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

[CapnZapp]

To me, Pathfinder will fail because
1) it's coming too late
2) it will not be compatible (this thread alone mentions more changes than you could do and still claim compatability)
3) it makes the mistake of "improving" 3E instead of just fixing what was broken.

Take something simple as changing races and classes: the only fix 3E needed was that bards and rogues were underwhelming. Sure, spellcasters were powerful, but that should be fixed by changes to the spell system, not the caster classes!

Especially the fighter should remain exactly as in 3E!

Essentially, Pathfinder will be its own game. Or, if you want, a 3.5E paint job. Not a fix and definitely not the fix.

And as such, I don't see how it will ever become more than a fringe product. Especially as it should have been released already...

 

[Darrin Drader]

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.

Yep, I agree here. On the few occasions where I subjected myself to low level play as a player, I used to get frustrated how we would blow through spells and hit points in the first encounter and then be forced to camp out before we made any real progress. The only safe place to sleep is usually well outside of the dungeon, and if the DM was playing the opponents intelligently, they would pull forces from elsewhere to guard the doors.

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

I agree with the caveat that the math still breaks down at the higher levels. Fix that and the system rocks.

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.

Again, I agree with you. Before 3E came out, I was a huge 2E player. I didn't move it all into boxes when 3E came out because 3E was fundamentally broken. It isn't fundamentally broken. It has its wonky bits that could use some fixing (subsystems like grapple and polymorph), but overall, I've considered 3E the pinnacle of D&D. I still do.

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.

I never particularly hated the old cleave, but I've played with the new one. I was a little worried that it would be overpowered, but I felt that it worked well. If you have Great Cleave, what it does is help balance the fighter against the wizard. The wizard can wipe out a bunch of low level foes by dropping a fireball on them, but now the fighter can go stand in the middle of a group of them and start swinging. If he hits, he gets to keep on going. It now makes sense for the fighter to want to go stand in the middle of a bunch of foes. I really like it.

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

Again, agreed. I wasn't totally sold on the changes they were making to the game when I first read the new rules. My first thought was that they were pumping up the power too much and were going to speed things along to the point where the math breaks down. Then I actually played it and saw how these changes affect play, and I really think that they're going in the right direction. In my mind, the only real challenge that they have yet to tackle is fixing high level play.

Even if they don't manage to do that by the final release, I know how I can houserule the game so that it stops being a problem - aside from increased hit points, implement a cap on per-level improvements at about level 15 and use non-combat mechanic as a way of rewarding level increases (story rewards). I know that a lot of people would be really opposed to this approach, which is the reason I wouldn't try to push it through as official, but since I tend to run story oriented games anyway, I think it would work for my group.

I think the real mechanical fix is to put a much tighter limit on the duration of buff spells like bull's strength, fox's cunning, cat's grace, owl's wisdom, etc. Maybe reduce the total number of magic item slots that you can use at one time, thereby reducing the magical christmas tree effect. But I don't know. There's a way to fix it and I'm sure that those fixes will start to become apparent soon.

 

[Jack99]

To me, Pathfinder will fail because
1) it's coming too late
2) it will not be compatible (this thread alone mentions more changes than you could do and still claim compatability)
3) it makes the mistake of "improving" 3E instead of just fixing what was broken.

Take something simple as changing races and classes: the only fix 3E needed was that bards and rogues were underwhelming. Sure, spellcasters were powerful, but that should be fixed by changes to the spell system, not the caster classes!

Especially the fighter should remain exactly as in 3E!

Essentially, Pathfinder will be its own game. Or, if you want, a 3.5E paint job. Not a fix and definitely not the fix.

And as such, I don't see how it will ever become more than a fringe product. Especially as it should have been released already...

How do you define failing? Because if selling less than 4e is failing, yes then it is a given, it will fail. However, if failing = not earning enough money to make it worthwhile to Paizo to continue producing, I think you are dead wrong. Paizo's fan-base is rather strong and determined, and it seems that Pathfinder definitely appeals to enough people, considering their downloads and sales at GenCon. Of course, only time will truly tell us.

Cheers

 

[AllisterH]

Ok, actual criticsms of pathfinder...

The skill system, while somewhat reined in (yay for no more synergies) still suffers from these main problems.

1. You still get worse as you level against appropriate level challenges
2. It still breaks down at level 6 by which time, you can't actually have group skill encounters.
3. It still is inferior in almost all respect to using magic. This is more due to the fact that the non-combat spells are using 1e/2e rules yet the mechanics in 3E changed significantly.
4. There's still no way to judge what should be an appropriate level challenge for a party.
5. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it still uses the funky reading about Profession and Craft (Basically, profession and craft are too broad in their application compared to specific skills. Ex: Profession (Sailor) vs Athletics.)

Then again, fans of Paizo consider these good things so I'm not sure there's anything Paizo will do about changing it.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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

Admittedly I only glanced at it to check that it was there (for obvious reasons) but it was there.

It just wasn't presented in the same format in which I presented it.

But "Encounter Budgeting" was definitely in.

 

[Vurt]

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

Twenty-one!

I'm quite happy Pathfinder is chugging away and trying to throw new ideas into the 3.5 mix, if only to show that 3.5 development hasn't totally ground to a halt with the release of 4e.

EDIT: But this beta is only a beta, and one with a print run to go along with it as well, so it's understandable to a degree why things that folks have brought up in the last month on the various messageboards may not be included--things needed to be finalized for the printers a while ago.

 

[Umbran]

The number of people who look like they're being jerks in here is astoundingly high. That's not acceptable.

Everyone here is going to turn down the sarcasm, snark, and digging humor. You will post as if you are intentionally trying to avoid cheesing others off. As if, you know, they were fellow human beings who had opinions that matter to you.

