PDA

View Full Version : Your thoughts on Paizo's Beta



Akisa
2008-09-28, 01:40 AM
I was wondering what are your thoughts on Paizo's beta 3.5 PHB (http://paizo.com/store/downloads/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy8253). It still needs tweaking mainly that they took nerfing some stuff too much, mainly wildshape and divine power.

Kaihaku
2008-09-28, 01:48 AM
Could you elaborate on the divine power?

I'm enjoying it. There's only been one change I've discovered that I really disliked, that was Intimidate, but I'm hoping that the removal of Fear bonuses and immunity was due to publishing pressures and can be replaced. Most of the class changes are excellent in my opinion and I'm glad that they decided to rework the Barbarian Rage model they had originally fielded. The removal of experience costs is a change that I hadn't thought of but which is, honestly, extremely nice.

Akisa
2008-09-28, 02:23 AM
Divine power provides +1 luck bonus to hit and damage, strength checks and extra attack with making full round attack. I would be fine if they changed luck bonus to something else.

turkishproverb
2008-09-28, 03:26 AM
They did next to nothing to Druids or the caster classes to actually balance them. They needed to nix natural spell entirely for starters.

Beleriphon
2008-09-28, 03:34 AM
They did next to nothing to Druids or the caster classes to actually balance them. They needed to nix natural spell entirely for starters.

The major complaint is that Paizo, while presenting a good idea, doesn't really understand the underlying math behind the game. They know things are unbalanced, but don't understand what those things are.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-28, 03:34 AM
They made a lot of changes simply for the sake of change.

turkishproverb
2008-09-28, 03:37 AM
They made a lot of changes simply for the sake of change.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. I think they're mostly trying to fix problems they don't know what are.

Oslecamo
2008-09-28, 03:41 AM
No, they're following K's philosophy.

Druids still aren't as strong as cheesed Planar sheperds. They're ok!

Wizards aren't as strong as cheesed Incantrixes+Initiate of the 7 veil. They're ok!

Kaihaku
2008-09-28, 03:49 AM
About a month ago I started a topic almost exactly along these lines and received very similar responses. Still, I started a playtest and have been working through the system. Overall, I've been impressed by how subtle the changes are.


They did next to nothing to Druids or the caster classes to actually balance them. They needed to nix natural spell entirely for starters.

My opinion is...

Wizards and Sorcerers weren't broken, their spells were. Paizo is revising the spells.

Natural Spell isn't broken until you can turn into a dinosaur with 6 natural attacks that ooze super poison. Note also that while Druids can still cast Personal spells on their animal companion, they cannot cast spells on themselves and their animal companion. I've never been in a game where the Druid being able to cast spells as a hawk, bear, or even elemental was overpowering. Dinosaurs buffing themselves and their dinosaur animal companions are a different story.

I was hesitant at first but I think that the Pathfinder polymorph changes are a good approach. It removes a lot of the options but makes things very clear.

Spiryt
2008-09-28, 03:58 AM
It's actually pretty funny to me that they basically copied and pasted the SRD, did quite a lot of homebrew and are calling int New Game.

But anyway, I really like what they did with Barbarian. I always was under impression that rage (and Barb in general) needs something actually usable for more purposes thatn "Rarrghh, bonuses" some time ago, and some class abilities that actually leave choice.
Changes to soe other classes are also nice. Just ignore the caster changes and it should be allright.

New feats are also nice, although power attack modification is bad. They obviously decided to balance THF with other styles by nerfing it. And it's a bad way.

Changes in the skill section I don't like.

Overally, I'm going to use Patfinder, but rather selectively.

Uin
2008-09-28, 04:06 AM
They've decided to hit spellcasters via changing their spells. If we had a compiled list of spell changes we'd get a better idea of how they've been changed.

Good things though:
Art has come on leaps and bounds since PHB 3.5e
Condensed skill list, I don't agree with every choice but it is largely an improvement
Dead levels are mostly gone

turkishproverb
2008-09-28, 04:09 AM
I'm sorry, I just don't consider changing the spell list a viable solution for anything that is going to get splatbooks, or be used with wizards old material/3rd party stuff. Still, maybe you're right and it'll work out.

Not a big fan of the skill issue either, but that's a separate problem. I usually just give everyone extra skill points myself...

Kaihaku
2008-09-28, 04:21 AM
I'm sorry, I just don't consider changing the spell list a viable solution for anything that is going to get splatbooks, or be used with wizards old material/3rd party stuff.

I agree with that. I suspect that while Paizo claims that Pathfinder is meant to be compatible it's really going to be more like using old 3.0 books with 3.5...which you can do but it's all that nice and it unbalances things.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-28, 04:46 AM
Wizards and Sorcerers weren't broken, their spells were. Paizo is revising the spells.
So they claim. Perhaps you could give us some concrete example? The biggest flaw of pathfinder is probably that players won't know exactly which spells (and feats, etc) have changed from their identically-named counterparts in the PHB, so expect people to use the wrong wordings. A lot.

Also, the barbarian's new rage mechanic is really klunky and example of bad design.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-28, 05:02 AM
I'm sorry, I just don't consider changing the spell list a viable solution for anything that is going to get splatbooks, or be used with wizards old material/3rd party stuff. Still, maybe you're right and it'll work out.

But the only other option is a complete shift in paradigm, putting everyone under the same mechanic, like 4E does, and the whole point of Pathfinder, obviously, is to not make such radical changes to the fundamental mechanics, and to be the "alternative to 4E".

I'm not convinced it's possible to really balance things within the d20 framework. Even, say, Conan d20 is pretty completely unbalanced between sorcerer-scholars and everyone else; the scholars get spells that rip your heart out of your chest or inflict a plague on an entire city, and everyone else gets to hit things with a sword (although in more interesting ways than in 3.X). The only reason it works is because there's less of an expectation of balance.

Kaihaku
2008-09-28, 05:49 AM
So they claim. Perhaps you could give us some concrete example?

So they claim? What? Is this some big conspiracy? I think anyone who downloaded the Beta Book can easily see that, yes, spells have been changed. I haven't poured over every single spell entry but I, personally, can see some significant changes.

Dungeons and Dragons 3.5

Alter Self
Transmutation
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 10 min./level (D)

You assume the form of a creature of the same type as your normal form. The new form must be within one size category of your normal size. The maximum HD of an assumed form is equal to your caster level, to a maximum of 5 HD at 5th level. You can change into a member of your own kind or even into yourself.

You retain your own ability scores. Your class and level, hit points, alignment, base attack bonus, and base save bonuses all remain the same. You retain all supernatural and spell-like special attacks and qualities of your normal form, except for those requiring a body part that the new form does not have (such as a mouth for a breath weapon or eyes for a gaze attack).

You keep all extraordinary special attacks and qualities derived from class levels, but you lose any from your normal form that are not derived from class levels.

If the new form is capable of speech, you can communicate normally. You retain any spellcasting ability you had in your original form, but the new form must be able to speak intelligibly (that is, speak a language) to use verbal components and must have limbs capable of fine manipulation to use somatic or material components.

You acquire the physical qualities of the new form while retaining your own mind. Physical qualities include natural size, mundane movement capabilities (such as burrowing, climbing, walking, swimming, and flight with wings, to a maximum speed of 120 feet for flying or 60 feet for nonflying movement), natural armor bonus, natural weapons (such as claws, bite, and so on), racial skill bonuses, racial bonus feats, and any gross physical qualities (presence or absence of wings, number of extremities, and so forth). A body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks (or more advantageous two-weapon attacks) than normal.

You do not gain any extraordinary special attacks or special qualities not noted above under physical qualities, such as darkvision, low-light vision, blindsense, blindsight, fast healing, regeneration, scent, and so forth.

You do not gain any supernatural special attacks, special qualities, or spell-like abilities of the new form. Your creature type and subtype (if any) remain the same regardless of your new form. You cannot take the form of any creature with a template, even if that template doesn’t change the creature type or subtype.

You can freely designate the new form’s minor physical qualities (such as hair color, hair texture, and skin color) within the normal ranges for a creature of that kind. The new form’s significant physical qualities (such as height, weight, and gender) are also under your control, but they must fall within the norms for the new form’s kind. You are effectively disguised as an average member of the new form’s race. If you use this spell to create a disguise, you get a +10 bonus on your Disguise check.

When the change occurs, your equipment, if any, either remains worn or held by the new form (if it is capable of wearing or holding the item), or melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. When you revert to your true form, any objects previously melded into the new form reappear in the same location on your body they previously occupied and are once again functional. Any new items you wore in the assumed form and can’t wear in your normal form fall off and land at your feet; any that you could wear in either form or carry in a body part common to both forms at the time of reversion are still held in the same way. Any part of the body or piece of equipment that is separated from the whole reverts to its true form.


Polymorph

Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 4 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Willing living creature touched Duration: 1 min./level (D) Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No

This spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature. The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin. The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject’s HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level. You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine, nor can you cause a subject to assume an incorporeal or gaseous form. The subject’s creature type and subtype (if any) change to match the new form.

Upon changing, the subject regains lost hit points as if it had rested for a night (though this healing does not restore temporary ability damage and provide other benefits of resting; and changing back does not heal the subject further). If slain, the subject reverts to its original form, though it remains dead.

The subject gains the Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores of the new form but retains its own Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. It also gains all extraordinary special attacks possessed by the form but does not gain the extraordinary special qualities possessed by the new form or any supernatural or spell-like abilities.

Incorporeal or gaseous creatures are immune to being polymorphed, and a creature with the shapechanger subtype can revert to its natural form as a standard action.

Material Component: An empty cocoon.


Baleful Polymorph

Transmutation
Level: Drd 5, Sor/Wiz 5 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Target: One creature Duration: Permanent Saving Throw: Fortitude negates, Will partial; see text Spell Resistance: Yes

You change the subject into a Small or smaller animal of no more than 1 HD (such as a dog, lizard, monkey, or toad). The subject takes on all the statistics and special abilities of an average member of the new form in place of its own except as follows:

*

The target retains its own alignment (and personality, within the limits of the new form’s ability scores).
*

If the target has the shapechanger subtype, it retains that subtype.
*

The target retains its own hit points.
*

The target is treated has having its normal Hit Dice for purpose of adjudicating effects based on HD, such as the sleep spell, though it uses the new form’s base attack bonus, base save bonuses, and all other statistics derived from Hit Dice.
*

The target also retains the ability to understand (but not to speak) the languages it understood in its original form. It can write in the languages it understands, but only the form is capable of writing in some manner (such as drawing in the dirt with a paw).

With those exceptions, the target’s normal game statistics are replaced by those of the new form. The target loses all the special abilities it has in its normal form, including its class features.

All items worn or carried by the subject fall to the ground at its feet, even if they could be worn or carried by the new form.

If the new form would prove fatal to the creature (for example, if you polymorphed a landbound target into a fish, or an airborne target into a toad), the subject gets a +4 bonus on the save.

If the subject remains in the new form for 24 consecutive hours, it must attempt a Will save. If this save fails, it loses its ability to understand language, as well as all other memories of its previous form, and its Hit Dice and hit points change to match an average creature of its new form. These abilities and statistics return to normal if the effect is later ended.

Incorporeal or gaseous creatures are immune to baleful polymorph, and a creature with the shapechanger subtype (such as a lycanthrope or a doppelganger) can revert to its natural form as a standard action (which ends the spell’s effect).


Polymorph Any Object

Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 8, Trickery 8 Components: V, S, M/DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Target: One creature, or one nonmagical object of up to 100 cu. ft./level Duration: See text Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (object); see text Spell Resistance: Yes (object)

This spell functions like polymorph, except that it changes one object or creature into another. The duration of the spell depends on how radical a change is made from the original state to its enchanted state. The duration is determined by using the following guidelines.
Changed Subject Is: Increase to Duration Factor1
Same kingdom (animal, vegetable, mineral) +5
Same class (mammals, fungi, metals, etc.) +2
Same size +2
Related (twig is to tree, wolf fur is to wolf, etc.) +2
Same or lower Intelligence +2
1 Add all that apply. Look up the total on the next table.

Duration
Factor Duration Example
0 20 minutes Pebble to human
2 1 hour Marionette to human
4 3 hours Human to marionette
5 12 hours Lizard to manticore
6 2 days Sheep to wool coat
7 1 week Shrew to manticore
9+ Permanent Manticore to shrew

Unlike polymorph, polymorph any object does grant the creature the Intelligence score of its new form. If the original form didn’t have a Wisdom or Charisma score, it gains those scores as appropriate for the new form.

Damage taken by the new form can result in the injury or death of the polymorphed creature. In general, damage occurs when the new form is changed through physical force.

A nonmagical object cannot be made into a magic item with this spell. Magic items aren’t affected by this spell.

This spell cannot create material of great intrinsic value, such as copper, silver, gems, silk, gold, platinum, mithral, or adamantine. It also cannot reproduce the special properties of cold iron in order to overcome the damage reduction of certain creatures.

This spell can also be used to duplicate the effects of baleful polymorph, polymorph, flesh to stone, stone to flesh, transmute mud to rock, transmute metal to wood, or transmute rock to mud.

Arcane Material Component: Mercury, gum arabic, and smoke.


Shapechange

Transmutation
Level: Animal 9, Drd 9, Sor/Wiz 9 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 10 min./level (D)

This spell functions like polymorph, except that it enables you to assume the form of any single nonunique creature (of any type) from Fine to Colossal size. The assumed form cannot have more than your caster level in Hit Dice (to a maximum of 25 HD). Unlike polymorph, this spell allows incorporeal or gaseous forms to be assumed.

You gain all extraordinary and supernatural abilities (both attacks and qualities) of the assumed form, but you lose your own supernatural abilities. You also gain the type of the new form in place of your own. The new form does not disorient you. Parts of your body or pieces of equipment that are separated from you do not revert to their original forms.

You can become just about anything you are familiar with. You can change form once each round as a free action. The change takes place either immediately before your regular action or immediately after it, but not during the action. If you use this spell to create a disguise, you get a +10 bonus on your Disguise check.

Focus: A jade circlet worth no less than 1,500 gp, which you must place on your head when casting the spell. (The focus melds into your new form when you change shape.)

Pathfinder


Alter Self
School transmutation (polymorph); Level bard 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
casting Time 1 standard action
components V, S, M (a piece of the creature whose form you plan to
assume)
range personal
Target you
duration 1 min/level (D)
When you cast this spell, you can assume the form of any Small or Medium creature of the humanoid type. If the form you assume has
any of the following abilities, you gain the listed ability: swim 30 feet, darkvision 60 feet, low-light vision, and scent.
Small creature: If the form you take is that of a Small humanoid, you gain a +2 enhancement bonus to your Dexterity.
Medium creature: If the form you take is that of a Medium humanoid, you gain a +2 enhancement bonus to your Strength.


Polymorph
School transmutation (polymorph); Level wizard/sorcerer 5
casting Time 1 standard action
components V, S, M (a piece of the creature whose form you choose)
range touch
Target living creature touched
duration 1 min/level (D)
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell resistance yes (harmless)
This spell transforms a willing creature into an animal, humanoid
or elemental of your choosing; the spell has no effect on unwilling
creatures. If you use this spell to cause the target to take on the form of
an animal or magical beast, it functions as beast shape II. If the form is
that of an elemental, the spell functions as elemental body I. If the form
is that of a humanoid, the spell functions as alter self. The subject may
choose to resume its normal form as a full-round action; doing so ends
the spell for that subject alone.


Baleful Polymorph
School transmutation (polymorph); Level druid 5, sorcerer/wizard 5
casting Time 1 standard action
components V, S
range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one creature
duration permanent
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates, Will partial, see text; Spell
resistance: yes
As beast shape III, except that you change the subject into a Small or smaller animal of no more than 1 HD. If the new form would prove fatal to the creature, such as an aquatic creature not in water, the subject gets a +4 bonus on the save.
If the spell succeeds, the subject must also make a Will save. If this second save fails, the creature loses its extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities, loses its ability to cast spells (if it had the ability), and gains the alignment, special abilities, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores of its new form in place of its own. It still retains its class and level (or HD), as well as all benefits deriving therefrom (such as base attack bonus, base save bonuses, and hit points). It retains any class features (other than spellcasting) that aren’t extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like abilities.
Incorporeal or gaseous creatures are immune to baleful polymorph, and a creature with the shapechanger subtype can revert to its natural form as a standard action.


Polymorph, Greater
School transmutation (polymorph); Level wizard/sorcerer 7
This spell functions as polymorph except that it allows the creature
to take on the form of a dragon or plant creature. If you use this
spell to cause the target to take on the form of an animal or
magical beast, it functions as beast shape IV. If the form is that
of an elemental, the spell functions as elemental body III. If the
form is that of a humanoid, the spell functions as alter self. If the
form is that of a plant, the spell functions as plant shape II. If the
form is that of a dragon, the spell functions as form of the dragon I.
The subject may choose to resume its normal form as a full-round
action; doing so ends the spell.


Polymorph Any Object (This is in the "web enhancement' and I suspect will get more attention later.)
school transmutation (polymorph); Level sorcerer/wizard 8
casting time 1 standard action
components V, S, M/DF (mercury, gum arabic, and smoke)
effect
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
target one creature, or one nonmagical object of up to 100
cu. ft./level
Duration see text
Spell Resistance yes (object)
This spell functions like greater polymorph, except that it changes one object or creature into another. The duration of the spell depends on how radical a change is made from the original state to its enchanted state. The duration is determined by using the following guidelines.

Changed Subject Is: Increase to Duration Factor1
Same kingdom (animal, vegetable, mineral) +5
Same class (mammals, fungi, metals, etc.) +2
Same size +2
Related (twig is to tree, wolf fur is to wolf, etc.) +2
Same or lower Intelligence +2
1 Add all that apply. Look up the total on the next table.
Duration Factor Duration Example
0 20 minutes Pebble to human
2 1 hour Marionette to human
4 3 hours Human to marionette
5 12 hours Lizard to manticore
6 2 days Sheep to wool coat
7 1 week Shrew to manticore
9+ Permanent Manticore to shrew

If the target of the spell does not have physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution), this spell grants a base score of 10 to each missing ability score. If the target of the spell does not have mental ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma), polymorph any object grants a score of
5 to such scores.
Damage taken by the new form can result in the injury or death of the polymorphed creature. In general, damage occurs when the new form is changed through physical force.
A nonmagical object cannot be made into a magic item with this spell. Magic items aren’t affected by this spell.
This spell cannot create material of great intrinsic value, such as copper, silver, gems, silk, gold, platinum, mithral, or adamantine. It also cannot reproduce the special properties of cold iron in order to overcome the damage reduction of certain creatures.
This spell can also be used to duplicate the effects of baleful polymorph, polymorph, flesh to stone, stone to flesh, transmute mud to rock, transmute metal to wood, or transmute rock to mud.


Shapechange
School transmutation (polymorph); Level druid 9, wizard/sorcerer 9
casting Time 1 standard action
components V, S, F (jade circlet worth 1,500 gp)
range personal
Target you
duration 10 min/level (D)
This spell allows you to take the form of a wide variety of creatures. This
spell can function as alter self, beast form IV, elemental body IV, form of
the dragon III, giant form II, and plant shape III depending on what form
you take. You can change form once each round as a free action. The change takes place either immediately before your regular action or immediately after it, but not during the action.

I'm only going to list one spell from each chain but there are also specific polymorph spells, as referenced above, for Dragons, Giants, etc.


Beast Shape III
School transmutation (polymorph); Level wizard/sorcerer 5
This spell functions as beast shape II, except that it also allows you to assume the form of a Diminutive or Huge creature of the animal type.
This spell also allows you to take on the form of a Small or Medium creature of the magical beast type. If the form you assume has any of the following abilities, you gain the listed ability: burrow 30 feet, climb 90 feet, fly 90 feet (good maneuverability), swim 90 feet, blindsense 30 feet, darkvision 60 feet, low-light vision, scent, constrict, ferocity, improved grab, jet, poison, pounce, rake, trample, trip, and web.
Diminutive animal: If the form you take is that of a Diminutive animal, you gain a +6 enhancement bonus to your Dexterity, a –4 penalty to your Strength, and a +1 natural armor bonus.
Huge animal: If the form you take is that of a Huge animal, you gain a +6 enhancement bonus to your Strength, a –4 penalty to your Dexterity, and a +6 natural armor bonus.
Small magical beast: If the form you take is that of a Small magical beast, you gain a +4 enhancement bonus to your Dexterity and a +2 natural armor bonus.
Medium magical beast: If the form you take is that of a Medium magical beast, you gain a +4 enhancement bonus to your Strength and a +4 natural armor bonus.


