Pathfinder 1E What Direction is Pathfinder Headed In?

[Betote]

That's subject to opinion, which is part of the point: are the changes big enough or not.

And, I think that the OP's point is a fair one: that any changes made to the Beta are going to be small adjustments; smoothing out the dings, rather than replacing whole parts.

I also liked 3.0 more than 3.5. Some changes were good, some weren't as much.

Well, there have already been whole parts replaced (the Barbarian, for example), although I think the mechanics will be more or less the same. Maybe the CMB rules will have some CD tweaking or the text of some feats/spells/items will be changed to power up/nerf it, but nothing spectacular. The core maths will be the same, for better or worse, as they're the core 3.5 maths.

I like to think that Pathfinder is to 3.5 what HackMaster is to AD&D (humor stuff aside). And I happen to like HackMaster a lot

 

[Grimstaff]

What I don't care for is that Pathfinder is ramping up the power levels of races and classes without, so far, addressing the BIG problems with 3.5 (as I see them):
1] Spellcaster multiclassing
2] Keeping track of/handling DR
3] Stacking rules
4] Reliance upon Stat-boosting magic items.
5] High-level play headaches (these include problems #2,3 & 4)

Related to the power-creep issues is the manner in which Pathfinder is redefining races in ways that are not consistant with previous incarnations of D&D (ie. no CHA penalty for 1/2 orcs and granting new ability score bonuses to races that they never had before).

Not only am I not seeing these things fixed, I'm not even seeing them talk about fixing them, or acknowledge that they are even problems, at least to the extent that everyone else is talking about them.

Fan feedback is a much-touted "design element" behind PathFinder, so it would be nice to see some acknowledgement that these issues are being addressed, or even "we've heard you, but don't really know how to fix it".

It seems possible to me that scaling back the adventure paths to cap at 15th level (as opposed to 20 as in the Dungeon years), may have been one attempt to address the high-level play problem, but avoiding isn't really fixing. I'd like to see Paizo taking some chances here, making some bold moves, I think they're more than up to the challenge of doing a good job with this.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

I'll tell you this: Here's a guy who really is enjoying 4E that would nonetheless consider the switch to PF if they are able to fix just #5 of that list. I've had too many 3E campaigns peter out and die once we hit mid- to high-levels due to the downward spiral of the fun factor.

Unfortunately, if what you say is true and Paizo isn't even talking about fixing that flaw, it's because it can't be fixed and yet remain 3.75.

Incidentally, I think the "cap it at 15th level" isn't a bad choice from a list of poor alternatives. I stopped getting the APs with the end of the lamented and the great paper Dungeon, but if that's what they do in the follow-on APs...I think that's pretty cool. It at least makes the point of recognizing Xth level and above doesn't work so well in 3.XX.

And knowing is half the battle, super friends.

Addendum: Darrin, you seem as plugged into anyone to PF. You say:

...although they still haven't tackled the high-level play conundrum. Fixing that will likely have a ripple effect throughout the game.

I agree with you 176% that will have a ripple effect throughout the game - and I would go further to say - a ripple effect throughout the entire community.

My question: Are they going to tackle that issue? Have they explicitly (or not so explicitly) said so?


WP

 

[Admiral Caine]

One quick observation, as one who is beta-testing the rules, and keeps an eye on the Paizo boards...

The biggest changes were to happen in the Alpha stage. That is over with now.

The Beta is a living document, but the expectation was that by the time the rules hit Beta, they were to be mostly stabilized. Still subject to change, but definitely more in focus.

After GenCon, Paizo started doing internal testing, as well as looking at the feedback from the boards and playtesters. So there is a two pronged testing process happening right now.

Paizo posters have asked for an update on what has seen change since the release, but here's the problem.. They have a small staff, and to write up an update takes time. Time that is all needed to adhere to their regular release schedule, and time to finish the Core Rules in time for next GenCon. Jason has indicated that they intend on doing an update, but they have to do so sparingly. It is a time management issue.

This might also help.. this schedule has slipped occasionally by a few days, but this is the order they've dedicated to polishing the rules:


Topic - Playtest Period
Classes: Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger - 15-Sep to 28-Sep
Classes: Cleric, Druid, Paladin - 29-Sep to 12-Oct
Classes: Bard, Monk, Rogue - 13-Oct to 26-Oct
Classes: Sorcerer, Wizard - 27-Oct to 9-Nov
Skills and Feats - 10-Nov to 23-Nov
Prestige Classes - 24-Nov to 7-Dec
Equipment and Description - 8-Dec to 14-Dec
Combat - 15-Dec to 28-Dec
Magic and Spells - 29-Dec to 11-Jan
Running the Game, Additional Rules, NPCs - 12-Jan to 18-Jan
High Level Play - 19-Jan to 1-Feb
Magic Items - 2-Feb to 15-Feb
Open Comments - 16-Feb to 22-Feb

 

[Admiral Caine]

Unfortunately, if what you say is true and Paizo isn't even talking about fixing that flaw, it's because it can't be fixed and yet remain 3.75.

