Pathfinder 1E What Direction is Pathfinder Headed In?

[joethelawyer]

I still think it is weird to dismiss so easily. Even if everything is up for review, it is still an indicator of what direction Paizo wants to take their game. Baring a collective outcry against a rule, I doubt much will be changed substantially (unless the designers do not feel a rule works after all).

Remember, there has already been a lot of feedback (Assumption, based on what I hear, since I must admit that I no longer spend any time on Paizo's boards), so I guess Paizo have made sure that their design goals coincide with at least a substantial amount of what their fans want.

I didn't mean to dismiss it. That was just my understanding/assumption of how it was supposed to work during Beta. Hence my other questions about how exactly the review and adoption process works. I just want to understand how it all works with the Beta test, and try and get some indicator of where it is going. If you're saying that most of Beta will be in tbe final version, minus tweaks, then I can use Beta as a good guide of where the game is going. Is that the gist of it?

 

[Betote]

If there are truly no substantive changes from 3.5, how is it that people can say they don't like the direction that Pathfinder is headed, in if it's essentially 3.5 with some tweaks? They are really saying they don't like 3.5, or they think the tweaks are so substantive as to be dealbreakers for them, or they wanted other tweaks. Am I missing something in their argument?

Yes, you're missing something: it's the internet. ANY change, for small it might be, it's going to face someone who'll angrily state that the've "ruined D&D forever".

I'm actively using the Beta as my new PHB and DMG bundled in one book. Changes are really small and more cosmetic than anything. Some reworking on the feats, some streamlining on the skills and a little simplification on the way combat maneuvers (trip, disarm, grapple...) work.

What's experimenting more changes is the class descriptions. They've been tweaked so each class now gains something at each level (no "orphan levels" anymore), and they've been powered up so they are not underpowered when compared to 3pp material anymore.

 

[Jack99]

I didn't mean to dismiss it. That was just my understanding/assumption of how it was supposed to work during Beta. Hence my other questions about how exactly the review and adoption process works. I just want to understand how it all works with the Beta test, and try and get some indicator of where it is going. If you're saying that most of Beta will be in tbe final version, minus tweaks, then I can use Beta as a good guide of where the game is going. Is that the gist of it?

I do not have a crystal ball, but yeah, that's what I think, yes. If anyone from Paizo reads this however, they will most likely repeat what you mentioned at first. That it is a living document, everything is up for review and nothing is set in stone.

 

[Betote]

I didn't mean to dismiss it. That was just my understanding/assumption of how it was supposed to work during Beta. Hence my other questions about how exactly the review and adoption process works. I just want to understand how it all works with the Beta test, and try and get some indicator of where it is going. If you're saying that most of Beta will be in tbe final version, minus tweaks, then I can use Beta as a good guide of where the game is going. Is that the gist of it?

If I'm not wrong, the Beta vs. Final versions of Pathfinder will be something similar to the differences between the 4e core books vs. the DDI errata updates.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If there are truly no substantive changes from 3.5, how is it that people can say they don't like the direction that Pathfinder is headed, in if it's essentially 3.5 with some tweaks? They are really saying they don't like 3.5, or they think the tweaks are so substantive as to be dealbreakers for them, or they wanted other tweaks. Am I missing something in their argument?

People have differing views on what is a "substantive" change.

I think adding a lot of spell-like abilities to spellcasters is a substantive changes. But there could be far more substantive, like moving them to a power point system or using "spell-like slots" for everyone.

There is no way to generalize how people feel about the changes - are the substantive and needed? Are the substantive and bad or at least unnecessary? Are they subtle and for the better? Subtle, yet worsening?

Personally I say they are not substantive enough to "fix" the problems I experienced. Some of them still go in the right direction or have at least the right goals, (dealing with too many buffs, trying to find ways to balance non-spellcasters and spellcasters, streamlining combat maneuvers), and some are just superflous or making things worse (Barbarian Rage Points - but apparently no longer considered for the final, IIRC; or the Paladins Lay on Hand ability changes).

But others will see things differently.

I think people that don't like the changes are either like me and saying they don't change enough substantive to make the game work better overall (and I suppose that are people that are - at least no longer - happy with 3E), or they don't like the changes because they change too much and make things worse (and are probably happy with 3E). Seems obvious, right?

 

[DaveMage]

I keep reading in other threads that people either like or don't like the direction Pathfinder is headed in. I go to the Paizo site, and all I see are discussions, nothing related to the final changes they are adopting. What are people basing their decisions on to say they either like or don't like the direction Pathfinder is headed in? Please point me to something there I may be missing.

