Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Alpha "crunch" discussion

[Largomad]

3.5 is the game we want to keep playing, and see continued support for, so we don't need a 3.75 for Pathfinder.

3.5 is slow and cumbersome at higher levels (14+), it requires a lot of preparation for NPCs, ( I still have nightmares trying to create a BBEG monster with a couple of class levels, prestige classes , a template and some options from the UA) some classes and races are subpar (half-elves fighters anybody?). Altough I like the mechanics in 3.5 and were a great update from 2, I would like these rules polished and lightened. So I think paizo makes the right step moving to a 3.75

 

[ashockney]

I Love ENWorld

When this community works, it is truly awesome.

Terrific to see all the interesting news from this week, and I'm geniunely excited by BOTH directions PRPG (Pathfinder) and 4e.

So my first question, following all the collaboration on RPG superstar, did Erik and Clark plan this? The timing is just too perfect. If so, strategically, great decision. You've most likely just picked up a greater "share" of my gaming wallet.

As to the PRPG crunchy stuff, some initial thoughts.

Skills:
Gut Check - Hell yeah! No more "party" full of spot/listen only players.
Upon further consideration - How many skills will a rogue have by 20th? (Cool!)

Hit point adjustments for Rogue/Wizard:
Gut Check - Huzzah! Long overdue.
Upon further consideration - You swore you wouldn't make my old stuff obsolete...

Grapple Rules:
Gut Check - Huzzah! Simplicity rules the day...
Upon further consideration - Something new to stat for every creature and player?

Fighter and Rogue High Level Abilities:
Gut Check - Woof! Somebody give me some dice, I'm re-rolling a human fighter!
Upon further consideration - Speeding up high level play? Hmmm....

My random thoughts (from previous discussions) on making 3.5+ compete with 4e:
1) Speed up high level play...expand the sweet spot. This is a big task. I have thoughts.
2) Make things EASILY, EASILY portable. Your WHOLE selling point to me is, "my old stuff's not obsolete."
3) Continue to produce the ridiculously cool, high quality materials you do, that make for great gaming experiences.

Give 'em hell Erik.

 

[EricNoah]

Everybody's going to want something different, that's to be expected. Hopefully what they'll end up with is something that is modular (i.e. you can swap in a 3.5 thing -- or your own house ruled thing -- when you find a Pathfinder thing you don't like). For those who want 3.5 as-is, well, the various SRDs out there and your existing PHB/DMG/MM etc. can serve you well. What gets me kind of goofy is that whether I go to Pathfinder or stay with 3.5, I'll be able to pull out stuff from the other edition and use it all together with what appears to be very little effort. I could run Dungeon Crawl Classics with Pathfinder characters, or run Pathfinder adventures with 3.5 characters, or any combination in between.

 

[Nellisir]

There are some weird choices in those racial write-ups. Gnomes don't get a INT boost, but halflings do? WTF?

It's because halflings killed gnomes and took their stuff.

No, wait. That's 4e. :\

 

[Ilium]

Grapple Rules:
Gut Check - Huzzah! Simplicity rules the day...
Upon further consideration - Something new to stat for every creature and player?

Yes, but you use the same new stat for all the weird combat maneuvers (grapple, trip, bull rush, etc.). So you get a lot of mileage out of it, and when your player unexpectedly says "I'll bull-rush the troll into the lava" you can tell him exactly why he failed.

My problem with the new Combat Maneuvers rules is that (as they say in the doc itself) it makes these things less likely to succeed. I don't get a lot of these in my games as-is, but if it's even less likely to work, it will get used even less. But I'll have to playtest to be sure.

 

[Twowolves]

I think it's odd that people bemoan spell resistance in one breath, then complain high level fighters aren't tough enough in the next. IMO, those two are directly correlated. SR was not only a tool to "beef up" monsters, but to ensure the high and mighty wizard couldn't leave his fighter buddy at home.

Spell Resistance is there so the Fighters have something to do at high levels instead of watching the Wizard nuke everything they see to cinders.

