Arcana, and read mostly for its new art.

But it's a splatbook/update for a game I really have no intention of ever running, and won't be playing in anytime soon. It's like... if they made a newer, revised and revisited D20 Modern. It could be good, and I'd admit it's theoretically a good thing that it's being put out, but I've got no investment in it.

[thegurullamen]

I like the majority of it. Unlike most of these forums, I don't think it's supposed to be a major-fix-all for 3e's bugs. It just isn't compatible with the aim of the work, which is preserving the majority of the rules as they stand and modifying the game in ways to make the other classes more fun to play i.e. giving them more options.

The only things I really dislike are the way they're handling wizards at the moment (universalist is too dominating, even thematically) and rage points are too expensive and boring. I'd love it if they could implement a per-encounter mechanic of some sort, but I'm not sure what the legal repercussions of doing so would be. (Tangent: I wish the ToB were Core/SRD. :smallfrown:)

The sorcerer rocks now, monks have a better-defined niche, rangers are okay (never my thing anyway) and I forget the rest, but I tended to like them. (Bard could use some more awesome in a bucket, but that's part of the bard's appeal; if he comes out awesome, it's not because of the rules, it's because of the player.)

[Surfing HalfOrc]

The thread from two weeks ago (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87815). (Technically posting there is thread necromancy. Go figure why; "3rd page" and "6 weeks" don't intersect. That's from page 7.)

I think the rule is "over a month old," but I'm not going to test my luck... :smallwink:

Anyways, I've read a bit more, and I have to admit I like the three advancement levels quite a bit, as well as the slightly beefed up starting hit points. Just me, but I've been goofing with this game since 1st Ed, and I remember a fighter with a very unlucky roll... A 1 on the d10 or d8 (it's been a LONG time!), and even with his con bonus of +2 he ended up with 3 hp to start with... Even the wizard of the group managed to roll a 4, thus giving our "weakest" member more hp than our front line warrior!

I read the other thread, so I have a few things to think about from there as well.

[Tsotha-lanti]

I think the rule is "over a month old," but I'm not going to test my luck... :smallwink:

No, it's page 3 and 6 weeks. (Oddly enough, the rules do not specify whether you can post on something beyond page 3 if it's not 6 weeks old. On further thought, I'd say the wording implies that would be fine.)

Increased starting HP are a very basic improvement. 3.X's "maximum HP for level 1" was an improvement over older editions, but nowhere near enough. (No wonder 4E went for higher starting HP.)

But like Jerthanis said, they didn't really know what needed to be fixed and in which direction.


I'd love it if they could implement a per-encounter mechanic of some sort, but I'm not sure what the legal repercussions of doing so would be.

Game mechanics cannot be proprietary; there would be no legal repercussions. (Most RPGs would be "illegal" - or, rather, the publishers etc. liable to be sued - if this were not true.)

[DrowVampyre]

I've been playing with the rules since Alpha 3, and I think it's great. I disagree that they don't know what they're doing with the fixes - I'd say they've done a good job on fixing the worst problems. There's some tweaking left to be done, but that's why it's in Beta with an open playtest - we can go to the Paizo message boards and give our input. ^_^

[Tsotha-lanti]

I've been playing with the rules since Alpha 3, and I think it's great. I disagree that they don't know what they're doing with the fixes - I'd say they've done a good job on fixing the worst problems. There's some tweaking left to be done, but that's why it's in Beta with an open playtest - we can go to the Paizo message boards and give our input. ^_^

So they didn't give druids, clerics, and wizards even more power, they removed wild shape and Natural Spell, and they got rid of save-or-die/lose spells?

Oh, yes, no, and no? Drat. So they didn't have a clue what to fix after all.

[Kyeudo]

I found their ideas for most characters pretty good, but poorly implemented.

The barbarians rage point abilities mostly sucked or were too strong, the bard seemed clunky as compared to its current iteration, cleric domains are confusing to read, the fighter didn't get anything he actually needed and niether did the monk, the sorcerer was flavorful but some abilities put it on the front lines making normal attack rolls, and wizard specialization makes no logical sense anymore.