Giant Form I
School transmutation (polymorph); Level sorcerer/wizard 7
casting Time 1 standard action
components V, S, M (a piece of the creature whose form you plan to
assume)
range personal
Target you
duration 1 min/level (D)
When you cast this spell you can assume the form of any Large creature of the giant type. You gain the following abilities: a +6 enhancement bonus to Strength, a –2 penalty to Dexterity, a +4 enhancement bonus to Constitution, a +4 natural armor bonus, low-light vision, and a +10 foot enhancement bonus to your speed. If the form you assume has any of the following abilities, you gain the listed ability: darkvision 60 feet, rend (2d6 damage), regeneration 5, rock catching, and rock throwing (range 60 feet, 2d6 damage). If the creature has immunity or resistance to any elements, you gain resistance 20 to those elements. If the creature has vulnerability to an element, you gain that vulnerability.



Elemental Body III
School transmutation (polymorph); Level sorcerer/wizard 6
This spell functions as elemental body I, except that it also allows you to assume the form of a Large air, earth, fire, or water elemental.
The abilities you gain depend upon the type of elemental you change into. You are also immune to critical hits and sneak attacks while in elemental form.
Air elemental: As elemental body I except that you gain a +2 enhancement bonus to your Strength, +4 enhancement bonus to your Dexterity, and a +4 natural armor bonus.
Earth elemental: As elemental body I except that you gain a +6 enhancement bonus to your Strength, a –2 penalty on your Dexterity, a +2 enhancement bonus to your Constitution, and a +6 natural armor bonus.
Fire elemental: As elemental body I except that you gain a +4 enhancement bonus to your Dexterity, a +2 enhancement bonus to your Constitution, and a +4 natural armor bonus.
Water elemental: As elemental body I except that you gain a +2 enhancement bonus to your Strength, a –2 penalty on your Dexterity, a +6 enhancement bonus to your Constitution, and a +6 natural armor bonus.


Form of the Dragon I
School transmutation (polymorph); Level sorcerer/wizard 6
casting Time 1 standard action
components V, S, M (a scale of the dragon type you plan to assume)
range personal
Target you
duration 1 min/level (D)
Save see below; Sr no
When you cast this spell you assume the form of a Medium chromatic or metallic dragon. You gain the following abilities: a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, a +2 enhancement bonus to Constitution, a +4 natural armor bonus, fly 60 feet (poor), darkvision 60 feet, a breath weapon, and resistance to one element. You also gain one bite (1d8), two claws (1d6), and two wing attacks (1d4). Your breath weapon and resistance depend on the type of dragon that you transform into. You can only use the breath weapon once per casting of this spell. All breath weapons deal 6d8 points of damage and allow a Reflex save for half damage. In addition, some of the dragon types grant additional abilities as noted below.
Black dragon: 60-foot line of acid, resist acid 20, swim 60 feet
Blue dragon: 60-foot line of electricity, resist electricity 20, burrow 20
feet
Green dragon: 30-foot cone of acid, resist acid 20, swim 40 feet
Red dragon: 30-foot cone of fire, resist fire 30, vulnerability to cold
White dragon: 30-foot cone of cold, resist cold 20, swim 60 feet,
vulnerability to fire
Brass dragon: 60-foot line of fire, resist fire 20, burrow 30 feet,
vulnerability to cold
Bronze dragon: 60-foot line of electricity, resist electricity 20, swim
60 feet
Copper dragon: 60-foot line of acid, resist acid 20, spider climb (always
active)
Gold dragon: 30-foot cone of fire, resist fire 20, swim 60 feet
Silver dragon: 30-foot cone of cold, resist cold 30, vulnerability to fire


Plant Shape I
School transmutation (polymorph); Level wizard/sorcerer 5
casting Time 1 standard action
components V, S, M (a piece of the creature whose form you plan to assume)
range personal
Target you
duration 1 min/level (D)
When you cast this spell you can assume the form of any Small or Medium creature of the plant type. If the form you assume has any of the following abilities, you gain the listed ability: darkvision 60 feet, low-light vision, constrict, improved grab, poison, and shriek. If the form you assume does not possess the ability to move, your speed is reduced to 5 feet and you lose all other forms of movement. If the creature has vulnerability to one element, you gain that vulnerability.
Small plant: If the form you take is that of a Small plant, you gain a +2 enhancement bonus to your Constitution and a +2 natural armor bonus.
Medium plant: If the form you take is that of a Medium plant, you gain a +2 enhancement bonus to your Strength, a +2 enhancement bonus to your Constitution, and a +2 natural armor bonus.


Another example that was pointed out in this very thread.

Dungeons and Dragons 3.5
Divine Power
Evocation
Level: Clr 4, War 4 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 1 round/level

Calling upon the divine power of your patron, you imbue yourself with strength and skill in combat. Your base attack bonus becomes equal to your character level (which may give you additional attacks), you gain a +6 enhancement bonus to Strength, and you gain 1 temporary hit point per caster level.

Pathfinder
Divine Power
School evocation; Level cleric 4
casting Time 1 standard action
components V, S, DF
range personal
Target you
duration 1 round/level
Calling upon the divine power of your patron, you imbue yourself with strength and skill in combat. You gain a +1 luck bonus on attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, Strength checks, and Strength-based skill checks for every three caster levels you have (maximum +6). You also gain 1 temporary hit point per caster level. Whenever you make a full-attack action, you can make on additional attack at your full base attack bonus, plus any appropriate modifiers. This additional attack is not cumulative with similar effects, such as haste or weapons with the speed special ability.

The information is downloadable for free online, there's no reason to doubt their "claims" as you can, easily, check for yourself. Despite any other mistakes, the development of Pathfinder has been extremely open to the broader community. Actually, it's the most open development project I've ever seen a business run.


The biggest flaw of pathfinder is probably that players won't know exactly which spells (and feats, etc) have changed from their identically-named counterparts in the PHB, so expect people to use the wrong wordings. A lot.

That's true. I've made assumptions a lot myself, more with things like skills and game mechanics than spells though. It's added to by the fact that most of the changes are very subtle and don't stand out.


Also, the barbarian's new rage mechanic is really klunky and example of bad design.

As I mentioned previously, they just introduced a new model as part of the Beta test to replace that one. I agree that it was klunky and I appreciate the new more streamlined model, but I wouldn't call the original design terrible or unplayable.

I'm sick of playing in campaign after campaign where each Dungeon Master uses a different set of houserules to fix the flaws in the system, I'd prefer just learn one set of system fixing changes and Pathfinder is shaping up to meet that need. Then, houserules can focus on setting specifics.

Pathfinder takes time and effort to learn, just like any system upgrade. I don't recall Wizards of the Coast releasing a list of changes from 3.0 to 3.5.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-28, 06:25 AM
I don't recall Wizards of the Coast releasing a list of changes from 3.0 to 3.5.

How about this? (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a)

Kaihaku
2008-09-28, 06:31 AM
How about this? (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a)

First I've seen it, which would be why I didn't recall it. That would have been handy way back when. Perhaps Paizo will release one once the development process is actually complete?

Another point...

Fax Celestis has some good stuff. Frank K has some good stuff. Lots of homebrewers have some good stuff. They aren't working together. They aren't creating a single coherent system fix. Pazio is and it has resources lone homebrewers don't. I think only a full fledged Open Source-style update could really compete with Pathfinder at this point and I don't see that happening because no two homebrewers seem to be able to compromise on what the changes should be. I might not agree with every Pathfinder change but none of them strike me as terrible and they come with a certain authority that a homebrewed change just doesn't.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-28, 08:45 AM
Don't forget they nerfed Glitterdust to save every round for free (unlike Hold person where it takes an action to save) to remove effect.

Kaihaku
2008-09-28, 09:10 AM
That seems backwards... I'd expect Hold Person to be free to resist and Glitter Dust to be an action to, well, you know clean out your eyes. :smalleek:

Dungeons and Dragons 3.5

Glitterdust
Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Area: Creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread Duration: 1 round/level Saving Throw: Will negates (blinding only) Spell Resistance: No

A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area, causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell. All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades.

Any creature covered by the dust takes a –40 penalty on Hide checks.

Material Component: Ground mica.

Pathfinder

Glitterdust
School conjuration (creation); Level bard 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
casting Time 1 standard action
components V, S, M (ground mica)
range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread duration 1 round/level
Save Will negates (blinding only); Sr no
A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area, causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell. All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades. Each round at the end of their turn blinded creatures may attempt new saving throws to end the blindness effect.
Any creature covered by the dust takes a –40 penalty on Stealth checks.

That seems more of a mistake than intentional. I'll mention it when they get to the stage of discussing spells in the beta test.

Dungeons and Dragons 3.5

Hold Person

Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 2, Clr 2, Sor/Wiz 3 Components: V, S, F/DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Target: One humanoid creature Duration: 1 round/level (D); see text Saving Throw: Will negates; see text Spell Resistance: Yes

The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech. Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. (This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.)

A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can’t swim and may drown.

Arcane Focus: A small, straight piece of iron.

Pathfinder

Hold Person
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 2, cleric
2, sorcerer/wizard 3
casting Time 1 standard action
components V, S, F/DF (a small, straight piece of iron)
range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target one humanoid creature
duration 1 round/level (D); see text
Saving Throw Will negates; see text; Spell resistance yes
The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and
breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech. Each
round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to
end the effect. This is a full-round action that does not provoke
attacks of opportunity.

A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can’t swim and may drown.

Good comparison with Hold Person, it's about equivalent to Glitterdust in regards to power and has always required an action to save.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-28, 09:26 AM
I never noticed that. That's hilarious - you can't take any actions, but have to take a full action to shake it off... so you can't.

Jack Zander
2008-09-28, 09:41 AM
I never noticed that. That's hilarious - you can't take any actions, but have to take a full action to shake it off... so you can't.

Hmm... I smell cheese. I'll have to pull this on my DM and see what he says.

Renegade Paladin
2008-09-28, 09:50 AM
Hmm... I smell cheese. I'll have to pull this on my DM and see what he says.
If he's literate, he'll laugh at you. The spell doesn't say you have to take an action in order to get a save; it says you may. It specifically allows that action.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-28, 10:01 AM
If he's literate, he'll laugh at you. The spell doesn't say you have to take an action in order to get a save; it says you may. It specifically allows that action.

If he is illiterate, how did he even DM a game... luck?

Kaihaku
2008-09-28, 10:05 AM
If he is illiterate, how did he even DM a game... luck?

He words things in such a way as to trigger a rant from the nearby rules lawyer who thus acts as a verbal DMG.

Renegade Paladin
2008-09-28, 10:21 AM
If he is illiterate, how did he even DM a game... luck?
He didn't; that's the point. I'm saying his DM is going to laugh at him. :smalltongue:

Eldariel
2008-09-28, 11:19 AM
They broke Freedom of Movement. It automatically makes you win any combat maneuver checks. That includes checks you initiate. So get FoM, Grapple/Trip/whatever anything and automatically win. Then profit!

Quirinus_Obsidian
2008-09-28, 12:30 PM
They broke Freedom of Movement. It automatically makes you win any combat maneuver checks. That includes checks you initiate. So get FoM, Grapple/Trip/whatever anything and automatically win. Then profit!

Well, it is in a BETA still. There are a lot of things that need to be cleared up; like that, and how they are wording Sneak Attack. Basically, you can sneak attack anything with a discernible structure. It is too wide open for the ability.

For the most part, I like the changes. Power attack makes sense now, as does Combat Expertise. Power attack previously made no sense.

POWER ATTACK [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Str 13.
Benefit: On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.

Thing is... a Sorc or a Rogue could take that at L1, and not get anything from it until level 2. WTF?! I can understand prerequisites, but that is just BAD. They did reduce the bonus to damage to your STR modifier, but this in turn removes the horrifying Frenzied Berserker cheese from the game (I used to love that class, but, nah... it's just hugely broken).

I also like how they did skills. If you multiclass, you add the new list of skills to the one you already have. You do not lose skills that you had before.

Fax Celestis
2008-09-28, 12:40 PM
Fax Celestis has some good stuff. [...] They aren't working together. They aren't creating a single coherent system fix.

I'm not doing all this How-It-Should-Be stuff (or most of my homebrewing) for kicks and giggles, y'know. Secretly, I'm working on this idea of "3.5 Rebirth". I'm not very satisfied with 4e--good ideas as a whole, but some bad implementations that drive me up a wall--and honestly I'd rather just fix the existing 3.5e system.

Plus, you know, OGL.

TheThan
2008-09-28, 12:53 PM
I'm not doing all this How-It-Should-Be stuff (or most of my homebrewing) for kicks and giggles, y'know. Secretly, I'm working on this idea of "3.5 Rebirth". I'm not very satisfied with 4e--good ideas as a whole, but some bad implementations that drive me up a wall--and honestly I'd rather just fix the existing 3.5e system.

Plus, you know, OGL.


Yep, I agree. there are reasons why we do the things we do.

Matthew
2008-09-28, 12:58 PM
I have come to suspect that Paizo Publishing do know all the problems with D20/3e in terms of power imbalance and such, but are choosing not to fix them. My guess is that they think rebalancing things will harm the game, by decreasing the degree of rules mastery required.

Fax Celestis
2008-09-28, 01:00 PM
I have come to suspect that Paizo Publishing do know all the problems with D20/3e in terms of power imbalance and such, but are choosing not to fix them. My guess is that they think rebalancing things will harm the game, by decreasing the degree of rules mastery required.

Why on earth would making the game easier to comprehend and more accessible be a bad thing?

Matthew
2008-09-28, 01:01 PM
Why on earth would making the game easier to comprehend and more accessible be a bad thing?

Exactly the question David Cook asked when so many AD&D 1e fans criticised AD&D 2e on the same grounds.

Morty
2008-09-28, 01:02 PM
Generally, I'm rather unimpressed by Pathfinder as a whole, but for example, there's no reason not to use the changes they did to the Fighter- it might not be much, but it solves the "Fighter level 3 dumb level. Thog not take" problem somewhat. Same with Rangers and Rogues, although I'm not certain about the HD increase, it seems unnecesary.
One things I'm a bit baffled about is how they handled races. They made them all stronger, but there's no reason to do so. They only had to tweak half-elves and half-orcs and maybe tone down dwarves a bit. Now someone wanting to play a MM race will have a problem, since they'll suck even harder.

Akisa
2008-09-28, 01:28 PM
They did next to nothing to Druids or the caster classes to actually balance them. They needed to nix natural spell entirely for starters.

They made druid's useless for combat...

Spiryt
2008-09-28, 01:31 PM
They made druid's useless for combat...

They made (?) horrible picture in Druid section :smalltongue:

And seriously, how they did Druid useless for combat? Am I missing something?

Akisa
2008-09-28, 01:57 PM
This guy probably (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/meleeDruidGone&page=1#763401) explains it better, but here is my attempt.

It makes druid into a MAD character where it needs Str, Dex, Con and Wis to be effective for combat.

Natural Weapons: They are weak compare to manufactured weapons and require high str to break damage reduction due to not being able use adamatine (sp?), sliver, cold iron and alignment. Amulet of Mighty fist is also expensive to enhance compared to manufactured weapons.

Str: You need high strength to hit and damage. Wild shape only provides enhancement bonus and only a 2-6 depending on what level. Often with a dex.

Dex: For AC, and since armor bonus since to function not even bracers of armor work outside of wild bonus AC goes to the garbage. Not to mention Larger wildshape provide dex minus and large size penalty to ac.

Con: HP

Wis: For spells...

Oslecamo
2008-09-28, 02:12 PM
And this is why druids are so strong. People want them to be uber, even if they don't admit it.

Yeah, of course the druid should be an excelletn caster. And melee. And caster and melee at the same time. And have the best companion of all. And only need one stat for all of that.

Fax Celestis
2008-09-28, 02:13 PM
This guy probably (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/meleeDruidGone&page=1#763401) explains it better, but here is my attempt.

It makes druid into a MAD character where it needs Str, Dex, Con and Wis to be effective for combat.

Natural Weapons: They are weak compare to manufactured weapons and require high str to break damage reduction due to not being able use adamatine (sp?), sliver, cold iron and alignment. Amulet of Mighty fist is also expensive to enhance compared to manufactured weapons.

Str: You need high strength to hit and damage. Wild shape only provides enhancement bonus and only a 2-6 depending on what level. Often with a dex.

Dex: For AC, and since armor bonus since to function not even bracers of armor work outside of wild bonus AC goes to the garbage. Not to mention Larger wildshape provide dex minus and large size penalty to ac.

Con: HP

Wis: For spells...

Enlighten me as to why this is a bad thing?

Akisa
2008-09-28, 02:27 PM
Maybe some people like playing druid as a Morpher using spirts of the animal world to shred victims. Paizo has option of choosing of getting some domains or animal companions, so why can't I just forgo the two and be able to be wildshape melee. So now any melee capability I have is to be a Pokèmon trainer.

The Glyphstone
2008-09-28, 02:46 PM
\Thing is... a Sorc or a Rogue could take that at L1, and not get anything from it until level 2. WTF?! I can understand prerequisites, but that is just BAD. They did reduce the bonus to damage to your STR modifier, but this in turn removes the horrifying Frenzied Berserker cheese from the game (I used to love that class, but, nah... it's just hugely broken).
.


Just out of curiosity - why would a sorcerer take Power Attack in the first place, unless it was intended to be a gish later on?

Fax Celestis
2008-09-28, 02:50 PM
Maybe some people like playing druid as a Morpher using spirts of the animal world to shred victims. Paizo has option of choosing of getting some domains or animal companions, so why can't I just forgo the two and be able to be wildshape melee. So now any melee capability I have is to be a Pokèmon trainer.

....no, not really. You just build your stats like a fighter and say, "So I'm not going to have the best magic". Standard array could look like this: Str 14, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8. Periapt your way up to higher Wis scores when you want higher spells.

Spiryt
2008-09-28, 02:56 PM
Maybe some people like playing druid as a Morpher using spirts of the animal world to shred victims. Paizo has option of choosing of getting some domains or animal companions, so why can't I just forgo the two and be able to be wildshape melee. So now any melee capability I have is to be a Pokèmon trainer.

Any druid nerfing is good thing. I looked trough it more carefully, and I definetly like.

You can still shred victims, but you won't be as good as somebody who does it "by defalut" - Barbarian for example (or Cleric, but that's the other problem :smalltongue:), but you'll be able to od Druid things instead.

But anyway - how well does changes work? Does Druid really cease to be broken?
It look too good to be true to me :smallconfused:

Akisa
2008-09-28, 03:14 PM
....no, not really. You just build your stats like a fighter and say, "So I'm not going to have the best magic". Standard array could look like this: Str 14, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8. Periapt your way up to higher Wis scores when you want higher spells.

Then watch your self get torn to shred with 11-15 AC at higher levels...

Fax Celestis
2008-09-28, 03:54 PM
Then watch your self get torn to shred with 11-15 AC at higher levels...

That would be what your spells are for. Or what your party wizard's spells are for. Or Dex mod increasers. Or any number of things.

Besides, you're a 9th-level spellcaster. Unless you're the strangest thing this side of Gishy McWonderGish, you shouldn't be in melee.

Akisa
2008-09-28, 04:21 PM
That would be what your spells are for. Or what your party wizard's spells are for. Or Dex mod increasers. Or any number of things.

Besides, you're a 9th-level spellcaster. Unless you're the strangest thing this side of Gishy McWonderGish, you shouldn't be in melee.

What makes Druid and Cleric fun is that they're easy gish with a different flavor to both of them. Well now druid is a pokemon trainer...

Nevertheless I still have my other favorite classes I can still play, Bard and Rogues which don't have a gish aspect.

Fax Celestis
2008-09-28, 04:23 PM
What makes Druid and Cleric broken is that they're easy gish with a different flavor to both of them.

Fixed that for you.

Akisa
2008-09-28, 04:27 PM
So rogue and bard are broken too?

Fax Celestis
2008-09-28, 04:32 PM
So rogue and bard are broken too?

...no. What makes the 3.5 cleric and druid broken is that they have full casting and top-notch combat capability and the ability to heal and have decent hit dice and can circumvent the need for skill checks with spells. It is all this anding instead of oring that fundamentally breaks the cleric and druid. What Pathfinder has done to the druid is taking some of those ands and turning them into ors.

Akisa
2008-09-28, 04:40 PM
Actually they removed melee capability for druid and just left Pokemon trainer, and Spell Caster there is no or. However pokemon trainer is not what I'm interested...

I enjoy druid as a morpher...

Fax Celestis
2008-09-28, 04:43 PM
Actually they removed melee capability for druid and just left Pokemon trainer, and Spell Caster there is no or. However pokemon trainer is not what I'm interested...

I enjoy druid as a morpher...

...and you can still be a morpher. Just don't expect to be good at casting.

Kaihaku
2008-09-28, 05:27 PM
They broke Freedom of Movement. It automatically makes you win any combat maneuver checks. That includes checks you initiate. So get FoM, Grapple/Trip/whatever anything and automatically win. Then profit!

That's not how I read it at all. I think they meant that the target automatically wins any combat maneuver made to "made to escape a grapple or a pin."

