PDA

View Full Version : 3.6, 3.P, Pathfinder...thoughts?



Kaihaku
2008-09-05, 07:59 PM
There are a great number of things I like about 4e and a handful of things that I loathe. Unfortunately, the small handful of things I loathe include some of the largest aspects of the system so I'm thinking I might stick with 3.5.

Which, as a system, I think most people agree could use some work. I had been pondering fixing up 3.5 personally via a ton of houserules when I stumbled across the Tome series by FrankTrollman and K. I found the series excellent but it didn't address all of the problems that I have with 3.5. So, at the moment, I'm downloading Pazio's Pathfinder...'update'...and was wondering how it struck people here? The reviews I've read are excellent but that's not quite the same as hearing it from the 'people'.

So, how is Pathfinder?

Pathfinder RPG (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG)
A review of Pathfinder (http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=438)

shadow_archmagi
2008-09-05, 08:03 PM
I havn't personally touched it, but I believe the consensus was

"Its as if they knew 3.5 was broken but had never actually visited the char-op boards and had very little idea how to fix it. Its a nice effort but ultimately does not provide balance."

arguskos
2008-09-05, 08:04 PM
The general consensus is... "meh." It is nice in some respects, terrible in others, and seems like they knew something was wrong with 3.5, but not sure what it was exactly.

For example, druids weren't really messed with much, and in fact, Natural Spell (a major issue with 3.5 balance to many folks) is still in.

Personally, I like Pathfinder. I liked what it did with some of the classes (Sorcerer, Bard, Fighter, Monk, Cleric) and liked some other, much more minor aspects of the update. The bonuses were enough to make me happy with it. :smallcool:

-argus

Kaihaku
2008-09-05, 08:14 PM
So, it falls to the DM to enforce balance as it always has. I don't know what's wrong with me sometimes, I get caught up in wanting to play in a balanced system where I don't have to balance each game I run myself. Not quite sure why. It's less work to balance out the game in sitting.

Is Pathfinder even worth it, in that case? Or would it be better to just take the best few Houserules out there (like, say, a Diplomacy fix)?

arguskos
2008-09-05, 08:19 PM
Considering Pathfinder is a free download, yeah, it's worth grabbing.

Some of the class updates are really excellent. Sorcerer, Fighter, Bard, Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, Rogue, Monk, these are all worth reading and adapting. Barbarian, Druid, and Wizard are all decent enough (I disliked the new rage mechanic, druid wasn't nerfed half-hard enough for my tastes, and wizard was made better, if you can believe it) if you like that sort of thing.

These class updates really bring the PHB classes into line with other classes added later, and make them far more balanced with one another, IMO.

Spellcasters still rape the game at higher level (but they always have, so that's nothing new), but at least now, non-casters get cool powers the whole way up the tree. :smallbiggrin:

-argus

Kaihaku
2008-09-05, 08:29 PM
Well, it's at 90%... :smallwink: I guess I'll see shortly.

Thanks for the feedback.

Zeful
2008-09-05, 08:47 PM
I think that it did some good things for the melee oriented classes, but it made the same mistake everyone else did when trying to redo the classes. It gave the sorcerer those freaking stupid bloodlines. I mean why couldn't it just be like in 3.5 where it was just a mysterious power that some claimed draconic heritage to be cool/scare the norms? Why can't the class just be some kind of cosmic brotherhood that transends beyond the blood? Let everyone that want's an explination create their own and leave my dreams alone?

I hate those bloodlines.

arguskos
2008-09-05, 08:52 PM
See, the beauty of Pathfinder is that it's so similar to 3.5 that you can mix and match with impunity. :D

Just like how I dislike the Barbarian, and you the Sorcerer, just don't use it, and boom! Issue fixed!

-argus

Thurbane
2008-09-05, 09:15 PM
The main reason I'm thrilled about Pathfinder is it means a steady source of adventures (and other material) I can use for 3.5 with very little tweaking. :smallsmile:

Kaihaku
2008-09-05, 09:22 PM
That's kind of disappointing to me... I wasn't hoping for them to balance out some of the problems in the system, I was hoping for them to present a system fix. Not another Unearthed Arcana, take what you want and leave the rest.