I will say that they did an okay job with the Druid. It may have gotten stronger in some ways, but it wasn't a drastic leap forward. Wild Shape at will isn't a broken ability at level 20, since how many times do you need to change into a bear in any given day?

[chiasaur11]

I found their ideas for most characters pretty good, but poorly implemented.

The barbarians rage point abilities mostly sucked or were too strong, the bard seemed clunky as compared to its current iteration, cleric domains are confusing to read, the fighter didn't get anything he actually needed and niether did the monk, the sorcerer was flavorful but some abilities put it on the front lines making normal attack rolls, and wizard specialization makes no logical sense anymore.

I will say that they did an okay job with the Druid. It may have gotten stronger in some ways, but it wasn't a drastic leap forward. Wild Shape at will isn't a broken ability at level 20, since how many times do you need to change into a bear in any given day?

I dunno.
All the time?
How else would you scare the pants off a prominent parodic TV personality?

[thegurullamen]

So they didn't give druids, clerics, and wizards even more power, they removed wild shape and Natural Spell, and they got rid of save-or-die/lose spells?

Oh, yes, no, and no? Drat. So they didn't have a clue what to fix after all.

1) They did. Teh suck, sort of.
2) Does nerfing Wild Shape so it's far less abusable count? And Natural Spell only appears in half of the Betas released. Sure it's a computer problem, but the way I see it, natural Spell is now only half as effective as it was before.
3) They're working on it. SoDs have been retooled and SoSs have been maybe put in line for possible changes.

[Roland St. Jude]

The thread from two weeks ago (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87815). (Technically posting there is thread necromancy. Go figure why; "3rd page" and "6 weeks" don't intersect. That's from page 7.)

Sheriff of Moddingham: The rule is conjunctive not disjunctive. It has to be older than six weeks and on or below page three. The two coordinated better when there was less traffic on the board. Now, threads often drop to page three well before they are six weeks old, which means the time is usually the determining factor. *shrug*.

Threads merged.

[EvilElitest]

Most splatbook base classes range from downright bad to highly mediocre. A few are strong, like the Beguiler and martial adepts, but still pale in comparison to the Big Three in core. All the splatbooks WotC has ever published only have two classes on the level of the core Big Three.

My usual line: It's like Pathfinder is made by people who know that dark, terrible things happen in the depths of the CharOp boards, but have no idea of what those things actually are.

that being said, they actually care about their game, which is more than WOTC can say, who if possible, understand, care and appreciate their game even less.


Well, i suppose path finder is better than normal broken 3.5, and i say that is as vague a way possible, because it doesn't fix stuff. It fixes a few obvious annoyences, but doesn't actually solve the problem. I don't know if we can blame Paizo however, they didn't say they were making a new edition, they only said they were making a new 3E that kept up the traditions of hte old and apparently that includes the awful balance. I like the prospect of Paizo running things, maybe they can get smart and yet cranking, and because Paizo actually cares about its fanbase and what it has to say (again, more than WOTC, who just care about the almighty dollar, but they are a company) maybe it might be better in the future. I like the idea of Paizo fluff and story line, and i like their dedication, so i suppose i can still expect good things to come out of this, just nothing world changing and nothing that will save me the trouble of actually fixing stuff.


So in short, i like Pathfinder better than 4E, but that is like saying i liked Neverwinter knights more than Fable. The former is still good, just not great and has large flaws, but still is able to have quality.

It is an improvement to 3E i suppose, but i personally like its potienal for great things more than its current changes



Or switch to 4E? 4E isn't the Antichrist, you know.
no its hardly that, it just isn't good quality

from
EE

[Waspinator]

For my 3.5 games, I think I'm going to pick-and-choose a little. Take the feats and spell changes from Pathfinder that I like and not change what I don't like. That is one very nice thing about them staying close to 3.5: they're pretty intercompatible.