Pathfinder

Freedom of Movement
School abjuration; Level bard 4, cleric 4, druid 4, ranger 4
casting Time 1 standard action
components V, S, M (a leather strip bound to the target), DF
range personal or touch
Target you or creature touched
duration 10 min./level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell resistance yes (harmless)
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web. All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail. The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.
The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater, even with slashing weapons such as axes and swords or with bludgeoning weapons such as flails, hammers, and maces, provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, allow water breathing.

I guess they could word that in a better way but I think it's a stretch to say that it means "Freedom of Movement pwns all".


One things I'm a bit baffled about is how they handled races. They made them all stronger, but there's no reason to do so. They only had to tweak half-elves and half-orcs and maybe tone down dwarves a bit. Now someone wanting to play a MM race will have a problem, since they'll suck even harder.

I think the point behind that was to make every race a +1 LA race so that people could field things like Catfolk, Aasimars, Tieflings, etc without dealing with the LA burden. In that regard, I like it, I don't think someone should be burdened with a missing level just because they wanted to play a Hobgoblin or Lizardfolk.

Scaboroth
2008-09-29, 12:32 AM
I have come to suspect that Paizo Publishing do know all the problems with D20/3e in terms of power imbalance and such, but are choosing not to fix them. My guess is that they think rebalancing things will harm the game, by decreasing the degree of rules mastery required.

I'm just firing off an opinion here - so don't take this as gospel or anything - but I think that you are close but not quite on the mark. After spending some time on Paizo's boards, I think that you may be observing what comes down to a difference in values when it comes to game design. Which is to say, balance is not the end-all be-all.
Some people are okay with the idea that power is more of a sliding scale that adjusts over time: Duel between a 1st level fighter and a 1st level wizard? Fighter eats him for breakfast. Duel between a 20th level fighter and a 20th level wizard? Wizard goes back in time and kills the fighter's whole family generations before he is even born. You can choose to play a wizard with the understanding that it will be more difficult to keep him alive at lower levels (assuming your campaign starts at level 1) with the trade-off that your power grows at a disproportionate rate, and you can eventually destroy planets in epic play.
Pathfinder is a game that is being geared more toward people who play for fun, as opposed to rules lawyers and power gamers who are intent on abusing every loophole to "break" the game. After all, if balance is the most important thing to you then there is always 4e...:smallbiggrin:

bosssmiley
2008-09-29, 04:07 AM
I have come to suspect that Paizo Publishing do know all the problems with D20/3e in terms of power imbalance and such, but are choosing not to fix them. My guess is that they think rebalancing things will harm the game, by decreasing the degree of rules mastery required.

Hmmm. I'd just ascribed it to the writers lacking the guts to slaughter the sacred cows of 3E because doing so would harm sales to the unappeasable fanbase. :smallamused:
("They nerfed clerics, druids & wizards? Not buying!)


I'm just firing off an opinion here - so don't take this as gospel or anything - but I think that you are close but not quite on the mark. After spending some time on Paizo's boards, I think that you may be observing what comes down to a difference in values when it comes to game design. Which is to say, balance is not the end-all be-all.

Some people are okay with the idea that power is more of a sliding scale that adjusts over time: Duel between a 1st level fighter and a 1st level wizard? Fighter eats him for breakfast. Duel between a 20th level fighter and a 20th level wizard? Wizard goes back in time and kills the fighter's whole family generations before he is even born. You can choose to play a wizard with the understanding that it will be more difficult to keep him alive at lower levels (assuming your campaign starts at level 1) with the trade-off that your power grows at a disproportionate rate, and you can eventually destroy planets in epic play.

So a game is ok if everyone is the party bagboy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLoad) for some of the level spread? Given that a game might not last long enough to reach the 'pay off for sucking / it's your turn to suck' stages I'd have to say "No thanks" to that.

Every character class should, as a design goal, be able to contribute in an interesting-to-play, mechanically significant way at every level: aught else is just objectively bad design and an invitation to mockery in this day and age.

If I play Jimmy the Wizardly Gimp (or Sir Beefcake d'Gimp, or Father Francis MulGimpy) it should be because I choose to do so for the entertainment of me and my gaming buddies, and not because a badly designed, lazily re-worked system says I must. :smallannoyed:

Uin
2008-09-29, 05:27 AM
I think the point behind that was to make every race a +1 LA race so that people could field things like Catfolk, Aasimars, Tieflings, etc without dealing with the LA burden. In that regard, I like it, I don't think someone should be burdened with a missing level just because they wanted to play a Hobgoblin or Lizardfolk.Also, the point buy is different now so it works about about the same. I'm very much considering using them in my 3.5e/Pathfinder pick and mix.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-29, 06:15 AM
....no, not really. You just build your stats like a fighter and say, "So I'm not going to have the best magic". Standard array could look like this: Str 14, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8. Periapt your way up to higher Wis scores when you want higher spells.

I love how you're using "periapt" as a verb :smallbiggrin:

Morty
2008-09-29, 07:27 AM
I think the point behind that was to make every race a +1 LA race so that people could field things like Catfolk, Aasimars, Tieflings, etc without dealing with the LA burden. In that regard, I like it, I don't think someone should be burdened with a missing level just because they wanted to play a Hobgoblin or Lizardfolk.

Which I think is the wrong way to do this. If they wanted LA +1 races to be okay, they should've toned them down and given them LA 0 or strenghtened them so they deserve the lost levels. Core races are fine the way they are with exception of half-elves, half-orcs and dwarves. There was no need to meddle with any others.

Kaihaku
2008-09-29, 07:38 AM
Which I think is the wrong way to do this. If they wanted LA +1 races to be okay, they should've toned them down and given them LA 0 or strenghtened them so they deserve the lost levels. Core races are fine the way they are with exception of half-elves, half-orcs and dwarves. There was no need to meddle with any others.

It's my impression that Paizo is trying to remove as little as possible in this update. They'd rather balance by adding than by removing, which makes sense given how every rule seems to have a rabid fanbase...or maybe people just like to get up in arms about things.

I'm not so sure if it's a question of the +1 LA races being weak as much as being limited. A +1 LA race can pull off melee or mixed roles, but they don't seem to do so well with casting or skillmonkeying because of the level setback.

Morty
2008-09-29, 07:42 AM
It's my impression that Paizo is trying to remove as little as possible in this update. They'd rather balance by adding than by removing, which makes sense given how every rule seems to have a rabid fanbase...or maybe people just like to get up in arms about things.

I'm not so sure if it's a question of the +1 LA races being weak as much as being limited. A +1 LA race can pull off melee or mixed roles, but they don't seem to do so well with casting or skillmonkeying because of the level setback.

Which isn't a problem here at all. If they want to balance by adding rather than removing, which is a logical thing to do, all they had to do was to add new stuff to LA +1 races so they deserve the level loss, and to half-elves and half-orcs so they don't suck anymore. Now all PHB races are more powerful for no real reason. And someone wanting to play an Aasimar or a Tiefling may do so without LA now, but someone who wants to play an orc or a goblin has got a problem.

Kaihaku
2008-09-29, 07:49 AM
Which isn't a problem here at all. If they want to balance by adding rather than removing, which is a logical thing to do, all they had to do was to add new stuff to LA +1 races so they deserve the level loss, and to half-elves and half-orcs so they don't suck anymore. Now all PHB races are more powerful for no real reason. And someone wanting to play an Aasimar or a Tiefling may do so without LA now, but someone who wants to play an orc or a goblin has got a problem.

I like that the PHB races have gotten something of a boost, I don't really think it unsettles things. That said, your point about Orcs and Goblins is well put. Both races should be reworked and get brought up to par...regardless of whether that's 3.5 or Pathfinder "par".

I think it's just a relic of old style thinking, that is "no one will ever want to play an Orc or Goblin", so they were poorly designed.

DeathQuaker
2008-09-29, 09:04 AM
For those complaining about Druid and Cleric balance, I believe that class discussion is about to open up, so you may as well take your observations and suggestions over to the Paizo forums where, if the suggestions are politely and intelligently written, Jason Buhlman and his team may well keep them in mind when rewriting those classes for the final. At least that's what I've seen so far in the design forum discussions i've been reading. (Frex, a lot of people want a few more fighter skills so they said they're probably going to add them.)


I'm sorry, I just don't consider changing the spell list a viable solution for anything that is going to get splatbooks, or be used with wizards old material/3rd party stuff. Still, maybe you're right and it'll work out.

Who is bending you over and forcing you or anyone else to use splatbooks?

You're right, as long as splatbooks exist, someone is probably going to find a broken combination or something that doesn't work the way it's supposed to. That's going to be as true for 4th Edition as it was for 2nd Edition and of course as many mark, as it was/is for 3.x

Splatbooks are optional materials. If a GM is enough of a moron to allow broken combinations from those books that weren't meant to be or let his players browbeat him into using a supplement with poorly written abilities in them, Paizo nor anyone else can fix that, no matter how much revising they can do. There is unfortunately no RPG rule that can completely prevent player/GM idiocy.

The best you can do is put needed revisions into core--which is what they're doing--and hope players have enough common sense to incorporate in supplementary materials as only is reasonable.

Fact remains is, when I hear complaints about, say, the Wizard, it's about abuse of core spells like "Alter Self," etc. They don't complain about the class build or advancement, they complain about those spells. And at least as far as core goes, they're fixing that (and I'm sure tons more fixes will come when Spells become the focus of the Beta, which is IIRC scheduled for December). Again, that's the best they can do.


I have come to suspect that Paizo Publishing do know all the problems with D20/3e in terms of power imbalance and such, but are choosing not to fix them. My guess is that they think rebalancing things will harm the game, by decreasing the degree of rules mastery required.

In what way, specifically? What is Paizo choosing not to fix that you think they should be fixing--that is reasonable for this specific project? Usually when I see people complaining about "power imbalance" in 3.x it's to do with "class balance" (e.g., Fighters are too much of one-trick ponies. Pathfinder Fighters give them useful abilities that make them less equipment dependent and more class skills that make them useful outside of combat), not "rules mastery."

But if we're talking about "decreasing rules mastery required" the fact that they simplified Grapple ALONE is fairly monumental in terms of making things simpler as far as I'm concerned. :smalltongue:

Or that they got rid of XP costs. That helps a lot too. It's small, but there are actually little ways they are streamlining the system where it's possible to do.

Now, yes, it's still 3.5-based, so it still has a lot of the complexity of 3.5--but a lot of people like that, which is why they're doing this at all. People who want the simplified rules system have 4th Ed (or whatever it is that floats their boat) to play. As huge as this project is, it's still essentially a revision, not a whole new game, and as far as I've seen, they're not presenting it as anything else.

Matthew
2008-09-29, 09:24 AM
Hmmm. I'd just ascribed it to the writers lacking the guts to slaughter the sacred cows of 3E because doing so would harm sales to the unappeasable fanbase. :smallamused:
("They nerfed clerics, druids & wizards? Not buying!)

Same dealio. The sacred cows of D20/3e (and I regard the inclusion of a skill system to be amongst these) are part of the rules mastery aspect.



In what way, specifically? What is Paizo choosing not to fix that you think they should be fixing--that is reasonable for this specific project? Usually when I see people complaining about "power imbalance" in 3.x it's to do with "class balance" (e.g., Fighters are too much of one-trick ponies. Pathfinder Fighters give them useful abilities that make them less equipment dependent and more class skills that make them useful outside of combat), not "rules mastery."

Magic rules and how it interacts with class building mainly, but also plenty of feats and fighter abilities that remain very inferior (in some cases worse than before) choices. I would have loved to have seen them rebalance the various fighting styles (fighting with two weapons, weapon and shield, two handed weapons) and sort out the saving throw problems, but they seem to have done nothing to address these issues. Just shoving a bunch of modifiers onto the fighter class isn't enough.



But if we're talking about "decreasing rules mastery required" the fact that they simplified Grapple ALONE is fairly monumental in terms of making things simpler as far as I'm concerned. :smalltongue:

Thing is, grappling was never something you could master.



Or that they got rid of XP costs. That helps a lot too. It's small, but there are actually little ways they are streamlining the system where it's possible to do.

Are you referring to multiclassing? I don't think making multiclasing even easier reduces the rules mastery element of the game.



Now, yes, it's still 3.5-based, so it still has a lot of the complexity of 3.5--but a lot of people like that, which is why they're doing this at all. People who want the simplified rules system have 4th Ed (or whatever it is that floats their boat) to play. As huge as this project is, it's still essentially a revision, not a whole new game, and as far as I've seen, they're not presenting it as anything else.

Sure, I am not criticising people's preferences. Indeed, I am looking for a more reasonable explanation than "they don't know what they're doing".

DeathQuaker
2008-09-29, 10:04 AM
Matthew, before we go further, I want to be sure I'm making sure I'm on the same page w/ you -- by "rules mastery" I was assuming you meant "difficulty in learning the rules"; I take it what you mean is "optimization cheese"--i.e., those who figure out cheesy feat combos faster than others?


Magic rules and how it interacts with class building mainly,

In what way?



but also plenty of feats and fighter abilities that remain very inferior (in some cases worse than before) choices. I would have loved to have seen them rebalance the various fighting styles (fighting with two weapons, weapon and shield, two handed weapons) and sort out the saving throw problems, but they seem to have done nothing to address these issues.

Let's see... they've made a 2-handed fighting style with fun with the Feat Tree that begins with Overhand Chop, they've added some new Shield Abilities, they've added some new 2-weapon fighting abilities for some variation there. Is this "nothing"? Why? Overall it looks pretty decent to me, though I have yet to playtest it fully (playing in a playtest right now but char is still low-level).

What are the "saving throw problems"? I have not heard that complaint before and have not had problems with saving throws myself.



Just shoving a bunch of modifiers onto the fighter class isn't enough.

The modifiers are focused and help make the class more interesting, IMO. If that's ALL they did I would agree with you, but I don't see that to be the case.

What would you suggest, specifically (and perhaps take these suggestions into the Fighter Discussion forum at Paizo that is open right now)?



Thing is, grappling was never something you could master.


The little tongue sticking out smiley means I was being silly. :smalltongue: The only serious part of it was they've made it easier to learn how to do.

Though as you mention it, yes, the feats related to it are minimal, you can be better at it than others by taking Defensive Combat Training, and if you are a dex based character, Agile Maneuvers. Perhaps it could be taken further though.


Are you referring to multiclassing? I don't think making multiclasing even easier reduces the rules mastery element of the game.

I'm referring to anything where there was once an XP _cost_, such as spells and magic item creation (they've increase costs of Material Focuses and rebalanced the spells where needed instead, which is what I personally have long houseruled anyway).

As for multiclassing, I think making choosing your Favored Class giving you a slight bonus, rather than taking something away from you/slowing your character advancement, is a nice thing. But that's probably a matter of preference.

Multiclassing itself is really no easier nor harder that it was before.



Sure, I am not criticising people's preferences. Indeed, I am looking for a more reasonable explanation than "they don't know what they're doing".

I'm honestly puzzled at a lot of those comments myself, but have not seen specific enough criticisms that addressed that adequately. It doesn't mean they don't exist, of course. I don't have time to read every thread. :smallsmile:

Matthew
2008-09-29, 11:03 AM
Matthew, before we go further, I want to be sure I'm making sure I'm on the same page w/ you -- by "rules mastery" I was assuming you meant "difficulty in learning the rules"; I take it what you mean is "optimization cheese"--i.e., those who figure out cheesy feat combos faster than others?

The latter . Basically not rebalancing the game to make each choice of equivalent meaning [no sub optimal feats, classes or abilities].



In what way?

The ease of casting spells, the difficulty of interrupting them. The general subordination of non magic using classes by around levels 6-9.



Let's see... they've made a 2-handed fighting style with fun with the Feat Tree that begins with Overhand Chop, they've added some new Shield Abilities, they've added some new 2-weapon fighting abilities for some variation there. Is this "nothing"? Why? Overall it looks pretty decent to me, though I have yet to playtest it fully (playing in a playtest right now but char is still low-level).

Yes, it's still basically nothing. There's some new extra fun stuff there, but it's all feat related. Two handed weapons are still the optimal choice.



What are the "saving throw problems"? I have not heard that complaint before and have not had problems with saving throws myself.

Same old, same old Save or Die stuff. The differential between a fighter's reflex saving throw and his fortitude saving throw is too great as levels advance.



The modifiers are focused and help make the class more interesting, IMO. If that's ALL they did I would agree with you, but I don't see that to be the case.

I dunno about interesting, I thought it was pretty boring, but that's all subjective. The question is whether it makes the fighter an attractive ninth level character.



What would you suggest, specifically (and perhaps take these suggestions into the Fighter Discussion forum at Paizo that is open right now)?

I have been there, dwelt around for a couple of weeks. A few people were of similar mind, but most preferred things to remain as they are. Where'd I put my short list of D20/3e house rules...? Around here somewhere, Ahah: House Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3573514&postcount=5). I have a longer document roaming around my hardrive somewhere. :smallbiggrin:



The little tongue sticking out smiley means I was being silly. :smalltongue: The only serious part of it was they've made it easier to learn how to do.

Though as you mention it, yes, the feats related to it are minimal, you can be better at it than others by taking Defensive Combat Training, and if you are a dex based character, Agile Maneuvers. Perhaps it could be taken further though.

Sure, I wasn't criticising, just explaining that the complexity of the rules isn't the issue, except insofar as it relates to learning how to optimise the classes.



I'm referring to anything where there was once an XP _cost_, such as spells and magic item creation (they've increase costs of Material Focuses and rebalanced the spells where needed instead, which is what I personally have long houseruled anyway).

As for multiclassing, I think making choosing your Favored Class giving you a slight bonus, rather than taking something away from you/slowing your character advancement, is a nice thing. But that's probably a matter of preference.

Multiclassing itself is really no easier nor harder that it was before.

Right you are. Yeah, those XP costs were almost irrelevant or simply ignored. Shhalahr put it better than me. Gold is the thing, and increaisng the physical cost of things may have some effect.



I'm honestly puzzled at a lot of those comments myself, but have not seen specific enough criticisms that addressed that adequately. It doesn't mean they don't exist, of course. I don't have time to read every thread. :smallsmile:

It is mainly people saying, "they didn't fix the bits I would have." My opinion is that D20/4e is an attempt to fix the underlying problems by completely changing the system, whereas [I]Pathfinder is simply looking to cater to the market who don't think D20/3e is particularly broken to begin with (that was my impression in the time I spent on their boards).

Starbuck_II
2008-09-29, 11:09 AM
I'm referring to anything where there was once an XP _cost_, such as spells and magic item creation (they've increase costs of Material Focuses and rebalanced the spells where needed instead, which is what I personally have long houseruled anyway).


What they removed the gravy train? Making Magic item magically take XP made you gain more levels majorly for Wizards (when rest of party levels you now gain more XP than normal due to average party level higher). So this is a reduction in power. What was this a balance issue?

Did some DM say: Gosh, Wizards can make magic items and stay about same Xp due to lower level charactrers gain more XP... I need to nerf them.



As for multiclassing, I think making choosing your Favored Class giving you a slight bonus, rather than taking something away from you/slowing your character advancement, is a nice thing. But that's probably a matter of preference.

I will agree with this. Favored Classes were stupid idea before: I much perfer a bonus than a penalty for Flavor Rules.

DeathQuaker
2008-09-30, 08:59 AM
The latter . Basically not rebalancing the game to make each choice of equivalent meaning [no sub optimal feats, classes or abilities].

See, I'd say they've at least addressed this a lot with classes--personally, I think all of the classes are better on par with each other.

Yes, there is the argument that Fighters still can't cast Time Stop. But they shouldn't. It's not what Fighters at 20th Level do. At 20th Level, when the party is standing in the middle of the Antimagic Field/Wild Magic Zone/versus the creature with insane SR/excellent saving throws/guy that just dispelled all the Wizard's buffs/guy that countered all the Wizard's spells the Fighter stands there taking damage and dishing physical damage that the enemy is hard put to avoid while the Wizard pisses his pants.

Maybe I have always had trouble seeing the Wizard as "overpowered" because I can just think of so many ways to counter their abilities. Magic is powerful, but has powerful ways of stopping it.



The ease of casting spells, the difficulty of interrupting them. The general subordination of non magic using classes by around levels 6-9.

I would like to see some playtesting of that to demonstrate to me the "subordination of non-magic-using classes" from levels 6-9 that involves a set of intelligent players and DMs. Utilizing terrain, etc. Because I have yet to see a specific, real world example. I am absolutely certain my experience does not match everyone's and this complaint comes from somewhere valid, but the details continue to elude me, unfortunately.

I DO agree there should be perhaps an offensive, martial capability to disrupt a spell. It is problematic that the most likely person to disrupt spellcasting is another spellcaster due to Counter Magic and Dispelling. That might be worth suggesting when the Feats playtest forum opens.



Yes, it's still basically nothing. There's some new extra fun stuff there, but it's all feat related. Two handed weapons are still the optimal choice.