I like most of the changes to the classes and races, but I've seen comparable homebrew fixes. Hmmm... Grappling looks mildly better. The basic Turn Undead is nicer, better flavor. They did address Polymorph...that's good. Simplified skills...nice. Haha... A Fly Skill. Healing is still dumbed down, eh.

Alright, no reason to go through everything. So yeah, there's a lot here that I'll probably use but...it would be more of a 3.Kai game than a 3.P game. Ah well, better than nothing and the pictures are nice.

arguskos
2008-09-05, 09:25 PM
That's kind of disappointing to me... I wasn't hoping for them to balance out some of the problems in the system, I was hoping for them to present a system fix. Not another Unearthed Arcana, take what you want and leave the rest.

I like most of the changes to the classes and races, but I've seen comparable homebrew fixes. Hmmm... Grappling looks mildly better. The basic Turn Undead is nicer, better flavor. They did address Polymorph...that's good. Simplified skills...nice. Haha... A Fly Skill. Healing is still dumbed down, eh.

Alright, no reason to go through everything. So yeah, there's a lot here that I'll probably use but...it would be more of a 3.Kai game than a 3.P game. Ah well, better than nothing and the pictures are nice.
Well, considering that every supplement ever is pretty much an exercise in "What do I like as a DM? As a player?" Pathfinder at least is a VERY nice supplement, one well worthy of my time and effort.

I can't wait for the Pathfinder update of the PrC's from the 3.5 DMG. It'll be fun to see a fixed Arcane Archer. :smallwink:

Also, Fly skill... rofl. :smallbiggrin:

-argus

Lord Tataraus
2008-09-05, 09:27 PM
Personally, I really like Pathfinder, that is not to say I agree with everything, but it takes care of most problems leaving me with a lot less to homebrew (basically Druid and Wizard). I look at it as a huge homebrew patch to 3.5 that is standardized meaning you can easily play PbP or with other groups without the load of houserules I would need for 3.5 so understanding is easier.

Edit: What's so funny about the Fly skill? It simplifies flying a bunch completely removing that horrible flying mechanic with all the maneuverability ratings if there is a swim and climb skill why not fly?

Kaihaku
2008-09-05, 09:30 PM
Honestly, aside from the sorcerer-bloodline thing, I might run my next game Pathfinder but there's still a lot left that I feel needs to be fixed. I think it's a good supplement, just not quite the system update I was hoping for. :smalltongue:

Edit: No, no... I think the Fly skill is a nice fix. I just laughed because, well... I don't know.

arguskos
2008-09-05, 09:39 PM
Personally, I really like Pathfinder, that is not to say I agree with everything, but it takes care of most problems leaving me with a lot less to homebrew (basically Druid and Wizard). I look at it as a huge homebrew patch to 3.5 that is standardized meaning you can easily play PbP or with other groups without the load of houserules I would need for 3.5 so understanding is easier.

Edit: What's so funny about the Fly skill? It simplifies flying a bunch completely removing that horrible flying mechanic with all the maneuverability ratings if there is a swim and climb skill why not fly?
First of all, this. So this.

Second of all, the Fly skill just makes me laugh a little. Who the hell is gonna put ranks into FLY? It's like putting ranks into the "how to flap your non-existent wings" skill, which amuses me terribly. Not saying it's not useful or awesome (it is both of those things), just that it is very amusing.

-argus

Lord Tataraus
2008-09-05, 09:40 PM
Honestly, aside from the sorcerer-bloodline thing, I might run my next game Pathfinder but there's still a lot left that I feel needs to be fixed. I think it's a good supplement, just not quite the system update I was hoping for. :smalltongue:

I never really understood why the bloodline thing was that big of a deal you can always go Arcane or Destined those aren't bloodlines in mechanics name only and you can always change the fluff if you really don't like it. Unless you don't like the mechanics of it...

Also, never hope for the perfect system, it will never exist even if you make it yourself.

Kaihaku
2008-09-05, 09:55 PM
Perfect? Of course not, but with 10 5 years of significant feedback it should be possibly to fix most of the major flaws in a system.

DeathQuaker
2008-09-05, 10:42 PM
Honestly, aside from the sorcerer-bloodline thing, I might run my next game Pathfinder but there's still a lot left that I feel needs to be fixed. I think it's a good supplement, just not quite the system update I was hoping for. :smalltongue:


Do note it's still in BETA. What exists is not the final version, and they're still taking player feedback for MONTHS. Heck, if you're at least somewhat intrigued, why not give it a try and playtest it? Open playtests are extremely rare, may as well have some fun and take advantage of the opportunity.

