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

[RangerWickett]

I've said before, I think the core mechanics of 4th edition are good. It's the thematic implementation of them that I dislike. I also really loathe most of 4e art. I basically want to start with 4e, strip off things, and have Paizo rebuild it. Revising 3e doesn't interest me.

 

[Rechan]

I will admit that I don't know how playtesting/development stages work. The only actual playtest I've ever witnessed is the one for the Dresden Files, where they took the alpha rules, handed them to playtesters, said "Use these rules, break them and show us their flaws," then revised, released a second round, gave the new rules to new playtesters, said "Break them, show us the new flaws," and plan on doing it a third time.

So all this talk of "The Beta is the first time it's going to get played!" is odd.

But I must say I'm getting a kick out of the responses of "Don't criticize paizo/the rules". Apparently criticizing playtest rules is bad. Especially from a concise, fair, and reasonably said OP. As the PFRPG comes out, I'm certain more discussions like this are going to come, and it's going to be tedious to see fair criticism get beaten up.

 

[Treebore]

I will admit that I don't know how playtesting/development stages work. The only actual playtest I've ever witnessed is the one for the Dresden Files, where they took the alpha rules, handed them to playtesters, said "Use these rules, break them and show us their flaws," then revised, released a second round, gave the new rules to new playtesters, said "Break them, show us the new flaws," and plan on doing it a third time.

So all this talk of "The Beta is the first time it's going to get played!" is odd.

But I must say I'm getting a kick out of the responses of "Don't criticize paizo/the rules". Apparently criticizing playtest rules is bad. Especially from a concise, fair, and reasonably said OP. As the PFRPG comes out, I'm certain more discussions like this are going to come, and it's going to be tedious to see fair criticism get beaten up.

Well, Paizo isn't telling you to quite criticizing. Besides, I saw the responses you seem to be talking about aimed at people who just pop into the thread and say, "I hate the changes! Pathfinder sucks!".

Plus I thin it would help if people really remember what Pathfinder is for. A rule book to help keep the 3E community alive.

If you love 3E the way it is, or have moved on to 4E, or some other system, Pathfinder is not being written for you. Its being written for people looking for changes, or looking for a 3E compatible book with which to use 3E books.

If you go to the end of the Beta PDF and read how Paizo says to use PF with 3E its really not hard. Just add 1 HP per level to classes, add a couple of feats/skills as levels go up, etc...

Nothing that I see actually increasing the difficulty. Plus I think Paizo has done a MUCH better job of explaining skills, feats, and combat actions.

So I think the final Pathfinder will be a rule book that is written much more clearly, containing new rules, better written skills, feats, combat actions, etc... then the 3E PH and DMG, so will be, over all, a superior rule book for a 3E game.

Even if I was still a 3E die hard (I died in early 2005) I would want Pathfinder simply because Paizo is doing a superior job in the presentation, let alone a bunch of cool "alternative" rules and class versions.

I'm not a 3E die hard, and I still intend on buying the final book. Simply because I think even what is kept the same will be written in a superior fashion.

 

[Rechan]

Well, Paizo isn't telling you to quite criticizing.

Huh? I'm talking about the fans in this thread. In fact, the first comment that made me respond as such was this:

Instead of criticizing Paizo so much, gamers should be excited about having a chance to contribute to the final balance, flavor, etc... of this version of D&D.

Which comes when no one was criticizing Paizo.

Besides, I saw the responses you seem to be talking about aimed at people who just pop into the thread and say, "I hate the changes! Pathfinder sucks!".

I see no one in this thread saying Paizo sucks. In fact, everyone who has said something negative about the pathfinder rulesset has been very friendly to Paizo the company. The discussion has solely been about the PFRPG, and that the design goals don't go far enough for some people, or the priorities in the design were backwards.

Where this "Criticism of PFRPG = Hate of Paizo" claim stems from, I don't know. I'd really like you to provide some quotes of people saying Paizo sucks from this thread.

 

[Treebore]

Huh? I'm talking about the fans in this thread. In fact, the first comment that made me respond as such was this:

Which comes when no one was criticizing Paizo.

I see no one in this thread saying Paizo sucks. In fact, everyone who has said something negative about the pathfinder rulesset has been very friendly to Paizo the company.