[thegurullamen]

I don't know if we can blame Paizo however, they didn't say they were making a new edition, they only said they were making a new 3E that kept up the traditions of hte old and apparently that includes the awful balance. I like the prospect of Paizo running things, maybe they can get smart and yet cranking, and because Paizo actually cares about its fanbase and what it has to say (again, more than WOTC, who just care about the almighty dollar, but they are a company) maybe it might be better in the future. I like the idea of Paizo fluff and story line, and i like their dedication, so i suppose i can still expect good things to come out of this, just nothing world changing and nothing that will save me the trouble of actually fixing stuff.

Here, here! (Or is it "Hear, hear"? Huh.)

I wonder if we'll get Dungeon and Dragon magazine-esque periodicals back with the beginning of Pathfinder RPG? Sure, they can't be the exact same as before, but it's the same company full of the same minds that wrote the originals. A different name and layout isn't going to kill either magazine.

[Still jazzed about the Sorc changes.]

[DrowVampyre]

So they didn't give druids, clerics, and wizards even more power, they removed wild shape and Natural Spell, and they got rid of save-or-die/lose spells?

Oh, yes, no, and no? Drat. So they didn't have a clue what to fix after all.

1) More power? No. Rearranged power? Sure. Most of the broken things on clerics, druids, and wizards are their spells, which they've been taking the nerf bat to (at least the worst offenders).

2) No, and I'm glad. Druids are supposed to shapeshift into animals - it's their schtick. They did, however, severely weaken wildshape - no longer can the druids sack his physical stats because he'll be a bear all the time.

3) No, thankfully, but again, they're tweaking them. If they got rid of them completely, it'd be kinda...4e, wouldn't it? "Let's have all combat spells able to do only damage or very minor status effects!" I'll take the save or die/lose, frankly, it just needs some tweaking (as do monster saves) to make it a little less sure thing (sure win against classed humanoids, sure lose against the HD=CRx2 monsters).

[Sucrose]

Here, here! (Or is it "Hear, hear"? Huh.)


It's hear, hear, a comment intended to get everyone to shut up to hear what the speaker has to say.

On topic: After playing with Pathfinder a bit... I just don't like it. My opinion on the edition wars is that 3.5 is good, 3.5 with many, many splats is great, and 4E is somewhere in between the two.

Somehow, though, I just dislike the feel of Pathfinder. I won't elaborate, because I don't think I can; I just have an irrational irritation at the ruleset, and the design philosophy behind it.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Here, here! (Or is it "Hear, hear"? Huh.)

I wonder if we'll get Dungeon and Dragon magazine-esque periodicals back with the beginning of Pathfinder RPG? Sure, they can't be the exact same as before, but it's the same company full of the same minds that wrote the originals. A different name and layout isn't going to kill either magazine.

[Still jazzed about the Sorc changes.]

I think that's the idea behind the Pathfinder subscription... It's Dungeon Magazine, rewritten for the Pathfinder campaign setting.

I've moved from a town that had a pretty big gaming community to a much smaller one, but what I am seeing here is mostly people here sticking to 3.5 and starting to look over the Pathfinder stuff more and more. 4.0 doesn't seem to be exactly flying off the shelves... But I don't want to turn this into a "Let's Bash 4.0!" thread. I think there is one of those already. :smallwink:

I'm still reading the Beta version, and the publisher mentions that they are creating options for fighters and rogues to actually stick with their classes until 20th level, rather than branching off into one of the Prestiege Classes. How is that working? Will Paizo publish it's own line of splatbooks for Pathfinder, or will your best bet be to look through the Bargain Bin?

[Dhavaer]

4.0 doesn't seem to be exactly flying off the shelves...

The initial run sold out much faster than WotC expected. Much faster than I expected too... :smallfrown:

[UserClone]

RE Dragon Magazine: See exhibit A - Kobold Quarterly (http://paizo.com/search?q=kobold+quarterly&x.x=0&x.y=0&what=all).

RE Multiclassing: I started a thread on this subject on the Paizo forums; I basically said, "Look, three different advancement tables! You could just use the first one for single class, the middle one for Gestalt X//Y, and the last for Gestalt X//Y//Z! It's so crazy it just might work!" It got a slight bit of feedback from other forum goers, but was then mostly ignored. *shrug*

RE Starsinger: So when are we going to go get that sushi lunch? I'm hungry, man!:smallwink:

[EvilElitest]

Here, here! (Or is it "Hear, hear"? Huh.)