And the final version (not due out for at least a year) will hopefully be that much better. Maybe not, but I like to buck the gamer trend and try to be optimistic on occasion. :smallsmile:

Crow
2008-09-05, 10:47 PM
They have gone over and re-written a bunch of the problematic spells too (not all them). There was nothing wrong with the wizard that caused brokeness. It's the spells, people.

Chronicled
2008-09-05, 10:50 PM
Do note it's still in BETA. What exists is not the final version, and they're still taking player feedback for MONTHS.

Word on the street is that they've effectively stopped taking suggestions.

If you're looking for balance, combining Expanded Psionics classes (minus Soulknife), Tome of Battle classes, the Factotum, the Dragonfire Adept, and the Binder should give you a nice variety without needing too many adjustments. I was looking at combining all the info and tossing in the nice/needed 4.0 changes in a .pdf before the I remembered that I like not getting sued...

So instead, I'm working on a collection of all the DMing advice and ideas I've seen while cruising the web. :smallsmile:

Knaight
2008-09-05, 10:59 PM
If you give the soulknife full BAB they aren't bad.

DrowVampyre
2008-09-05, 11:38 PM
Word on the street is that they've effectively stopped taking suggestions.

Word on the street is wrong - it came about because between Alpha 3 and Beta there were very few changes. The designers have said on numerous occasions that their effort for that period was mostly in getting the book more or less complete for Beta so people could do playtesting better (not to mention it came during con season). Beta is the major playtest time - they're going through every chapter, piece by piece, and taking suggestions as they come to look at. ^_^

Kaihaku
2008-09-06, 01:19 AM
It seems rather foolish of me to trust a drow vampyre but very well. I'm running a playtest (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/newthread.php?do=postthread&f=51), I'd appreciate the feedback old hands could provide.

arguskos
2008-09-06, 01:25 AM
Already signed up!! Been waiting for a Pathfinder game to spring up.

-argus

Kaihaku
2008-09-06, 02:07 AM
I never really understood why the bloodline thing was that big of a deal you can always go Arcane or Destined those aren't bloodlines in mechanics name only and you can always change the fluff if you really don't like it. Unless you don't like the mechanics of it...

I didn't read the specific bloodlines carefully on my first look through the book. You're right, they fill the gap nicely. What they have is good and fits 90% of characters. Also, any DM worth their salt could create a custom bloodline if a player wanted something that didn't fit.

Dhavaer
2008-09-06, 02:18 AM
I like the picture of the elf rogue. Apart from that I'm not fussed.

Kaihaku
2008-09-06, 02:36 AM
It is a cool picture. :smallwink:

I'm more impressed on my second-read then I was on my first.

Uin
2008-09-06, 04:50 AM
Main problem with Pathfinder? Its not going to be out for such a long time that I'm sure the people I know will be well entrenched in 4e by then.
Which is a shame, Pathfinder has made the base classes at least interesting by getting rid of many dead levels. Also the spells have been tweaked a bit, so while it might look like they made the casters better with more features, they at least changed shapechange a bit. Although I'm not sure how many of the overpowered spells have been fixed... anyone able to enlighten?

EDIT: Forgot important points, the "PHB" art is no longer a pile of crap. And Aberrant Sorcerors are way cool.

bosssmiley
2008-09-06, 05:13 AM
I like the picture of the elf rogue. Apart from that I'm not fussed.

Elf Sorcerer iconic. :smallcool:

Other than the spectacular art, Pathfinder's mainly rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Jason B: "We've changed this and made it newer and cooler, we've thrown the full BAB types a bone, we've done (etc. etc. etc.). Please playtest and give us feedback."
Playtest: "This is more fiddly than it needs to be. That's unbalanced. That's just bad maths. That's boring and didn't work first time around when WOTC did it. Who cares about DR5 at 19th level. What's the good of being reverse-compatible with something that's broken? (etc. etc. etc.)"
Jason B: "Silence! Your criticism is not wanted here!" :smallmad:

@v: I love you and want your babies (in a manly way).

@vv: See my previous comment on playtest feedback.

