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

[Sunderstone]

Which translates I think into the reality that those who have the biggest problems with 3e are going to end up not liking Pathfinder RPG and those who advocate radical overhauls of the basic system are going to be the ones least likely to be listened to.

This is an important point imho. Radical overhauls wont work. High level play is a large part of the game and a complete overhaul probably will not happen unless they totally break backward compatibility. This will defeat the whole purpose, ymmv.

They are tweaking smaller things here and there that will help at high level play, even simple skill consolidation lessens the amount of rolls needed which in turn will speed up rounds slightly etc.

As for other things like class changes, this is an improvement. Some people I know didnt see much of a point to roll a Sorcerer over a Wizard, and I agree (ymmv). Now the Sorcerer looks fun to play and has a stronger reason for being. Even our player that loves half-orc Barbarians (abit too much ) is itching to try the new version.

Improved starting hp, new hd. Yeah, its a simple change but helps address a major gripe players had about low level mortality. A subtle and elegant tweak. I had a "wtf, why didnt I ever do that" moment when I first read it.

So they are improving 3.5 and keeping it compatible with older 3.5 books. People seem to not get this around this forum in particular.

And Yes, if you didnt like 3.5, chances are you might not like the Pathfinder changes either Beta or otherwise. Thats perfectly ok, you were not the target audience. Some fence-sitters may see a few good things and switch back etc. YMMV.

The Paizo staff are great designers, but they arent miracle workers. They dont even have to be. For us 3.5 folks the game is not broken, it could use some refinements here and there. That's what Paizo is giving us.

P.S. the 15 minute day doesnt exist for my group either. Most of my players treat magic as a rare and powerful thing and dont blow all their spells in the first encounter, especially not at low level.

 

[Sunderstone]

I humbly suggest that any game that breaks unless players do X, Y and Z every time is not a game with the sort of flexibility and expansive nature that RPGs are said to have.

I'm not talking about a group that's made up of cloistered clerics wandering into the Tomb of Horrors. There needs to be more give in the system than saying "well, of course you died, you didn't have a cleric!"

That goes for any game. Even 4E's explicitly role-based system is better, since the "leader" role can be taken on by clerics or warlords (and soon, other classes), and they play quite differently, which means that someone at the table doesn't "lose" and is forced to play the cleric in order for the game not to break.

You are a warcraft fan, as am I. So let me put it in other words. You dont send 5 squishies into Shattered Halls and expect them to get very far.

Being free to play whatever you want is still there and it doesnt break the game at all. Most adventures are written for a balanced group. If your players like playing all casters for example, by all means create your own adventure that caters to them and their playstyle. The actual game forces nothing on you. You can make whatever adventure you want.

3.5 is not broken in this aspect. 3.5 dm's can design similar adventures for a mostly or all caster party.

sigh.

 

[Stalker0]

After reading the beta is depth, here are my thoughts.

1) In general, I love the classes and races. Full of options and flavor, and every class has options all the way up to 20th. They have also given melee classes a lot more to do at high levels.

2) The art is great. I like 4e art as well, but this has a unique flavor all its own.

3) I'll echo what many have said that the beta doesn't look much different from the alpha. The CMB mechanic is great, but 15+ CMB as a defense means special techniques are garbage against everyone but someone weaker than you, and for those you might as well just kill them. Some of the feats are worse than 3.5:

1) Cleave. Cleave is weaker in pathfinder. In 3.5, its a bonus added on to your normal array of attacks. In pathfinder, I have to give up my iterative attacks to get cleave, and I can't use it on a charge. Its almost always better to focus your damage on one target instead of spreading it out.
2) Combat Expertise: This was a fine feat in 3.5, a good option if you wanted to play a smart fighter, and capped at +5 to prevent abuses. Now the feat requires such a high int to be useful...that none of the classes that would want it can use it.
3) Dodge: A swear, there is a voodoo curse on all game designers that prevents them from just making dodge a +1 dodge bonus to AC. People have been houseruling the feat for 8 years with no problems. People have constantly complained that they have players who can never remember their dodge bonus. Its not overpowered in the slightest to make it a straight up +1...so just do it already!!

