Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder BETA - Some Sizzle, Not Much Steak

[Sunderstone]

Incidentally, I'm glad you are such a strong supporter of Paizo and I hope that disagreements about the direction of the PFRPG rules set does not fragment the community that has sprung up around their products.

I hope I didnt come across stronger than intended. Im from nyc everything comes across that way.
Im also not trying to keep the edition war going, but the "change for the sake of change" statements get old for me. I was just trying to show that the "changes" statement can be said about anything. Some dont view it that way.

If Pathfinder just fixes things, it would be just "Errata". That they could sell a 32 page pdf (an example) and be done with it.
They are making more than errata, they are fixing a few things that people complained about, and updating others to make it more flavorful (like teh sorcerer, barbarian, monk, etc) and in some cases more balanced and/or streamlined. At the same time I could use most or all of it with my old books quite easily.

Thats my take on it. I doubt the Pathfinder base will fragment anytime soon. Some seem to like the changes for different reasons, some like only some of the changes etc. Ultimately we will use what we want from it and keep the 3.5 and/or Pathfinder games running.

 

[Darrin Drader]

This is what I'd like to see expanded. Because it's clear that my problems with 3.5 have not really been touched by Pathfinder. Problems like:

- Slow high level play, math breakdown

This is a major issue and one that Lisa Stevens said is a priority to resolve before the final version of the game is released. The key on this one is patience.

- Caster Dominance / Class balance in general

This is the reason that the non-casting classes got buffed up. This is why the fighter's Cleave is now more powerful and why there are the new feats Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike. One is designed to allow the fighter to damage more opponents per round while the other is designed to bump up damage against a single target rather than do the same damage in a series of attacks that are successively less likely to hit.

- High DM Prep time

I'm not so sure that Pathfinder is going to do anything about this one officially. I have been playing with using the 4E method of leveling up and down NPCs and monsters, and it actually works in 3rd edition games, as long as you don't try to go more than 5 levels in either direction and don't care that the stats aren't perfect. Game functional trumps technical perfection in my opinion.

- Multiclassing (specifically spellcasters, but this is an unknown as there are no multiclassing rules yet)

I suspect this is another of those issues that will be tackled before the final release.

So, yes I noticed the three examples given, grapple, Polymorph and skills have been changed, but I'd like to see how big issues like these were overlooked in favour of "fixing" cleave. Were they not considered issues or did they get trumped in the name of "Backwards compatibility"?

I'm just curious what were the priorities, because a lot of Pathfinder seems like Paizo is more concerned with the colour of the car than fixing the transmission.

Grapple and polymorph were major problems in terms of complexity, and they're the easiest ones fixed by simply coming up with new easier to use mechanics. Consider this an improvement upon gas mileage. Class balance has already been addressed I think you could equate that to horse power. The major issue that remains is high level play, and it is a big one. That's the one that could change the shape of the car if they go too far, which is something they're trying to avoid. It's going to take a lot of ideas, a lot of testing, and I think they're trying to think this one all the way through in-house before they throw it out there because they want something that will stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Sunderstone]

This is what I'd like to see expanded. Because it's clear that my problems with 3.5 have not really been touched by Pathfinder. Problems like:

- Slow high level play, math breakdown
- Caster Dominance / Class balance in general
- High DM Prep time
- Multiclassing (specifically spellcasters, but this is an unknown as there are no multiclassing rules yet)

So, yes I noticed the three examples given, grapple, Polymorph and skills have been changed, but I'd like to see how big issues like these were overlooked in favour of "fixing" cleave. Were they not considered issues or did they get trumped in the name of "Backwards compatibility"?

I'm just curious what were the priorities, because a lot of Pathfinder seems like Paizo is more concerned with the colour of the car than fixing the transmission.

"Fixing the transmission" means the car is broken. 3.5 is not broken, if it was we would all be playing 4E (which according to many is not broken).

I dont think anything in particular was "overlooked" either. The new Cleave is an option. Just like the section you quoted says "adding options in others". If it makes sense as an option use it. If not use the old cleave, both will work just fine in the game.

