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

[Mallus]

Objecting to swinginess is not the same as objecting to risk to your character. Understand this, grasshopper, and you may attain enlightenment. Or at least stop being an enormous jerk on message boards.

Let him be... it's always amusing when people go on about bringing 'real risk' to the act of pretending to be an elf.

 

[Fifth Element]

Not to bash 4E, but in my opinion it is moving further and further away from "realistic simulation" and just closer to being a "game".

<snip condescending rant>

I suppose you could say you didn't bash 4E. But you definitely bashed players who like 4E.

Yay for edition wars!

 

[Fifth Element]

Ah yes, the "PC is just a paper-doll for the player to be challenged by proxy with" that brought us Save-or-die, the Tomb of Horrors, RBDMs, and Bob the Fighter IV.

Well put.

I'm not sure how a system that promotes backup characters and Bob the Fighter I-IX is more "realistic", and less "game".

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Could this thread actually be about Pathfinder? If you want to argue about 3E/4E or argue semantics, that's fine... just do it in a different thread so that those of us actually interested in the actual premise of this thread, "Pathfinder BETA" can actually read about it?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Out of my entire post, you chose to respond to one sentence?

It was a sentence that staggered me.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Could this thread actually be about Pathfinder? If you want to argue about 3E/4E or argue semantics, that's fine... just do it in a different thread so that those of us actually interested in the actual premise of this thread, "Pathfinder BETA" can actually read about it?

Given that Pathfinder is a fork off of 3E, I think discussions about how well it succeeds in "fixing" 3E compared to that other game that tries to do the same thing are pretty much inevitable.

 

[Jack99]

Could this thread actually be about Pathfinder? If you want to argue about 3E/4E or argue semantics, that's fine... just do it in a different thread so that those of us actually interested in the actual premise of this thread, "Pathfinder BETA" can actually read about it?

I think the 20 people who care about Pathfinder have already posted in this thread, sorry...

 

[ruemere]

Gladly. Where's that new trap system Jason was talking about? I thought it was going to get included in the beta. For that matter, I remember seeing something about poisons, but I don't recall seeing them in the beta either (they might well be there and I missed them, though).

I haven't got to GM's part of the rules yet, sorry. I'm still busy analyzing classes - they look nice on paper, but I do not like variety of subsystems inside.

Though I saw that the "old" encounter system is still in Beta, too. The one from ENWorld is not there yet.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[racoffin]

Mispost, carry on.

 

[Gailbraithe]

1. Failure to address core issues

Almost nothing on my "what needs to be fixed in 3ed list" has been addressed. This includes, but not limited to, multiclassed spellcasters, the 15-minute adventuring day, and high-level play.

The only one of these issues I cared about was the 15-minute adventuring day, and the only thing about that I cared about was I think it's dumb that wizards and sorcerers have to use crossbows at low levels. I get why my spellcaster players blow their spells early in the dungeon: throwing magic around is the whole point. I love Pathfinder's solution of giving every mage his own little zappy Gauntlet Wizard popcorn shooter.

Sure, some of the fixes they've done are nice - and needed: grappling, combat maneuvers, (some) skill consolidation - but I see these changes as giving the house a new coat of paint while the framework is still shaky.

Hmm. I don't think the framework of 3.5 is shaky. It was the subsystems -- grappling, maneuvers -- that needed tweaks.

In the development process, you prioritize your workload and feature list first. I feel Paizo (although ultimately, this is probably Jason Bulmahn) had their priorities backwards from the start. Revising the classes and races, for example, is the easy stuff but it doesn't addressed the core mechanics. It doesn't change the way the game is played, which I feel, is what 3ed needs.

See, I consider myself the perfect target for Pathfinder. It fixes just about everything about 3.5 I didn't like, and I can fix the rest with less than a page of house rules. I have few suggestions and tweaks for the final version, which I'll share with Jason and the paizo boards. But ultimately, i likie the way 3.5 plays, and I really, really, strongly and passionately do not want that to change. So you know, I hope Paizo disagrees with you.

2. Crunch overload

From what I've seen, the design philosophy for Pathfinder has been "more, more, more!" While options are fine, it's not what 3ed really needs at this point in time.

It's exactly what 3.5 needed. More flexibility in the base classes, so that there is less need for books beyond the core book. I love that the new Rogue can do the Grey Mouser thing without ever multiclassing, and that I can do a striaght up Viking shield-biting berserker Barbarian, or some funky flamesouled religious dervish who channels fire through her weapons using the same class.

And don't even get me started on how much I love the changes to Sorcerers, Specialists and Domains.

3. Change for change's sake

Just to illustrate my point, take something as small as the Cleave feat. Did it really need to be changed. If you were to go about revising the 3ed ruleset, would you even think twice about feats like Cleave, or Great Cleave, or Combat Expertise? I think Mr. Bulmahn should have had a plaque made and hung it above his desk that said "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I hated the old cleave. It was either never useful, or obnoxiously over useful. I haven't seen the new cleave in action much, so I can't really say whether the changes are good changes, but yeah, I saw a need to change cleave.

There is also the change that my goals don't coincide with Paizo's. And that's fine too. I hope it's not the case because I want to support them. But as of right now, Pathfinder isn't for me.

Mean this in the best way: Here's to hoping you are left unsatisfied, because I love where this is going right now.