Pathfinder Beta opinions

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:34 pm

So what do you think?

Now, other than the fact that Paizo cannot truly "fix" 3E without rewriting it from the ground up, and therefore destroy any compatibility with 3E, I like it.

I think "powering up" the core classes is a good thing. PrC's and multi classing are good options because of how weak the Core Classes are in comparison. These "power ups" will hopefully encourage more people to actually play a Core Class all the way.

I like the Rage and Ki points, but it does increase the paper work for playing them.

I really like the redoing of the skills and do see a couple of places I wish they would go even further.

They haven't fixed the "15 minute work day", but like I have said elsewhere, that is easy to address. Change the "8 hours+" resting requirement to 2 or 4 hour increments. There, fixed it.

They haven't fixed multi classing either. I personally never had a problem with it. Worked best out of every version I have seen and I couldn't think of a better way to do it. So its never been an issue with me.

I also like how Paizo spent more time (words) trying to fully explain skills, combat maneuvers, etc... I am not sure if it will actually cut down on confusion for new players, but I appreciate and like the effort.

I really wish Paizo had gone full out on "gutsy move" and rewrote 3E from the ground up, because that is the only way a lot of issues with 3E will be fixed, especially prep time and high level play issues, but for what they are able to do, and still maintain a decent amount of backwards compatibility (yes, despite claims to the contrary it is very compatible. Down load the PDF and read their recommendations. Its not hard.)

Of course the biggest thing to make PF backwards compatible is to decide if you like PF better then 3E, on the whole. If you like PF, and make it your new core, then compatibility becomes even easier. Which is what I would do if I were to ever start playing 3E again, make Pathfinder my Core. They didn't fix everything, but its an over all improvement in my book.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:32 pm

My thoughts?

Meh.

Yeah, they made some changes but it is still 3e which only leaves me luke-warm about it at best. I may pick up the printed version of the Beta to give it a further look since I can't stand doing substantial readiing on the computer.

I wish they would have gone 4e though, they lost my subscriptions due to sticking with 3e. Their stuff is good, I'm just tired of converting 3e stuff to other systems.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:58 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
My thoughts?

Meh.

Yeah, they made some changes but it is still 3e which only leaves me luke-warm about it at best. I may pick up the printed version of the Beta to give it a further look since I can't stand doing substantial readiing on the computer.

I wish they would have gone 4e though, they lost my subscriptions due to sticking with 3e. Their stuff is good, I'm just tired of converting 3e stuff to other systems.

Well, I am not thrilled with 4E either, so 3E works fine for me. Plus I am so used to converting it I find it so easy to do I just do it in my head.

Tis a shame your sold on 4E. The Pathfinder stuff is great. I didn't like the second Pathfinder path so much, but the other stuff they've released? Good stuff! Even the second Path was "good", but Runelords has a couple of notches of "better".

Still, even if I would go 4E I would still buy it. There have been many modules where I used the maps, the ideas, and just ran with it. PF has certainly been good enough for me to use in that manner at the very least.

Oh well. We all have tough decisions to make.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:19 pm

I do think it was a positive change to reduce the skill list, combining a few of the skills. Stealth and Perception especially.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:53 pm

I think I would also like to see them go with the "Athletics" idea too. Combine Swim, Climb, etc... under that.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:46 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
My thoughts?

Meh.

Yeah, they made some changes but it is still 3e which only leaves me luke-warm about it at best. I may pick up the printed version of the Beta to give it a further look since I can't stand doing substantial readiing on the computer.

I wish they would have gone 4e though, they lost my subscriptions due to sticking with 3e. Their stuff is good, I'm just tired of converting 3e stuff to other systems.

How did I expect this reply? Spoken like a true 4E fanboy.
I'm just messing with you, DD.

On a more serious note, I'm of the opinion that I'm glad they didn't go the 4e route. It pains me to admit, but I know 4e will dominate the market in time (I don't know why, exactly, but I digress). However, 3.x is still a very viable market - so much so that, even on highly bias 4E sites such as ENWorld, there's still a good percentage of people sticking with 3.x. I'm glad at least one company had the cajones to stand up to WotC, realize that there was still a market for 3.x, and do carry through their decision.

I'm liking Pathfinder, a lot, as the successor to 3.x. I've downloaded the beta release, but haven't looked at it yet. I have examined the Alpha releases, and I think it's a great system. I guess "successor" was the wrong term, though. I think Pathfinder should be judged on its own merits. On it's own, I think it's a great system. I do agree with Treebore about writing it from the ground up, but only in the respect that would allow it to be better judged as a seperate system, not an extension of 3.x. While I do like the backwards compatibility, I'm not sure if it's association to 3.x hurts it on a whole (it doesn't to me, but that's beside the point).

Treebore wrote:
They haven't fixed the "15 minute work day", but like I have said elsewhere, that is easy to address. Change the "8 hours+" resting requirement to 2 or 4 hour increments. There, fixed it.

Do you think this is a problem of the system, Treebore? I may have a crazy view of things, but I never saw the "5 (or 15) minute workday" as a problem with the system - especially in 3.x. I always thought that blowing all your spells in the first encounters of the day was usually the fault of the player, not the system. I think that the low amount of spells early was the dues spellcasters had to pay for power later in the game.

Go0gleplex · Post by **Go0gleplex** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:08 pm

I checked out the Pathfinder Beta also...but I have to admit to not being overly impressed. It's a beautifully laid out piece of work...and the art is cool....but the mechanics just left me flat. Probably just cause there's so much text to wade through in a sitting.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:08 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
How did I expect this reply? Spoken like a true 4E fanboy.

