PDA

View Full Version : Pathfinder Beta?



Lappy9000
2008-11-21, 11:06 PM
Well, I'm probably late in on this game, but I was wondering if I could get some general opinions of the Pathfinder RPG Beta (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG) release as opposed to 3.5 D&D.

I went on ahead and downloaded the thing and it's different, yet the same. I find myself liking things like the variety in the classes (diggin' the fighter), but at the same time disliking things like some of the changes to races (dwarves are wise?) but nothing is too huge of an issue.

So yeah, what do youse guys think?

Jeramiahh
2008-11-21, 11:38 PM
The biggest changes I've noticed, in playing in a mid-level converted campaign, are the extra feats, that the fighter is tougher, and that my Polymorph specialty doesn't work like it used to. It's definitely set to make the 'weak' classes contribute more. Wizards and Clerics still dominate, but the fighter now has even more feats, and more options, the ranger can actually dish out an impressive amount of damage (the DM had to houserule two feats didn't stack, because he was getting absurd), and some of the wizard specializations really add to the flavor; Necro's free Create Dead once a day looks impressive, on top of his massively increased undead control, and the others aren't bad.

Skills also got an overhaul, and encourage cross-classing and branching out more than ever. Overall, I enjoy it... it's really what it intended to be, 3.75.

Kyace
2008-12-13, 01:21 AM
I just checked out the beta-test of Pathfinder (basically D&D 3.75 for those who don't know). I personally like the skill system combining several skills together in a way that generally helps the characters: folding Decipher Script, Forgery and Speak Language into one skill makes sense to me. Rules for perception checks with all five senses, giving Dwarfs a minor quasi-tremorsense along the way? Great! Mechanically making Dwarfs smellier than humans and humans smellier than elves? Funny but ok. I like the polymorph fix. The grappling rules seem faster and doesn't break with size increasing. Overall everything is a set up for characters.

The only broken thing I've spotted is the Cantrip/Orson at will ability turns druids and clerics into endless supplies/purifiers of water and making light trivially easy to have.

So is it worth the bother to use Pathfinder or would it be easier to house rule 3.5 into less brokenness? Anyone have any experience with it?

BobVosh
2008-12-13, 01:26 AM
I like pathfinder, and find that the infinite water/purification isn't really a problem. Why do you think it would be? How often does it even come up?

The 5 senses is worse though, combining the skills were though. Why they then seperated it into 5 skills is werid...
I don't like the changes to combat expertise, power attack, and anything that let you decide x amounts.
Dodge is better though.

thegurullamen
2008-12-13, 01:40 AM
This topic has been done, trolled, flamed, venerated, knighted, shoop da whooped, jump the sharked, nuke the fridged and gotten its important haircut to hell and back. So, in honor of such a rich tradition...

I like and dislike Pathfinder though my experience is limited. Many of the things Paizo is doing is just stuff that's needed to be done for a long time. Erasing dead levels, adjusting classes to become more than just 1-3 level dips, inserting flavor, breaking broken combos and et cetera. This is yay.

Unfortunately, it would be a bad business model to too closely copy an existing product, so a lot of the criticism aimed at Pathfinder--that it adds/tweaks a lot that doesn't need to be added/tweaked--attacks a practice that is probably just Paizo putting their company logo on this flavor of 3.5. Another problem is that it doesn't address some of the more basic problems with the system (mostly because Pathfinder was never meant to*), which irks a lot of players occasionally including myself. (How hard is it to make a bard that's as cool and universally useful as all those bards on TV?! Nerd rage!!!)

It's important to remember that this is a new RPG in many rites and if you accept that premise, Pathfinder is a rich, relatively balanced and fully supported* system. So, final opinion is "Yay" with a small bit of "Meh" which is easily cleared with a small amount of houseruling/homebrewing.

*The Paizo philosophy for Pathfinder is 3.5 compatibility over innovative changes. Paizo will change the system if and when it can, but it's looking to preserve 3.5's core to the best of its ability, which interferes with that goal. A lot of forum-goers tend to forget this which irks me.

KKL
2008-12-13, 01:51 AM
I rather heavily dislike Pathfinder. Completely.

Gralamin
2008-12-13, 02:02 AM
Wow its Kyace!

Anyway...

