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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I just noticed: the Iron Heroes Berserker class also uses a "rage point" like mechanic, but it feels very different.
You get your Berserker Tokens for stuff that just feels Berserker like - you deliberately stoke your fury - I can feel my Berserker screaming out loud, and gaining more power through i. The Berserker also gets tokens if he is being hit -I get angrier when I am being hit, more determined to kill my attackers.
When an ally drops, my determination and anger get stronger again.

And instead of having to chose from a laundry list of abilities at 1st level, I consciously pick these abilities upon gaining levels. And the abilities feel way more flavorful - I get abilities that let me cleave my enemies and use the blood splatter and hacked limbs as an distraction to move across the battlefield unhindered. I step so close to my enemy that he can't avoid me, ignoring the risk to my own life... That's how rage abilities should feel like.

 

[Gotham Gamemaster]

Heh. I can answer this question for myself and my players. We are making characters for the Pathfinder Society, season 0, using the 3.5 rules as required.

We've been using the Alpha rules since their first release and its hard to go back to the old 3.5 rules for us.

Ditto. In fact, I couldn't go back to core 3.5. One session of Pathfinder Society with 3.5 and I was done--which had zero to do with the DM or the adventure. Both were top-notch.

 

[DaveMage]

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."

I'm not seeing any such posts.

(Although there could be a reason for that. )

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The feat Practiced Spellcaster adds 4 to the character's caster level up to maximum of the character's character level. Pathfinder could add a similar feat.

Arcane Discipline
You maintain a rigorous training routine to keep your arcane skills in peak form.
Prerequisites: Caster level 3rd.
Benefit: Choose a spellcasting class you have at least three levels in. Your caster level with that class is increased by 5, to a maximum equal to your character level.

Problem solved.

1) Why 5 levels? Four wasn't enough?

2) Your definition of "problem solved" is "You're missing the top 3 levels of spells."

An 11th level Ftr5/Wiz6 with Practiced Spellcaster is casting 3rd level spells. The magnitude of his spells is greatly lessened compared to the Wiz11, and to the challenges he's facing at 11th level, and in addition he's giving up 3 DC to his opponents' saves compared to 6th level spells.

My definition of "problem solved" is not giving up Disintegrate in exchange for wasting a feat on Practiced Spellcaster and getting a 10d6 capped fireball.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm not seeing any such posts.

(Although there could be a reason for that. )

Maybe it is a "been there, seen that done"-fatigue type of effect.

 

[The Little Raven]

And if Paizo is going to keep 3E alive by printing a new core book to support their ongoing adventure line, then why not give the game a tune-up while you're at it? As long as it can still be used with the older material, it's a sound plan for Paizo. It makes sense to me.

After giving the Beta a solid read-through, I've determined that it will only work with SOME older material, as it supersedes a lot of core material. Placing any of the core 3.5 classes (and some of the later base classes) alongside a PF class means the 3.5 will be ridiculously underpowered, especially when combined with prestige classes and feats that were balanced at the same power levels as the core classes.

Also, as people have stated, there are still some issues with key 3.5 problems that haven't been addressed. Though, to be fair, they have stated they will be addressing them over the Beta for final release. However, I think by that time, the game will evolved enough to be a truly new game on the d20 system rather than just a revision of 3.5.

In a few ways, I think they focused on insignificant details to change too early and left too much of the real heavy lifting (like helping high level play be less brain melting) for too late in the process.

 

[BryonD]

After giving the Beta a solid read-through, I've determined that it will only work with SOME older material, as it supersedes a lot of core material.

I've got a very extensive 3X library and can't think of a single title that can't work with it very easily.

Placing any of the core 3.5 classes (and some of the later base classes) alongside a PF class means the 3.5 will be ridiculously underpowered,

That is an absurd claim. PF is still weak compared to come of the latter classes that wotc put out. And those classes were still close enough to be perfectly playable.

 

[billd91]

1) Why 5 levels? Four wasn't enough?

2) Your definition of "problem solved" is "You're missing the top 3 levels of spells."

An 11th level Ftr5/Wiz6 with Practiced Spellcaster is casting 3rd level spells. The magnitude of his spells is greatly lessened compared to the Wiz11, and to the challenges he's facing at 11th level, and in addition he's giving up 3 DC to his opponents' saves compared to 6th level spells.

My definition of "problem solved" is not giving up Disintegrate in exchange for wasting a feat on Practiced Spellcaster and getting a 10d6 capped fireball.

Then I would suggest that you're expecting way too much. If you don't want to give up disintegrate, don't spend nearly as much time as a fighter. Or, to put this to you in the other direction, why should you expect to get fighter benefits and yet retain the benefits of the 11th level solo-class wizard who doesn't get the attack bonus, weapon proficiencies, and improved hit dice of the fighter?

 

[billd91]

I speak from my point of view. The Barbarian is a fun class, it's easy to get into, and part of its appeal there is not much to worry about. Sometimes, I like playing that kind of character, and when I do, I pick Barbarian, not Wizard, for a good reason.

But Rage Points change this to some extent. Suddenly, there are decisions I have to make that I just didn't have to make before. Suddenly, I have to count Rage Points per Day instead of just Rages per day. I have to look which powers I might want to pick up. Especially since I am not really the gamer that only likes the "simple" type of character, or wouldn't care about my characters performance.
The problem is it changes how the Barbarian is played. He used to be the straight-forward guy that runs into combat, rages and kills his enemies. And the way I played it was exactly like that, because the rules supported it. But if you add a mechanical subsystem that adds additional choices that can also affect my effectiveness, this changes - I am playing a raging, angry Barbarian, but I have to think about wether I spent a rage points to get some abilities. It's the same thematic problem of Power Attack - making a careless attack means deliberating which power attack penalty I have to take. I can ignore the intracities, but from a system mastery point of view, that's a bad decision. The theme and the way the theme is resolved just don't match.
It is not like this is not often a problem in RPGs - but why make it worse?

Straight-forward? When you've got only a couple of rages a day, the decision isn't so straight-forward. Using points, the decision is, I think, a little easier because the consequences of raging against weaker opponents is lessened if the fight is short. I can increase my strength for a burst without jeopardizing my rage against the BBEG or other nasty encounter later in the day. And that's a load off my mind. I no longer have to be quite so conservative with it.

 

[billd91]

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.

I think you're making a classic mistake about priorities (by the way, a lot of customers of my company's make the same mistake when we put out some smaller software fixes when they really want bigger ones that take longer to implement). There are some high priority fixes that will be needed that nevertheless take longer to devise than a change to cleave. Putting cleave out there implies little about its priority relative to bigger fixes.