Kaihaku
2008-09-06, 05:18 AM
Other than that, Pathfinder's mainly rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Analogy. 4e is that little lifeboat everyone is crawling into, nice and balanced but so limiting. Then half-way down into the ocean depths Dungeons and Dragons will split into 3.5, Pathfinder, and various smaller unimportant bits of wreckage. Hopefully, in a few years, it'll become the stuff of legend and a really bad but popular movie will be made from it.

DrowVampyre
2008-09-06, 06:02 AM
Analogy. 4e is that little lifeboat everyone is crawling into, nice and balanced but so limiting. Then half-way down into the ocean depths Dungeons and Dragons will split into 3.5, Pathfinder, and various smaller unimportant bits of wreckage. Hopefully, in a few years, it'll become the stuff of legend and a really bad but popular movie will be made from it.

4e is the lifeboat, and FR is the guy floating on the door that freezes to death. -_- (Sorry, had to get that out of my system.) Seriously though, the Paizo people have said numerous times they're gonna be looking at stuff harder now that it's in beta.

Are they going to make it perfect? No. Are they going to fix everything everyone thinks needs fixing? No, and they couldn't anyway, because people don't agree on what needs fixing. Are they not going to listen to people if there's a huge outcry about things? Um...kinda pointless to have an open playtest of a game you're giving away for free if the final stays the same as said free game, doesn't it? I'm pretty sure there'll be some notable changes between beta and final, but if people don't bring problems they see to the designers' attention, how can they be expected to fix it? There needs to be a fair amount of people saying something needs fixing before it's going to be looked at heavily to be fixed, and those people aren't going to do any good if they don't bring their concerns to Paizo's board.

So if you have things you want to see changed, if you have problems you think need addressing...download the beta, bring it up on their boards, and try to make your point as best you can. It may get changed, it may not...but it definitely won't if no one calls it to attention, no?

DeathQuaker
2008-09-06, 08:40 AM
Elf Sorcerer iconic. :smallcool:
Jason B: "We've changed this and made it newer and cooler, we've thrown the full BAB types a bone, we've done (etc. etc. etc.). Please playtest and give us feedback."
Playtest: "This is more fiddly than it needs to be. That's unbalanced. That's just bad maths. That's boring and didn't work first time around when WOTC did it. Who cares about DR5 at 19th level. What's the good of being reverse-compatible with something that's broken? (etc. etc. etc.)"
Jason B: "Silence! Your criticism is not wanted here!" :smallmad:


I've been hanging around the Paizo boards awhile and I've not seen ANY of that. I've seen a lot of solicitation of good feedback. The only thing being "silenced" is any usual back-and-forthing with no helpful examples.

You know, after years of gamers saying, "We want a company to hear us!" here's the ONE company that has specifically said to players, "We WANT your feedback!" And the players turn around and just bite them in the ass because it's impossible to please everyone. It's really, really sad.

If attitudes like yours dominate, BossSmiley, this'll probably be the LAST time a MAJOR game design company goes out on a limb to hear people out.

Morty
2008-09-06, 08:48 AM
Overall, Pathfinder doesn't look bad, but I don't uderstand some of the changes. Bumping up some of the classes was necessary, as was giving all of them a level 20 ability. However, reading the Wizard class I can't help but notice it's stronger now, which is rather unwise for obvious reasons. I don't understand why have they strenghtened the races either. Sure, they needed balancing, but all of them are much stronger than in core now. Right now I'm arguing with my DM about allowing me to use the implement instead of familiar and new rules for cantrips.

DeathQuaker
2008-09-06, 09:40 AM
However, reading the Wizard class I can't help but notice it's stronger now, which is rather unwise for obvious reasons.

My understanding is what makes the wizard class "broken" is less the class itself and more certain spells that can be abused when not adjudicated well by a savvy GM. Paizo's made changes to a lot of spells that help with that problem--although, frankly, there are still some changes that need to be made, but they've gotten a start, and I imagine when they get to discussing the spells chapter for the beta, there are going to be a lot more tweaks offered and made.

What it looks like they're doing is making the wizard more individually interesting as a CLASS, putting what power it does have in its features, not in a broken arcane spell list.

That said, playtesting may show otherwise... when the Classes discussion open up for the beta I'll be interested to see what's said about it.