I don't really care for Pathfinder. It seems to miss the point of rebalancing 3.5

Kyace
2008-12-13, 02:06 AM
I like pathfinder, and find that the infinite water/purification isn't really a problem. Why do you think it would be? How often does it even come up?
I imagine a level 3 cleric generating a gallon of water per second could functionally irrigate a decent area of desert. This would be more a problem with the setting making sense than brokenness in combat. Of course, flooding a cave at level 1 is a bit much too.

I've not been too up to date about the why's of it, but I assume WotC withdrew permission of its Open Gaming License to publishers forcing something along this line to be created to allow new 3.5 stuff to be published. I found it funny that the intro talked about 3.5 a good while without mentioning any of the trademarks included.

KIDS
2008-12-13, 03:15 AM
I got the beta book and even played one game with it --- in the end, while the core component was slightly improved (skills merged, some better feat chains etc.), most of the atrocious and important flaws remained and Pathfinder's attitude doesn't imply that they will be fixed anytime soon.

Also, it boasts too much of an angry old-school style for me to be comfortable with it. Several times while browsing their official statements have I stumbled upon really offensive statements about the "new products in gaming and the kind of people that plays them" that someone on any forum would have been banned for. I know the company needs to survive but it's still... I dunno... way too presumptuous? But let's put that aside, I'm sure that happens with WotC as well.

In the end, the question is "do I want to play a marginally improved core at the cost of starting over from scratch, not having all the rich arrays of 3.5 books and not being compatible with them which, despite their flaws still allow for a massive amount of characters?". For me, the answer is a resounding NO.

JaxGaret
2008-12-13, 04:32 AM
It's okay, but it doesn't fix most of the things that needed to be fixed.

Therefore, its use IMO is minimal, unless your entire gaming group as a whole thinks it's the cat's pajamas and would love to switch over. Which is unlikely. Even then you're really not going to get that much out of it.

Great, great idea. Terribly poor execution. I was really disappointed, tbh.

EDIT: Also pretty much agreed with everything KIDS just said.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-13, 05:22 AM
Hm, we should really sticky this thread (or one of its biweekly variants). It's pretty much a Frequently Asked Question now.

As I've said in the previous thread, I like the concept of Pathfinder, but the execution so far seems to indicate that (as compared to e.g. people on the charop board) the designers don't really know what they're doing. They intend to fix balance issues and rules problems, but are unsure of what those issues and problems are.

(contrast with WOTC, who is fully aware of what exactly the problems with 3.5 are, but have chosen a solution that not everybody is happy with)

arguskos
2008-12-13, 05:32 AM
Personally, I liked the class updates. I like some of the updates, but think it's best use is as a set of houserules and/or as suggestions for how to update and change the ruleset on your own. That's just me though, I know lots of folk that hate it, so *shrug*.

Morty
2008-12-13, 07:17 AM
Pathfinder is a big "meh" to me. It's basically 3.5 with some things shuffled around. There're some things there that are worth using, such as new abilites for fighter, rogue and ranger, but not many. And the changes they made to the races make no sense.

Aron Times
2008-12-13, 08:18 AM
The Pathfinder boards are full of comedy gold. :smalleek:

Kyace
2008-12-13, 09:22 AM
Wow its Kyace!

Anyway...

I don't really care for Pathfinder. It seems to miss the point of rebalancing 3.5

To quote one of the greatest minds of our generation: I'm Doing Science and I'm Still Alive. I wasn't aware it got brought up quite /that/ often, consider me reproached.

ericgrau
2008-12-13, 10:47 AM
I haven't looked at it since alpha, but based on what I hear it seems like it has been updated not completely reworked.

IMO it is complete garbage that has only gained popularity as being a supposed popularity for 4e. The only real alternative for 4e is 3.5e, like it or not. Pathfinder attempts to rebalance things based on popular opinion, and thus tends to heavily imbalance things instead. It mostly makes numerical changes, with only minor style changes. Thus even peoples complaints/opinions still stand unaddressed. What's most amusing is that these are only the opinions of their own (Paizo) forums, and the opinions found on other forums can vary. So even in people's opinions it fails, except for a fairly narrow range of people/opinions. IMO don't even touch it. It is not 3.75.

If you're worried about problems with 3.5e, there are three solutions:
1. The problems in IRL tend to be much smaller than what people claim online.
2. Most/all major problems can be avoided with DM common sense and strict control over non-core material (and some common sense with core, even). If you're not sure or, if like me and to some extent Rich it seems, you like core, then just stick to core. Or I hear many DMs will allow non-core on a careful case-by-case basis.
3. A lot of the non-caster boredom problems can be solved with a better understanding of the rules and your options. Most of them seem to revolve around special attacks and skills. The quick reference sheets in my sig can help you there. However, after printing a test set I found that you have an entire deck of options during combat (!). So I'm going to try switching the action cards into quick reference sheets like the rest, hopefully during my holiday free time. Or you could just learn these rules really well so you know them off the top of your head.

