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

[Spatula]

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.

The OP is useful criticism. I don't need to playtest to know that I don't agree with the basic design goals of PF. Playtesting is for working out the bugs in the implementation of the design.

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.

People aren't going into it probably because it's all been hashed out before... a lot of the issues with 3e are laid out in some of the 4e preview articles as well.

For me, I would rate the major issues with 3e as:
DMing at high levels requires way too much prep work.
High level combat takes too long to resolve and only lasts 2-3 rounds.
Monster design, specifically that HD scales faster than CR, is seriously flawed given the number of game effects based on HD. Most notably, BAB and saves. It also makes turn undead pretty useless past level 5, and renders spells with HD caps or ceilings not so great for players, but potentially quite broken for monsters (see: blasphemy).
The same is true of class design. Poor hit points, saving throws, and (if you need to roll to hit) non-fighter BAB start out as minor inconveniences and turn into crippling problems. This and the monster issue above are what led to the so-called "sweet spot" of D&D.
Spellcasters cannot multiclass effectively. I was really surprised that 3.5 didn't fix this and even more surprised that PF hasn't touched it, since there's at least one simple solution (unifying caster levels and giving classes a "base caster level" bonus).
EDIT: Buffs/Debuffs are too powerful, and too cumbersome to adjucate. This is part of the reason high-level combat takes so damn long. A fully buffed group vs unbuffed is like night and day in terms of power levels, which means that if you can prepare for a fight it will probably be a cakewalk, and if you're ambushed by NPCs that are themselves buffed you're probably going to get slaughtered.

I would also throw in: skills too granular, skill points & feats too scarce; as a minor issue. But that one is pretty easy to houserule, I don't need to spend money to consolidate the skill list or give people more skill points / feats.

 

[Starbuck_II]

I somewhat agree with DM:

When I checked out Beta:
They nerfed Glitterdust to be like 3.5's Hold person: You get to save every round to get the effect off.

Grease seems unchanged like Color Spray.

Giant Form I seems sucky for the benefits (7th level spell?):
Sure, it acts like Shapechange in it gives regeneration if choose a Giant with Regeneration (Troll for example)...but other than that is kinda poor in Str bonus/Dex penalty.

None of Beast Form spells mention gaining natural attacks: which are required I'd assume (unless you can use your sword still).

Alter Self gives +2 Str no matter the Meduim race you turn into.
Why does an Elf who turns into a Human gain +2 Str?

They explain the polymorph changes for two times... was it neccessary to do it twice (there are like 10 pages in between I think)?

 

[charlesatan]

Glassjaw: One thing to bear in mind though are the design goals of Pathfinder RPG (it's in the Introduction page). Your assessment may be correct but the question is, what that what Pathfinder promised to do?

Failure to Address Core Issues: The problem with the "problems of 3.xx" is that different people have different complaints on what to fix in 3E. For example, people on the fence when it comes to 4E will like certain elements of the game but not others--and two people might like/dislike two different elements. Someone might praise the removal of Vancian spellcasting while another loathe its change. So I don't expect Pathfinder to solve every problem of 3.XX because on the side of the designers, those faults may be features.

Your "what needs to be fixed in 3ed list" might be different from their "what needs to be fixed list".

Crunch overload: In the Introduction, it says that one of the design goals was to Add Options so if Pathfinder seems to have crunch overload (i.e. the Barbarian), that was intended, not a flaw of the design.

 

[nightwyrm]

Anyone noticed that the forcecage spell seems to be missing its 1500 gp material cost? Not sure if it's a feature or a bug...

It seems that PF turned most of the save-or-die into save-or-massive damage, but didn't do much about the save-or-sucks or no-save-you-just-suck spells.

A lot of the changes feels superficial, adding on subsystems to each class while not addressing core problems like multiclassing or class imbalance. Really, who's idea was it to give more stuff to wizards, clerics, druids, and humans. It reads like 3.5 houseruled up to eleven. It's an interesting read though, but I'm not sure how it'll run.

 

[Kerrick]

People aren't going into it probably because it's all been hashed out before... a lot of the issues with 3e are laid out in some of the 4e preview articles as well.

Yeah, true.

For me, I would rate the major issues with 3e as:
DMing at high levels requires way too much prep work.
High level combat takes too long to resolve and only lasts 2-3 rounds.

Those are definite problems. I don't DM, but I've played high-level games (L30ish), and you hit it right on the head. It took us hours of real time to play through a combat that lasted for literally 5 rounds.

Monster design, specifically that HD scales faster than CR, is seriously flawed given the number of game effects based on HD. Most notably, BAB and saves. It also makes turn undead pretty useless past level 5, and renders spells with HD caps or ceilings not so great for players, but potentially quite broken for monsters (see: blasphemy).

Easy fix for turning and the spells - change it to a CR-based system instead of HD-based. I did it with turning (see here) and it works well.

