|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 7:24PM
#1121
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Their preview gave Valeros, 14th level Fighter with equipment, a +3 Will Save. 
There are other things that I don't like, but that made me a little sad.
Apparently Valeros was not optimized "properly" so that his feats could be spent on a more "enlightening" preview; we can only hope SoS-spells have been revised (maybe there will even be 'Save Ends'-type of mechanic? One can always hope...). If they haven't, I'm going to be disappointed... I can always houserule anything in my own games, but if I participate in another GM's campaign, I likely need to "min-max" if I want to play a "melee" PC.
During the playtesting process, I fought a long and tiring battle on the Paizo boards against people who are convinced that there's nothing wrong in the high-level math if you know how to play the game "right" (i.e. you always spend your money on the 'Big Six' and don't use WIS as your "dump stat"). There were two or three of us who disagreed with them, so you can imagine how frustrating it felt... especially as these issues have popped up virtually in every campaign I've played in.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 8:41PM
#1122
|
Date Joined:
Jul 17, 2003
|
During the playtesting process, I fought a long and tiring battle on the Paizo boards against people who are convinced that there's nothing wrong in the high-level math if you know how to play the game "right" (i.e. you always spend your money on the 'Big Six' and don't use WIS as your "dump stat"). There were two or three of us who disagreed with them, so you can imagine how frustrating it felt... especially as these issues have popped up virtually in every campaign I've played in.
I feel your pain.
I've paid attention to the Paizo boards just to try and get a feel for what Pathfinder was going to end up being like... if they did a better job at making a game than WotC, I'd be glad to play in a campaign.
Sadly, from the playtesting feedback on the boards and reports I heard from a friend of mine who attended the GAMA trade-show it seems more and more like Pathfinder is going to end up just being a re-heated 3.5 (at best a 3.5.1)with all the same high-level math holes, SoS-spells, and all the other things that made me grateful to abandon 3.5 for 4E are still going to be in it.
Actually, if we go play anything other than 4E at this point it's mostly likely going to be a game of Star Wars. Not the SAGA edition, or even the d20 version mind you... the old WEG d6 version.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 13, 2009 - 12:58AM
#1123
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2005
|
To the comment about material volume, I think it is correct that the problem wasn't the number of books so much as the weight of the rules. New classes, new mechanical systems, new items, new rules each one interacted with the others and occasionally we would end up with a massive problem. A hellfire warlock with a soulmeld that let them technically ignore the con damage but maintain the power boost because of wording. Or a few feats, or a level dip in Binder that let them keep healing back the con damage as fast as it came.
Not to mention that most of the new mechanics were largely self contained, suppliments that added to them were either fairly stunted or nonexistent. This also meant that a lot of the new material was a dead end unless it was reasonably close to what existed already (the Warlock ToB classes, even the binder from ToM arguably). The other problem was that because of the format we ended up with a lot of feats and spells that were either useless or horribly overpowered (usually metamagic feats were the big offenders but there were a few regular feats that produced trouble as well).
In the current system we have more books, but their focuses are a lot more contained. Monster books are designed for the DM, you don't see player data in there, this is true of the stuff like Open Grave or Dragonomicon, they have artifacts and monster data as well as a lot of fluff, but they have nothing needed for the players. Just as the new player books are designed for the players and also designed a lot more intelligently. The book for martial power is only on martial power, feats and abilities focus entirely on the martial classes and offer options for recently introduced races. The PHB and PHB2 (and presumably PHB3) have feats for the classes and races introduced but also have a lot of generic feats for any of the classes or races to use. Smaller number of feats but more use out of each one. The same goes for powers, some might be a bit poor, some great, but their overall power level isn't swinging wildly and you probably won't need 50 books and a spread sheet to make your character work, caster or not.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 13, 2009 - 1:23AM
#1124
|
|
|
Ho boy...
Well, before the hornets arrive to see what's disturbing their nest - have you played 4e much? Without playing, the classes do seem very similar.
Also, on ability scores - they haven't really changed much from 3e. The only difference is that demihumans don't get boned with racial penalties, and every race has the *potential* to get a '20.'
Not going to lie, I've been playing 4E since release and the OP is absolutely telling the truth. I've been making character after character and nothing seems to have changed much. All my casters are equal to the fighters and barbarians. You'd think if NPC casters could make portals and fly, and basically have stuff to make life easier for themselves and others, the PCs could.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 13, 2009 - 6:41AM
#1125
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
Not going to lie, I've been playing 4E since release and the OP is absolutely telling the truth. I've been making character after character and nothing seems to have changed much. All my casters are equal to the fighters and barbarians. You'd think if NPC casters could make portals and fly, and basically have stuff to make life easier for themselves and others, the PCs could.
Umm, they can? Not that Rituals aren't 10 times too expensive and time-consuming, but reducing them to a fifth or a tenth does pretty much make them well worth using. I know a Planeshifter can cast a Portal spell as an Encounter Power, and plenty of people can fly.
Personally, my favorite Ritual houserule is that what's given are what it costs to cast a Ritual with nothing else added on; it's the bare-bones version, and yes, it is costly and time-consuming. However, add some material components that add flavor to the spell (wood-chips, bat guano, what-have-you) and it can easily reduce the casting time and cost by a substantial degree.
EDIT: This Thread has some even better ideas on how to make Rituals amazing parts of any game.
Resident Logic Cannon
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 13, 2009 - 7:46AM
#1126
|
|
|
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 13, 2009 - 11:01AM
#1127
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
I don't want to go on and on. I would just ask everyone to look at what Wizards says and does, in terms of business practice especially and think about it.
Just becuase they are a business does not excuse exploitive behavior and success does not excuse anything either.
Exploitive behavior...what a joke. There is no "exploitive" behavior going on here. Spreading material people want over several years is not "exploitive". If people were being exploited, they would stop buying.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 13, 2009 - 1:24PM
#1128
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2006
|
Apparently Valeros was not optimized "properly" so that his feats could be spent on a more "enlightening" preview; we can only hope SoS-spells have been revised (maybe there will even be 'Save Ends'-type of mechanic? One can always hope...). If they haven't, I'm going to be disappointed... I can always houserule anything in my own games, but if I participate in another GM's campaign, I likely need to "min-max" if I want to play a "melee" PC.
Only thing I've heard is that Otto's Irresistible Dance will now be Otto's Resistible Dance (provided you're not a Fighter with a crappy Will Save).
During the playtesting process, I fought a long and tiring battle on the Paizo boards against people who are convinced that there's nothing wrong in the high-level math if you know how to play the game "right" (i.e. you always spend your money on the 'Big Six' and don't use WIS as your "dump stat"). There were two or three of us who disagreed with them, so you can imagine how frustrating it felt... especially as these issues have popped up virtually in every campaign I've played in.
I've been there and seen the problems. Paizo had the problem of trying to be being compatible and different at the same time, and I don't think they really solved it. I'm not sure that the open playtest helped them particularly, given the way nearly every thread degenerated into arguments between people who had a fixed opinion that things they were happy with must not be changed, while things they disliked were fair game. I'm also not convinced that Paizo ever really decided in their own minds and made clear to their potential buyers what they thought the problems were. While I don't know if they can do it, at least Bad Axe Games have said what they think needs to be done with Trailblazer, so people at least will know that they're wasting their time trying to get psionics made core or some other particular obsession.
These, in the day when heaven was falling,
The hour when earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling,
And took their wages, and are dead.
Playing: Mongoose Traveller
GMing: Barbarians of Lemuria
Planning: Reclaiming Neverwinter, a 4e D&D campaign
|
|
|