I don't understand why have they strenghtened the races either. Sure, they needed balancing, but all of them are much stronger than in core now.

I saw that explained by I think Jason B or one of his associates in the Paizo boards: they want Pathfinder usable in conjunction with favorite 3.5 supplementary materials. Many of these favorite materials offer "basic" player races that blow the core races out of the water. They decided to boost the core races therefore, so they could then be desirable races to play even when using supplementary materials with other powerful races.

There's also general speculation that in Pathfinder, a lot of LA+1 races would effectively become LA 0 races because the core races are now a little more on par with them.

Given my own gaming preferences, I don't care so much about compatibility with splats (although I know I'm in the minority here) but I _do_ like the idea of eliminating some of the LA stuff by boosting core.

Lord Tataraus
2008-09-06, 10:16 AM
Main problem with Pathfinder? Its not going to be out for such a long time that I'm sure the people I know will be well entrenched in 4e by then.

What do you mean "not out"? Pathfinder is out and its free! Sure it is in the beta phase right now but that doesn't make it unplayable.

Morty
2008-09-06, 10:20 AM
My understanding is what makes the wizard class "broken" is less the class itself and more certain spells that can be abused when not adjudicated well by a savvy GM. Paizo's made changes to a lot of spells that help with that problem--although, frankly, there are still some changes that need to be made, but they've gotten a start, and I imagine when they get to discussing the spells chapter for the beta, there are going to be a lot more tweaks offered and made.

What it looks like they're doing is making the wizard more individually interesting as a CLASS, putting what power it does have in its features, not in a broken arcane spell list.

I'd have to check the spells, then.


I saw that explained by I think Jason B or one of his associates in the Paizo boards: they want Pathfinder usable in conjunction with favorite 3.5 supplementary materials. Many of these favorite materials offer "basic" player races that blow the core races out of the water. They decided to boost the core races therefore, so they could then be desirable races to play even when using supplementary materials with other powerful races.

Stronger races... which ones, exactly? The only ones I recall are Whisper Gnomes and Strongheart Halflings, the latter being setting-specific. Even with non-core material humans and dwarves are the strongest races That's yet another thing that puzzled me in Pathfinder- they claim to be balancing the game to match the splatbook material, while only two out-of-core classes match Wizard, Druid and Cleric in power.


There's also general speculation that in Pathfinder, a lot of LA+1 races would effectively become LA 0 races because the core races are now a little more on par with them.

And monster races such as orcs and goblins become even more sucky without houserules.

Learnedguy
2008-09-06, 10:28 AM
Having scanned through the manual some I've started to think that they aren't as much balancing things as adding OOMPF!! to existing classes.

If they are intending to balance casters it'll probably be by addressing spells directly and by improving other classes I suspect. Sadly though I suspect that we'll see little actual change in balance (and maybe that's for the better? Maybe one of 3.5's main advantages always were that it was kind of imbalanced in the first place?)

With that said, the artwork is fugging sweet. Seriously, there's some sexy artwork in that book. My favorites are the Sorceress, the Rogue and the Cleric:smallbiggrin:

Also, did anyone else dig the new fighter? I kinda thought his new abilities were sexy (especially coupled with some of those feats, like for instance Devastating Blow at level 11). I can totally imagine myself going a pure 20 fighter. The new fighter is hot:smallamused:.

Nero24200
2008-09-06, 11:30 AM
My understanding is what makes the wizard class "broken" is less the class itself and more certain spells that can be abused when not adjudicated well by a savvy GM. Paizo's made changes to a lot of spells that help with that problem--although, frankly, there are still some changes that need to be made, but they've gotten a start, and I imagine when they get to discussing the spells chapter for the beta, there are going to be a lot more tweaks offered and made.

What it looks like they're doing is making the wizard more individually interesting as a CLASS, putting what power it does have in its features, not in a broken arcane spell list.

This might have been a good idea...if they actually targeted the worst spells. Although they have nerfed one or two broken spells, they've also nerfed ones which were fine and left most of the worst ones in.



I saw that explained by I think Jason B or one of his associates in the Paizo boards: they want Pathfinder usable in conjunction with favorite 3.5 supplementary materials. Many of these favorite materials offer "basic" player races that blow the core races out of the water. They decided to boost the core races therefore, so they could then be desirable races to play even when using supplementary materials with other powerful races.

