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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Glassjaw exactly hit the points my group and I already noted in the Alpha.

We playtested the Alpha in our Savage Tides campaign and in the second Rise of the Runelords campaign, both decisions made by the respective DMs, and agreed upon from the rest - we like testing out new systems, and Pathfinder promised a breath of fresh air (and this promise was hold.)

But the ST DM noticed that the game was still a lot of work to prepare for and run. It didn't fix any of our issues with the system. The new stuff was entertaining to try out, but ultimately irrelevant for its long-term sustainability.

I really don't know how I should "judge" Paizo design skills. I remember that a few monsters we fought in the adventure paths that were pretty unbalanced, but I don't know if that was always their fault or they were just using wizard source books with broken monsters and templates.

So, I was still very curious about the Beta and what changes would be done there. Again, I am mostly underwhelmed. There are a few new neat subsystems that I am certain of are interesting to a lot of the Pathfinder fans (Ki Points, Rage Points, the new Lay on Hands mechanics) - but personally, I dislike them. They are subsystems that just don't make the game any easier to run or to play. From my perspective, it's just a kind of "rules bloat".

Looking at the game system, I see that they are quite capable of creating new rule systems and also explaining them. But they don't feel well integrated into the game system - they are just subsystems, internally consistent, but not strongly related to the rest of the system. They are mini-games that you have to master.
In a way, they are just a "mini-game" that you have to learn and have little relation to the rest. I don't see that as a positive thing. I think good rules design should lead to easily learnable and useable rules. But on the other hand, I have the impression that other people thing very differently on that, and _want_ these diverse subsystems. So maybe it is just a personal preference in the end.

But for me it also points to one conclusion:
If you want to "fix" 3.5 so that it is easier to run for a DM and keeps working at high levels, you have to throw such subsystems out.

---
Another thing I wonder about is the matter of buff/debuff interaction. I think this was one of the "worst" aspects that made high level play so cumbersome for player and DMs alike.
You have to keep in mind
- Stacking Rules
- Durations
- Side Effects
The side effects are particularly annoying: +4 to Consitution gets you 2 hit points per level, +2 to fortitude save, and +2 to Concentration. Sound easy. Now "add" 3 points of constitution damage (is my score even or uneven?) and 1d8+5 temporary hit points (You ate your "Heroes Feast", didn't you?). What's with the Bards Inspire Greatness.
Or worse, do that for your strength while wielding a two-handed sword power-attacking with changing values.
It always resulted in writing up combat matrixes at least for attack rolls and AC. It is an interesting emergent feature of the rules - no where is it written down that you could describe your attack values in such a matrix, and I wonder if it shouldn't be added as a suggestion for high level play...
Unfortunately, the matrix is not perfect - you can't account for the ability damage/drain/enervation/ray of enfeeblement effects in it, and there's _always_ some effect you miss. (Wait, we have someone that grants a +3 luck bonus? What, sometimes your Inspire Courage bonus is higher then +2?)

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

The bard's caster level, FYI, is actually closer to +2/3.

I favor some variation on this solution, by the way-- but I'm still working on it.

But the ST DM noticed that the game was still a lot of work to prepare for and run. It didn't fix any of our issues with the system. The new stuff was entertaining to try out, but ultimately irrelevant for its long-term sustainability.

I really hope Paizo is listening.

I really don't know how I should "judge" Paizo design skills. I remember that a few monsters we fought in the adventure paths that were pretty unbalanced, but I don't know if that was always their fault or they were just using wizard source books with broken monsters and templates.

Hey, I'm willing to stick my neck out here: Paizo has great design skills when it comes to the creative side. They need help on the implementation. They've hired Sean K. Reynolds full-time. Hopefully that's the fix.

There are a few new neat subsystems that I am certain of are interesting to a lot of the Pathfinder fans (Ki Points, Rage Points, the new Lay on Hands mechanics) - but personally, I dislike them. They are subsystems that just don't make the game any easier to run or to play. From my perspective, it's just a kind of "rules bloat".

Yes.

Looking at the game system, I see that they are quite capable of creating new rule systems and also explaining them. But they don't feel well integrated into the game system - they are just subsystems, internally consistent, but not strongly related to the rest of the system. They are mini-games that you have to master.

Well there you go. That was a fair judgment after all.

 

[Wicht]

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

The fifteen minute workday has never been a major problem in my group because our casters are normally willing to use alternate forms of attacks at low levels and rarely run out of spells at high level. An anecdote of one group who does stop every 15 minutes is meaningless unless you can show that every group does the same in that same dungeon. My group of players, at 2nd level, cleared out Thistletop in 2 days of in-game time. That really doesn't prove anything though except that my group hates to stop and take breaks IC.

As for a substantive response...

The pathfinder rules make the following changes which greatly help
1) Clerics can now channel positive energy which reduces their reliance on healing spells.
2) Casters now have a short range attack that is always 'on.'
3) Hitpoints have been increased for several classes.
4) Casters have unlimited 0 level spells. Daze in particular is almost always a good low level choice now.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The fifteen minute workday has never been a major problem in my group because our casters are normally willing to use alternate forms of attacks at low levels and rarely run out of spells at high level. An anecdote of one group who does stop every 15 minutes is meaningless unless you can show that every group does the same in that same dungeon. My group of players, at 2nd level, cleared out Thistletop in 2 days of in-game time. That really doesn't prove anything though except that my group hates to stop and take breaks IC.