I don't really see that---in ideal circumstances they'll dish out the most damage, yes, but maximum damage is not the be-all and end-all of D&D or D&D combat, despite popular opinion.

The thing about it being all "feat related... I didn't realize you were referring to the Fighter class specifically. First, I think it's fine these things are Feats, for Fighters or no. Non-fighters can still develop a fighting style, while Fighters have the most ability to climb those trees and combine things in fun ways (Whirlwind Attack + Great Cleave is still what it is... :smallbiggrin:). That's what's fun about the Fighter--its flexibility and modularity. Not that it has a gazillion very specific steps to its class advancement. Maybe I actually like the class as a "Feat Master"--someone who can utilize a largely modular build to a greater extent than any other class.

Even so, yes, the "Weapon Training" could be further tweaked to encourage fighting STYLES rather than just "weapon training". I really like that idea in fact. I never saw it suggested in the Paizo forums--was it? Point me to the thread and I'll chime in support for it. Not that anyone listens to ME mind you--I'm as equally ignored at Paizo as I am here and that's therefore 99% of the time (I think you Matthew are one of the few insane enough to engage me, although I appreciate the attention, not to mention the intelligent conversation :smallsmile:).



Same old, same old Save or Die stuff. The differential between a fighter's reflex saving throw and his fortitude saving throw is too great as levels advance.

I'm still reading through the spells, but a lot of the SOS and SOD spells have been altered that I've seen so far, and I imagine even more will be altered when the Spells playtest comes around. (There's a really good discussion in one of the alpha forums about altering SOD spells that I hope will be brought up in the Beta forum when the time comes.)

Fighters have enough bonus feats that they can afford Lightning Reflexes if a poor reflex save is that much of an issue. Alternatively, a class ability where along the armor training tree they get some energy resistance could be a good. I don't see Reflex saves should be a spectacular save for a Fighter any more than a Fort save for a Rogue or a Wizard (Wizards still have crappy saving throws, but folks never seem to account for that when they talk about how "overpowered" they are. Don't give Wizards a chance to insanely buff or dispel their buffs and they're hiding behind the Fighter.)


I dunno about interesting, I thought it was pretty boring, but that's all subjective. The question is whether it makes the fighter an attractive ninth level character.

I think so but I'll see how that is when my playtest Fighter is ninth level. I'll let you know if you like. :smallsmile: (And I'm willing to be wrong. That's why I'm trying the class out. :smallsmile:)


It is mainly people saying, "they didn't fix the bits I would have." My opinion is that D20/4e is an attempt to fix the underlying problems by completely changing the system, whereas [I]Pathfinder is simply looking to cater to the market who don't think D20/3e is particularly broken to begin with (that was my impression in the time I spent on their boards).

Pretty much, yeah.


What they removed the gravy train? Making Magic item magically take XP made you gain more levels majorly for Wizards (when rest of party levels you now gain more XP than normal due to average party level higher). So this is a reduction in power. What was this a balance issue?

Did some DM say: Gosh, Wizards can make magic items and stay about same Xp due to lower level charactrers gain more XP... I need to nerf them.

.... I have read your post several times and I still am not sure what you are saying, completely, but I will at least attempt to answer the question of "Was this a balance issue?"

This is entirely my guess, but I think it was not so much balance as more simply removing a pain-in-the-rear bit of record keeping. XP costs were the kind of thing so many players houseruled out it wasn't worth keeping in since it would probably just be ignored again.

Where I'm having trouble is this "gaining more/less" XP thing.... most games I've played in at least had people leveling up at more or less the same time. I suppose, yes, in some games where Wizards were doing tons of Item Crafting they might level more slowly than other players and having that be problematic.... but it's a pain in the rear to design challenges for parties with different level characters, so I can definitely see eliminating that possibility a good thing.

Neon Knight
2008-09-30, 09:49 AM
See, I'd say they've at least addressed this a lot with classes--personally, I think all of the classes are better on par with each other.

Yes, there is the argument that Fighters still can't cast Time Stop. But they shouldn't. It's not what Fighters at 20th Level do. At 20th Level, when the party is standing in the middle of the Antimagic Field/Wild Magic Zone/versus the creature with insane SR/excellent saving throws/guy that just dispelled all the Wizard's buffs/guy that countered all the Wizard's spells the Fighter stands there taking damage and dishing physical damage that the enemy is hard put to avoid while the Wizard pisses his pants.

Maybe I have always had trouble seeing the Wizard as "overpowered" because I can just think of so many ways to counter their abilities. Magic is powerful, but has powerful ways of stopping it.


That's funny, because I can think of a lot of powerful ways of stopping the Fighter without magic!

A sunderer who snaps his weapon in two. Even with feats invested in unarmed fighting, you will not prevail. The loss of a +5 weapon is difficult to compensate for. A giant focused on grappling. Size differences and STR differences suck, huh? A flying enemy. No magic means you have to piddle with a bow, and archery late game falls flat without bonus damage dice. Most late game melee monsters which, due to an uneven hit dice to CR ratio, are stupidly, stupidly powerful. Have you seen a Dragon's full attack? It's like being dropped into a blender with chainsaws for blades.

Whose pissing their pants now?

The situation you postulate isn't even vaguely applicable. Its a bad argument. Yes, BAD. Rogue giving you problems? Just remove all traps and skill checks, cease targeting Reflex saves, and make all your foes immune to sneak attack! In other words, designing scenarios to deliberately nerf one class makes another class okay! Not.

If I was that Wizard, I'd feel awful persecuted and would be more than a little bit annoyed that my foe was apparently smart enough to render me helpless but didn't do the same for the Fighter, even though it is easier to do it to the Fighter. The whole universe picking on the Wizard while giving the Fighter a blank check to do what he pleases is, quite frankly, bullhonkey.

DeathQuaker
2008-09-30, 10:10 AM
Hi, Kasrkin, I went off on a tangent and therefore didn't fully explain that thought well. Rest assured, as you read my posts, I am not advocating any sort of "anti-wizard D&D campaign" so there is no need to chide me in that regard. :smallsmile:

The idea behind that one quotation which you took mildly out of context, was that "Where a Wizard finds himself compromised at high levels, a Fighter will remain effective." The true is the same vice versa--where something excels at compromising the Fighter, the Wizard is going to have superior strengths.

And there SHOULD be events which might bring out a character's weakness...along with of course having events which will bring out the character's strengths. I would never suggest running a full campaign which was designed to target a single class and weaken them.... I was providing an example of a possible encounter which may occur in a high level campaign--commonly, perhaps, but absolutely, certainly not exclusively.

This is again, tangential to the conversation I was having above, but the actual point in this case is making sure that they both can help each other as fellow party members, and make up for each other's weaknesses when those situations occur.

Now, Teamwork abilities.... there's another idea.... anything that encourages players to think of the party as a unit rather than a group of possibly conflicting classes with abilities to compare and contrast competitively.... imagine the thought...... :smallsmile:

As for pointing out ways to weaken wizards, the only reason why I noted that I can think of these things is that people often talk about how to compromise a fighter, but arguments defending the wizard seldom keep these factors in mind, I find. Again, I would not ever recommend running a campaign where such events occurred constantly. What would be the point in that?

Neon Knight
2008-09-30, 10:24 AM
Hi, Kasrkin, I went off on a tangent and therefore didn't fully explain that thought well. Rest assured, as you read my posts, I am not advocating any sort of "anti-wizard D&D campaign" so there is no need to chide me in that regard. :smallsmile:

The idea behind that one quotation which you took mildly out of context, was that "Where a Wizard finds himself compromised at high levels, a Fighter will remain effective." The true is the same vice versa--where something excels at compromising the Fighter, the Wizard is going to have superior strengths.

And there SHOULD be events which might bring out a character's weakness...along with of course having events which will bring out the character's strengths. I would never suggest running a full campaign which was designed to target a single class and weaken them.... I was providing an example of a possible encounter which may occur in a high level campaign--commonly, perhaps, but absolutely, certainly not exclusively.

This is again, tangential to the conversation I was having above, but the actual point in this case is making sure that they both can help each other as fellow party members, and make up for each other's weaknesses when those situations occur.

Now, Teamwork abilities.... there's another idea.... anything that encourages players to think of the party as a unit rather than a group of possibly conflicting classes with abilities to compare and contrast competitively.... imagine the thought...... :smallsmile:

As for pointing out ways to weaken wizards, the only reason why I noted that I can think of these things is that people often talk about how to compromise a fighter, but arguments defending the wizard seldom keep these factors in mind, I find. Again, I would not ever recommend running a campaign where such events occurred constantly. What would be the point in that?

Oh. :smalleek: :smallredface:

I'm sorry. That earlier post was a bit... rash. I was bit flippant and condescending there, and I apologize.

Your point actually makes a great deal of sense. I just mistook it for a different argument in its tangential form.

Kaihaku
2008-09-30, 10:24 AM
If Dungeons and Dragons were a game focused around individual players beating the crap out of each other the class imbalance would be a problem. Generally, that isn't what Dungeons and Dragons is about, what it is about is a team facing challenges together. Yes, a Wizard is in most situations significantly more powerful at higher levels than the other classes. I contest that a Wizard who focuses on flaunting their ability to supplant the other classes is a poorly played Wizard. Yes, the Wizard may be stronger but the party is weaker for it. A well-played Wizard augments the other characters. With a few cheesy exceptions, a Fighter buffed by a Wizard is better at fighting than a buffed Wizard, a Rogue buffed by a Wizard is better at stealth than a buffed Wizard, etc. In archetypal classical fantasy, which is what Dungeons and Dragons is based on, the Wizard is the most powerful 'party member' but the Wizard is not the Hero. With that perspective, I don't think that the 3.5 imbalance between casters and everyone else was a big deal. What I do think was a problem is that several of the core base classes didn't receive new material at each level and thus were not as exciting as the classes that did. Another thing I think was a problem is that newer classes from sources like "Tome of Battle" were far more interesting and exciting to play than certain of the core classes. I think Pathfinder is lessening the imbalance between the classes in general, but it is not completely eliminating that imbalance and I don't think it should. I think the concept of a completely balanced system where every role has "equal potential" sounds relatively boring. It would be 4e, where everything is different in the same way. What Pathfinder is doing is making the core classes more exciting, more balanced when compared with later 3.5 material, and more diverse. There are a lot more options for a player to use to diversify their Rogue from everyone else's Rogue.

Now, there has been a movement away from the classical fantasy model. As I understand it, class imbalance in 3.5 has nothing on class imbalance in 1st edition. Now, 4e has basically eliminated class imbalance and gone for a different or at least greatly toned down model than that of classical fantasy. If you want sterile balance without unique character roles, or with four very specific character "roles" whatever, then there you go. I'm glad that someone is cleaning up and taking over 3.5. I think the class imbalance in the system makes for good roleplaying. It adds a semblance of reality to the game because, in life, there are always some people who have more of an advantage. They can use that advantage to assist you or they can use that advantage to show off. One way, they're helpful. The other, they're a jerk. How they choose to act is going to have repercussions.

Either way, despite what some people claim, casters are powerful but not all-powerful. Only the Dungeon Master is all-powerful. :smallwink:

Edit: How do you say, ninja'ed. :smalltongue:

Neon Knight
2008-09-30, 10:28 AM
If Dungeons and Dragons were a game focused around individual players beating the crap out of each other the class imbalance would be a problem. Generally, that isn't what Dungeons and Dragons is about, what it is about is a team facing challenges together. Yes, a Wizard is in most situations significantly more powerful at higher levels than the other classes. I contest that a Wizard who focuses on flaunting their ability to supplant the other classes is a poorly played Wizard. Yes, the Wizard may be stronger but the party is weaker for it. A well-played Wizard augments the other characters. With a few cheesy exceptions, a Fighter buffed by a Wizard is better at fighting than a buffed Wizard, a Rogue buffed by a Wizard is better at stealth than a buffed Wizard, etc. In archetypal classical fantasy, which is what Dungeons and Dragons is based on, the Wizard is the most powerful 'party member' but the Wizard is not the Hero.

Classically, the Batman Wizard disables enemies with save or sucks or spells like Shivering Touch, and then has the fighter coup-de grace them. He reduces the Fighter to the level of a caddy, or a game dog fetching his kills. The Wizard doesn't sneak or fight better than other classes, he circumvents the need to sneak or fight.

Kaihaku
2008-09-30, 10:44 AM
Classically, the Batman Wizard disables enemies with save or sucks or spells like Shivering Touch, and then has the fighter coup-de grace them. He reduces the Fighter to the level of a caddy, or a game dog fetching his kills. The Wizard doesn't sneak or fight better than other classes, he circumvents the need to sneak or fight.

Classically, there's no such thing as the "Batman Wizard". I consider Raistlin to be a classic Dungeons and Dragons Wizard. He was also a jerk but that's beside the point. I think the concept of the "Batman Wizard" came out the mass of splatbooks available for 3.5, not anything classical. There's such a thing as too much material and I think 3.5 as it is now is a fine example of that.

Limited spells per day are a mechanic that should make the other party members more than just "game dogs" for the Wizard, though I acknowledge that things like echoing spell, persist spell, and probably a ton of things I don't even know about hinder that a bit. Yes, a Wizard can 'circumvent' the need to sneak or fight a few times a day. If they can do that every encounter then something is wrong, probably with the Dungeon Master for not being more inventive and providing challenges that would require more taxing effort to "circumvent." If a Wizard is able to "circumvent" say 50% of the encounters on the path from level 1 to level 15, then I'd think that something is seriously wrong with the Dungeon Master.

Jack Zander
2008-09-30, 10:51 AM
Classically, there's no such thing as the "Batman Wizard". I consider Raistlin to be a classic Dungeons and Dragons Wizard. He was also a jerk but that's beside the point. I think the concept of the "Batman Wizard" came out the mass of splatbooks available for 3.5, not anything classical. There's such a thing as too much material and I think 3.5 as it is now is a fine example of that.

Limited spells per day are a mechanic that should make the other party members more than just "game dogs" for the Wizard, though I acknowledge that things like echoing spell, persist spell, and probably a ton of things I don't even know about hinder that a bit. Yes, a Wizard can 'circumvent' the need to sneak or fight a few times a day. If they can do that every encounter then something is wrong, possibly with the Dungeon Master for not being more inventive and providing challenges that would require more taxing effort to "circumvent." If a Wizard is able to "circumvent" even 90% of the encounters on the path from level 1 to level 15, then I blame the Dungeon Master.

Well, I'm playing as batman wizard using only core and I'm still able to circumvent most encounters with the right spells. My only problem lies when I run out of spells and then we usually run away and rest up. However, this is usually after 3-4 fights which is suppose to be standard per day, so our DM doesn't really care.

And being only level 4 there are still those battles which I am unprepared for, but I always have a few scrolls and there is always an enlarge person on the spiked chain fighter to just let me sit back and watch the fun.

I guess my point is that wizards can still be batman with core only and at low levels, but that batman wizards aren't the end all to everything (at high levels they are, and there's not much the DM can actually do about that).

Neon Knight
2008-09-30, 10:54 AM
Classically, there's no such thing as the "Batman Wizard". I consider Raistlin to be a classic Dungeons and Dragons Wizard. He also a jerk but that's beside the point. I think the concept of the "Batman Wizard" came out the mass of splatbooks available for 3.5, not anything classical. There's such a thing as too much material and I think 3.5 as it is now is a fine example of that.

Classically in the sense of classical optimization theory, not fantasy archetypes.



Limited spells per day are a mechanic that should make the other party members more than just "game dogs" for the Wizard, though I acknowledge that things like echoing spell, persist spell, and probably a ton of things I don't even know about hinder that a bit. Yes, a Wizard can 'circumvent' the need to sneak or fight a few times a day. If they can do that every encounter then something is wrong, possibly with the Dungeon Master for not being more inventive and providing challenges that would require more taxing effort to "circumvent." If a Wizard is able to "circumvent" even 90% of the encounters on the path from level 1 to level 15, then I blame the Dungeon Master.

This is kinda what I mistakenly snapped at DeatkQuaker for.

It is possible to compensate for class imbalance. It should not be necessary.

Many people have expressed the desire for the classes to be balanced normally, without DM interference. True balance is impossible, of course, but I would like to get as close as possible without relying on the DM.

That is because not only is the DM fallible, not only is the DM's job hard enough as it is, but also because the DM is a variable X-factor that cannot be determined or relied upon.

Kaihaku
2008-09-30, 11:09 AM
I guess my point is that wizards can still be batman with core only and at low levels, but that batman wizards aren't the end all to everything (at high levels they are, and there's not much the DM can actually do about that).

I'd contest that the Dungeon Master is never impotent...but then it would sidetrack the thread and I'm sure there are tons and tons of easily accessible pages on that topics already. In fact, I've seen more of them than I'd like.


Classically in the sense of classical optimization theory, not fantasy archetypes.

My point way back up there was that Dungeons and Dragons was originally built around "fantasy archetypes" and that's part of the reason that it is innately imbalanced. I like playing classical fantasy archetypes, I think it's entertaining and I don't like playing in a system where every role is exactly the same. I pointed out Raistlin because while he has become a fantasy archetype he was originally a player character.

Also, there's "classical optimization theory" now? I thought "batman wizards" was more of a pop-movement. I vaguely remember a time when no one made a big deal over Wizards being really powerful at high levels; it was just kind of expected and accepted. I wonder if it's the times or this community.


This is kinda what I mistakenly snapped at DeatkQuaker for.

I know.


It is possible to compensate for class imbalance. It should not be necessary.

Well, I've never been in a tabletop campaign where it was necessary. Strangely though it's been a problem in every online campaign I've played.


Many people have expressed the desire for the classes to be balanced normally, without DM interference. True balance is impossible, of course, but I would like to get as close as possible without relying on the DM.

Then 4e is for you.


That is because not only is the DM fallible, not only is the DM's job hard enough as it is, but also because the DM is a variable X-factor that cannot be determined or relied upon.

In regards to designing a system, certainly.

AstralFire
2008-09-30, 11:16 AM
My point way back up there was that Dungeons and Dragons was originally built around "fantasy archetypes" and that's part of the reason that it is innately imbalanced. I like playing classical fantasy archetypes, I think it's entertaining and I don't like playing in a system where every role is exactly the same. I pointed out Raistlin because while he has become a fantasy archetype he was originally a player character.

Every role doesn't have to be the same for more balance to be strove for.


Also, there's "classical optimization theory" now? I thought "batman wizards" was more of a pop-movement. I vaguely remember a time when no one made a big deal over Wizards being really powerful at high levels; it was just kind of expected and accepted. I wonder if it's the times or this community.

Batman Wizard is a pop-movement that focuses on 'cleverness' optimization more than the earlier reign of CoDzilla and Ubercharger that focused on getting gigantic numbers. However, the fact that the Wizard was practically (as in, practical gaming) either the first or second most powerful class (sometimes Druid held the title) and could contingency for everything has been long understood, and yes, people were making a big deal out of it four or five years ago. I don't know what they were doing on this board, obviously, but others... Batman is just the new title and it's only really prevalent in this community.

Matthew
2008-09-30, 11:27 AM
See, I'd say they've at least addressed this a lot with classes--personally, I think all of the classes are better on par with each other.

Yes, there is the argument that Fighters still can't cast Time Stop. But they shouldn't. It's not what Fighters at 20th Level do. At 20th Level, when the party is standing in the middle of the Antimagic Field/Wild Magic Zone/versus the creature with insane SR/excellent saving throws/guy that just dispelled all the Wizard's buffs/guy that countered all the Wizard's spells the Fighter stands there taking damage and dishing physical damage that the enemy is hard put to avoid while the Wizard pisses his pants.

Maybe I have always had trouble seeing the Wizard as "overpowered" because I can just think of so many ways to counter their abilities. Magic is powerful, but has powerful ways of stopping it.

Well, I admit "mighty magic" is not something I have ever really been bothered by either. Magic is something that has to be tempered by the game master in terms of availability. So the choice as to whether to be a spell caster or non spell caster doesn't worry me as much as "bad feats/skills versus good". A good game master and willing players can always compensate for imbalance.



I would like to see some playtesting of that to demonstrate to me the "subordination of non-magic-using classes" from levels 6-9 that involves a set of intelligent players and DMs. Utilizing terrain, etc. Because I have yet to see a specific, real world example. I am absolutely certain my experience does not match everyone's and this complaint comes from somewhere valid, but the details continue to elude me, unfortunately.

I DO agree there should be perhaps an offensive, martial capability to disrupt a spell. It is problematic that the most likely person to disrupt spellcasting is another spellcaster due to Counter Magic and Dispelling. That might be worth suggesting when the Feats playtest forum opens.

Yes, the power of magic is always conditional. The Pathfinder world setting should give us more of a clue in that regard as to the "default". I would want to see spells be more easily interruptable and take longer to cast .



