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

[Aristotle]

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.

Ding, Ding, Ding! That's not the game they promised, but it sure sounds like the one I'd buy.

I want to love Paizo. I love the look of their products. I love their production values. I love the little things about their art like racial diversity. There is some good art in 4e, but a lot of the paizo art really blows me away. I just don't love a whole lot of the core methodologies of 3E. I was done with 3E before 4E was announced. *shrug*

 

[WhatGravitas]

I want to love Paizo. I love the look of their products. I love their production values. I love the little things about their art like racial diversity. There is some good art in 4e, but a lot of the paizo art really blows me away. I just don't love a whole lot of the core methodologies of 3E. I was done with 3E before 4E was announced. *shrug*

Yeah, Paizo is full of creative heads with talent for story and concepts. Golarion keeps impressing me, as does their art direction. The handling of the Pathfinder line (marketing-wise and so on).

But great game designers they ain't. They're not bad either, but Pathfinder leaves me flummoxed. It's not really 3.5E, but not a real departure as well. Little odd subsystems are there, some good ideas, and places where they weren't bold enough to try out stuff in the alpha version.

Getting a Paizo-ified 4E, however, would be really cool.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Kerrick]

I can summarize my disappointment as follows:

I agree with you on those points. Your post is well-though-out and coherent... but you don't say what you WANT to see. What do you perceive as problems with the system that need to be fixed? I'm honestly curious, not trying to attack you. Several people have already mentioned high-level play (the big bugaboo of d20), multiclassing, and a couple other things.

You see, this is one of the points where I get confused and I kind of see Pathfinder in conflict with itself.

(1) We want to increase the power level of core classes, so they match the later-released WotC Core Classes, and match or exceed the power levels of Prestige classes.

(2) OTOH, we're going to change things around enough that a lot of those other classes will require some adjustment to work.

I think everyone's too stuck on "backwards compatibility" instead of "fixing the system". When you get right down to it, 3E is backwards compatible with 2E. Yes, I said that right - they are compatible systems. You can convert your 2E (or even 1E) PCs, monsters, etc. to 3E/3.5. It takes a little work, sure, but it's still possible. With 4E, however, you could possibly convert your PCs/monsters/whatever from previous editions, but you'll pretty much end up having to rewrite the entire thing in the process. That's not "backwards compatible".

I think you can rewrite the system, keeping the core mechanics, and fix a lot of the problems inherent with it. d20 for most rolls, and higher is better? Check. Six abilities? Check. 11 core classes and 7 races? Check and check. I think you get the idea. Yes, making changes to one part of the system can (and usually does) have a trickle-down effect... but if all parts of the system are internally consistent, it will work. You can fix 3E without making it look like 4E, AND keep compatibility with existing material.

Anyone for positive comments and reviews?

The combat maneuver system. Sheer genius, IMO, using a single roll for everything. I altered the base CMB to be 1d20+BAB+modifiers, + Str or Dex mod depending on the maneuver (Disarm, e.g., uses Dex instead of Str).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

You say that the 15 minute adventuring day needs addressed but a lot of the changes do address it. We never had much problem with it anyway, its mostly a mental problem

It's not a mental problem for low level parties heavy on casters. Either they're combat-ready, or they're not. It's a mental problem in the same way that someone can be "a little pregnant" -- for those affected by it, it's very real.

Check my Story Hour for "Beneath Blackberry Ridge." The party stopped over and over and over again to rest in a relatively small dungeon. They weren't a perfectly balanced party, but lots of parties won't be. If something only works under ideal circumstances, it can't really be said to be a good and working system.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I have to agree that this isn't a rule's problem. It's a DMing problem

How so?

Again, refer to my Story Hour. The module they're running through is a Ptolusized version of the Ennie award-winning Dragonfiend Pact from Goodman Games' Dungeon Crawl Classics line.

What should be done with what is, really, a pretty mild dungeon to eliminate the 15 minute a day problem? Remove most of the combat? Cut the threat level in half and make it a walk in the park? Add something to spur the players through the dungeon, so that spellcasters with no spells but cantrips face progressively deadlier foes?

Other than changing the names and flavor of the stuff in town (and forgetting the ant encounter initially because I misread the map -- oops!), I played the module straight. And again, it's one that lots of gamers agree is one of the best produced for 3.5.

(In fact, my one major deviation was when I dropped in a wand of cure light wounds for the bard to use, because otherwise they weren't going to get past the first third of the dungeon intact.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

Then can there be a substantive response to it, rather than waving it away?

 

[Rechan]

This isn't really the thread to argue whether the "15 Minute Work Day" is Nature (system) vs. Nurture (Group). That's a topic that deserves its won entire thread, considering that it's still contested.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

This isn't really the thread to argue whether the "15 Minute Work Day" is Nature (system) vs. Nurture (Group). That's a topic that deserves its won entire thread, considering that it's still contested.

If people are going to make drive-bys on people who assert it's a problem that needed fixing, in either Pathfinder or 4E, in this thread, responding to it in this thread seems appropriate to me.

 

[Rechan]

If people are going to make drive-bys on people who assert it's a problem that needed fixing, in either Pathfinder or 4E, in this thread, responding to it in this thread seems appropriate to me.

I understand that, but I'm just afraid it'll threadjack.

 

[Spatula]

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.

The problem is that positive comments don't spur debate. "Hey, I love this!" " I love it too!" There's nowhere for the conversation to go, aside from streams of me-toos, unless someone takes the negative position. "You love that? Are you deranged?" etc. etc.

But in the spirit of things, positive comments regarding PF:
consolidation of skills, ala SW Saga / 4e
rewriting the grapple rules
the general presentation of information
nice art & layout