Not so much as a 4e fanboy, but a 3e anti-fan.
I love their creative work, I just have always abhorred 3e. I was running RotR with C&C.

Pathfinder has some interesting changes to it, and if I were to run 3e for some reason, it'd be with Pathfinder.

I wish those official C&C conversions would have eventually come through.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:37 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Not so much as a 4e fanboy, but a 3e anti-fan.

Nothing wrong with that. I don't want to come off as a 3e fanboy (because, believe me, I know some of the 3e offerings were on the crappy side), it's just that between the two, I like 3e better. And, honestly, I like some of the fluff that's coming, especially Manual of the Planes.

Quote:
I was running RotR with C&C.

I haven't run that. How is it? It looks good, on paper, but how was it in practice?

Quote:
Pathfinder has some interesting changes to it, and if I were to run 3e for some reason, it'd be with Pathfinder.

See, that's what I think is a major problem. If you (not you specifically, DD, but anyone) can disassociate it from 3.x, especially if you don't particularly care for 3.x, then I think it will hold more merit. Now if you can't, or believe that Pathfinder has the same problems that 3.x has, then there's no way to do that. I think Pathfinder is different enough to be able to do that, but YMMV.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:50 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
I haven't run that. How is it? It looks good, on paper, but how was it in practice?

It was pretty good. We had a great time with it, but the group had some dynamic issues and dissolved before we finished the AP.

Quote:
See, that's what I think is a major problem. If you (not you specifically, DD, but anyone) can disassociate it from 3.x, especially if you don't particularly care for 3.x, then I think it will hold more merit. Now if you can't, or believe that Pathfinder has the same problems that 3.x has, then there's no way to do that. I think Pathfinder is different enough to be able to do that, but YMMV.

Pathfinder does look to fix some things associated with 3e, but, it appears to remain 3e which is an unwieldy, clunky system that irritates the hell outta me.

ssfsx17 · Post by **ssfsx17** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:59 pm

My quick review:

If you hate 3e, Pathfinder is not going to change your mind. It's oriented towards fans of 3e.

If you don't mind hacking through ungodly amounts of modifiers and situational bonuses, Pathfinder is better than the core player's handbook. As a high-power-level variant of D&D, I find it far less abhorrent to my sensibilities than 4e.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:42 am

I know a lot of people are calling the PAthfinder Core Classes over powered. However, all I have to do is remember a few PRC's to realize what "over powered" is, and those PRC's were done by WOTC.

I would much rather deal with a 15th level Pathfinder Paladin then a 3E Paladin/Inquisitor with 15 levels.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:47 am

For the core Pathfinder Rulebook I do not think the classes are overpowered if just this book is used. If you start combining with older v3.5 releases, then yes the classes are more powerful then their earlier counterparts. As the way classes are presented now, I like them a lot.

The Pathfinder game is just as complicated as and cumbersome as v3.5. So if you are looking for something a tad bit more streamlined or rules-lite, then Pathfinder will not be for you.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:54 pm

Omote wrote:
The Pathfinder game is just as complicated as and cumbersome as v3.5. So if you are looking for something a tad bit more streamlined or rules-lite, then Pathfinder will not be for you.

-O

Yep. I think to do that they would have to totally rewrite from the ground up, and lose all (easy) compatibility with 3E. Personally I think they may actually do it some day. I just wish it was right now.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:15 pm

There is no doubt about the rewrite. In the beginning or end of Pathfinder Beta this is explicitly mentioned. I do not have the book in front of me, but basically what is said that all products being produced now will be peferctly compatible with v3.5. After the release of thePathfinder RPG in August of 2009, the products will be shifted over to fit the current Pathfinder Rules.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:25 pm

Though v3.5 and Pathfinder's "FantasyPunk" style of gaming are not my favs per se, I do end up playing a good amount of v3.5. With the release of Pathfinder, I have to say that what Jason Buhlman did with the classes is amazing. In particular, my favorite class updates are:

Rogue

Sorcerer

Wizard

The rogue now has so many more options and ways to develop the character class from only the BASE CLASS presented in the rulebook. No two rogues will ever be alike in Pathfinder. Who needs endless prestige classes and new feats to make the character different... Pathfinder got this right.

The Sorcerer while not radically different throws in an truely awesome element of Bloodlines. I have been wanting to use bloodlines in my game since Birthright introduced them (sort of), and now Pathfinder really spiffy's up the Sorcerer with fantastic role-playing, and mechanical advantage with bloodlines.

The wizard being my next fav is really cool in itself just by including a special item the wizardcan use insted of a familiar. The special item (which name escapes me at the moment) is used to channel his spells through if he so chooses. The item also stores a spell which is fantastic! The wizard is some kind of cool now.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Maliki · Post by **Maliki** » Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:22 pm

I think they took care of some of the problems I had with 3E, but still not for me. Given the choice I would take Patherfinder over 3/3.5, but thats about it. There are a lot more systems out there closer to what I like, C&C being one of them.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:06 am

Maliki wrote:
There are a lot more systems out there closer to what I like, C&C being one of them.

I like your way of thining!

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:53 am

Yeah, I'm still flat on 3.5 no matter what you call it. I run the game right now, but only because it was the only way to find players.

I can't get excited about it so to make more options and more abilities just gives me MORE to keep track of which is another bitch of mine about 3E.

And the art I find kind of comic booky slash anime. Just not feeling the art.

As for 45 bucks a freaking book...just leave it black and white and save me like 20 bucks please.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:58 pm

I DL'ed this but haven't had a chance for a read through. I'm with DD on not being able to read for very long on the screen so I may get the print copy. I see things I'll borrow from it but I don't see a full adoption of it.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog