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

[Spatula]

I think that's a good summation, Remathilis. Frankly I don't see a lot of backwards compatibility anyway (re-writing and power boosting all the base classes pretty much invalidates any non-PF classed NPC statblock), so why not go ahead and make some worthwhile fixes. I don't need to buy new hardcovers for a collection of minor houserules. If you want to spend money on that sort of thing, I'm glad that PF is out there for that market. But I lament what could have been - a version of 3e minus the serious flaws that bog down play.

 

[BryonD]

I think that's a good summation, Remathilis. Frankly I don't see a lot of backwards compatibility anyway (re-writing and power boosting all the base classes pretty much invalidates any non-PF classed NPC statblock), so why not go ahead and make some worthwhile fixes. I don't need to buy new hardcovers for a collection of minor houserules. If you want to spend money on that sort of thing, I'm glad that PF is out there for that market. But I lament what could have been - a version of 3e minus the serious flaws that bog down play.

It strikes me as pretty much saying that the game intended for people who prefer apples to oranges could be improved by substituting oranges in for the apples.


Seriously, I see it as totally sensible that a perception of incompatibility and a concern with getting bogged down in 3E would come from the same source. If you don't like apples, or you simply find them to challenging to eat, then please, don't try to tell us how to make better apple pie.

 

[BryonD]

This seems like a place where the example of band-aids verse removal of a small wart from the back of the thigh would be an apt example.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Spatula]

It strikes me as pretty much saying that the game intended for people who prefer apples to oranges could be improved by substituting oranges in for the apples.

Seriously, I see it as totally sensible that a perception of incompatibility and a concern with getting bogged down in 3E would come from the same source. If you don't like apples, or you simply find them to challenging to eat, then please, don't try to tell us how to make better apple pie.

Errr, I'm a big fan of 3e. But the game bogs down at higher levels and becomes a chore to DM for. If you feel the game is fine as-is and you don't think it has any serious flaws, then why do you need PF to begin with?

 

[freyar]

Errr, I'm a big fan of 3e. But the game bogs down at higher levels and becomes a chore to DM for. If you feel the game is fine as-is and you don't think it has any serious flaws, then why do you need PF to begin with?

To smooth out a few parts, hopefully to make it run a little better at high levels, etc. But most importantly to keep the game rules in print for the APs. Isn't that what Paizo has said they wanted all along?

 

[AllisterH]

I'm not sure that PF Cleave is any good.

D&D doesn't use the "spiral of death" mechanic thus as another poster alluded to it is always better to focus your full attack on a single opponent til their downed, THEN attack another creature.

If this was Alternity,yeah, that would be a nice feat/option. Not so sure in 3E.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I'm not sure that PF Cleave is any good.

D&D doesn't use the "spiral of death" mechanic thus as another poster alluded to it is always better to focus your full attack on a single opponent til their downed, THEN attack another creature.

If this was Alternity,yeah, that would be a nice feat/option. Not so sure in 3E.

It's a risky tactic to be sure. At its most basic level, it makes Cleave and Great Cleave more useful. I'm not positive that they improved it for the express purpose of using it to fix iterative attacks. From my understanding, it's more the answer to the wizard spells that affect a number of targets at once, like fireball.

Their answer to iterative attacks being useless is Vital Strike and Improved Vital Strike, which allow you to multiply weapon damage if you only swing once. The only other fix that I can come up with to fix iterative attacks is to decrease the attack bonus difference between your first attack and subsequent ones. If you make it a -2 or -3 instead of a -5, those attacks are no longer useless in most cases.

 

[Stormtower]

Yeah, so... Pathfinder Beta. Caveat: I'm aware that BETA means it's not finished. Further, I love Paizo's adventures and I'm rooting for them to succeed with PF.

I really wanted to like this product (and I am a Charter Subscriber, owning every Pathfinder book & adventure published to date), but as many others have said it doesn't address the issues I have with 3.X, while adding even more power creep and unnecessary bookkeeping.

Rage and Ki points: thumbs down, we need LESS bookkeeping, not more.

Failure to fix multiclassing progression for casters. Failure to address wizard, cleric and druid superiority vs. other base classes.

Failure to address skill scaling, as others have detailed.

Changes to working subsystems (cleave, etc.) for the sake of change, invalidating existing 3.5 material and requiring new rote memorization of rules. Again, this slows down play.

I truly believe the best option for Paizo is to give up on publishing its own ruleset for 3.X and just concentrate on writing their superior-quality adventure paths and setting books. Golarion is a fabulously detailed world already, and I appreciate its commitment to multiethnic and multicultural social structures. IMO no one in the industry is even close to Paizo when it comes to art direction, production values and pure flavor/ambiance.

However much I love Golarion and the GameMastery adventures, I will never convert my own 3.X games to Pathfinder. I will loyally purchase and utilize the setting books, adventures, Harrow Deck-type products, etc. but I have absolutely no use for a "3.75" iteration of D&D. I am a 4E supporter (after initially being a severe skeptic) and a 3.5 legacy supporter as well. Both games have a place at my table and on my shelf. Pathfinder The Game (as opposed to Pathfinder The Setting) has no place there, as I do not wish to re-learn a clunky and incorrectly fixed version of 3.5.

So I will run all the Pathfinder stuff in my own lightly houseruled 3.5, and in all likelihood will not get involved in the Pathfinder Society... which is rather a shame in many respects. Paizo makes awesome, fantastic products but after reading and testing the alpha, and reading through the beta, I am not seeing a cleaner, faster, more balanced game than 3.5.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Fixed that for you.

"Fixed that for you" might be okay for CM, but not EN World, BryonD.

Did you ignore that Remathilis might actually be able to see your point of view, too.

For some, a band-aid was all that was necessary (if even that) but many others were left the impression of lipstick on a pig; they might have changed X, Y, and Z, but in the end its still the same pig.

He just has a different point of view. That doesn't mean that you're an idiot for liking Pathfinder, while Remathilis does not. So, no need to "fix posts"...

 

[La Bete]

Rage and Ki points: thumbs down, we need LESS bookkeeping, not more.
.

While I would normally agree with you, there's an arguement that a good part of PF's audience is "gearheads", as they may be less likely to move to 4e at this stage, and thus are looking for a 3.75 system.

For that audience, more subsystems aren't a bad thing in and of themselves...

On an unrelated note, is there a concise statement anywhere from Paizo about what they were looking to achieve with PF? Especially at the start of the playtest process?