I don't really see that---in ideal circumstances they'll dish out the most damage, yes, but maximum damage is not the be-all and end-all of D&D or D&D combat, despite popular opinion.

The thing about it being all "feat related... I didn't realize you were referring to the Fighter class specifically. First, I think it's fine these things are Feats, for Fighters or no. Non-fighters can still develop a fighting style, while Fighters have the most ability to climb those trees and combine things in fun ways (Whirlwind Attack + Great Cleave is still what it is... :smallbiggrin:). That's what's fun about the Fighter--its flexibility and modularity. Not that it has a gazillion very specific steps to its class advancement. Maybe I actually like the class as a "Feat Master"--someone who can utilize a largely modular build to a greater extent than any other class.

Even so, yes, the "Weapon Training" could be further tweaked to encourage fighting STYLES rather than just "weapon training". I really like that idea in fact. I never saw it suggested in the Paizo forums--was it? Point me to the thread and I'll chime in support for it. Not that anyone listens to ME mind you

All the threads I got involved with can be read here (http://paizo.com/people/Matthew4mg1g/posts), but I was mainly reading other people's posts at [I]Paizo, and would have a hard time finding them again, I'm afraid. I can't really see anyone choosing to fight with two weapons or use a shield as a method of melee optimisation in Pathfinder.



--I'm as equally ignored at Paizo as I am here and that's therefore 99% of the time (I think you Matthew are one of the few insane enough to engage me, although I appreciate the attention, not to mention the intelligent conversation :smallsmile:).

No trouble; always interesting.



I'm still reading through the spells, but a lot of the SOS and SOD spells have been altered that I've seen so far, and I imagine even more will be altered when the Spells playtest comes around. (There's a really good discussion in one of the alpha forums about altering SOD spells that I hope will be brought up in the Beta forum when the time comes.)

Fighters have enough bonus feats that they can afford Lightning Reflexes if a poor reflex save is that much of an issue. Alternatively, a class ability where along the armor training tree they get some energy resistance could be a good. I don't see Reflex saves should be a spectacular save for a Fighter any more than a Fort save for a Rogue or a Wizard (Wizards still have crappy saving throws, but folks never seem to account for that when they talk about how "overpowered" they are. Don't give Wizards a chance to insanely buff or dispel their buffs and they're hiding behind the Fighter.)

I think so but I'll see how that is when my playtest Fighter is ninth level. I'll let you know if you like. :smallsmile: (And I'm willing to be wrong. That's why I'm trying the class out. :smallsmile:)

Ah, well that's possibly because we see saving throws as the result of different things. I see them through the lense of AD&D as largely driven by supernatural forces, with some lesser influence from class, race and attributes. I would much rather unify saving throws into a 1:1 progression that kept pace with caster level, but that is probably too radical for Pathfinder (I got 0 comments on the thread I started about that). :smallbiggrin:



Pretty much, yeah.

I have a lot of sympathy for the view that the game is more or less fine as it is (for what it is), so I am glad that we agree this is the reason Paizo Publishing are not radically rebalancing the game with Pathfinder, rather than they "just not understanding the problems."

AstralFire
2008-09-30, 11:31 AM
For all its faults, I do think 3.5 is mostly fine as it is. As a DM, merely allowing ToB, PHB II, and Spell C is more than enough to cover most of my concerns about the game. Not that I think rebalancing efforts are in vain, just that I am comfortable enough with the people I play and my ad hoc skills to handle the rest.

I do want to get a chance to play 4E because it's something new and a change of pace can be fun, but most of my friends aren't comfortable with DMing and I am too busy to DM of late.

Kaihaku
2008-09-30, 11:34 AM
Every role doesn't have to be the same for more balance to be strove for.

For more balance? No. For as close to true balance as possible? Yes. There's a cost to enacting that kind of balance and it generally comes out in a very limited role.


However, the fact that the Wizard was practically (as in, practical gaming) either the first or second most powerful class (sometimes Druid held the title) and could contingency for everything has been long understood, and yes, people were making a big deal out of it four or five years ago.

I was thinking twelve years ago when I first played until just a few years ago but that works too. People think 3.5 Contingency is broken? Oh my. Chain Contingency. :smallwink:

AstralFire
2008-09-30, 11:41 AM
For more balance? No. For as close to true balance as possible? Yes. There's a cost to enacting that kind of balance and it generally comes out in a very limited role.

No one will disagree with you on the latter.

However, who determines the line of diminishing returns? That is up to each individual. Be aware that the simplicity of any given turn in a turn-based game increases the number of turns that can be taken, which facilitates complexity in other areas.


I was thinking twelve years ago when I first played until just a few years ago but that works too. People think 3.5 Contingency is broken? Oh my. Chain Contingency. :smallwink:

3rd Edition wasn't even out until 8 years ago, and 2nd Edition wizards had caps on them that, if you were playing everything rule by rule, I'm given to understand practically limited them.

As to what they were saying 8 years ago, I do not know. I did not get into world of creepy nerds (...that's about all I knew of D&D, having a very strict parentage) until '03.

Neon Knight
2008-09-30, 11:46 AM
My point way back up there was that Dungeons and Dragons was originally built around "fantasy archetypes" and that's part of the reason that it is innately imbalanced. I like playing classical fantasy archetypes, I think it's entertaining and I don't like playing in a system where every role is exactly the same. I pointed out Raistlin because while he has become a fantasy archetype he was originally a player character.


What it once was isn't a good precedent for what it should be. And all that does is raise questions.

The questions being, "Do all players want to play fantasy archetypes? How many of them do? Which audience is larger?" The needs of the many outweigh the few, after all. Or is that the right way to go about it? Should one design games to please the largest audience possible, or appeal to a niche? Games have been successful on both grounds. Favoring one crowd or the other isn't an objectively good or bad choice, and both sides have a right to lobby for their opinion.



Also, there's "classical optimization theory" now? I thought "batman wizards" was more of a pop-movement. I vaguely remember a time when no one made a big deal over Wizards being really powerful at high levels; it was just kind of expected and accepted. I wonder if it's the times or this community.


Theory might be too grand a word. Attitude or perception might be closer. There have been users on this board who haven't agreed with the common assessment of "full casters are more powerful than half and non casters." It is hardly a pop-movement. Mostly the people who spend time tinkering with character mechanics and reading stuff on the Op-Board. There are plenty of people who think that the batman wizard and his optimized kin are either exaggerated, unlikely to occur in a real game and thus unlikely, or just flat out false.

For my own part, I feel it only becomes manifest late game, which is the standpoint I argue from. Most optimization is late game focused, which is apparently the opposite of most examples of actual play which took place at relatively low levels.

Most of the time, people try to disprove the optimization rather than the likeliness that the builds and strategies put forth could actually occur in a game. I think the optimization is solid, but the likeliness can be more than a little bit iffy at times.



Then 4e is for you.


Nope. But, apparently, Savage Worlds and Exalted are. :smallsmile:

horseboy
2008-09-30, 12:28 PM
Also, there's "classical optimization theory" now? I thought "batman wizards" was more of a pop-movement. I vaguely remember a time when no one made a big deal over Wizards being really powerful at high levels; it was just kind of expected and accepted. I wonder if it's the times or this community.
Nah, even back in 1st it was a problem. Shakes used to go on about how "Back in the day" with everyone's long term characters, he was so overshadowed by someone who could and did take over a plane of Hell and 9 planes of the Abyss it was why he quit playing for some time.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-30, 12:33 PM
Classically, there's no such thing as the "Batman Wizard". I consider Raistlin to be a classic Dungeons and Dragons Wizard. He was also a jerk but that's beside the point. I think the concept of the "Batman Wizard" came out the mass of splatbooks available for 3.5, not anything classical.

To my knowledge the term was popularized by the Logic Ninja in his wizard's guide; I'm not sure where it originated.

However, in a fit of adaptation decay, many people think that "batman wizard" means "the ability to pwn any encounter in a single round". That's not what it originally meant! LogicNinja's guide is about teamwork and making the rest of the party fight better.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-30, 12:38 PM
LogicNinja's guide is about teamwork and making the rest of the party fight better.

Yes, but the basis of the Batman wizard as he doesn't use mainly brute force to win (just like Batman). No Evocation specialist need apply (no wizards avting mainly as Blasters for instance).

DeathQuaker
2008-09-30, 03:08 PM
Well, I admit "mighty magic" is not something I have ever really been bothered by either. Magic is something that has to be tempered by the game master in terms of availability. So the choice as to whether to be a spell caster or non spell caster doesn't worry me as much as "bad feats/skills versus good". A good game master and willing players can always compensate for imbalance.

True.

I do still think they've overall fixed the feats a little to make sure one isn't necessarily a bad choice. Frex, "Toughness" in 3.x is useless; in Pathfinder it adds the +1 per Hit Die which actually might make it useful to certain characters. There's going to be bad builds and over-optimized ones but... ya know, come to think of it, I haven't seen a system yet that hasn't kept a diehard twink from making his uber-whatever. Overall though, even if only slightly, the feats that look attractive actually ARE attractive. There's a lot more things that are treed too, so you can build up a style from your one choice.

But we might see whereelse "dead feats" can be eliminated... (IIRC some other high level Feats are going to be introduced to the playtest at some point...)



Yes, the power of magic is always conditional. The Pathfinder world setting should give us more of a clue in that regard as to the "default". I would want to see spells be more easily interruptable and take longer to cast .

I'm not sure about Full Round Action because gimping a caster's mobility (i.e. eliminating a move action if they cast a spell) may in some cases may actually swing the pendulum too far the other way. But (as a nod to 2nd ed ticks) maybe spells could negatively affect Initiative in some way.....?

But as for interruptable, I think the key problem is the Casting Defensively mechanic. I think it was put in place for situations like the Cleric desperately needing to heal someone while standing in a threatened area and never having a chance to do that, but Concentration (in Pathfinder, Spellcraft) is too easy to build up to high levels to beat that 15+Spell Level DC to achieve casting defensively, making casting in melee far too easy.

It sounds drastic, but especially since you can still 5 foot step to avoid AOO and you can still make a concentration check to cast even when struck by a weapon, perhaps Defensive Casting could be removed entirely. Might work, but I don't know how many people would go for it....


All the threads I got involved with can be read here (http://paizo.com/people/Matthew4mg1g/posts), but I was mainly reading other people's posts at [I]Paizo, and would have a hard time finding them again, I'm afraid. I can't really see anyone choosing to fight with two weapons or use a shield as a method of melee optimisation in Pathfinder.

Really? I liked a lot of the 2weapon and shield feats there.

I'll check out. I've already been messing around on the message boards far too much unfortunately (I should totally not be online right now; I really need someone to slap me on the hand sometimes...)


Ah, well that's possibly because we see saving throws as the result of different things. I see them through the lense of AD&D as largely driven by supernatural forces, with some lesser influence from class, race and attributes. I would much rather unify saving throws into a 1:1 progression that kept pace with caster level, but that is probably too radical for Pathfinder (I got 0 comments on the thread I started about that). :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, I gotta say I'll disagree with you there.



I have a lot of sympathy for the view that the game is more or less fine as it is (for what it is), so I am glad that we agree this is the reason Paizo Publishing are not radically rebalancing the game with Pathfinder, rather than they "just not understanding the problems."

Yep. I think it is an audience issue.

Kasrkin, No prob. Glad things are clarified for you. :smallsmile:

Matthew
2008-09-30, 04:21 PM
True.

I do still think they've overall fixed the feats a little to make sure one isn't necessarily a bad choice. Frex, "Toughness" in 3.x is useless; in Pathfinder it adds the +1 per Hit Die which actually might make it useful to certain characters. There's going to be bad builds and over-optimized ones but... ya know, come to think of it, I haven't seen a system yet that hasn't kept a diehard twink from making his uber-whatever. Overall though, even if only slightly, the feats that look attractive actually ARE attractive. There's a lot more things that are treed too, so you can build up a style from your one choice.

But we might see whereelse "dead feats" can be eliminated... (IIRC some other high level Feats are going to be introduced to the playtest at some point...)

There certainly has been some improvement.



I'm not sure about Full Round Action because gimping a caster's mobility (i.e. eliminating a move action if they cast a spell) may in some cases may actually swing the pendulum too far the other way. But (as a nod to 2nd ed ticks) maybe spells could negatively affect Initiative in some way.....?

But as for interruptable, I think the key problem is the Casting Defensively mechanic. I think it was put in place for situations like the Cleric desperately needing to heal someone while standing in a threatened area and never having a chance to do that, but Concentration (in Pathfinder, Spellcraft) is too easy to build up to high levels to beat that 15+Spell Level DC to achieve casting defensively, making casting in melee far too easy.

It sounds drastic, but especially since you can still 5 foot step to avoid AOO and you can still make a concentration check to cast even when struck by a weapon, perhaps Defensive Casting could be removed entirely. Might work, but I don't know how many people would go for it....

Heh, heh. I would gut punch those darn casters. No movement, automatic interruption if hit during their action. Maybe I am just mean..



Really? I liked a lot of the 2weapon and shield feats there.

I'll check out. I've already been messing around on the message boards far too much unfortunately (I should totally not be online right now; I really need someone to slap me on the hand sometimes...)

I admit it has been a while since I checked the Paizo Publishing meassage boards, but I didn't notice a huge difference in the Beta draft. Still, the proof will be in the pudding.



Yeah, I gotta say I'll disagree with you there.

Heh, heh. It is close to the way Castles & Crusades handles saving throws, and not that far off from what D20/4e did. Still, it's not for everyone.

Beleriphon
2008-09-30, 04:44 PM
I think the reason people say the Paizo designed don't know what they are doing balance wise is because they are stating they want to fix the common balance issues that seem to crop up with D&D 3.5, but aren't actually fixing them in any meaningful way. As stated they seem to be catering to only the people that post on the Paizo boards that think 3.5 was terribly unbalanced to start with, despite the fact that it really is not balanced that well.

I take it as a function of wanting to appeal to people that played 3.5 and give them an alternate choice, but not actually wanting to fix some of the things that need fixing for fear of alienating the players they want to court. They still want to fix things, but don't really know how to go about it with the parameters they have set for themselves.

joela
2008-09-30, 05:06 PM
Question. How many folks here are actually play-testing the rules in-game? I'm currently, for example, playing a human wizard/conjurer in Curse of the Crimson Throne. The PC was developed using the Alpha rules & PH and will be updated to Beta by the third module in the AP.

Fax Celestis
2008-09-30, 05:08 PM
Question. How many folks here are actually play-testing the rules in-game? I'm currently, for example, playing a human wizard/conjurer in Curse of the Crimson Throne. The PC was developed using the Alpha rules & PH and will be updated to Beta by the third module in the AP.

Playing a druid in Shackled City using Pathfinder rules at the moment.

Gaiwecoor
2008-09-30, 05:37 PM
Question. How many folks here are actually play-testing the rules in-game?

I'm testing it in a PbP, currently. I'm playing a swashbuckler/rogue, my wife is a conjurer (will be adding favored soul -> mystic theurge, when it's released), and another is a druid. We're mixing up the classes to see how well that backward compatibility they talked about works.

We've enjoyed the changes so far; of course, we don't have anybody playing that actually tries to break the game, either.

Kaihaku
2008-09-30, 06:17 PM
What it once was isn't a good precedent for what it should be. And all that does is raise questions.

It's important to understand what the system was originally designed to be. There's a reason beyond "poor design" that it isn't more balanced.


The questions being, "Do all players want to play fantasy archetypes? How many of them do? Which audience is larger?" The needs of the many outweigh the few, after all. Or is that the right way to go about it? Should one design games to please the largest audience possible, or appeal to a niche? Games have been successful on both grounds. Favoring one crowd or the other isn't an objectively good or bad choice, and both sides have a right to lobby for their opinion.

Obviously, Wizards of the Coast believes that the audience of players who don't want to play classical fantasy archetypes is the majority. Paizo is appealing towards those who do want to play Dungeons and Dragons as it has been, that is closer to classical fantasy archetypes. Granted, Paizo is also advertising to people who have a ton of 3.5 sourcebooks and who might just want a mild system upgrade that allows them to keep on using them. The fact that the transition to 4e was so botched (not the rules but rather the public relations and change in feel) has sent a lot of people Paizo's way that otherwise might have happily gone with 4e (For instance, Forgotten Realms fans and people who feel constrained by the heavy handed setting specific elements in the PHB).


Nope. But, apparently, Savage Worlds and Exalted are. :smallsmile:

I'll have to look into them at some point.


I think the reason people say the Paizo designed don't know what they are doing balance wise is because they are stating they want to fix the common balance issues that seem to crop up with D&D 3.5, but aren't actually fixing them in any meaningful way. As stated they seem to be catering to only the people that post on the Paizo boards that think 3.5 was terribly unbalanced to start with, despite the fact that it really is not balanced that well.

What, exactly, are the "common balance issues that seem to crop up in D&D 3.5" that you are referring to?


Question. How many folks here are actually play-testing the rules in-game?

I'm running a playtest.

Crow
2008-09-30, 06:49 PM
What, exactly, are the "common balance issues that seem to crop up in D&D 3.5" that you are referring to?

...and common in actual games, or common on internet message boards?

EvilElitest
2008-09-30, 07:07 PM
Meh, the Beta shows some improvement, but again, i don't think Paizo knows waht they are doing. I love the fact they are trying to fix the system and i love the fact that they actually do care about the games value unlike WotC, but they lack the understanding of the game. However, Paizo actually wants to make a quality game, and because this is a beta there is still hope. Again, they need to make changes, but they don't have to ruin the game, just start taking advice

Teh solution




HIRE EE

from
EE

LibraryOgre
2008-09-30, 08:07 PM
One of my favorite examples of playtesting comes from Knights of the Dinner Table, when they were playtesting Fairy Meat. They had someone who was extremely knowledgeable about faeries, someone who could red-line any system with just a bit of work, and someone who was unfailingly critical of any flaws.

Danin
2008-09-30, 08:09 PM
I am going to be playing in a Pathfinder game tomorrow night to test it out. Thusfar we have 2 rogues, a sorcerer and me, a Barbarian. While I do like the concept of more viability among barbarians, the new system seems very easy to Nova with if you aren't careful. At level 6 I have 32 rage points which means 31 rounds of consecutive raging. While that is awesome, if I break it up over 4 uses a day that means I have 28 points left to keep me in a rage for an average 7 rounds a rage. Again, not bad. However, when you factor in the use of some abilities that take 4 - 8 rage points, you find yourself only being able to rage for about half your encounters a day. If you find yourself in a number of encounters each day it seems even easier to run out.

I don't think it will be too much of a problem, after all, a Wizard can't cast level 9 spells all day either. However, in the end I feel as though it is stripping the Barbarian of his core class skill more than half the time, reducing him to the status of a fairly tough fighter with fewer feats the rest of the time.

Then again, I suppose I'll find out for sure tomorrow.

EvilElitest
2008-09-30, 08:09 PM
One of my favorite examples of playtesting comes from Knights of the Dinner Table, when they were playtesting Fairy Meat. They had someone who was extremely knowledgeable about faeries, someone who could red-line any system with just a bit of work, and someone who was unfailingly critical of any flaws.

see, i'm the third one
from
EE

Gaiwecoor
2008-09-30, 08:25 PM
... However, when you factor in the use of some abilities that take 4 - 8 rage points, you find yourself only being able to rage for about half your encounters a day. If you find yourself in a number of encounters each day it seems even easier to run out.

Also note, however, that in straight 3.5, you can only rage 2/day at that level. Breaking it into rage points actually increases your ability to use the rage in multiple encounters, as well as giving you those other options if you chose to use more of the rage points all at once.

DeathQuaker
2008-09-30, 09:11 PM
While I do like the concept of more viability among barbarians, the new system seems very easy to Nova with if you aren't careful. At level 6 I have 32 rage points which means 31 rounds of consecutive raging. (snip)

You might also want to check out the alternate Rage rules Jason Buhlman recently posted in response to the feedback about the Rage Points:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/design/barbarianFighterRanger/designFocusAlternateRageSystem

These have been received fairly well so I have a feeling if the feedback keeps coming in positive that's what they may switch it to for final.

Another_Poet
2008-10-01, 09:39 AM
Here are my thoughts on Paizo's Pathfinder system.

I am grateful that they are continuing to support my favourite game, and especially grateful that they are doing it in a way that involves the community so much. They're keeping other players interested in my favourite game, and that means I get to play it more often with more people.

If some of the changes they make aren't great, that's fine. If some of the changes are unnecessary or wrongheaded, again, fine by me. They could give the wizard class a Su ability to poop stones and I'd still be happy. I get to poop stones? And it replaces my spell list? Okay... well... I love you Pathfinder, because you're keeping 3.5 alive and widespread.

:smallwink:

ap

Thinker
2008-10-01, 10:43 AM
{Scrubbed}

EvilElitest
2008-10-01, 09:23 PM
Huh?
Expanding on what i already said the Paizo beta is good but doesn't bring about any real fix. But it is still a beta, does anyone know what when the real version comes out?

