Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder: Fixing the TWF Ranger

[TheAuldGrump]

Why aren't you guys posting these ideas on the Paizo boards where the designers will actually see them?

Because the designers also come here, maybe? Take a look at past threads, and you will see that they have noted and made comments on these boards as well.

The Auld Grump

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Or because the designers are full of hubris and have already decided their ideas are the way it's gonna be, and the Alpha is not there for us to critique. It;s there for people to heap glorious praise upon. Any actual criticisms are ignored.

 

[Kaisoku]

I haven't gotten that impression at all. If anything, it's the opposite. They've made some fairly expansive changes between the Alpha releases based on the Feedback provided in threads like these.

I really can't take you seriously anymore when you continue to make posts like this.

Disliking the rules is one thing. Seeking out threads about the product to slander it like you have some vendetta grudge against it seems a bit excessive.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I'm not slandering anything. Check their message boards. A LOT of people are upset about the complete nerfing of save or die spells, yet the designers did nothing but tell us why we were wrong. Same thing with the ranger. A lot of people spoke up for the removal of the "paths" altogether and letting the ranger choose his weapon style the same way as everyone else instead of shoe horning him into one - or two - or 20 styles. Yet, at best the criticism is simply ignored, at worst we are told about our badwrong fun. Maybe it's changed, I haven't even been over there in a couple weeks or so, but that's the impression I got. I'd really, really like to support Pathfinder, but if it's to be some hybrid between 3.5 and 4e, I'll have to pass.

 

[Kaisoku]

There's a couple good threads there talking about the Backward Compatibility part of the Pathfinder goals. It really shows some of the posters feelings on the situation with Pathfinder in general.


Something to keep in mind is the original design goal they have for this product. It's right in the first section of their PDF. If you look through their goals, you'll see the reasons why sometimes they have to say no to some of the suggested changes.

And it's not like absolutely everyone agrees that X change should be made. Some do, some don't. Whether it matches the design goal of Pathfinder is a completely different issue altogether.


Lastly, we won't know exactly what they decide to do with our feedback until we see the Beta. Save or Die might be changed by then because of the stuff we suggest in the forums, who knows. Nothing is going to change right now, and the most we are going to see is Jason piping in with a "I think it should be this way, but I'm reading these, so try and convince me differently" (or words similar).

That's a heckuva lot more than I've seen compared to most other development of a game system.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

They are walking a fine line between pleasing the players and sticking to their guns. Too many changes and you won't be able to use your 3.5 splatbooks. I know for a fact that the feedback on Sorcerer bloodlines was listened to and changes were made based on the feedback.

 

[Shazman]

I'm not slandering anything. Check their message boards. A LOT of people are upset about the complete nerfing of save or die spells, yet the designers did nothing but tell us why we were wrong. Same thing with the ranger. A lot of people spoke up for the removal of the "paths" altogether and letting the ranger choose his weapon style the same way as everyone else instead of shoe horning him into one - or two - or 20 styles. Yet, at best the criticism is simply ignored, at worst we are told about our badwrong fun. Maybe it's changed, I haven't even been over there in a couple weeks or so, but that's the impression I got. I'd really, really like to support Pathfinder, but if it's to be some hybrid between 3.5 and 4e, I'll have to pass.

Are you sure you aren't getting them confused with the 4E designers? The began practically every 4E preview article talking about how x was badwrongfun in 3.5 and it was so much better in 4E. Also, many playtesters have said that their concerns about things they didn't like in the game were completely ignored. Fans have literally screamed at them about killing cosmology and lore, holding core classes and races for ransom, removing the D&D flavor of magic (vancian casting and schools) reducing customization, killing multiclassing, etc. and it fell on deaf ears. The folks at Paizo have been awfully accomodating but they have to balance player's requests with their stated design goals of keeping backwards compatability while increasing options. They have changed a whole lot more based on player feedback than WotC would ever consider doing.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Or because the designers are full of hubris and have already decided their ideas are the way it's gonna be, and the Alpha is not there for us to critique. It;s there for people to heap glorious praise upon. Any actual criticisms are ignored.

Considering that I have already seen them make changes based on comments made, I will take your plaint with a grain of rock salt.

The Auld Grump

 

[Treebore]

They should go with giving the bonus versus groups. Versus gobliniods. Versus giant types. Versus worshippers of evil deity who likes to destroy forests and sacrifice animals, etc... They took it from being too general in 1E and making it too specific in 3E.

Allowing it to be more "general" gives the character more chances to shine without locking the DM into having to throw in specific creatures to give the Ranger a time to shine. But still limits it enough that the fighter stays superior over all.

 

[Treebore]

I'm not slandering anything. Check their message boards. A LOT of people are upset about the complete nerfing of save or die spells, yet the designers did nothing but tell us why we were wrong. Same thing with the ranger. A lot of people spoke up for the removal of the "paths" altogether and letting the ranger choose his weapon style the same way as everyone else instead of shoe horning him into one - or two - or 20 styles. Yet, at best the criticism is simply ignored, at worst we are told about our badwrong fun. Maybe it's changed, I haven't even been over there in a couple weeks or so, but that's the impression I got. I'd really, really like to support Pathfinder, but if it's to be some hybrid between 3.5 and 4e, I'll have to pass.

I think its more of a matter of saying "NO" to people who think they are game designers. The Paizo crew sees the whole picture, because they have the whole picture. They have to keep things backwards compatible. They have to keep the whole Pathfinder thing from just being a big power up supplement.

So I'll just trust them with Pathfinder like I trusted them to deliver on the various adventures they have written.