4) High level play doesn't look that different on paper. Melee classes are still highly dependent on magic items to handle invisibility, resistances, walls of force, flying creatures etc. Its still a buff fest, and by extension, a dispel magic fest. There are still tons of attacks and number to calculate, slowing the game to a crawl.

However, that is a paper analysis. There are a lot of little changes, so perhaps playtesting would show that I am wrong, but from right now I'm skeptical.

And lastly, let me say.....GO NEW SERVER FUNDRAISER!! My longer and much more time consuming post was eaten by the server monster, so I'm hoping this one gets through.

 

[Sunderstone]

And lastly, let me say.....GO NEW SERVER FUNDRAISER!! My longer and much more time consuming post was eaten by the server monster, so I'm hoping this one gets through.

Ive beaten that monster on several boards!
Highlight all the text, right click, copy then submit the post. If it gets eaten, paste and post again.

 

[helium3]

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.

Heh heh. I managed to pull this off and it worked fairly well. Though honestly I never got to playtest it as well as I would have liked.

But yeah. The difficulty experienced when trying to change a fundamental mechanic is pretty extreme in 3E. That being said, it CAN be done.

 

[Remathilis]

If you haven't encountered this as a "real" problem, have someone DM you and a standard-sized level 2 group through even a small dungeon, and have the DM do all the stuff you're suggesting. Either the DM has to rewrite the dungeon with sub-level 2 threats, you're going to stop and rest, or your characters will suffer a lot of casualties.

I'm with ya Dusty.

I ran Expedition to Castle Ravenloft in Eberron. Regular 3.5 rules (no houserules, cept those that Eberron adds) with the following party...

1.) Human Wizard/Cataclysm Mage (Arcane Caster)
2.) Halfling Artificer (Buffer, Trap Finder)
3.) Elf Ranger/Fighter/Reverant Blade* (Melee)
4.) Human Cleric/Warlock/Eldrich Disciple* (Healing, Ranged Touch)
5.) Warforged Fighter/Cleric/Exorcist of the Silver Flame (Melee, Healing)

PCs between 7th-9th level.

* Replacement PCs, the first was a feytouched warlock who died of zombie plague, the other was a drow ranger who died by Stahd's hand.


Not a optimized party, but balanced. All roles covered. However during the course of the adventure...

1.) They had to rest frequently because combat took a lot out of them. They had to rely heavily on ghost-touched items (which were not the warrior's focused wpns) buffs, and force magic to defeat the numerous spectral undead. Both drained resources very quickly. It was common for the group to go only two rooms before resting.

2.) The multi-classing of the two clerics meant neither was high enough to cast restoration, neutralize poison, or raise dead. As a result, many PCs suffered though lingering negative status ailments (level drain, poison) which forced them again to retire early.

3.) PC deaths, as mentioned, were high. Two, which is my record for mid-level D&D.

4.) The artificer, who didn't max out his ranks in Search/Disable Device, often meant the team blundered into or set off nearly every trap Strahd placed in the Castle. More Resting.

5.) Eventually, another player and an NPC (fighter, cleric) joined the group to aid the otherwise floundering group, but at the cost of bringing the group to SEVEN PCs!

6.) The game crawled though as the group spent nearly 2 weeks of game time (and x4 as long real time) finding Strahd and stopping him. Glad Strahd was in no hurry to get rid of them, because He could've TPK'd the group at any moment after almost any encounter in the damn castle!

As a DM, I had to treat the game very liberally if I wanted them to survive! They weren't min-maxers, they had good solid characters, but Castle Ravenloft required multiple rest/return/rest again travel into the Castle and there was no way (even with reserve feats) to get around it.

That is the 15 min workday, IMO. And it sucked the atmosphere out of an otherwise awesome module.