And EE for paizo critic
from
EE

Kaihaku
2008-10-01, 09:51 PM
Meh, the Beta shows some improvement, but again, i don't think Paizo knows waht they are doing. I love the fact they are trying to fix the system and i love the fact that they actually do care about the games value unlike WotC, but they lack the understanding of the game. However, Paizo actually wants to make a quality game, and because this is a beta there is still hope. Again, they need to make changes, but they don't have to ruin the game, just start taking advice

Teh solution

HIRE EE

from
EE

What changes, exactly, would EE advise if EE were hired and put in charge of Pathfinder development?

AstralFire
2008-10-01, 09:54 PM
What changes, exactly, would EE advise if EE were hired and put in charge of Pathfinder development?

Equal Employment for Elves and Elephants.

EvilElitest
2008-10-01, 09:57 PM
What changes, exactly, would EE advise if EE were hired and put in charge of Pathfinder development?

all female characters/ Paizo workers are required to wear tiny mini skirts as General Mustang Advised

Wait, do you want me to be serous
from
EE

Matthew
2008-10-01, 10:02 PM
all female characters/ Paizo workers are required to wear tiny mini skirts as General Mustang Advised

That plan has some drawbacks you may not be seeing. :smallbiggrin:

Kaihaku
2008-10-01, 10:03 PM
Wait, do you want me to be serous
from
EE

Only if you want to be taken seriously. :smallwink:

EvilElitest
2008-10-01, 10:04 PM
That plan has some drawbacks you may not be seeing. :smallbiggrin:

all females must be approved by the board of lechery. Ok, i'm going to stop before i offend somebody, the joke was a full metal Alchimist reference
from
EE

Gaiwecoor
2008-10-01, 10:09 PM
Equal Employment for Elves and Elephants.

Too many kinds of awesome for me to not quote.


But it is still a beta, does anyone know what when the real version comes out?

It's due out August next year.

EvilElitest
2008-10-01, 10:12 PM
Too many kinds of awesome for me to not quote.


Its a valid perspective



It's due out August next year.

Thanks
from
EE

JaxGaret
2008-10-01, 10:27 PM
I was excited about Pathfinder when I first heard about it. Then, I read it, and I found that it completely missed the mark, as others have said.

I find the Rebalancing Compendium (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2096) over on the BG boards to be a project worth mentioning here. If given enough time and attention, it could grow to be an excellent resource for 3e players wishing to have a more balanced play experience.

Kaihaku
2008-10-01, 10:31 PM
I was excited about Pathfinder when I first heard about it. Then, I read it, and I found that it completely missed the mark, as others have said.

I wish someone would state exactly what Paizo should be doing that they are not so that someone can tell them exactly what they should be doing that they are not.

Beleriphon
2008-10-01, 10:45 PM
I wish someone would state exactly what Paizo should be doing that they are not so that someone can tell them exactly what they should be doing that they are not.

I think its a function of we don't know how to fix the game short of breaking it apart and rebuilding, which Paizo isn't really doing. So what they are doing is interesting, I'd happily admit that, its not really fixing all that much. Its more tinkering right now. It might make the game run a little better, but a full rebuild what is required.

JaxGaret
2008-10-02, 12:34 AM
I wish someone would state exactly what Paizo should be doing that they are not so that someone can tell them exactly what they should be doing that they are not.

Fixing class balance is something that Paizo should be doing. At least attempting to fix it would be nice, instead of leaving it exactly as it was.

Simply "changing the spell list" isn't a solution for spellcasters. It's more like a houserule than anything. Is Paizo going to go through every splatbook in 3e, and fix every single last spell in the game? No? Then it's not a solution.

Leaving the non-casters pretty much as they were is not a solution either, since they were and are completely overshadowed without a total revamp of every spell in the game, which isn't going to happen.

Scaboroth
2008-10-02, 12:53 AM
I think its a function of we don't know how to fix the game short of breaking it apart and rebuilding, which Paizo isn't really doing. So what they are doing is interesting, I'd happily admit that, its not really fixing all that much. Its more tinkering right now. It might make the game run a little better, but a full rebuild what is required.

That sounds rather like semantics to me. Maybe you could define the difference between "fixing" and "tinkering"? And there already is a full rebuild out there, it's a brand new edition. Pathfinder is for those of us who don't feel a new edition/full rebuild is necessary. 3.5 may have its flaws, but at heart it's a solid system for building the character concept you want to play. And all the additional changes that Pathfinder has made only increase the options and capabilities of the core classes, which to me means MORE FUN!


Fixing class balance is something that Paizo should be doing. At least addressing it would be nice, instead of leaving it exactly as it was.

Simply "changing the spell list" isn't a solution. It's more like a houserule than anything. Is Paizo going to go through every splatbook in 3e, and fix every single last spell in the game?

I feel that changing the spell list actually is a solution, a perfectly viable one. It isn't the classes in and of themselves that are imbalanced, it's their capabilities. What is it about a wizard that makes them so much more powerful than any other class? Is it their hit points? How about their base attack bonus? Uh, their saving throws? Weapons and armor proficiencies? No, it's their spellcasting. And if the worst of the spells aren't so bad anymore, than how is that not a solution (or at the very least, a step in the right direction)?
And to address your final point, of course Pathfinder is not going to address every single splat book. To begin with, they can only use SRD material. And all of that additional material that you get in your pile of splat books? It's additional. As in, it isn't necessary to the game. And if you want to include it, then it just might take a little bit of work.
So essentially, I'm agreeing with you. Pathfinder really is nothing more than a collection of house rules. But it's a collection of rules that have a cohesive design philosophy behind them. I personally think it is a very elegant design philosophy, but Your Mileage May Vary.

JaxGaret
2008-10-02, 01:00 AM
I feel that changing the spell list actually is a solution, a perfectly viable one. It isn't the classes in and of themselves that are imbalanced, it's their capabilities. What is it about a wizard that makes them so much more powerful than any other class? Is it their hit points? How about their base attack bonus? Uh, their saving throws? Weapons and armor proficiencies? No, it's their spellcasting. And if the worst of the spells aren't so bad anymore, than how is that not a solution (or at the very least, a step in the right direction)?

It's a patch, not a solution.



And to address your final point, of course Pathfinder is not going to address every single splat book. To begin with, they can only use SRD material. And all of that additional material that you get in your pile of splat books? It's additional. As in, it isn't necessary to the game. And if you want to include it, then it just might take a little bit of work.
So essentially, I'm agreeing with you. Pathfinder really is nothing more than a collection of house rules. But it's a collection of rules that have a cohesive design philosophy behind them. I personally think it is a very elegant design philosophy, but Your Mileage May Vary.

You've basically made my point for me. It's not going to address material that many or most 3e players use, and can't do so, really. I was hoping that I could use Pathfinder out of the box, without further extensive houseruling. Why use it if I'm just going to have to do all the dirty work myself?

I agree that Pathfinder has elements to it that are nice, but there's nothing really original as far as I've seen. Many of the new elements are adopted from 3e splatbooks.

Kaihaku
2008-10-02, 04:43 AM
I think its a function of we don't know how to fix the game short of breaking it apart and rebuilding, which Paizo isn't really doing.

So, basically, when someone levels the critique that "Paizo doesn't know what they are doing" or "Paizo knows something is wrong but has no idea what it is or how to fix it" they are really just saying, in a superior tone, that "nothing short of 4e can fix the system."


So what they are doing is interesting, I'd happily admit that, its not really fixing all that much. Its more tinkering right now. It might make the game run a little better, but a full rebuild what is required.

Fourth edition has been released. Although Paizo hasn't done it the way I would have… I think Pathfinder has addressed most if not all of the major imbalances in core 3.5. Further, I think Pathfinder is addressing some of the imbalances between core 3.5 and the horde of splatbooks out there. I agree that few things short of 4e can bring absolute balance to the splatbooks (they don't balance with core, they don't balance with each other, and often enough they don't balance with themselves). That said, I'd be surprised to find anyone outside of complete newbies and optimizers who allows all of the splatbooks to be freely used in a campaign.


Fixing class balance is something that Paizo should be doing. At least attempting to fix it would be nice, instead of leaving it exactly as it was.

That's not true; Paizo has certainly made the attempt to balance the classes even if you feel that they have failed in that effort.


Simply "changing the spell list" isn't a solution for spellcasters. It's more like a houserule than anything. Is Paizo going to go through every splatbook in 3e, and fix every single last spell in the game? No? Then it's not a solution.

First, "changing the spell list" is the only solution to balance spellcasters. You are wrong if you think otherwise. Second, it is not Paizo's responsibility or their right to balance out that mess that Wizards of the Coast made in their effort to sell more material.
Sigh.
The splatbooks are the intellectual property of Wizards of Coast, a significant number of the splatbooks are terribly unbalanced, the splatbooks are optional material... Wait, that proves your point? What?


Leaving the non-casters pretty much as they were is not a solution either, since they were and are completely overshadowed without a total revamp of every spell in the game, which isn't going to happen.

Let’s say that you downloaded a piece of software and installed a ton of mods in it. That software then became unstable. The makers of the software introduced a new edition that wiped it all away and started over...but the new edition wasn’t quite as open as the old edition. Then, later, a third party released an update for the old edition but…those lazy bums, they didn’t revise anything but the core software when the mods were most of the problem.

It’s basically the same thing. It’s the responsibility of the user to add in optional material intelligently. It’s the responsibility of the designer to create intelligent material that doesn’t cause problems. Wizards of the Coast did not fulfill their responsibility. The jury is still out on Paizo.

If you allow a player to pull in a terribly designed spell from a poorly balanced and rushed to production splatbook; its your and the player’s problem, not Pathfinder’s.


It's a patch, not a solution.

If you feel that way, as started before, Fourth Edition has remarkable balance even if it is a bit more restraining. I, personally, feel that Pathfinder is a good combination of freedom and balance. In this case, the more I get to know the system the more that I feel this “Patch” is the “Solution” for my playing style.


You've basically made my point for me. It's not going to address material that many or most 3e players use, and can't do so, really.

No, no it isn't. It is not addressing the material that "many or most" players use. It is addressing the material that EVERY player uses. Splatbooks have always been optional; the core system is not optional.


I was hoping that I could use Pathfinder out of the box, without further extensive houseruling. Why use it if I'm just going to have to do all the dirty work myself?

Telling a player, “No, Shivering Touch is horribly designed and broken, you cannot use it” is not an extensive set of houserulings. Pathfinder is playable out of the box as it is but if you want to use existing WotC splatbooks then you have to do some work. The splatbooks are broken, not Pathfinder, and while they can be adapted to the upgraded and rebalanced system because of copyright laws that duty falls on the person who wishes to use them.

Personally, I think Pathfinder is on the way to negating the need for core system balancing houserules. The poorly designed splatbooks are another matter and I think it's silly to have expected Paizo to have broken copyright law to modify WotC material.


I agree that Pathfinder has elements to it that are nice, but there's nothing really original as far as I've seen. Many of the new elements are adopted from 3e splatbooks.

Could you give me some examples of material that was taken from 3e splatbooks? Please cite more than just Unearthed Arcana, a great deal of which is actually legally usable by Paizo.

DeathQuaker
2008-10-02, 03:53 PM
I had a whole bunch of stuff to say (largely in agreement with Kaihaku), then remembered I had already said it a page ago:



Who is bending you over and forcing you or anyone else to use splatbooks?

You're right, as long as splatbooks exist, someone is probably going to find a broken combination or something that doesn't work the way it's supposed to. That's going to be as true for 4th Edition as it was for 2nd Edition and of course as many mark, as it was/is for 3.x

Splatbooks are optional materials. If a GM is enough of a moron to allow broken combinations from those books that weren't meant to be or let his players browbeat him into using a supplement with poorly written abilities in them, Paizo nor anyone else can fix that, no matter how much revising they can do. There is unfortunately no RPG rule that can completely prevent player/GM idiocy.

The best you can do is put needed revisions into core--which is what they're doing--and hope players have enough common sense to incorporate in supplementary materials as only is reasonable.


Added a little more emphasis on a key point.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-02, 04:42 PM
Pathfinder is playable out of the box as it is but if you want to use existing WotC splatbooks then you have to do some work. The splatbooks are broken, not Pathfinder, and while they can be adapted to the upgraded and rebalanced system because of copyright laws that duty falls on the person who wishes to use them.

I think you have a different definitiuon than others about "playable out of the box".
There will still be caster/non-caster imbalance, Monks sucking (less but still sucking), etc.

Is it an improvement? Yeah, if you duct tape a bridge it looks better than when it was falling down...but that would hold a car very well.


Personally, I think Pathfinder is on the way to negating the need for core system balancing houserules.

One should hope.
But we won't know till too late (when they finish it).

EvilElitest
2008-10-02, 04:54 PM
well personally, i think a new edition woudl best. Rememeber, i hate 4E, but i'm not against a new edition. But if we didn't do that, here woudl be the first three steps

1) Figure out all of the current balence problems

2) Get a total log of all the offical monsters/feats/races/items/spells/powers ect and put them together in one giant index because as it is, 3E's biggest problems is lack of orginizaiton
3) figure out a power level. What class is going to be considered balenced and work from there
from
EE

Neon Knight
2008-10-02, 04:58 PM
It's important to understand what the system was originally designed to be. There's a reason beyond "poor design" that it isn't more balanced.


That's certainly debatable. I'd like to ask what is the source of this belief (I'm betting that rules mastery quote Matthew is fond of will pop up soon.)



Obviously, Wizards of the Coast believes that the audience of players who don't want to play classical fantasy archetypes is the majority. Paizo is appealing towards those who do want to play Dungeons and Dragons as it has been, that is closer to classical fantasy archetypes. Granted, Paizo is also advertising to people who have a ton of 3.5 sourcebooks and who might just want a mild system upgrade that allows them to keep on using them. The fact that the transition to 4e was so botched (not the rules but rather the public relations and change in feel) has sent a lot of people Paizo's way that otherwise might have happily gone with 4e (For instance, Forgotten Realms fans and people who feel constrained by the heavy handed setting specific elements in the PHB).


Debatable again, but this is getting off topic into waters best not traversed. At least not without the company of every fire control organization ever assembled by man.




What, exactly, are the "common balance issues that seem to crop up in D&D 3.5" that you are referring to?



It's a long list.

Mundane (non caster) class problems in the late game due to bad monster design, full caster dominance, Druidzilla (a bigger problem than Batman, really), the sucky and broken nature of LA, the fact that full casters can't really lose too many caster levels or they go down the tubes (multiclassing problems in general), the imbalance between melee fighting styles (actually fixed by ToB come to think of it, because it doesn't care what weapon you're using, you rock out loud regardless,) the nightmare that is Turn Undead, making grappling actually effective (not simple, effective. Worthwhile to pursue as a combat strategy,) making combat options like disarm, feints, etc. worthwhile...

There's more. Oh, geez, there's more.



So, basically, when someone levels the critique that "Paizo doesn't know what they are doing" or "Paizo knows something is wrong but has no idea what it is or how to fix it" they are really just saying, in a superior tone, that "nothing short of 4e can fix the system."


No. We're saying that you're going to have to sacrifice some 3e-ness in order to fix 3e. That doesn't mean 4e, that just means not 3e. There are plenty of other options besides those taken by 4e.



That said, I'd be surprised to find anyone outside of complete newbies and optimizers who allows all of the splatbooks to be freely used in a campaign.


*raises hand* Self-styled permissive DM here. Maximum mechanical freedom to assist maximum narrative/descriptive freedom. Splatbooks aide this. I've spent money on it, I'm using it, damnit, come hell or high water. And if someone could come up with some clever fixes so that splatbook problems go away, I'd be delighted.



First, "changing the spell list" is the only solution to balance spellcasters. You are wrong if you think otherwise.


That's certainly not true. Messing with the way saves and save DCs work, attaching a higher mechanical price to magic use, improving or fixing the way full attacks work... Those are just off the top of my head. Attacking spells is a roundabout and ineffective way of doing things.

Secondly, by placing all their hopes on the spell list, this means that Pathfinder as a whole is literally going to live or die for a certain demographic based on how this spell list turn out? If they'd even tinkered with some other things, then some error here could be forgiven, but now? Pathfinder floats or sinks on its spells.



*Anti Splatbook Speech littered throughout post*


Part of the reason I do not engage in 4e is because of all the splatbooks I've bought for 3e. To move on and invalidate so much material is something I can't simply do.

I don't stay with 3e for the Core, I do it for the splats. Thus I'm looking for stuff that helps me use them. Addressing core problems is part of the package, but it ain't what I came for. If that's all your offering, to quote an popular internet meme:


DO NOT WANT!

It's a major appeal of staying with 3e for many people; they already have a ton of material for it, material that they haven't tired of or explored. They're looking for a way to fix the problems in their games, and in their games they use these splatbooks. If the flaws within these materials aren't addressed, then they still have problems, and Pathfinder has failed; because its promise is to fix the problems with 3e.

Pazio had a chance to reach out and touch unbalanced material throughout the whole system by affecting the base- the Core Classes. Their failure to do so is what causes us to be so critical of their attempts.

Secondly, your images of universally imbalanced splatbooks and game imbalance only emerging from abusive players is a gross exaggeration and generalization that is of dubious truth.. iness. Truthfulness. Whatever. A lot of splatbooks aren't that bad. ToM, anyone? And late game play really shows who's been bad, meh, or good, optimization wise.



Added a little more emphasis on a key point.

See above paragraph.

EvilElitest
2008-10-02, 05:14 PM
3E does however desperetly need a revision, however it doesn't need to be a full scale change, If paizo could make a somewhat fix to the system, things could go quite well for them without having to republish old books
frm
EE

Matthew
2008-10-02, 05:23 PM
That's certainly debatable. I'd like to ask what is the source of this belief (I'm betting that rules mastery quote Matthew is fond of will pop up soon.)

Heh, heh. Interestingly, having read some of the D20/3e PHB/DMG again you can see the whole "rules mastery" business cropping up as encouraged behaviour. That said, everything is debatable. :smallbiggrin:

Neon Knight
2008-10-02, 05:31 PM
Heh, heh. Interestingly, having read some of the D20/3e PHB/DMG again you can see the whole "rules mastery" business cropping up as encouraged behaviour. That said, everything is debatable. :smallbiggrin:

If you have specific passages, I'd love to see them. I actually think that you have a point in that regard, and that, at least initially, rules mastery was part of 3e design.

Kaihaku is, judging from previous posts, going to say it was designed to represent certain fantasy archetypes, which include the Wizard who is better than you, Mr. Fighter.

Doesn't Jayabalard argue something similar? Man, the history book on the shelf is always repeating itself...

AstralFire
2008-10-02, 05:38 PM
As a DM, the only splatbooks I disallow are for thematic reasons. For example, Dragon Magic, Draconomicon, and Races of the Dragon: Using these books will generally get you skewered repeatedly and then baked into a light quiche. DEATH TO DRAGONS.

Non-winged kobolds fine.

I wouldn't describe myself as an optimizer, either. I'm interested in game design generally (as the signature indicates) which gives me some level of optimization-ability, but I simply do not have the attention span necessary to sift through a lot of books nor the photographic memory to go "hey, this sounds like something I remember reading a month ago, let's put it together and see what happens!"

And, as a general rule, I don't like putting more than about three classes on my sheet outside of gestalt. I've always seen myself as a roleplayer first, I just happen to be fine with those who do optimize first.

Matthew
2008-10-02, 06:01 PM
If you have specific passages, I'd love to see them. I actually think that you have a point in that regard, and that, at least initially, rules mastery was part of 3e design.

Wasn't taking notes, I am afraid; I'll take another look later if I have time.

[edit] A quick search of the D20/3e revised DMG (p. 13) turns up this passage, which set my alarm bells ringing.


When a player has a rules question, you should be the one best able to answer the question. Mastery of the rules is one reason why the DM is sometimes called the referee.

However, page 6 presents a very different view of the game and what the players need to know.

Still, I find it hard to explain something like the Lion Totem Barbarian as a design choice without some sort of rules mastery being in play. As I say, though, it is all debatable.



Kaihaku is, judging from previous posts, going to say it was designed to represent certain fantasy archetypes, which include the Wizard who is better than you, Mr. Fighter.

Doesn't Jayabalard argue something similar? Man, the history book on the shelf is always repeating itself...

Such is the nature of things. :smallbiggrin:

JaxGaret
2008-10-02, 06:46 PM
That's not true; Paizo has certainly made the attempt to balance the classes even if you feel that they have failed in that effort.

As far as I'm concerned, the changes that they have made to the classes don't address the balance issue at all; the classes have the same balance as before. Therefore, there has been no attempt to balance the classes.


First, "changing the spell list" is the only solution to balance spellcasters. You are wrong if you think otherwise.

You're 100%, absolutely certain of that?


Second, it is not Paizo's responsibility or their right to balance out that mess that Wizards of the Coast made in their effort to sell more material.