I wonder if we'll get Dungeon and Dragon magazine-esque periodicals back with the beginning of Pathfinder RPG? Sure, they can't be the exact same as before, but it's the same company full of the same minds that wrote the originals. A different name and layout isn't going to kill either magazine.

[Still jazzed about the Sorc changes.]

thank you very much (I think its Hear, Hear, that started as a way to keep the crowed silent, but has evolved into a form of agreement)

Paizo's book is far from perfect, but the fact they are going on gives hope to those who don't like the new edition (thank you WotC for using such a bad license). Hopefully Paizo will listen and learn.


About the pathfinder magazine, that is basically Dungeon magazine again. I wish they published their own version of Dragon, which was my favorite
from
EE

[Capfalcon]

Just finished reading it, and did anyone else notice the change to requirments for prestige classes regarding skills?

In case you didn't...


With the changes to the skill system, the requirements to enter various prestige classes must change as well. Whenever a prestige class calls for a number of skill ranks, you can qualify for the prestige class if you meet that number of ranks –3 if you also have the skill as a class skill. If you do not have the skill as a class skill, you must possess double that number of ranks. For example, a 3.5 prestige class might require eight ranks in Move Silently. In the Pathfinder RPG, it instead requires five ranks of the Stealth skill if Stealth is one of your class skills and ten ranks if it is not.

Now, if I'm reading this right, it means that you can get into a PrC 3 levels earlier than normal if it's a class skill. This... seems to be a bad idea to me. Skills were mostly used as level barriers, since you could only get 13 ranks in Perform at level 10. Letting people get access to a PrC that was intended to be introduce three levels later. I can tell you that this rule is going right into the bin if I use Pathfinder.

Now, overall, it's an improvement over 3.5. To be honest, I would have been shocked if it wasn't. You have people who love D&D trying to make a good game. Unfortunatly, it's just not a big enough improvement to make me want to stop playing 4E.

[Morty]

My group is planning on using Pathfinder rules in our games, but with exceptions. The exceptions being, we're not going to use changes for the wizard, save for possibly cantrips and bonded object. About cantrips I'm still arguing with my GM, but there's also the question of bonded object. I like the idea of wizard using a staff, but at first its ability seemed overpowered to me. However, reading it again I noticed the clause about wizard having to pass a difficult Spellcraft check to cast any spell without it, so it might not be so strong after all. What does the Playground think?

[Ariko]

Just finished reading it, and did anyone else notice the change to requirments for prestige classes regarding skills?

In case you didn't...



Now, if I'm reading this right, it means that you can get into a PrC 3 levels earlier than normal if it's a class skill. This... seems to be a bad idea to me. Skills were mostly used as level barriers, since you could only get 13 ranks in Perform at level 10. Letting people get access to a PrC that was intended to be introduce three levels later. I can tell you that this rule is going right into the bin if I use Pathfinder.


Actually, no. You can only get ranks in a skill up to your hitdice, and at first level you get no more skill points then you get at any other level, as the X4 multiplier is removed.

[Capfalcon]

Ah, I see. That makes more sense.

I was wondering what brain eating disease infected them...

That's interesting, to say the least.

A few more questions.

Does multiclassing give you all the class skills from the new class? And if so, does the class skill bonus stack?

[Kyeudo]

Yes, it does give you the class skill bonus. No, it doesn't stack.

Basicly, Pathfinder is working on making Rogue1/Wiz1 identical to Wiz1/Rogue1. In a standard game, one is mechanically better than the other. It makes sense in it's own way.

[BobVosh]

I like what they did with skills, even if it feels like you don't have any skill points at all to work with.

Makes cross classing actually viable if you don't have an incrediable stat. This however leads to lots of UMD fighter, wizards, rangers, etc. Also acrobatic people, as that is where tumble went to.

One thing I wonder about, are synergy bonuses gone?

[Nemoricus]

If they exist, they aren't called that anymore.

So, tentatively, yes, they're gone.