There's also general speculation that in Pathfinder, a lot of LA+1 races would effectively become LA 0 races because the core races are now a little more on par with them.
I personally think this was a bad idea. Most playtesters I've seen have instead just given each non-core race a +2 to a random stat, so there wasn't any benifit in adding to the races. And besides, humans were good enough as it is, now they get +2 to an ability of their choice?


All in all I'm not a big fan of the paizo stuff. What's worse is I've got two DM's that seem to love it. I can't go five mins without hearing "you know, they fixed XYZ in paizo" even though they havn't, most problems they've actually made worse.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-06, 12:31 PM
I've been hanging around the Paizo boards awhile and I've not seen ANY of that. I've seen a lot of solicitation of good feedback. The only thing being "silenced" is any usual back-and-forthing with no helpful examples.

You know, after years of gamers saying, "We want a company to hear us!" here's the ONE company that has specifically said to players, "We WANT your feedback!" And the players turn around and just bite them in the ass because it's impossible to please everyone. It's really, really sad.

If attitudes like yours dominate, BossSmiley, this'll probably be the LAST time a MAJOR game design company goes out on a limb to hear people out.

But that was exactly the situation whe Frank Troll man actually offered his thoughts.
It was a "Silence!"

They didn't listen. DR 5 is sucky at level 19.

Sure, Frank could say it more diplomatically, but still sets a bad pressident thast they didn't listen in past. It pavlocs the people to realizse they do'nt listen to them.

And really, they made some spells better, but others stupid I thought.

Alter Self gives +2 Str/Dex? How does a Dwarf turning into a Human get +2 Str, but a Elf turning into a Halfing gets +2 Dex?

The bonuses are sized based. I'll admit the Na bonus gone maybe balances it, but the logic of the new bonuses are not here.

And why does Giantshape-ing into a Troll give a Dex penalty? Trolls have a Dex bonus?
I'll adnmit most Giants have low Dex, but Trolls don't.

Aron Times
2008-09-06, 02:09 PM
The Pathfinder boards are plagued by fanboys who don't understand what the word "playtest" means. Most of the constructive posts I've seen in there are quickly drowned out by accusations of, "You are a powergamer/munchkin for suggesting these!"

And don't get me started on how elitist the veteran board members are. I actually got flamed for "not trying to assimilate with their culture" when I presented my case for a CharOp board where we could post our detailed mathematical analysis of the game-breaking aspects of the game.

Oh, and the developers actually stickied a post telling forum members to actually "play" the game as opposed to merely posting "math", as if us "math folk" aren't actually playing the game, too.

Yes, the rabid fanboys find math offensive. They get bonus points if they foam at the mouth at the mention of Wizards or 4E.

I have since removed the site from my bookmarks. The devs aren't interested in seeing my kind of playtesting, preferring to listen to the adoring fanboys that plague their boards. There no point in my continued presence there.

Akimbo
2008-09-06, 03:11 PM
My favorite is if you actually read the "playtests" these are the most incompetent players I have ever seen, and every DM will add a bunch of housrules to the "playtest."

When playtesting a module, one DM gave out free true resurrections if a player (or players) died, so that he could test the module fully.

Nevermind that everyone who plays the module as a non-playtest is going to die, lose a level, and then find the module harder afterward.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-06, 03:59 PM
I believe the main problem with pathfinder is that it lacks a comprehensive list of differences. You might assume that any random spell or feat with the same name is identical to its 3.5 counterpart which you already know, and in most cases you'd be right, but in a significant amount of cases you'd be missing something important.

namo
2008-09-06, 05:03 PM
I believe the main problem with pathfinder is that it lacks a comprehensive list of differences. You might assume that any random spell or feat with the same name is identical to its 3.5 counterpart which you already know, and in most cases you'd be right, but in a significant amount of cases you'd be missing something important.

Agreed. Pathfinder seems like a decent set of houserules to play by. There will be problems of course, and DMs will still have to count on their players to sometimes self-nerf.

The main "cost" is that there will be lots of rules to relearn...

Kaihaku
2008-09-06, 07:12 PM
But that was exactly the situation whe Frank Troll man actually offered his thoughts.
It was a "Silence!"

They didn't listen. DR 5 is sucky at level 19.

