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

[Darrin Drader]

QFT

For god's sake this is an excellent Beta edition of the game. Personally, I dumped 3.5e awhile back in favor of True20 (still my favorite) and Conan D20 but Pathfinder is bringing me back to the 3.5e fold. I'm testing it out, noting the good, the bad and the indifferent.

Then I will report my findings to Paizo for their consideration.

Interestingly enough, isn't this the point of the Beta Release, to test and perfect the system instead of acting as though this is the final release and complaining about it?

And on that note, the beta already fixes many of the problems with 3.5. Not all problems are fixed yet. Nobody expected that they would be but I've ran the alpha and it already makes 3.5 run smoother than before. Increased hit points at first level, channeling positive energy, and increased power level at 1st have addressed the 15 minute day. The modifications to grappling and other combat actions, the revisions to character classes, and the elimination of save or die effects already go a long way towards making the game more enjoyable. They're on the right track and they've dealt with most of the big problems. Give them and the community over at the Paizo boards to come up to solutions for the rest.

 

[Wicht]

While that's true, it ignores a very real domino effect you often find when revising 3e rules... If you change the bottom-level version of something (for example, Cleave), you end up also potentially changing everything else downstream. For example, feats that change or enhance the way Cleave works. Classes that work with Cleave and modify it (see: Samurai). Spells (if there are any) that temporarily grant Cleave to a character. When you take 3pp's into account, a small change like this could invalidate a whole lot of stuff.

Which is fine - but it isn't as backwards compatible as it looks on the surface.

I ran into something much like this when I was trying to excise Alignment from my 3.5 game. Seemed like it should be easy at first, but it has its tendrils in dozens of spells and even in the damage reduction system.

-O

It might be worth noting that the Pathfinder game is not trying to be completely backwards compatible with every splat book that has been released. This would be impossible and it is inevitable that some changes will invalidate old options from alternate sourcebooks. Nevertheless, it should allow a person to pick and choose from old 3pp books those things they like and adapt them.

For instance, the Order of the Bow Prestige Class was easily adapted to Pathfinder alpha in our home games by increasing HD and adding in feats for the empty levels.

 

[jadrax]

Interestingly enough, isn't this the point of the Beta Release, to test and perfect the system instead of acting as though this is the final release and complaining about it?

I think this misses the fundamental point of what people are complaining about. Which is the methodology being used, not the actual ruleset per say.

I think I can safely predict right now that the people who are complaining that they prioritise big changes over backward compatibility are not going to like Pathfinder no matter how many iterations of playtesting or design revisions it goes through.

If you do not think the *Big Issues* that 4ed addressed where big issues, (which many people do not,) then you will probably either like pathfinder or be happy with the current ruleset anyway.

If you do think that the *Big Issues* that 4ed addresses where indeed Big Issues that needed fixing, then Pathfinder is not going fix them because to do so requires rewriting every single stat. block so far published. Which means you get to either move to 4ed or wait for a new game to come along.


Now of that is a bad thing, the fact that Pathfinder is not going to change those things is by no means a bad move, plenty of people do not want them changed, I suspect far more people than do want them changes that also have rejected 4ed.

But telling people who do think those things are big issues that Pathfinder will suit them is dishonest. The game is well able to stand on the merits of what it is looking at doing, without false hope of it doing things it clearly will not. It is worth noting that as far as I can see, Pazio itself is not claiming it will fix everything: They have already confirmed things like Skill Point Changes, Vancian Magic Use, Sorcerer Spell progression and other things are essentially sacred cows that will not be changed.

 

[amethal]

Changing the underlying functionality of something but retaining the same name is the epitome of totally breaking backwards compatibility (IMO). It's what drove me nuts going from 3.0 to 3.5, all the little niggling details that had changed but weren't apparent until you looked specifically for them and went "doh!".

So you went back to 3.0 then, right?

Cleave is backwards compatible.

It might be a pain in the neck to learn the new rules, but that's a separate issue. Also, I think you can expect that a new game will have new rules in it. (Whereas in 3.5 they downplayed the changes, so the extent of what they changed surprised everybody. It drove us all nuts.)

Regarding the alignment example, I think alignment is pretty central to D&D. Getting rid of it is not comparable to rewriting a feat. However, its also not that difficult once you get over the initial shock.