#1 & #2 hold even w/o #3. The problems are exaggerated compared to most real games.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-13, 10:48 AM
The Pathfinder boards are full of comedy gold. :smalleek:

Such as? Enlighten us with a link please?

Matthew
2008-12-13, 11:13 AM
I would just treat Pathfinder as an additional supplement for use with D20/3e. It doesn't really do much to address the problems I have with the game, but it is not as terrible as people tend to make out, given that the purpose is not to "fix" the game (which seems to be the case).

Tequila Sunrise
2008-12-13, 11:26 AM
I'm ambivalent. I'd play PF if that's what my DM wanted to run, but if I ever want to run 3e again I'll use my own house rules to fix it the way I like. Jason is fixing a few things that bug me about 3e, but not even close to enough of them. (I'm looking at you, alignment restrictions, staggered sorc spells, PrCs, spell lists...the list goes on and on.)

TS

bosssmiley
2008-12-13, 03:51 PM
Pathfinder Beta is a total Curate's Egg IMO.

The Pathfinder fluff is fun, flavourful and understands the pulpy, gonzo roots that D&D grew out of. It stands as a recognisable part of a cultural continuum that goes all the way back to Arduin Grimoure, Judge's Guild and such.

The systemic crunch...let's just say that it leaves something to be desired. The writers clarify and simplify some of the worst flaws of 3.X (yay!), then they add in more fiddly complexity to classes and feats instead of actually fixing glaring issues of balance (boo!).

I'd play Pathfinder; but I'd be mourning what it could have been.

Waspinator
2008-12-13, 04:36 PM
I would just treat Pathfinder as an additional supplement for use with D20/3e. It doesn't really do much to address the problems I have with the game, but it is not as terrible as people tend to make out, given that the purpose is not to "fix" the game (which seems to be the case).

Yeah. It makes a decent supplement, if nothing else. The nice thing is that it's close enough to 3.5 that you can take the changes that you like, apply them to your 3.5 games, and ignore the rest.

For example, I like making the Paladin use charisma as it's primary casting stat and they did make the fighter more interesting.

Scaboroth
2008-12-13, 08:43 PM
Truly, this topic is coming up so often it has almost become silly. Not to say anything against you, Kyace - I think it's great that more folks are discovering Pathfinder and looking for more opinions. Pretty much every time it comes up, you get a lot of people saying things like "it doesn't do what I want it to do" without explaining that at all. Or the delightfully vague statements like "Pathfinder was supposed to fix 3.5, but can't because the designers don't know what's really wrong with it." Like that actually means anything.

So what does this all boil down to? Don't listen to other people's highly subjective opinions, since there seems to be no real consensus about whether Pathfinder is brilliant or if it's garbage. Check it out for yourself - play a few games and form your own impressions.

And then feel free to weigh in on the latest discussion, and spout off a few opinions of your own.

Reinboom
2008-12-13, 09:02 PM
Pathfinder is to me a group of good ideas thrown in to the 3.5 system.
I enjoy the idea that they made out of the skill system. It increases flexibility while simplifying. It also emulates 3.5 as it was intended to. The idea of it stops there for me.
The fix of polymorph was semi annoying, simply because of how "it is these 3? spells rolled in to one, look those up now." Better balanced, however, yes.
The small reworkings of the classes were ok, however, the fighter still leaves much to be desired, from me.

For what it was trying to do, well, it's a very nice step.

Fax Celestis
2008-12-13, 09:04 PM
For those seeking a "3.75" that actually looks to fix the flaws inherent within the 3.5 game, you may be interested in my ongoing d20 Rebirth project.

thegurullamen
2008-12-13, 09:12 PM
For those seeking a "3.75" that actually looks to fix the flaws inherent within the 3.5 game, you may be interested in my ongoing d20 Rebirth project.

[/shameless plug]

But yeah, seriously, do it. There's some nice stuff in there.

Project_Mayhem
2008-12-14, 10:29 AM
The only real alternative for 4e is 3.5e, like it or not.

Or, you know, any of the other countless rpgs out there?