I don't think you're missing anything. People are basing their judgements based on how much they like or don't like 3.5 as far as I can tell. (For those that don't like 3.5, most people are saying it doesn't go far enough, and for those that really like 3.5, they are saying it goes too far. Sounds like they are doing about as expected, eh? )

Also, I am one of the probably tens of thousands of people who are very interested in Pathfinder, but for whatever reason are not involved in the Beta testing and discussions. I know they have already had open discussions on many areas of the game system. Is there some sort of high level summary of what they have settled upon for changes thus far?

Not that I have seen. I think most things are still in flux, so the beta is the last document that sums up most of the proposed changes.

Lastly, what criteria are they using to determine what gets adopted and what doesn't? Let's say for example that you get 10 different ideas as to wizard familiars. By what process does an idea get adopted internally over at Paizo and make it to the final product? Is it an internal vote after discussion at company HQ? Does one guy make the decision? Does the idea have to be playtested first?

Thx

Good quesitons! Need a Paizo rep to answer these.



I'm not participating in the beta testing, since after reading through the beta, I didn't see much of anything that caused me to be concerned. Looked like mostly interesting ideas to me that will easily dovetail with 3.5. If some things don't make it in the final version, that's OK, and if all of them make it, I'll probably play it or steal what I want for my 3.5 game.

The only thing I saw in the beta that I hated was the change to the wish spell that required you have to reduce an ability score to raise another one (this seemed really, really lame to me). Of course, probably 95% of gamers will never use that spell anyway.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Fixing 3E without making it a new game is a Herculean, if not impossible, effort. That said, I think Paizo is going about it the right way. I feel comfortable stating unequivocally that no other RPG company listens to their fans and respects their opinions as much as Paizo does. Proof is in the pudding; since we've seen PF being tested by the community, WotC has jumped on such a train with its own playtest material (e.g., Barbarians).

The problem with playtesting by the community is that people have opinions, rarely are two sets of opinions identical, and the tears start flowing whenever the designers-in-charge disagree with such opinions. I'm not sure a democracy can create an RPG. We end up with too many overweight, bearded guys pulling their hair out.

WP

 

[Remathilis]

If there are truly no substantive changes from 3.5, how is it that people can say they don't like the direction that Pathfinder is headed, in if it's essentially 3.5 with some tweaks? They are really saying they don't like 3.5, or they think the tweaks are so substantive as to be dealbreakers for them, or they wanted other tweaks. Am I missing something in their argument?

Weellll....

Pathfinder is like 4e (and like 3e back in in 1997); a lot of people agreed things should be fixed/done better, but no one agrees HOW and WHAT needs to be fixed.

Pathfinder, by vowing backwards compatibility, tied one hand behind its back on fixing the major issues. They couldn't fix multi-classing, required magical gear, etc. So they glossed everything over by making everything a bit more powerful (some moreseo than others to account for initial imbalance) and added work-arounds and jury-rigs to even out the problems.

The results vary. Some people think the changes are ducky. Others think some are good, some are pointless (Rage points, why?) and others think the whole thing smells of power creep and needless tinkering.

Since no one agrees what the symptoms, let alone cures are to 3.5, its natural that some don't see Pathfinder as addressing the "issues."

 

[Kunimatyu]

Yeah, color me unimpressed with the rules changes. Increasing the "clunk" factor of 3.5, not to mention dramatically increasing the power of casters yet again just doesn't really do it for me. And where's that high-level streamlining?

Whether you like 4e or not(plenty of legit reasons to do both...), Pathfinder's attempt at solving 3.5 issues seems to prove that you actually do need to revamp the system starting from scratch if you want to fix major math issues.

 

[JeffB]

What I don't care for is that Pathfinder is ramping up the power levels of races and classes without, so far, addressing the BIG problems with 3.5 (as I see them):
1] Spellcaster multiclassing
2] Keeping track of/handling DR
3] Stacking rules
4] Reliance upon Stat-boosting magic items.
5] High-level play headaches (these include problems #2,3 & 4)

Related to the power-creep issues is the manner in which Pathfinder is redefining races in ways that are not consistant with previous incarnations of D&D (ie. no CHA penalty for 1/2 orcs and granting new ability score bonuses to races that they never had before).

Finally, I'm not digging the look of the Pathfinder. I'm not a fan of anime elements mixing with my generic fantasy game (I realize that others are and am not being derisive of their preferences).

That sums it up pretty well for me. It's 3.5 with house-rules and a worse aesthetic.

I think Paizo would be better off going back to 3.0 and cleaning house, not 3.5 and the same.