That may not be true.

I'm reading a lot of posts that seem concerned about the lack of communication. Jason responds to something almost every day, or every other day. So does James Jacobs, and the rest of the Editorial Team.. like Wes and Sean.

But, those posts don't often constitute anything like a "State of the Union" address.

Time is an issue. Jason litetrally has hundreds to thousands of posts to read. He swears he does read them, and I believe him. He picks out a few to comment on. For example, when he wants some feeedback on something specific, he'll ask up front what the communities thoughts are. If he likes the direction that a specific thread is going, he'll encourage it. He tries to answer some questions, but lately, on what the specific focus is for that week.

And yeah, he has to break up fights sometimes. And when he does, he points out that having to do it robs him of time to write and develop.

The lack of communication should not indicate disinterest or lack of concern about a specific topic.. it's resource management.

I believe (though this is only my faith speaking, not and offical statement) that we'll see some sort of update on the Beta before this year is over.

 

[Admiral Caine]

That's probably true, although they still haven't tackled the high-level play conundrum. Fixing that will likely have a ripple effect throughout the game.

Monsters are also a key puzzle piece that I know with some certainty is being addressed.

And it is being addressed off-camera.

The monsters are being redesigned to fit with the new rules. They already have a release date for the Monster book that is actually before the Core rules. (June)

Likewise, that will have a ripple effect on the game, and hopefully a positive one.

What I am about to say is not offical. I met Jason Bulmahn at GenCon (and I'm just a fan, I don't know the man personally and don't want to misrepresent myself otherwise), and we talked about the role of monsters. If you take a monster and use the Beta Rules, they don't fare so well.

Someting that was just barely hinted at was the possibility of taking a nod from 4E, and designing monsters to be monsters.. not laden down with information more applicable to players.

3.5 had this way of trying to make every monster some sort of playable race, with player based skills. Likewise, monster grappling could be really obscene, with either instant success for the creature or the inability to grapple at all. A good many of those issues are being examined.

I don't know this for a fact, but I have to say, if you're wondering where Erik Mona is in all of this, I would hazard a guess that the monster book is a project that he is working on with the rest of the Editorial Team.

My point is- even with the PF Beta Rules being tested publically, there are a lot of things that go into making an entire rule set function better. Things are being tweaked on many levels.

 

[Shroomy]

Incidentally, I think the "cap it at 15th level" isn't a bad choice from a list of poor alternatives. I stopped getting the APs with the end of the lamented and the great paper Dungeon, but if that's what they do in the follow-on APs...I think that's pretty cool. It at least makes the point of recognizing Xth level and above doesn't work so well in 3.XX.

I'm not actively following the develop of PF either (I check out the 4e Paizo boards and occassionally pop into some of the more interesting looking PF threads), but this same thought occurred to me several months ago. I too think its the best idea if real backwards compatability is going to be maintained, but I wouldn't want to put up the tumult that losing 5 levels of the game would entail if I was Paizo.

 

[DaveMage]

Not only am I not seeing these things fixed, I'm not even seeing them talk about fixing them, or acknowledge that they are even problems, at least to the extent that everyone else is talking about them.

Fan feedback is a much-touted "design element" behind PathFinder, so it would be nice to see some acknowledgement that these issues are being addressed, or even "we've heard you, but don't really know how to fix it".

With the possible exception of #5 on that list, these aren't problems I have expereinces IMC.

The only problem with #5 I've had is the time it takes for high level combat. Otherwise, my 26th level gestalt campaign was a blast.

 

[The Highway Man]

My question: Are they going to tackle that issue? Have they explicitly (or not so explicitly) said so?

WP

Lisa Stevens, CEO of Paizo, said as much. She alluded to high-level game play to be a headache on herself, and said that she would make sure the issue was high on the priority list.

I don't know how it followed through since then (some time during Summer, just before or after the release of Beta, IIRC).

 

[Grazzt]

Someting that was just barely hinted at was the possibility of taking a nod from 4E, and designing monsters to be monsters.. not laden down with information more applicable to players.

I could definitely get on board with this. Monster/NPC design is one of the few things I really like about 4e.