When did I say that it was their responsibility to do so? The question was "What are your thoughts on Paizo's Beta", and I gave them. Please try to limit yourself to responding to what is actually said.


Sigh.

:smallsigh:


The splatbooks are the intellectual property of Wizards of Coast, a significant number of the splatbooks are terribly unbalanced, the splatbooks are optional material... Wait, that proves your point? What?

Changing the spells is their solution to balancing the classes, not mine. I critiqued their work in the framework of the game as most play it, which is with access to splatbooks.


Let’s say that you downloaded a piece of software and installed a ton of mods in it. That software then became unstable. The makers of the software introduced a new edition that wiped it all away and started over...but the new edition wasn’t quite as open as the old edition. Then, later, a third party released an update for the old edition but…those lazy bums, they didn’t revise anything but the core software when the mods were most of the problem.

It’s basically the same thing. It’s the responsibility of the user to add in optional material intelligently. It’s the responsibility of the designer to create intelligent material that doesn’t cause problems. Wizards of the Coast did not fulfill their responsibility. The jury is still out on Paizo.

If you allow a player to pull in a terribly designed spell from a poorly balanced and rushed to production splatbook; its your and the player’s problem, not Pathfinder’s.

What you are missing is the fact that spells have to be de-powered to such a large degree for spellcasters to be balanced to non-casters, that almost any spell from a splatbook, not just the brokenly strong ones, will consequently be more powerful than the spells off the Paizo spell list.

If they don't de-power the spells enough, then they haven't achieved balance, now have they?


If you feel that way, as started before, Fourth Edition has remarkable balance even if it is a bit more restraining.

I play both 3e and 4e.


I, personally, feel that Pathfinder is a good combination of freedom and balance. In this case, the more I get to know the system the more that I feel this “Patch” is the “Solution” for my playing style.

I wish I could say the same. I would be thrilled if Pathfinder were to be an upgrade from 3e. IMO it is not, or so slight of one as to not be worth the switch.


No, no it isn't. It is not addressing the material that "many or most" players use. It is addressing the material that EVERY player uses. Splatbooks have always been optional; the core system is not optional.

So who cares about those of us who do use splatbooks, right?


Telling a player, “No, Shivering Touch is horribly designed and broken, you cannot use it” is not an extensive set of houserulings. Pathfinder is playable out of the box as it is but if you want to use existing WotC splatbooks then you have to do some work.

See my earlier point.


The splatbooks are broken, not Pathfinder

Oh ho, your true colors come out here. So the splatbooks, all of them, every single page of every last one of them, are broken?

Could you have made more of a sweeping generalization, with an obvious agenda behind it? Look, I understand that you're all gung-ho about Pathfinder, but please try not to attack those of us who just don't see it as anything more than 3e rehashed and edited slightly.


, and while they can be adapted to the upgraded and rebalanced system because of copyright laws that duty falls on the person who wishes to use them.

Like I stated before, you can attempt to fix the classes at their root, via class design. You can at least try.


Personally, I think Pathfinder is on the way to negating the need for core system balancing houserules.

It might be, but from what I've seen, it doesn't seem to be.


The poorly designed splatbooks are another matter

Again with the slam against 3e splatbooks. There were plenty of stinkers, but there were also lots of good ones, and even good parts of the stinkers.


and I think it's silly to have expected Paizo to have broken copyright law to modify WotC material.

Who said anything about just such an expectation?


Could you give me some examples of material that was taken from 3e splatbooks? Please cite more than just Unearthed Arcana, a great deal of which is actually legally usable by Paizo.

Unearthed Arcana is a 3e splatbook.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-02, 07:10 PM
Again with the slam against 3e splatbooks. There were plenty of stinkers, but there were also lots of good ones, and even good parts of the stinkers.


Agreed, look at Tome of Magic: sure Truenamer sucked, but other two aren't broken (Shadowcasters are a little weak though).

Some Complete books (Adventurer wasn't broke I thought) were broken a bit. But not all splats were broken.

horseboy
2008-10-02, 10:00 PM
So, basically, when someone levels the critique that "Paizo doesn't know what they are doing" or "Paizo knows something is wrong but has no idea what it is or how to fix it" they are really just saying, in a superior tone, that "nothing short of 4e can fix the system."
<-------Points to H.A.R.P. (High Adventure Role Playing). No, it doesn't have splat book compatibility, but you're saying that's not a thing for you. It's got most of the attributes people claim are the "good" about 3.x in a much more stable environment that's highly flexible and easily moded.

turkishproverb
2008-10-02, 11:19 PM
I wish someone would state exactly what Paizo should be doing that they are not so that someone can tell them exactly what they should be doing that they are not.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3042/2561840914_183ce32aea.jpg
:smallamused:
Some of us are working on our own game design projects, both related and not related to traditional RPing.

Related to that, OGL makes alot of variations on 3.X REVIVED possible.

Once I get through a few rounds of playtesting on my fixes we'll talk though, K?.


So, basically, when someone levels the critique that "Paizo doesn't know what they are doing" or "Paizo knows something is wrong but has no idea what it is or how to fix it" they are really just saying, in a superior tone, that "nothing short of 4e can fix the system."

Not 4E as it stands. More like something that evolves from 3.X, instead of something that is a side offshoot of the basic concept. What your claiming is like arguing that a person is saying the only way to fix a certain pizza recipe is to start making Calzones instead.


Fourth edition has been released. Although Paizo hasn't done it the way I would have… I think Pathfinder has addressed most if not all of the major imbalances in core 3.5. Further, I think Pathfinder is addressing some of the imbalances between core 3.5 and the horde of splatbooks out there. I agree that few things short of 4e can bring absolute balance to the splatbooks (they don't balance with core, they don't balance with each other, and often enough they don't balance with themselves). That said, I'd be surprised to find anyone outside of complete newbies and optimizers who allows all of the splatbooks to be freely used in a campaign.

Oh, I think Pathfinder has addressed a few things, I just think they missed the point on alot of others. More importantly I think they missed the point of what they were doing, particularly from a marketing standpoint.


That's not true; Paizo has certainly made the attempt to balance the classes even if you feel that they have failed in that effort.

I admit that, for my part like i said, I think they fail to understand what alot of the problems really are in this situation, particularly if they want the game to be profitable.




First, "changing the spell list" is the only solution to balance spellcasters. You are wrong if you think otherwise. Second, it is not Paizo's responsibility or their right to balance out that mess that Wizards of the Coast made in their effort to sell more material.
Sigh.


Emphasis Added

I really wonder how the idea that fixing spell lists was the "ONLY SOLUTION EVER" among people in the gaming world anyway. No matter how few.


I mean seriously, I've seen plenty of others, ranging from staggered experience needs for leveling (Pre 3E trick), to slower spell progression, to magical feedback risks, to higher physical costs for all casting, to outright removing high level spellcasting as we know it and replacing it with various different add-ons to the existing system.

This "only solution" thing is really kind've an odd concept by any stretch of the imagination.





Second, it is not Paizo's responsibility or their right to balance out that mess that Wizards of the Coast made in their effort to sell more material.
Sigh.

No one said it was piazo's responsibility to people, but as businessmen they should have realized a lot of people would see their upgrade as relatively pointless in light of the fact they would be either re unbalancing their game or killing one of the major draws, namely the fact the peoples 3.0/3.5 material would not become significantly less useful with it the way it did with 4E. (not that bad though)


The splatbooks are the intellectual property of Wizards of Coast, a significant number of the splatbooks are terribly unbalanced, the splatbooks are optional material... Wait, that proves your point? What?

Actually, alot of splatbooks are the IP of other groups. Even out of those wizards did, though, there is a lot of good stuff. Trick is making it work in balance, which can most likely be improved a great deal.


Let’s say that you downloaded a piece of software and installed a ton of mods in it. That software then became unstable. The makers of the software introduced a new edition that wiped it all away and started over...but the new edition wasn’t quite as open as the old edition. Then, later, a third party released an update for the old edition but…those lazy bums, they didn’t revise anything but the core software when the mods were most of the problem.

It’s basically the same thing. It’s the responsibility of the user to add in optional material intelligently. It’s the responsibility of the designer to create intelligent material that doesn’t cause problems. Wizards of the Coast did not fulfill their responsibility. The jury is still out on Paizo.

Some serious splatbook hate out of you man. Soulknife problems? :smalltongue:


But honestly no, it's not really the same thing, at least not unless most of the software was made by the same company KNOWING it was going to break it, or even that a lot of it was already wiggy and full of minor glitches.

It's kind've like dealing with a screwy OS that has the POTENTIAL to be really good, if you can get a programmer to even look at it.

I agree with you on the last 2 sentances however. Although as I said, I think you kind've missed peoples point on the pathfinder issue



If you allow a player to pull in a terribly designed spell from a poorly balanced and rushed to production splatbook; its your and the player’s problem, not Pathfinder’s.

I can't really address this as it missed half what I was saying, but I do think you have WAY too many splatbook issues.



If you feel that way, as started before, Fourth Edition has remarkable balance even if it is a bit more restraining. I, personally, feel that Pathfinder is a good combination of freedom and balance. In this case, the more I get to know the system the more that I feel this “Patch” is the “Solution” for my playing style.

And that is your purgative. I however, think the patch fails to address a lot of the flaws people were really looking at(even a few in core like natural spell still being too beefy).



No, no it isn't. It is not addressing the material that "many or most" players use. It is addressing the material that EVERY player uses. Splatbooks have always been optional; the core system is not optional.

Kind've an unfair way to argue. He was pointing out it is useless or near so to alot of people who want to continue 3.5 style gaming with new support, and you sort've responded with an "eh, who cares about what they already have. That doesn't matter when trying to balance anyway"

That is actually the attitude that could hurt Piazo the most.



Telling a player, “No, Shivering Touch is horribly designed and broken, you cannot use it” is not an extensive set of houserulings. Pathfinder is playable out of the box as it is but if you want to use existing WotC splatbooks then you have to do some work. The splatbooks are broken, not Pathfinder, and while they can be adapted to the upgraded and rebalanced system because of copyright laws that duty falls on the person who wishes to use them.

Erm, while i see your point, if Pathfinder is (as hoped by many) supposed to be a continuation of 3XE gaming, than it could easily be argued this means pathfinder is broken.



Personally, I think Pathfinder is on the way to negating the need for core system balancing houserules. The poorly designed splatbooks are another matter and I think it's silly to have expected Paizo to have broken copyright law to modify WotC material.

Fallacy. There are several of ways to deal with many of the big problems with splatbooks that don't involve actually printing things from the aforementioned splatbooks. This is a lot like your ONLY WAY argument.



Could you give me some examples of material that was taken from 3e splatbooks? Please cite more than just Unearthed Arcana, a great deal of which is actually legally usable by Paizo.


On this one even I'm not sure, aside form a few basic concepts that show up a lot of places so really don't mean a great deal in that way.

Scaboroth
2008-10-03, 01:16 PM
Wow, many good arguments are being put forth, on both sides. We have some very thoughtful people posting here.
But as I keep reading, one question keeps occurring to me. Ignore it if you so choose.

What is so fundamentally important about balance anyway that it has to supercede all other considerations?
Other than the fact that it is ultimately what Elric fights for, which of course gives it a lot of worthiness right there.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-03, 01:30 PM
What is so fundamentally important about balance anyway that it has to supercede all other considerations?

Because "doing things differently for the sake of doing things differently" is not a good selling point.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-03, 01:35 PM
Because "doing things differently for the sake of doing things differently" is not a good selling point.

Because having your friend accidentally hog the spotlight makes for a weak-sauce game.

horseboy
2008-10-03, 02:21 PM
What is so fundamentally important about balance anyway that it has to supercede all other considerations?Because D&D is the game of "I kill it and take it's stuff." Everyone needs to be able to kill and take. If you're not into killing and taking you should probably play an RPG instead. WotC finally figured it out.

turkishproverb
2008-10-03, 09:01 PM
Because D&D is the game of "I kill it and take it's stuff." Everyone needs to be able to kill and take. If you're not into killing and taking you should probably play an RPG instead. WotC finally figured it out.

In fairness, even combat oriented D&D is usually a BIT more than that.

JaxGaret
2008-10-03, 11:44 PM
What is so fundamentally important about balance anyway

Say you have two players. One wants to play a nature-based spellcaster, and one wants to play a wild strongman. Player A naturally selects the Druid, and player B naturally selects the Barbarian.

Now, why is it a good thing that Player A's choice is significantly stronger than player B's choice? In other words, why should player B be penalized for no other reason than wanting to play one archetype that is supported by the system rather than another one? On the flip side, if player A doesn't want to overshadow player B, they'll have to self-nerf their character to a large degree, which is also a problem.

The answer is that it's not a good thing. Balance is a fundamental element of an RPG to strive for during the design phase. There's never going to be such a thing as "perfect balance", but there is balanced and unbalanced. The thread I linked to earlier talks about this, and includes a link to an article by JaronK on the Tier System that also touches on this concept.


that it has to supercede all other considerations

It doesn't. IMO it is important that mechanical choices are balanced so that a player is as free as possible to make character choices without having to worry about mechanical repercussions.

Zeful
2008-10-04, 12:16 AM
First, "changing the spell list" is the only solution to balance spellcasters. You are wrong if you think otherwise.

Not true, you just have to do three things.

1.) Prevent unlimited spell knowledge (ie. even with unlimited money a wizard can only have x% of all spells accessable).
2.) Limit spell preparation/casting.
3.) Add more anit-divinations.

For example:

Here's a fix I'm working on for wizards right now.

They start play with access to two schools of magic. At 3rd level they gain access to a third but at a -2 caster level. Then you add this feat.

Expanded School knowledge
Your broad studies into the arcane open up new possibilities.
Prerequisites: Wizard Level 5+
Benefit: You gain access to another school of magic of your choice. You may cast spells from this school as if you were a wizard two levels lower then lowest level school you have access to.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times, choosing a new school each time.

In short, access to new school but at -1 spell level.

Scaboroth
2008-10-04, 01:46 AM
Granted, I see your points and do agree that balance is important. But is it really the most important thing? Because many people here have stated that they don't like Pathfinder just because the class imbalance wasn't fixed to their satisfaction.
I personally don't get why Pathfinder gave wizards and clerics even more power through spell-like abilities attached to choices of school specialization or domain selection. I didn't think it was necessary at all in terms of balance. But it does actually make those classes more fun to play. And to me, fun is more important than balance.
Okay, players overshadowing each other is a concern, but that only really matters in player-vs-player situations. An actual game is an organic experience in which the referee (DM) is an integral part. If the game is going off the rails, it's the referee's job to tweak it back in line. (And yes, I know there's a Fallacy named after Someone-or-Other floating around out there. Please try not to use canned arguments.)

Kaihaku
2008-10-04, 05:22 AM
In the "heat of the moment", I generalized, made some absolutist statements, and was just plain old wrong at a few points. I admit those mistakes in my last post.

The first thing I did after learning of Pathfinder was ask this community what they thought of it. The response I received, overwhelmingly, was "Paizo knows something is wrong but doesn't know what it is or how to fix it." When I asked for clarification on what exactly they were doing wrong, nothing. Many people seemed comfortable pronouncing, in what struck me as a superior and condescending manner, that Paizo was wrong but they did not seem to feel comfortable explaining how. After actually downloading and looking over Pathfinder, I was pleasantly surprised at the changes. Now that I'm more familiar with the system, I was not so willing to accept "Paizo knows something is wrong but doesn't know what it is or how to fix it" without clarification on what exactly that's suppose to mean. Well, as I stated above, my last post was poorly done but I think I finally understand.


That's certainly debatable. I'd like to ask what is the source of this belief (I'm betting that rules mastery quote Matthew is fond of will pop up soon.)


Kaihaku is, judging from previous posts, going to say it was designed to represent certain fantasy archetypes, which include the Wizard who is better than you, Mr. Fighter.

Yes, I believe that there's a reason that Dungeons and Dragons is unbalanced beyond just poor design (though, there's plenty of poor design as well). I think magic should be more powerful than physical might. I don't think that the gap should be as great as it is now but I think it should exist in a fantasy game. Well, at least, in a fantasy game modeled after 'traditional' fantasy archetypes "which include" Raistlin "is" eventually "better than you, Mr." Caramon. I think Wizards should be awe-inspiring at high levels. I don't think that they should be invincible. In my opinion the supernatural/the mental/the spiritual should be stronger than the physical. Stronger, not all powerful.


Doesn't Jayabalard argue something similar? Man, the history book on the shelf is always repeating itself...

:smallfrown:


It's a long list.

That has never been compiled? A link, at any point, would have been or would be sufficient.


Mundane (non caster) class problems in the late game due to bad monster design.

Fair enough. (http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/2020/11ss.gif)


...full caster dominance...

I would agree that full casters should not 'dominate' anything and everything every time but I still believe that at high levels they should be more powerful than a strong guy with a sharpened metal stick.


Druidzilla (a bigger problem than Batman, really)

It's my impression that Pathfinder neatly resolved this.


The sucky and broken nature of LA

Pathfinder did a minor fix by increasing all player races to +1 LA; but I concur that a better racial fix is needed.


The fact that full casters can't really lose too many caster levels or they go down the tubes (multiclassing problems in general).

This ties back to "full caster dominance" as if the class imbalance were less it wouldn't matter as much if casters were a few levels behind in magic in favor of some other area?


The imbalance between melee fighting styles (actually fixed by ToB come to think of it, because it doesn't care what weapon you're using, you rock out loud regardless,)

Then what's the point of having different styles or different weapons? Does weapon choice come down to just superficial style? That's just me though...I can see why other people would want every choice equally beneficial.


The nightmare that is Turn Undead.

I think that the changes Pathfinder has made to Turn Undead are both good and timely. Though you aren't talking about the basic ability, are you? I agree that charging powers via Turn attempts swiftly becomes a nightmare.


Making grappling actually effective (not simple, effective. Worthwhile to pursue as a combat strategy,)

Perhaps I'm missing something but I believe that Pathfinder has accomplished this. The only area where I feel this could be improved would be changing the Spellcraft(Concentration) DC to cast from 15 + spell level to an opposed check.


making combat options like disarm, feints, etc. worthwhile...

As a 3.5 player, I have made regular use of Disarm and Sunder, finding both to be successful tactics (though at times unpopular). I've seen Trip spammed. So, I'm not sure why they are not worthwhile unless this stems from "Mundane (non caster) class problems in the late game due to bad monster design?"


There's more. Oh, geez, there's more.

Thanks for answering that much. It's given me some things to think about.


Debatable again, but this is getting off topic into waters best not traversed. At least not without the company of every fire control organization ever assembled by man.

Well enough.


No. We're saying that you're going to have to sacrifice some 3e-ness in order to fix 3e. That doesn't mean 4e, that just means not 3e. There are plenty of other options besides those taken by 4e.

I was looking for just such an option when I stumbled across Pathfinder. The primary reason that I'm inclined towards Pathfinder is one of organization and resources. Most of the 'system fixes' or even new systems that I have seen are the work of one person working alone or just a few working together. It quickly dissolves into a mess of houserules... "I'll take this from him but I don't like this element so I'll just change it. Oh, I hated how she did that but I love this, so I'll mesh it with that." I'd much prefer the mess of splatbooks to a mess of houserules. I'd much prefer a clear definitive imperfect Paizo fix to a dozen custom homebrew fixes. I'd like one system with some consistency, organization, and most importantly authority behind it. If all of the homebrewers got together to make a system fix "open source" style, implemented some sort of decision making process to handle design arguments (my rogue vs. your rogue when both rogues are good), and published something I could print off for tabletop I'd probably go with them. I haven't seen anything like that happening.


*raises hand* Self-styled permissive DM here. Maximum mechanical freedom to assist maximum narrative/descriptive freedom. Splatbooks aide this. I've spent money on it, I'm using it, damnit, come hell or high water. And if someone could come up with some clever fixes so that splatbook problems go away, I'd be delighted.

I was wrong. Given my history of freeform roleplaying, terribly wrong even. If someone has good players, then you can use anything as a system and it will work. Which might be the reason that I've never had a splatbook problem when playing tabletop and I've never not had a splatbook problem playing online.


That's certainly not true. Messing with the way saves and save DCs work, attaching a higher mechanical price to magic use, improving or fixing the way full attacks work... Those are just off the top of my head. Attacking spells is a roundabout and ineffective way of doing things.

It is not true. I was wrong and you are correct. Fixing magic and how it is resisted would be...mindbogglingly more efficient than rewriting every spell ever written.


Secondly, by placing all their hopes on the spell list, this means that Pathfinder as a whole is literally going to live or die for a certain demographic based on how this spell list turn out? If they'd even tinkered with some other things, then some error here could be forgiven, but now? Pathfinder floats or sinks on its spells.

I think that some of the spells needed revision regardless. That said, I acknowledge that fixing magic and how it is resisted would be the better approach for actually achieving improved balance.