Sure, Frank could say it more diplomatically, but still sets a bad pressident thast they didn't listen in past. It pavlocs the people to realizse they do'nt listen to them.

Link?


I believe the main problem with pathfinder is that it lacks a comprehensive list of differences. You might assume that any random spell or feat with the same name is identical to its 3.5 counterpart which you already know, and in most cases you'd be right, but in a significant amount of cases you'd be missing something important.

I concur. It would be nice to have a list of changes. At the least a list for the major system changes, I've found myself missing some rather obvious ones just by assuming that it works the same way... Like skills and item creation. :smallredface:

DrowVampyre
2008-09-06, 07:49 PM
But that was exactly the situation whe Frank Troll man actually offered his thoughts.
It was a "Silence!"

They didn't listen. DR 5 is sucky at level 19.

Sure, Frank could say it more diplomatically, but still sets a bad pressident thast they didn't listen in past. It pavlocs the people to realizse they do'nt listen to them.

I wasn't on the Paizo boards when Frank was, but from everything I've seen this is definitely not the case. He was being outright hostile, they gave him a temporary (few days) ban to cool down, and he never came back. The Paizo people have said numerous times he's plenty welcome to come back if he wants, he just has to be civil like anyone else.

That said, from what I've seen of a few others that they haven't banned for arguing their ideas in a very hostile manner, he must've been acting really badly, and in all likelihood whatever he may have said that had real value was buried under a flame war within hours. Moreover, as I said earlier, more people need to bring things to their attention to see them fixed. They're not going to go "oh, he's totally right!" if everyone else disagrees, he's yelling at them, and no one's there to chime in agreement. The DR 5 issue has come up again recently in less-hostile terms and from what I've seen of it (haven't been following that thread specifically) it's actually getting some discussion now, not just shouting.

Threeshades
2008-09-06, 08:00 PM
I'd have to check the spells, then.



Stronger races... which ones, exactly? The only ones I recall are Whisper Gnomes and Strongheart Halflings, the latter being setting-specific. Even with non-core material humans and dwarves are the strongest races That's yet another thing that puzzled me in Pathfinder- they claim to be balancing the game to match the splatbook material, while only two out-of-core classes match Wizard, Druid and Cleric in power.



And monster races such as orcs and goblins become even more sucky without houserules.

You know. It is pretty much impossible to get EVERYTHING IN EVERY SINGLE BOOK EVER RELEASED FOR DND 3.5 on balance with publishing a single book that is not even finished. Or if you think that is possible please show me how. You might start a revolution in tabletop gaming.

There are three classes that need to be set on par with the others, that's work in progress. Of course they cannot just write a beta release book and suddenly its all magically fixed and in perfect balance. Core classes have been improved to be a better match to these classes. But splatbook material hasnt even been touched yet. Just let them get the core done properly before going to the next stage.
When making a sandwhich you also dont put the cheese on the plate first and then install the the bread slices around it.

Same goes for non-core races. Wait until they get to publish their own monster book. Where they can include new rules for ECL-0 monster races.


As for my personal thoughts:

I havent been reading the whole book et but from what ive seen so far I think its going the right way. The underdog classes have been greatly improved. Ihe three caster classes might still be over the top but I trust its being worked on.
All over I am enthusiastic towards this game and I'm probably going to buy the finished book.
To me its more important to have the classes balanced in the way they feel in playing style than in the purely mechanic way. They all should be fun to play and you should always have something to look forward to when working for your XPs to get to next level, even if you are fighter or something else seemingly one-sided. And you shouldn't be totally outshined. As long as every character can do his job in the game and gets involved, its enough for me even if a class is stronger than the other.


Also I too have started a playtest recruiting thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90233) for it hoping to get a more in-depth look at it and the way it feels.

Kaihaku
2008-09-06, 08:13 PM
It seems rather foolish of me to trust a drow vampyre but very well. I'm running a playtest (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/newthread.php?do=postthread&f=51), I'd appreciate the feedback old hands could provide.

Though, I'd love to play Pathfinder as well as run it so I hope you have some success recruiting a DM.

Morty
2008-09-07, 07:25 AM
You know. It is pretty much impossible to get EVERYTHING IN EVERY SINGLE BOOK EVER RELEASED FOR DND 3.5 on balance with publishing a single book that is not even finished. Or if you think that is possible please show me how. You might start a revolution in tabletop gaming.