 

[GlassJaw]

I won't repeat the entire post here, but the gist of it is this: there's a lot of changes that could be made to 3.5, but ultimately, Pathfinder is meant to stay the course for the 3.5 crowd, so it shouldn't alter any rules. 3.5 isn't perfect, but it's what we know, what we enjoy, and what we want to stay with. Those who want to house rule various things already have; and while I'm sure they think that the entire system would benefit from those changes, other groups quite likely don't have any problem with a particular rule, so there's no need to act like a change is crying out to be made.

3.5 is the game we want to keep playing, and see continued support for, so we don't need a 3.75 for Pathfinder.

I think this is spot-on.

One of 3ed's greatest strengths is also what makes creating an "official" 3.75 so difficult - that it's an open system.

I've mentioned this before but 3ed has made everyone an armchair designer. Everyone is so familiar with the system and so opinionated on what they like and don't like that it's almost impossible to agree on what needs to be fixed, nevermind how to fix it. One person's 3.75 is probably going to be completely different than another person's 3.75.

And I'm not even getting into good vs bad design. The fact that the OGL allows anyone to be a "designer" doesn't mean they should. I don't envy Paizo at all. I think the open playtest/feedback is an interesting approach but their messageboard is quickly going to become a mess to sort through and separate the good from the bad.

 

[AllisterH]

I think it's odd that people bemoan spell resistance in one breath, then complain high level fighters aren't tough enough in the next. IMO, those two are directly correlated. SR was not only a tool to "beef up" monsters, but to ensure the high and mighty wizard couldn't leave his fighter buddy at home.

Spell Resistance is there so the Fighters have something to do at high levels instead of watching the Wizard nuke everything they see to cinders.

Which of course beggars the question "Um, why did you design the magic system to be so powerful?/why did you design the melee system to be so weak? so that you needed to TACK on another defence?"

It's akin to designing sneak attack so that it does 1d12 per level and applies to ANY attack that a rogue makes and then designing monsters with "sneak attack immunity".

You can't get rid of Spell Resistance without seriously reworking the entire magic system (4e), so I think Paizo is stuck with Spell Resistance.

 

[Greg K]

The skill system: I am now a fan of the Starwars / 4E system. But specifically because they also remove the problem of the ever-increasing, math-breaking gap between untrained, trained and expert masters skill monkey cheater. I would suggest keeping the old skill point system, if you're not interested in changing the fundamental math. This will also help those that like 3.x as it is. (And it seems it's not only Psion that does like skill points )
Instead, add more skill points per level, and remove the cross class skill point cost. Max Ranks can stay

As soon as I got to the skills system, I lost interest and skimmed the rest. Removal of skill points is an automatic deal breaker as it was for me with Blue Rose, Star Wars, and 4e. However, I did see a couple of new house rules- one of which I had been considering for a rogue class variant, but had not tried out in play. And, of course, it was free.

 

[Arnwyn]

There are a couple of areas that could use a tweak but in the main, I say leave the 3.5 rules as they are. Any changes that are made should not impact the underlying system or the way the game plays. Changing the way skill totals are calculated is fine - it removes fiddly and produces the same results as the current system. Simplifying grapple likewise gets the same results with a simpler approach. I quite like some of the work done with the classes. But more extensive changes might end up being counterproductive (I'm not yet sold on the new domains system, for example.)

For the Pathfinder RPG to achieve its stated goals of continuing the 3.5 legacy and being backwards-compatible, we need restraint and measured analysis. Don't mess with a winning formula .

Wow. I so need to ditto this. So: Ditto. QFT. And all that.

As I alluded to earlier, but will say again: What is absolutely critical for Paizo to understand is that in order for me to continue buying their Pathfinder books, I must be able to use 3.5 characters (yes, right from the 3.5 PHB) in a Pathfinder adventure with no incremental work specifically causal to 3.Paizo.

If I wanted a new system, I'd buy 4e.


[Now, with all that said, I'm a moderate person. So far, what I see in the Alpha can still be used without any conversion on my part. Pathfinder NPCs can be used whole cloth against my 3.5 PCs, as they can just seem to be 'alternate base classes' (that might actually be worth their CR now!). With the "Perception" skill, I can easily assume that they have "Spot" and "Listen" at the same bonus. No NPCs have Use Rope - no problems there. But, like Mark Hope (and Alzrius before him) so eloquently said - they absolutely need "restraint and measured analysis". I want to continue to play 3.5... otherwise, I'd move to 4e.]