Spellcasters cannot multiclass effectively. I was really surprised that 3.5 didn't fix this and even more surprised that PF hasn't touched it, since there's at least one simple solution (unifying caster levels and giving classes a "base caster level" bonus).

UA has a good system for this.

I would also throw in: skills too granular, skill points & feats too scarce; as a minor issue. But that one is pretty easy to houserule, I don't need to spend money to consolidate the skill list or give people more skill points / feats.

The skill system definitely needed an overhaul, but PF did a decent job on that (as far as cross-class skills; I have a few issues with their skills as written).

I've never had a problem with too few feats. Matter of fact, I've always had problems finding feats to choose and I end up picking those dorky +2/+2 feats to fill the slots.

And what's this "granular" term people keep throwing around? What does that mean?

 

[NilesB]

(1) We want to increase the power level of core classes, so they match the later-released WotC Core Classes,

And I want to lengthen the meter to a length equal or greater than the foot.

The later WotC core classes are weaker than the PHB classes.

From what I've picked up - correct me if I'm wrong - this same tension is kind of running in the Pathfinder community, in regards to the Alpha/Beta rules. On the one hand, you have the folks who want to maximize compatibility and minimize any changes that would break it. On the other hand, you have folks who want to make the game play better through all levels and solve some deep-rooted issues with 3e, while still keeping its basic framework.

While I Paizo's website will not allow me to download the Pathfinder playtest documents, Many of the things I hear that Pathfinder (mainly from supporters) has changed from 3.5 do not address the issues with 3rd Edition, damaging the first goal without helping the second.

 

[Spatula]

Easy fix for turning and the spells - change it to a CR-based system instead of HD-based.

Sure, but that's a minor part of it. The BAB and saves are what causes trouble. Monsters are built with the same rules as PCs, but given more HD (far, far, more at higher levels) in order to survive the extreme offensive abilities of the players. Which results in un-winnable grapples, monsters having attack bonuses that far exceed armor classes (which is then turned into more damage via PA), and saves that are largely unbeatable.

UA has a good system for this.

Yeah, same thing, although the UA version is too harsh IMO. I would have followed the BAB progressions and done +1, +3/4, and +1/2 rather than +1, +1/2, and +1/4. In any case, UA is open content (? or at least it's in the SRD), it's better than the core rules, so... use it! Or take it and improve on it. Otherwise what's the point?

And what's this "granular" term people keep throwing around? What does that mean?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/granular
The scope of the skills is too small, given the number of skill points that you get.

 

[jensun]

And I want to lengthen the meter to a length equal or greater than the foot.

The later WotC core classes are weaker than the PHB classes.

While this is true about core classes what I took from the Beta document was that they wanted to make the core classes competative with multiple PrC'd multiclassed characters.

I dont think that they succeeded but I think that was their intent.

 

[Tervin]

My main issues with D&D 3.x are:

1. Swingy (=crits matter too much) and unfun (=not enough options for players) gameplay during low levels, making it unnecessarily difficult as a DM to run fun sessions.
2. Swingy (=saves matter too much) and clunky (=too many options for players and opponents) gameplay during high levels, making DMing a real pain.
3. Too many multiclass options too weak, others way too strong.
4. Prestige classes and feats from splat books (not mention 3pp books...)often not nearly balanced enough.
5. Bland races that really feel more like humans from another culture than separate species.
6. Creating NPCs and important monsters = way too much work.

Smaller issues:
1. Summoning, illusions and polymorph are too powerful or too much depending on DM decisions.
2. Grapple, as it is, needs to be ignored and winged - which really is easy enough to do.
3. Skills don't matter for most characters once you have decently powerful spellcasters in the party.

On the whole though, 3.x is a really good RPG. After a quick look at Pathfinder it seems like it could also be a real good RPG. Regrettably it doesn't seem to be much better at dealing with my main issues with 3.x. And the changes outisde of those things I had issues with often feel random and like that guy's homebrew that you always felt was a lot of work for no real result.

 

[delericho]

I haven't yet read the Beta - I don't like reading large blocks of text on-screen, so will wait until I can get a hard copy.

That sounds unfortunately like I had expected.

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.

Yeah, I had hoped they'd do something with these. However, I'm reasonably convinced that doing so requires a fundamental redesign of quite a lot of the underlying math, which loses all hope of backwards compatibility.

I thought WotC used the right methods in the desig of 4e (take the game apart and rebuild); it's just the results I'm not yet sold on.

2. Crunch overload

Having not yet read the Beta, I can't comment. What worried me about the Alpha, though, was that we seemed to be getting yet another round of power-creep, especially at low level (which is only going to make high level play that much worse). Since Pathfinder is primarily intended to keep the core rules in print, I would have thought just keeping the power levels the same (except where change was needed to eliminate imbalances) would have been fine.

3. Change for change's sake

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 would probably have wanted to do something with Combat Expertise (or maybe Power Attack instead). Otherwise, I agree that that should have been their mantra.