Well, considering their statment about "getting core classes on par with splatbook ones", the guys from Pathfinder are trying to do exactly that.


There are three classes that need to be set on par with the others, that's work in progress. Of course they cannot just write a beta release book and suddenly its all magically fixed and in perfect balance. Core classes have been improved to be a better match to these classes. But splatbook material hasnt even been touched yet. Just let them get the core done properly before going to the next stage.

I've been looking at some too powerful spells, and so far many of them haven't been changed, and wizards as a class are actually stronger with d6 HD and better specialization.


Same goes for non-core races. Wait until they get to publish their own monster book. Where they can include new rules for ECL-0 monster races.

But the question remains: why? Races really didn't need to be strenghtened, all they needed was smacking down dwarves and making half-orcs and half-elves non-sucky.

Learnedguy
2008-09-07, 07:37 AM
But the question remains: why? Races really didn't need to be strenghtened, all they needed was smacking down dwarves and making half-orcs and half-elves non-sucky.

Speaking of which, what did you guys think about the new half-elves and half-orcs? I didn't think they look too bad myself. What goes for the other races I don't care too much, the core races doesn't really bring anything to the table that might brake the game in my opinion.

Morty
2008-09-07, 07:41 AM
Speaking of which, what did you guys think about the new half-elves and half-orcs? I didn't think they look too bad myself. What goes for the other races I don't care too much, the core races doesn't really bring anything to the table that might brake the game in my opinion.

They don't look too bad, but I'd have to analyze them futher to see if they're on par with others. My beef is that half-orcs and half-elves were really they only races that needed to change. Dwarves were a bit too strong, but not game-breakingly.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-07, 08:43 AM
But the question remains: why? Races really didn't need to be strenghtened, all they needed was smacking down dwarves and making half-orcs and half-elves non-sucky.

They may have wanted to make races divergent and relevant at higher levels, something WOTC has also attempted (and imho failed) to address.

Crow
2008-09-07, 01:06 PM
They may have wanted to make races divergent and relevant at higher levels, something WOTC has also attempted (and imho failed) to address.

What did WotC try to do to make race relevant at higher levels? Do you mean the Racial Feats?

joela
2008-09-07, 01:52 PM
So, at the moment, I'm downloading Pazio's Pathfinder...'update'...and was wondering how it struck people here? The reviews I've read are excellent but that's not quite the same as hearing it from the 'people'.

So, how is Pathfinder?

Pathfinder RPG (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG)
A review of Pathfinder (http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=438)

I like it. I'm currently play-testing it using Paizo's Curse of the Crimson Throne AP. Wizard PC 4th level. Recently ran through Seven Swords of Sin using a 7th level Sorceress.

Let me know if you want details.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-07, 05:31 PM
What did WotC try to do to make race relevant at higher levels? Do you mean the Racial Feats?

Yes. Well, in the previews they promised something like a scale of abilities from level one through ten (at which point, presumably, the paragon path took over). That never happened. So what we got were the racial feats, the vast majority of which aren't really worth taking.

Also, most of the racial powers are nice but don't really feel racial. For instance, elven accuracy is very good, but it doesn't really say "elf"; they might have named it "troll brutality" or something and it'd be exactly the same. There are some exceptions, of course, like dragon breath.

Kaihaku
2008-09-07, 06:39 PM
I was mostly unimpressed on my first read...

Now, on my second and third reads I noticed tons of little changes. They basically rewrote 70% of the rules but did it so mildly that I didn't notice. There are a lot of not-so blatant fixes in there.

Yes, the big change that leaps out is the races and classes got a big boost. I suspect that was done so that the core classes are comparable to later 3.5 material, like say Tome of Battle. The stronger races mean that if someone wants to play Goblin, Drow, Aasimar, Catfolk, Tiefling, etc they don't have to take LA. It works. I wasn't thrilled at first either but the more I look the better I like it.

Druid and Bard barely got changed.
The other classes got some significant boosts.
Fighter and Monk got the biggest overhaul.

Somehow, that fits with imbalance in 3.5. Now, they could have nerfed the Druid but 1. that would have had people up in arms and 2. it wouldn't have been compatible.

So, it's not perfect but it's a good start that replaces a lot of houserules. I'll probably switch to Pathfinder eventually.