Surfing HalfOrc
2008-12-14, 10:46 AM
I downloaded Pathfinder, wrote up a few characters, and played. Some stuff was cool, some meh...

Then I got my hands on World of Warcraft RPG, and decided I liked it better...

3.x is a good system, and I never understood the shift to 4.0 if 3.x was doing well enough. Every game/system needs to evolve over time, so 4.0 was inevitable, although I thought it came about 2 years too early.

3.x OGL and the lack of a similar OGL for 4.0 reminds me of Atari's fall from console power. The original Atari (later Atari 2600) allowed anyone to get a license to make games for the console, and the home video game industry took off. The 5200 and beyond didn't do so well... (Anyone remember the Atari Jaguar?)

With the economy in the tank, and a less friendly 3rd party agreement than the OGL, I'm thinking that 4.0 will have a short life, followed by a revitalized and much improved 5.0.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2008-12-14, 11:46 AM
I think it is a very good system that does fix a lot of the balance problems in 3.5. Fixing trip, grapple, etc. combat maneuvers into a simple calculated DC is fantastic. Power Attack/combat expertise fixes are AWESOME. They totally make sense now.

If you read Power Attack; this is how stupid it was in 3.5... You could take it at L1 with a 1/2 BAB or 3/4 BAB, and not be able to use it! Now, it takes your STR and/or BAB into the equation, and again.. it makes sense. You are sacrificing accuracy for power.

The thing I would have liked to see was the removal of Natural Spell for Druids (or using the Shapechange variant from the PHB2) and the more broken Wizard spells. Also DMM for Clerics. No more CoDZilla.

The skill system has been revamped, and although you don't get a massive amount of skill points, you tend to be specialized in something.

Other than that... it's great.

OverdrivePrime
2008-12-14, 01:21 PM
I've downloaded and read through some of the Pathfinder stuff and like it quite a lot. The changes to skills and classes strongly appeal to me. I haven't had a chance to sit down and play it yet, mainly due to long-standing campaigns I'm in, but I do plan on running a Pathfinder-based game soon. I like the rage options for the barbarian, the more interesting fighter and sorcerer, and am intrigued by but not necessarily sold on their changes to the Wizard.


For those seeking a "3.75" that actually looks to fix the flaws inherent within the 3.5 game, you may be interested in my ongoing d20 Rebirth project.

Woah. Highly intesting - I'm not sure how I missed this before. /super impressed

Starbuck_II
2008-12-14, 02:05 PM
Such as? Enlighten us with a link please?

Where the mods at pathfinder forums can ban you subjectively?
That was kinda hilarious. Now they no longer need a reason.
The official word is "jerk", but really it just means they no longer need to justify a banning since jerk term is undefined.

Maybe it is just mw that finds that kind of facism hilarious.


If you read Power Attack; this is how stupid it was in 3.5... You could take it at L1 with a 1/2 BAB or 3/4 BAB, and not be able to use it! Now, it takes your STR and/or BAB into the equation, and again.. it makes sense. You are sacrificing accuracy for power.

Yes, but the issue is you can never power atack for 1 anymore:
the Pathfinder version is full amount possible at all times.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-14, 05:54 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot something.

The one thing that PF lacks which makes it very difficult to migrate a campaign to PF rules, is a list of what exactly has changed. If you're used to 3.0 or 3.5 and know some of its abilities/feats/spells by heart (and let's face it, many RP'ers do) then you won't know if they've been modified or not in PF, and you're likely to confuse the 3.5 with the PF rules.

bosssmiley
2008-12-16, 08:36 AM
Oh yeah, I forgot something.

The one thing that PF lacks which makes it very difficult to migrate a campaign to PF rules, is a list of what exactly has changed. If you're used to 3.0 or 3.5 and know some of its abilities/feats/spells by heart (and let's face it, many RP'ers do) then you won't know if they've been modified or not in PF, and you're likely to confuse the 3.5 with the PF rules.

A simple change log? That would be so useful for providing meaningful Beta feedback. I'm surprised Paizo didn't think to include it in the pdf themselves.

Matthew
2008-12-16, 08:47 AM
A simple change log? That would be so useful for providing meaningful Beta feedback. I'm surprised Paizo didn't think to include it in the pdf themselves.

There might be legal complications in doing that, apparently; probably to do with the potential for opening yourself up to allegations of artistic derivation. It does seem like a relatively simple thing to do, so its lack may be a result of legal advice, rather than an oversight.