Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4428515" data-attributes="member: 710">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 EffectsThe 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?)</blockquote>

Verification