Part of the reason I do not engage in 4e is because of all the splatbooks I've bought for 3e. To move on and invalidate so much material is something I can't simply do.

That is also one of the reasons that I don't quit and go with a different system altogether. I don't want to invalidate the splatbooks, I want them to work the way they were suppose to. I was overreacting to what I felt were unfair and unjustified attacks on Paizo for I feel are the wrongs of Wizards of the Coast.


I don't stay with 3e for the Core, I do it for the splats. Thus I'm looking for stuff that helps me use them. Addressing core problems is part of the package, but it ain't what I came for. If that's all your offering, to quote an popular internet meme:

Personally, I hope that core is just the beginning. Once there is a specific clear version to adhere to then adaptation can begin. But, because of legal reasons, Paizo isn't the one who is going to be doing that adaptation. I'm fine with that and I'd be fine releasing 'Pathfinder update' booklets for splatbooks. Though, really, that would be inefficient and excessive compared to the approach of changing the base system mechanics.

If Pathfinder isn't the version to use, fair enough, but I don't see any other options that have anything remotely comparable to resources and personnel of Paizo. The other thing is that none of them have a similar guarantee of completion. I believe that Pathfinder will happen, I'm not so sure about any of the vast array of homebrew fixes. Many of them seem to be struggling already.


It's a major appeal of staying with 3e for many people; they already have a ton of material for it, material that they haven't tired of or explored.

I completely agree.


They're looking for a way to fix the problems in their games, and in their games they use these splatbooks. If the flaws within these materials aren't addressed, then they still have problems, and Pathfinder has failed; because its promise is to fix the problems with 3e.

I wish that had been Pathfinder's promise. The goals Paizo set out are Improve the Game, Add Options, and preserve Compatibility. Their description of Improve the Game does seem rather limited compared to your minimal list of what's wrong with the game.


Pazio had a chance to reach out and touch unbalanced material throughout the whole system by affecting the base- the Core Classes. Their failure to do so is what causes us to be so critical of their attempts.

This confuses me as 1. Paizo has done a what I feel is a good job of revising the base classes and 2. earlier you made a great point that it's dealing with magic (saving throws, resistance, etc) and poorly designed challenges that throw off class balance. So, the core classes wouldn't be as important as revising some of the core rules such as saving throws, multiclassing, level adjustment, and perhaps spell progression resembling BAB progression?


Secondly, your images of universally imbalanced splatbooks and game imbalance only emerging from abusive players is a gross exaggeration and generalization that is of dubious truth.. iness. Truthfulness. Whatever. A lot of splatbooks aren't that bad. ToM, anyone? And late game play really shows who's been bad, meh, or good, optimization wise.

I did not mean to imply that each and every splatbook is universally imbalanced; I meant to refer to them as a whole body. I like certain individual splatbooks a great deal. I don't like it when people feel that they have to scour through dozens of splatbooks for hours in order to build a character, level-up, or that they cannot possibly have fun without a specific race, class, feat, etc from a splatbook. In my opinion, the Complete series, the Races of series, and the Regional series were great in theory but mangled in implementation. I feel that difference in quality, both in flavor and in balance, between certain books in each series is notable. Look what Complete Divine gave Clerics as compared to what Complete Adventurer gave Rogues? Often, there's also a serious deviation in quality between material within the book. In Complete Warrior compare a Justicar to a Reaping Mauler or a Samurai to a Hexblade. In Races of Stone compare the Chaos Gnome, Dream Dwarf, and Whisper Gnome races. I blame Wizards of the Coast for this.

Sandstorm is one of my favorite splatbooks. I love the flavor and I find it mechanically well-balanced. Frostburn is one of least favorite splatbooks. I think the flavor (the premise had a lot of potential) was slapped on, that it internally doesn't make much sense, and that the mechanics are terribly balanced. I thought Stormwrack was middle of the road, neither great nor terrible.

I really love the concept of the Book of Exalted Deeds but first I think it was poorly designed and second I've seen hordes of "non-exalted" characters with exalted feats. I think it's a problem when splatbooks become a pile to dig through for character options while optimizing rather than a source of flavor.

I've never had a character who used material from more than nine splatbooks at a time. I've known people who have used material (excluding spells even) from more than twenty splatbooks at a time in brilliant combination. There's a certain point where it's too much, especially given that a lot of that material has been poorly balanced with core and poorly balanced with other splatbooks.


I think you have a different definitiuon than others about "playable out of the box". There will still be caster/non-caster imbalance, Monks sucking (less but still sucking), etc.

I'll need to play a Pathfinder Monk before I can comment. I like the improvements, I'm not sure if they actually make the Monk 'not suck' though.


Is it an improvement? Yeah, if you duct tape a bridge it looks better than when it was falling down...but that would hold a car very well.

I'd think the opposite, that it would look worse and wouldn't hold a car very well...but then maybe I haven't watched enough Red Green. Duct tape solves every problem! :smalltongue:

I don't know that Paizo is as much duct-taping up the bridge as they are building a bridge of nearly the exact same design with some adjustments made for positioning. They may be, perhaps, ignoring some major structural problems innate to the design while instigating minor structural renovations across the board. Look at Pathfinder carefully, it's subtle but most of the rules have been rewritten, but perhaps the solution that's needed is a major change to the core rules not just a subtle rewrite.


One should hope.
But we won't know till too late (when they finish it).

Since it's an open playtest, I think you should be able to get a feel for where it's headed now. Though, after this string of discussions, I'm not as satisfied with it as I had been.


As far as I'm concerned, the changes that they have made to the classes don't address the balance issue at all; the classes have the same balance as before. Therefore, there has been no attempt to balance the classes.

Well, that's something I won't agree with you and you won't agree with me on, so there's no point dwelling on it.


You're 100%, absolutely certain of that?

I was wrong.


When did I say that it was their responsibility to do so? The question was "What are your thoughts on Paizo's Beta", and I gave them. Please try to limit yourself to responding to what is actually said.


You've basically made my point for me. It's not going to address material that many or most 3e players use, and can't do so, really. I was hoping that I could use Pathfinder out of the box, without further extensive houseruling. Why use it if I'm just going to have to do all the dirty work myself?

I misread your post overlooking 'can't so so, really' and took you as taking a hard line on Paizo for not revising WotC material. So there I was in error but I was attempting to respond to what was actually said. I may misunderstand something but I do try not to put words into other people's mouths.


Changing the spells is their solution to balancing the classes, not mine. I critiqued their work in the framework of the game as most play it, which is with access to splatbooks.

Looking back, I admit that I was in error. I somehow took you as blaming Paizo for WotC's mistakes when, in fact, you were expressing a desire for changes that would balance out the imbalances in the splatbooks.


What you are missing is the fact that spells have to be de-powered to such a large degree for spellcasters to be balanced to non-casters, that almost any spell from a splatbook, not just the brokenly strong ones, will consequently be more powerful than the spells off the Paizo spell list.

If they don't de-power the spells enough, then they haven't achieved balance, now have they?

Kasrkin, quite easily, convinced me that I was wrong. So, no further arguments there.


I wish I could say the same. I would be thrilled if Pathfinder were to be an upgrade from 3e. IMO it is not, or so slight of one as to not be worth the switch.

Hmmm... After all of this, I think it's actually a very extensive upgrade that, as has been said, missed a few key changes that might have made it marvelous.


So who cares about those of us who do use splatbooks, right?

That's not what I meant to imply at all. I became overly defensive and responded without taking time to think it through. I use splatbooks, so I might as well not care about myself.


Oh ho, your true colors come out here. So the splatbooks, all of them, every single page of every last one of them, are broken?

My true colors? I was speaking in generalities but I hope that it's not too difficult to see that the ridiculous assertion that "the splatbooks, all of them, every single page of every last one of them, are broken" was not my intention. There are a number of splatbooks (The Draconomicon, Eberron, Ghostwalk, Libris Mortis, Lords of Madness, Sandstorm, Savage Species, and Unearthed Arcana forefront among them) that I value a great deal and will continue to use regardless of what system I migrate to (if only for flavor alone). Actually, I still make use of several old AD&D splatbooks for inspiration. I was referring to the use of all splatbooks together and unregulated.


Could you have made more of a sweeping generalization, with an obvious agenda behind it? Look, I understand that you're all gung-ho about Pathfinder, but please try not to attack those of us who just don't see it as anything more than 3e rehashed and edited slightly.

I am not 'gung-ho' about Pathfinder as much as I was tired of hearing people dismiss it off-hand without giving an explanation that made sense to me.

It was not my intention to attack you, I apologize that it came across in that way. Though, I am perplexed that you saw my broad critique of splatbooks in general as a attack against "those of us who just don't see it as anything more than 3e rehashed and edited slightly." It was never intended to be anything of the sort, if my statements were meant to be attacking anyone it would be Wizards of the Coast for putting profit above quality.


Like I stated before, you can attempt to fix the classes at their root, via class design. You can at least try.

As previously decided, what you consider an attempt and what I consider an attempt are different.


It might be, but from what I've seen, it doesn't seem to be.

Fair enough.


Again with the slam against 3e splatbooks. There were plenty of stinkers, but there were also lots of good ones, and even good parts of the stinkers.

Is the glass half-full or half-empty? I agree; there is a lot of good material contained in 3e splatbooks. I don't hate splatbooks because they are splatbooks. I'm irritated that many of them were rushed through production and didn't get the quality treatment they deserved. I don't like that not all of the Regional books on at the same level as Sandstorm.


Who said anything about just such an expectation?

As I stated earlier, I misunderstood you.


Unearthed Arcana is a 3e splatbook.

Did I say it wasn't? It was never my intention to exclude Unearthed Arcana in any way save that it is legally usable by Paizo.


Some Complete books (Adventurer wasn't broke I thought) were broken a bit. But not all splats were broken.

I never meant to imply otherwise.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3042/2561840914_183ce32aea.jpg
:smallamused:
Some of us are working on our own game design projects, both related and not related to traditional RPing.

Related to that, OGL makes alot of variations on 3.X REVIVED possible.

Once I get through a few rounds of playtesting on my fixes we'll talk though, K?.

I'm glad to hear that. I wish you the best of luck.


Not 4E as it stands. More like something that evolves from 3.X, instead of something that is a side offshoot of the basic concept.

If there are completed options other than Pathfinder I'll definitely try them.


I admit that, for my part like i said, I think they fail to understand what alot of the problems really are in this situation, particularly if they want the game to be profitable.

Fair enough.


Emphasis Added.

I really wonder how the idea that fixing spell lists was the "ONLY SOLUTION EVER" among people in the gaming world anyway. No matter how few.

I was being narrow-minded. I was only thinking in classes and spells, I didn't think about the possibility of revising the base system mechanics...which makes a great deal of sense.


I mean seriously, I've seen plenty of others, ranging from staggered experience needs for leveling (Pre 3E trick), to slower spell progression, to magical feedback risks, to higher physical costs for all casting, to outright removing high level spellcasting as we know it and replacing it with various different add-ons to the existing system.

I can say from personal experience that staggered experience didn't work so well. It was an interesting flavor though.

You're right, changing the system makes a lot more sense than balancing each and every spell. If it can be done properly, of course.


This "only solution" thing is really kind've an odd concept by any stretch of the imagination.

I would imagine the opposite, when someone (like me) says there is "only one solution" they are not using their imagination at all.


Some serious splatbook hate out of you man. Soulknife problems? :smalltongue:

No. I've been in a few campaigns, one significant, where they were abused.

Actually, I just left a six-year long campaign which had a total of approximately sixteen players and about forty characters. We upgraded to 3.5 early on and we progressed from core through each new splatbooks. The campaign was split into four campaigns with the groups combining for a final battle. Group 1 was primarily core and early splatbooks, Group 4 had access to everything up to Tome of Battle while Groups 2 and 3 were in between. The gap between the power gamers and the non-power gamers grew exponentially with the release of each new splatbook. Is that because splatbooks are 'bad'? Not at all, it was the fault of WotC and in this situation specifically the Dungeon Master who did nothing to balance weak and strong characters. There were many players who dropped out because they couldn't keep up with the flood of splatbooks or they lacked "crunch sense". When the four groups finally united, Group 4 was significantly more powerful than the other 3 combined. It wasn't one specific splatbook, it was the use and abuse of the whole of them. So, yes, some of the splatbooks are great and some are terrible, but as a whole they can make for a broken mess. Because of that, I think that regardless of the upgrade a Dungeon Master will have to make houserules on how certain books work, or don't work, together.

I don't think the publishers really stopped to think 'how will X interact with Y in combination with that feat from Z.' In many cases, I don't think they even stopped to compare the material in the books themselves. Another specific problem is that several of the splatbooks were designed with flavor in mind and instead have come to be used independent of that flavor: the Book of Exalted Deeds strikes me as the worst case of this.


But honestly no, it's not really the same thing, at least not unless most of the software was made by the same company KNOWING it was going to break it, or even that a lot of it was already wiggy and full of minor glitches.

It's kind've like dealing with a screwy OS that has the POTENTIAL to be really good, if you can get a programmer to even look at it.

That, I can understand.


I agree with you on the last 2 sentances however. Although as I said, I think you kind've missed peoples point on the pathfinder issue

I did but now I think I understand. It's depressing, I may have to go back to a confusing mess of houserules and no 'one' balanced alternative to 4e. A mess of houserules isn't so bad in a single game but when you're playing in multiple campaigns at once it gets messy fast which is why, like many others I think, I was really hoping for a definitive alternative.


I can't really address this as it missed half what I was saying, but I do think you have WAY too many splatbook issues.

Probably, I've seen them abused in a setting where the Dungeon Master was too socially passive to confront that abuse. But, since this is a discussion about system changes I don't know that the role of the Dungeon Master should really come up.


And that is your purgative. I however, think the patch fails to address a lot of the flaws people were really looking at(even a few in core like natural spell still being too beefy).

Your points make sense. Thanks for responding. Though, I'm not still not convinced on wild shape, maybe I'll throw a Druid at the players in my playtest and have a see. Hear that Quaker? :smallwink:


Kind've an unfair way to argue. He was pointing out it is useless or near so to alot of people who want to continue 3.5 style gaming with new support, and you sort've responded with an "eh, who cares about what they already have. That doesn't matter when trying to balance anyway"

That is actually the attitude that could hurt Piazo the most.

I misunderstood him and responded poorly.


Erm, while i see your point, if Pathfinder is (as hoped by many) supposed to be a continuation of 3XE gaming, than it could easily be argued this means pathfinder is broken.

It would mean, at least, that it's failed to be what we, myself included, wanted it to be. I'll still hold onto some hope for it until the actual release. If it doesn't do something to support as much of the 3XE system as possible then I'll go from there. I could see me using it for tabletop, where splatbook balance has never been a problem for me anyway, and some other fix for online use.


Fallacy. There are several of ways to deal with many of the big problems with splatbooks that don't involve actually printing things from the aforementioned splatbooks. This is a lot like your ONLY WAY argument.


I was being narrowed minded, thinking in terms of feats, spells, and classes not the system overall. A lack of imagination on my part.

thegurullamen
2008-10-04, 12:19 PM
The first thing I did after learning of Pathfinder was ask this community what they thought of it. The response I received, overwhelmingly, was "Paizo knows something is wrong but doesn't know what it is or how to fix it." When I asked for clarification on what exactly they were doing wrong, nothing. Many people seemed comfortable pronouncing, in what struck me as a superior and condescending manner, that Paizo was wrong but they did not seem to feel comfortable explaining how.

Yeah, that infuriates me too. Not just because of the seeming evasiveness or the condescending tone as you put it, but because it's an incorrect supposition of Paizo's design goal. They're bound by their own philosophy to not "fix" the game. This is partially because it would destroy the thing and force a rebuild that would make one stop and ask "Why not just make your own game if you're going to go this far?" (Tangent: forum-goers, note the TWO correct uses of the your/you're instances in one sentence. Thank you, thank you.) But it's mostly because they're trying to preserve the validity of splatbooks and supplements by saving backwards compatibility. And yes, sadly, a formal fix and backwards compliance are mutually exclusive.

So, please remember this post the next time you think about writing that incorrect and frankly inane line "Paizo knows something's wrong/something horrible goes on in the CharOp forums but doesn't know what it is." Everyone knows the system can be broken, but so can any system and no "fix" is ever going to stop that, so it's a null complaint. If you want to argue about Paizo, argue about it on relevant grounds like whether or not their changes are bringing playability to the underused races/classes/spells/feats/etc. and stop blindly bashing them for not living up to an impossible standard.

JaxGaret
2008-10-04, 01:40 PM
Well, that's something I won't agree with you and you won't agree with me on, so there's no point dwelling on it.

Okay, we'll agree to disagree here.


I was wrong.

I misread your post overlooking 'can't so so, really' and took you as taking a hard line on Paizo for not revising WotC material. So there I was in error but I was attempting to respond to what was actually said. I may misunderstand something but I do try not to put words into other people's mouths.

Thank you for your honesty and your willingness to admit being wrong. I appreciate it. I as well am guilty here of "put[ting] words into other people's mouths", as I'll come to later.


Looking back, I admit that I was in error. I somehow took you as blaming Paizo for WotC's mistakes when, in fact, you were expressing a desire for changes that would balance out the imbalances in the splatbooks.

Close. I was expressing a desire for changes that would balance out 3e in its totality, whether with or without splatbooks. IMO 3e is just as, or nearly as broken, balance-wise, without splatbooks as it is with them.


Kasrkin, quite easily, convinced me that I was wrong. So, no further arguments there.

Okay, good.


Hmmm... After all of this, I think it's actually a very extensive upgrade that, as has been said, missed a few key changes that might have made it marvelous.

Agreed, except replace "very extensive" with "mostly cosmetic", and "a few" with "a lot of" for my opinion. But we already knew that that was my opinion :smallsmile:


That's not what I meant to imply at all. I became overly defensive and responded without taking time to think it through. I use splatbooks, so I might as well not care about myself.

Accepted in the same manner as my earlier sentiments.


My true colors? I was speaking in generalities but I hope that it's not too difficult to see that the ridiculous assertion that "the splatbooks, all of them, every single page of every last one of them, are broken" was not my intention. There are a number of splatbooks (The Draconomicon, Eberron, Ghostwalk, Libris Mortis, Lords of Madness, Sandstorm, Savage Species, and Unearthed Arcana forefront among them) that I value a great deal and will continue to use regardless of what system I migrate to (if only for flavor alone). Actually, I still make use of several old AD&D splatbooks for inspiration.

Fair enough. I went to the "ridiculous" limits just to show how silly your statement was. I do apologize for my tone, however, I am guilty of the same crime you mentioned earlier here.

IMO both the splatbooks and core 3e (and subsequently Pathfinder, since I find that it hasn't altered class balanace one whit) for that matter are broken when it comes to class balance. So to state that the splatbooks are broken, but Pathfinder is not, is IMO the height of a partisan, pro-Pathfinder statement.


I was referring to the use of all splatbooks together and unregulated.

Ah, well, that is a different claim. "Unregulated use of splatbooks" is what you meant to say instead of simply "the splatbooks", correct?

Though I would disagree with that sentiment as well, it is far more sensical.


I am not 'gung-ho' about Pathfinder as much as I was tired of hearing people dismiss it off-hand without giving an explanation that made sense to me.

Ah, I see. Well, believe me, I am right there with you in being annoyed when people make baseless or false claims about something that I like or appreciate. I never meant to nor did I think that I did say anything to that effect.

I'm pretty sure I was one of the first people to download Pathfinder when it first came out. I was honestly quite disappointed by it, I thought it was going to be great, and it ended up IMO being basically the same as 3.5 with a few small changes. To put it simply, I thought it was going to be more of a 3.75 version, rather than a 3.5P version.


It was not my intention to attack you, I apologize that it came across in that way.

I accept your apology.


Though, I am perplexed that you saw my broad critique of splatbooks in general as a attack against "those of us who just don't see it as anything more than 3e rehashed and edited slightly." It was never intended to be anything of the sort, if my statements were meant to be attacking anyone it would be Wizards of the Coast for putting profit above quality.

Yeah, I was definitely reading way too much into that that wasn't actually said. Sorry about that.


As previously decided, what you consider an attempt and what I consider an attempt are different.

Indeed. You're talking about a literal attempt, I'm talking about effectual effort.


Is the glass half-full or half-empty? I agree; there is a lot of good material contained in 3e splatbooks. I don't hate splatbooks because they are splatbooks. I'm irritated that many of them were rushed through production and didn't get the quality treatment they deserved. I don't like that not all of the Regional books on at the same level as Sandstorm.

Agreed on all fronts.


Did I say it wasn't? It was never my intention to exclude Unearthed Arcana in any way save that it is legally usable by Paizo.

No, you didn't, but it seemed that you were implying that I shouldn't use UA as an example. Perhaps it was simply a pre-emptive effort on your part to answer your own question for you, because the answer was UA.