If you don't feel you can post in such a manner with a straight face, you shouldn't be posting in this thread at all.

 

[Fenes]

I'd say that to most of you, my games would be examples for the 15 minute adventuring day. One big fight, and that's it for the day. Of course, in my campaigns combat plays not as much a part as diplomacy, plots, intrigue, negotiation and exploration, so for my PCs, the day is not really over after the combat.

Also, I consider the "You have one big fight against the enemy soldiers led by the warlord and his bodyguards, after the guards alerted them. Once they all are routed, the keep is yours" more realistic in my adventures than the "after you beat the guards at the bridge you continue to the courtyard, where you beat the waiting bodyguards. Then you have the kitchen troupe encounter, then the antechamber, and finally the boss fight".

Using the Book of Nine Swords also makes running such combats better, since melee and magic have big, flashy stuff to use in the fights and I don't need to make people ration it.

So, I'd be happy if Pathfinder will use similar mechanics to allow a fast and flashy stlye of melee combat, with a few hard hits, and not the steady chipping at the enemy. Buckets of d6s for the big blow, not 3d6 per round, 10 rounds long.

 

[Kerrick]

Even if they don't manage to do that by the final release, I know how I can houserule the game so that it stops being a problem - aside from increased hit points, implement a cap on per-level improvements at about level 15 and use non-combat mechanic as a way of rewarding level increases (story rewards).

I play in an NWN PW, and we have a cap for all buffs - +12 for abilities, +50 (?) for skills, and I think there's one for saves too (not sure). This does not, of course, count inherent or racial, but it does include all the other bonuses. This could be a good way to keep the numbers under control at higher levels.

I think the real mechanical fix is to put a much tighter limit on the duration of buff spells like bull's strength, fox's cunning, cat's grace, owl's wisdom, etc. Maybe reduce the total number of magic item slots that you can use at one time, thereby reducing the magical christmas tree effect. But I don't know. There's a way to fix it and I'm sure that those fixes will start to become apparent soon.

The animal buffs are already 1 minute/level.. if you dropped the duration any further, they'd be nigh unto useless. Besides that, short-term buffs are a lot harder to keep track of than long-term ones. Condensing the number of item slots would be helpful, along with tighter (more restricted) item affinities. You just have to watch that you don't go too far, or you'll be screwing the PCs over - they won't be able to keep up with the bad guys.

 

[Remathilis]

Note that Cleave allows to score two attacks now, both at highest attack bonus. Also, kindly note that requirement for additional was relaxed to "If you hit".
In other words, Cleave is about getting additional attacks (at lower BAB) or about trading iterative attacks for better overall chance to hit. Sensible tradeoff, if you have Improved Critical or Power Attack.

The original feat can be used as part of a full attack action - if you dropped a creature with your first attack, you could make a second attack at the same BAB. And the same on the second iterative, and the third, and the fourth.

With PF's Cleave, you can make ONE attack as a full-round action; if it hits, you get the second attack. Whoopdedoo. It's a great option for low levels, when you've only got one attack - you're not losing anything - but as you get more attacks, it loses its luster. I'd rather have the option to make a full attack action, with the chance of dropping an opponent and getting a bonus attack. Their Cleave will just ensure that every 2-hander with Power Attack and Imp Crit will take it.

In many campaigns with characters over 10th level, subsequent iterative attacks are wasted due to high armor class of opponents.
Also, against low HD monsters, iterative attacks plus 3.5 Cleave equal way too many rolls.

For those two reasons, I heartily applaud PF RPG Cleave.

This seems like a place where the example of band-aids verse brain surgery would be an apt example.

Problem: iterative attack in D&D often slow down the game due to a excessive amount of rolling that doesn't often hit. Cleave only adds to the rolling and is high circumstantial when it works.

Solution #1: Fix iterative attacks scaling so that latter attacks are meaningful OR remove iterative attacks entirely, instead re-balancing damage to account for less attacks/round (SAGA/4e)

Solution #2: Fix Cleave so that a fighter can give up his potential wasted attacks for an attack that MIGHT lead to an additional hit. (Pathfinder)

The first solution fixes the problem; iterative attacks are worthless baring weak foes, foes with low AC, or "roll a twenty" auto-hits. They do it by changing the probability of hitting on iteratives or (and with the benefit of fixing excessive die rolls) re-balance the game so that one attack can yield greater damage (SAGA does this by adding 1/2 level to damage, 4e by defining damage by power used). However, both of these are a.) not backwards compatible and b.) require changing the whole base-attack system and many of its sub-systems (two wpn fighting, flurry of blows, monster attacks, natural attacks, slams, grapple, etc)

The second solution ignore the problem and instead offers a potentially useful work around; if your iteratives aren't hitting, you can sacrifice those "I can't hit barring a 20" rolls for (potentially) two good "I have a chance at hitting" rolls. It certainly cuts down on the die rolls (reducing up to seven attack down to up to two) but doesn't address the elephant in the room; iteratives are useless.

Brain surgery vs. band aids.

There are some people who want Pathfinder to be Brain Surgery; FIX the problems they have with 3.X and evolve the game into an alternate world Fourth Edition (like how Castles & Crusades could be called an Alt World D&D 3e). However, Pathfinder so far has delivered Band-aids; they don't fix the problem with multi-classing and inherent balance, they patch it with incentives not to. They don't fix iterative attacks, they give you options to avoid using them. They don't fix magic-item dependency, they just ramp up PC power and assume less magic to counterbalance it.

For some, a band-aid was all that was necessary (if even that) but many others were left the impression of lipstick on a pig; they might have changed X, Y, and Z, but in the end its still the same pig.