Where this "Criticism of PFRPG = Hate of Paizo" claim stems from, I don't know.

Well, Paizo is running the play testing, and you talked about how the playtesting was being done, so you were talking about Paizo.

Plus the "Criticism of PFRPG = Hate of Paizo" I think comes from how people tend to "generalize" what they say/post, so when it is read its hard to see if they are pointing fingers at Paizo or another poster.

 

[racoffin]

But I must say I'm getting a kick out of the responses of "Don't criticize paizo/the rules". Apparently criticizing playtest rules is bad. Especially from a concise, fair, and reasonably said OP. As the PFRPG comes out, I'm certain more discussions like this are going to come, and it's going to be tedious to see fair criticism get beaten up.

Yeah, it reminds me of something ... oh yeah, when the criticism when 4E rolled out.

It'd be lovely to see positive comments for a change, about anything, any edition, any game. I'd dearly love to log in and see people talking about the good points of the system/game rather than looking for something to tear down about it. I've started skipping entire threads and comments by any number of people, because I know what they are going to say, what their argument is going to be, that we are going to argue for 3 pages on the definition of [insert word here].

Anyone for positive comments and reviews?

 

[Wyrmshadows]

I see no one in this thread saying Paizo sucks. In fact, everyone who has said something negative about the pathfinder rulesset has been very friendly to Paizo the company. The discussion has solely been about the PFRPG, and that the design goals don't go far enough for some people, or the priorities in the design were backwards.

Where this "Criticism of PFRPG = Hate of Paizo" claim stems from, I don't know. I'd really like you to provide some quotes of people saying Paizo sucks from this thread.

I think that discussion, though valuable, cannot compare to actual in-game playtesting. If someone has issues with the direction of Pathfinder then playtest it and give Pazi feedback. The only way the Beta can change direction is if some useful criticism is directed towards it. This is an excellent opportunity.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Hmm. Had some time to digest the new beta thanks to Paizo's generous freebie download. And I have to say: I wish they would have stated that PF would not be backwards compatible.

Having the need to be BC kills PFRPG from doing any really cool changes. And by "really cool changes" I mean fixing the (a) mess that is high-level 3e play, (b) higher math accounting skills required to DM 3e games, and (c) the universal Magic Is The Answer promoted with the lists and lists of game-breaking, fun-sponging spells.

Those things weren't addressed and, quite frankly, cannot be addressed in PF. Why? Because PF strives to be backwards compatible.

It seems pretty intuitive to me: You cannot fix something with significant flaws while keeping that something close to its pre-fixed state.

So you gotta pick backwards compatibility or you gotta pick new & improved game, and Paizo picked the former, which makes me sad. PFRPG is 3.55.

I'd offer that the "sweet spot" is 3.8.

4e has a lot I don't like. 3.5E has a lot I don't like. Both systems have a lot I do like, but that mark needs to slide closer to 4e than 3e.

IMO. YMMV. YADA YADA YADA.


Wis

 

[Rechan]

Anyone for positive comments and reviews?

While I definitely don't think "If you can't say something nice (about a rules system), don't say anything at all" isn't a good idea (Not saying you are advocating that, just prefacing my next statement), I agree that positive is refreshing and nice to see around here; I'd love to see more.

So here's something positive: I am really looking forward to the Pathfinder Campaign Setting book.

 

[Vael]

Well, the artwork is pretty.

I dunno, I was distinctly underwhelmed with the Pathfinder book. Some things are kinda nice, like consolidating the special attacks under one (although rather complicated) mechanic, and some class capstone abilities are kinda cool.

The main thing is that a lot of the changes seem nonsensical to me. Consolidating skills, that's nice, but why add fly to the mix? BAB and hitdice progression are the same, that's cool, but a barbarian just isn't a barbarian without d12 hitdice (speaking of which, I'm so over rolling for hitpoints.) Also, rage points? Playing a barbarian has never seemed so much like accounting.

Finally, some serious work will have to be done to make the rules easier to read. I'm still not sure how the Vital Strike feat chain works, and the cross referencing required to make the Druid's Wild Shape ability understandable is painful.