 

[Rechan]

I believe it was Erik Mona who at one point came out and said that they were aiming for a certain market and if you had a problem with Alignment and Vancian Magic, you were not the target audience and would not like the end result.

And I believe the issues being discussed in this thread are not related to Vancian or Alignment. Instead the discussion has been of High level play, DM workload, troublesome subsystems, and the flaws of some of the changes (Cleave, Rage points).

So is Mona going to listen to criticism of these?

 

[WayneLigon]

1. Failure to address core issues

Given that one major objection people seem to voice for 4E is that it's 'not D&D', and backwards compatability being a large factor in many Pathfinder design decisions (since as of now, Pathfinder is the de facto 3.5 Edition D&D), I'm not sure how you can deliver on that and still address those two things. To fix - really fix - most of 3E's most commonly-named major problems requires an edition re-write. I don't see a way to get around that, at all.

My take is that Pathfinder is meant to fix and change enough stuff to make it worth the while of purchasing it instead of staying with the 3.5 books. It will be supported by a company, which in my purely anecdotal observances means that gamers will play it - my experience is that people do not play systems where New Stuff isn't coming out, no matter how good that system is. (Thus, my comment that for all intents and purposes, Pathfinder is 3.5, now).

 

[Sunderstone]

I'm with ya Dusty.


PCs between 7th-9th level.


Not a optimized party, but balanced. All roles covered. However during the course of the adventure...


2.) The multi-classing of the two clerics meant neither was high enough to cast restoration, neutralize poison, or raise dead. As a result, many PCs suffered though lingering negative status ailments (level drain, poison) which forced them again to retire early.

4.) The artificer, who didn't max out his ranks in Search/Disable Device, often meant the team blundered into or set off nearly every trap Strahd placed in the Castle. More Resting.

5.) Eventually, another player and an NPC (fighter, cleric) joined the group to aid the otherwise floundering group, but at the cost of bringing the group to SEVEN PCs! [/QUOTE]

This doesnt show a very balanced party, maybe in name only.

You said it yourself the original cleric wasnt high enough in level to cast what was needed to overcome specific obstacles. At lvls 7-9 he already had 3 classes under his belt. How many classes was he shooting for? It looks like the warforged was heading along the same route.

I dont know much about the Artificer class but if its trapfinding is normally lower than a rogue and/or the class doent give as much skill points, then its the same thing.

Half healers/trapfinders etc. in Castle Ravenloft.
Your adding a 7th npc, a Cleric, was proof that it wasnt well balance to begin with. 7 characters is too much regardless.

As a DM, I had to treat the game very liberally if I wanted them to survive! They weren't min-maxers, they had good solid characters, but Castle Ravenloft required multiple rest/return/rest again travel into the Castle and there was no way (even with reserve feats) to get around it.

That is the 15 min workday, IMO. And it sucked the atmosphere out of an otherwise awesome module.

Im currently playing in the same campaign (see sig) with only 4 characters (im the Rogue btw) at level 8 and that NPC Paladin who I believe is one level below us. We are having no trouble whatsoever (beyond the fact that I may be howling by the next full moon ).

 

[Rechan]

1. Failure to address core issues

Given that one major objection people seem to voice for 4E is that it's 'not D&D', and backwards compatability being a large factor in many Pathfinder design decisions (since as of now, Pathfinder is the de facto 3.5 Edition D&D), I'm not sure how you can deliver on that and still address those two things.

I really, really don't want to get into an argument about "What makes D&D", but I do not believe that the things which are attributed to it "Not being D&D" have to do with high level play, DM prep, or multi-classing spellcasters.

The 4e aspects that seem to get the "Not D&D to me" are:
1) Necessitating a game board.
2) Encounter and Daily powers for non-magical characters.
3) All the classes "behaving the same", all combat spells do damage, etc.
4) Over-emphasis on roles (a fighter can't wield a bow or two weapons effectively), making it come across as World of Warcraft.
5) Magic being the same (Does damage, maybe a status effect), and no real creative use of spells.