[sblock]In my campaign, "smite" effects work on pretty much anybody, unless this would be clearly absurd. (Paladins don't get to smite widows and orphans, for example, and clerics of St Cuthbert can't smite each other.)

Protection from x spells are just "protection", and keep out summoned creatures of all alignment.

Detect evil spells exist, but only work on creatures with the evil subtype. Similarly magic or magic weapons that target evil creatures only work on creatures with the evil subtype.[/sblock]

 

[timbannock]

Several people are saying to "stick with it" and that it's not the final product.

First off, we are criticizing the product, and not Paizo (at least I'm not; they rock!).

Secondly, while this is "just the Beta Release" and not "the final product," the issue we're criticizing (and thus hoping will change) is that they've gone too far on some aspects, and not far enough on others.

The OP said something to the effect of them starting with the big stuff and then going to the little stuff, and I totally agree with that. The most common arguments of flaws in the 3.5E design don't seem to be addressed. Tons of things that were often stated as being the most balanced pieces of the system have been changed. That seems to be against the intentions of what Paizo is doing, but perhaps I'm just mistaken on what those intentions were.

I haven't lost faith, and I'm not going to give up on this thing, but I'm definitely not pleased by the direction it's gone in so far. Here's hoping the voices of several people here are heard, and that there is a significant change in Paizo's focus between this Beta and the next release.

 

[Khairn]

That isn't really a problem with the rules but with the DM. The only things the rules can do is to regenerate the PCs to 100% effectivity after every combat and that would be kinda boring.
Instead the DM has to write adventures where resting after 15 minutes is not feasible.

QFT. The complaint of 3E being the cause of the "15 minute workday" is one of the biggest red herrings I've seen over this past year.

As for the OP, I like what he had to say and I hope he stops by the Paizo boards to share this with them. An open beta play-test of this magnitude is a wonderful thing, and the finished product will be only as good as the communication between the fans and Paizo.

One issue that will continue to be a challenge for Paizo is the perception amongst the various D&D camps regarding who Pathfinder is targetted to support. Some gamers think its target are 4E-haters, others think its 3E fans, while others think its going to be its own game. This type of confusion in the market will likely hinder the launch and acceptance of the product.

Just a thought.

 

[JoeGKushner]

On the other hand, a change that I would like to see - giving more skill points to fighters and sorcerers - has been ruled out on the grounds that this would not be backwards compatible. Old stat blocks would be incorrect; you'd have to give NPCs more skill points.

And that to me is "crazy talk".

Well, we'll change X, Y, and Z and since NPCs will still have those abilities, we'll just assume the DM will use the new rules. But more skill points? Man, if an NPC doesn't have perfect skill points the whole game just comes crashing down. Saw it happen once and I say never again! We won't give more skill points because that's just crazy! No changing hit dice of classes will require some conversions but hey, that part is easy and visible right? right?

 

[NilesB]

Now of that is a bad thing, the fact that Pathfinder is not going to change those things is by no means a bad move, plenty of people do not want them changed, I suspect far more people than do want them changes that also have rejected 4ed.

Yes but:

1> Piazo explicitly claimed they were going to change these things.

2> They've made enough changes to ruin backwards comparability anyway.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

I haven't lost faith, and I'm not going to give up on this thing, but I'm definitely not pleased by the direction it's gone in so far. Here's hoping the voices of several people here are heard, and that there is a significant change in Paizo's focus between this Beta and the next release.

I totally agree that folks who have a problem with the direction of the current game should be heard. I hope however that there is as much playtesting as there is criticizing because that is the real way to get at the issues that need to be resolved in the final release of the Pathfinder RPG.

Please, all of you who don't like where the Pathfinder RPG is going....please playtest it and report your resuts to Paizo. I'm sure they want to hear constructive criticism.



Wyrmshadows

 

[mcrow]

I'm a little disappointed at what I here in the OP's post. Not that this unsells me on the game because it still sounds good.

However, I think that from a marketing standpoint they have missed the boat. People wanted things fixed but still wanted it to basically be 3.5. From what I read it seems that the changes they've made are not ones that would appeal to the 3.5 players which would be their target. It also sounds like it's not as backward compatible as it should be and it's more crunchy both of which are 2 more strikes against the 3.5 player.

I'll reserve judgment for when I get a hardcopy but this is discouraging.