As far as trumped for backwards compatibility goes, I dont know about that. Some of the things you were interested in didnt apply to me. Multiclassing/caster superiority/core class balance didnt need fixing from my groups point of view.
Im also realistic about Slow High level play. Its only natural as you get more and more feats, spell selections etc the game will slow down some. If they could streamline this even a little, great! Same with DM prep time, but with all the options/complexities available how much can they speed up without rewriting the entire game from the ground up.

Again, alot of us are fine with 3.5. Alot of us are not. The "Not Fine" camp will go to 4E. The "Fine" camp will continue with 3.5/Pathfinder.

 

[MrGrenadine]

...Regarding "change for the sake of change:" Let's not make this an edition war.

I think its valid to dispute the claim that PF unnecessarily changes viable features of the game by pointing out that we're currently enjoying a new version of D&D, (from the owners of the brand), that does the very same thing.

...the devs should IMO be concentrating on fixing the truly broken stuff and not the functional stuff. Cleave, IMO, was perfectly functional..

"Functional" is very subjective. The new Cleave addresses a problem some people had with the old version, but nothing is stopping you or anyone else from using the old Cleave, or even from having both versions in play if you want.

Incidentally, I'm glad you are such a strong supporter of Paizo and I hope that disagreements about the direction of the PFRPG rules set does not fragment the community that has sprung up around their products.

Some people won't be happy with the final version of PF, and they won't play it. That's a given. And I truly wish them well, because no single game can be all things to all people.

Me? I plan on playing a ton of PF for as long as Paizo supports it.

 

[Remathilis]

Fixed that for you.

Looks at sig...

SLAP!

 

[lrsach01]

Failure to fix multiclassing progression for casters. Failure to address wizard, cleric and druid superiority vs. other base classes.

This statement makes no sense to me. Do you mean spellcaster should get full progression in their spells AND multiclass? And then you say they are over powered? I don't understand what you are getting at. Could you please explain.

 

[Remathilis]

This statement makes no sense to me. Do you mean spellcaster should get full progression in their spells AND multiclass? And then you say they are over powered? I don't understand what you are getting at. Could you please explain.

Currently, every level a spellcaster doesn't take in another class, he weakens his overall caster potential. This includes:

* # of Spells Known
* # of Spell Slots Available
* Highest Spell Level Available
* Caster-level for dependent variables (1d6 damage per level)
* Caster-level for opposed checks (Vs. SR, dispel magic)

Most people agree giving up the first three is an acceptable trade off (within reason) but the latter two (and occasionally the latter three) often gimp a caster severly. A spellcaster who multi-classes more than a few levels (3 is typically the limit) begins to see he lacks important spells needed to overcome challenges of his character level (multi-class clerics lacking restortation or raise dead), his level-dependent spells fall behind to the point of uselessness (cure spells not healing enough to keep the fighter alive), and he becomes unable to affect certain targets with his magic (unable to beat SR, unable to dispel enemy buffs, etc)

In essence, the caster trades too much for the often-times less-impressive benefits multi-classing grants (and is the reason for the eldrich-knight style multi-classing PrCs)

 

[DaveMage]

Could someone clue me in why it's horrifying and taboo to criticize 4e, yet Pathfinder is being beaten with rods and stones here?

If they're here, I'll bet they want Pathfinder to be a game that they are willing to play - nothing wrong with that.

It's possible that some people that were really gung-ho for 4E are now less sure of that choice, and therefore want Pathfinder to succeed.

(Either that, or they're bored at work. )

 

[BryonD]

Looks at sig...

SLAP!

lol

 

[ProfessorCirno]

If they're here, I'll bet they want Pathfinder to be a game that they are willing to play - nothing wrong with that.

It's possible that some people that were really gung-ho for 4E are now less sure of that choice, and therefore want Pathfinder to succeed.

(Either that, or they're bored at work. )

The problem is, a number of people AREN'T trying to post constructive criticism. They're saying "Pathfinder is DOOMED TO FAILURE" or "Just like everything 3.5 touches, Pathfinder is HORRIBLE AND STUPID."