I think it's helpful to just analyze how the 15 minute adventure day sprang into being and see if this can be addressed. It is understood that not every group faced this problem, but that doesn't mean that it's not also a fault of the system to support this.
Well, WotC certainly did analyze it, many EN World posters did on these boards, and I think the factors that lead to it are mostly understood by those that cared about the issue. I don't think the issue needs to be debated again, unless someone "new to the party" wants to know...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Well, WotC certainly did analyze it, many EN World posters did on these boards, and I think the factors that lead to it are mostly understood by those that cared about the issue. I don't think the issue needs to be debated again, unless someone "new to the party" wants to know...

There's no question that it's a problem. It's an objective assessment.

Creating a mechanic that limits certain powers to "daily" use CAN create odd artifacts of play that break verisimilitude.

The degree to which that artifact is apparent varies from group to group.

(My opinion is that more groups experience it, and have a problem with it, than not.)

 

[Rechan]

There's no question that it's a problem. It's an objective assessment.

Creating a mechanic that limits certain powers to "daily" use CAN create odd artifacts of play that break verisimilitude.

The problem though is that, aside from the rogue's sneak attacking, and the ranger/fighter combat abilities, everything in 3e is based on daily powers.

Barbarian rage.
Monk's Stunning Fist.
Bard Song/Spells.
Cleric Turning/Spells.
Wizard/Sor spells.
Druid Wildshape/Spells.

 

[Phlebas]

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.

from what i read on the paizo boards everyone there is well aware of the target audience - its people who basically like 3,5e, and don't think its broken, but are happy to have a few tweaks to improve the play.

with due respect to the OP & others here who have highlighted major things that they would like fixed, PFRPG was never going to tear it up and start again. it was only ever going to be a series of minor changes with (hopefully) cumulative improvements on the play experience.

I've DM'd a few playtests at various levels (1,4,6,8,14) just using 3,5e monsters and NPC's - and i do think they've made good on a lot of their goals including being able to use 3e stuff with minimal conversion. Is it the finished article? No - one year to go for that - but we all now have an opportunity to influence the final result. So post on paizo and let your opinion be heard!

(this threads reminds me of a lot of the conversations on the paizo boards in the early alpha days when everyone highlighted their own houserules with the assumption that PF would fix 'everything'. and then complained when it changed something they liked, and then complained when it didn't change something they disliked. I think Jason and the Paizo team have done wonders so far walking that tightrope and I do have high hopes for the final version)

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

It does occur to me to wonder, though, if every ruleset is doomed to disappoint the majority of those who play it .... it seems like every one is unsatisfactory in many major ways in the opinion of many, many gamers, and the efforts to fix it are likewise detestable in every conceivable way.

I'm not sure if Paizo's final version is going to be improved by the feedback they get -- I mean if every change and every non-change is complained about in detail, then how are they going to pick out what to change? If there's something wrong with everything about the game, whether it's left unaltered or is altered, then how are they going to make a rational improvement other than by tossing the entire system?

 

[Gundark]

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?

Give it a chance, tell Paizo what you like and what you don't and enjoy the game in the spirit with which it is intended....something to playtest and not something to grouse about.



Wyrmshadows

Yes, but aren't things like this feedback? Shouldn't Paizo be paying attention to threads like this too and take note? A review of the game (beta or not) should give the designers feedback.


That said I'm interested in seeing what Green Ronin could put out for a fantasy game. He (Chris Pramas) was musing a while back on a non d20 "with D&D feel" game he would eventually like to do.

 

[Mort]

I think this post (below) is spot on. Pathfinder is aiming for 3.5 but better - not a whole new game. Expecting, for example, Pathfinder to fix the inequality of casters v. non-casters after mid level may be a bit much because it is so ingrained in the system (though WoTC did it with Bo9S; at least as far as combat).

That said I was disappointed with some things in the Beta, such as no increase in skill points. It just makes sense to me to give all classes a blanket 2-4 extra skill points to ramp up skill usage (and lessen the fact that it's completely overshadowed by magic). This only presents minor backwards compatibility issues while (imo) helping play experience.

from what i read on the paizo boards everyone there is well aware of the target audience - its people who basically like 3,5e, and don't think its broken, but are happy to have a few tweaks to improve the play.

with due respect to the OP & others here who have highlighted major things that they would like fixed, PFRPG was never going to tear it up and start again. it was only ever going to be a series of minor changes with (hopefully) cumulative improvements on the play experience.

I've DM'd a few playtests at various levels (1,4,6,8,14) just using 3,5e monsters and NPC's - and i do think they've made good on a lot of their goals including being able to use 3e stuff with minimal conversion. Is it the finished article? No - one year to go for that - but we all now have an opportunity to influence the final result. So post on paizo and let your opinion be heard!

(this threads reminds me of a lot of the conversations on the paizo boards in the early alpha days when everyone highlighted their own houserules with the assumption that PF would fix 'everything'. and then complained when it changed something they liked, and then complained when it didn't change something they disliked. I think Jason and the Paizo team have done wonders so far walking that tightrope and I do have high hopes for the final version)