|
Xelkelvos posted:I think by pure math, fighters still throw damage around like nobody's business, it's just that they're incapable of doing anything else and idk if they care to realize it. I remember to have decent damage output as a paladin I needed to go for two-weapon fighting and beg my DM that a spiked shield counted as the other weapon (and he agreed). The pally did okay, but... well, wizards, man.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Arivia posted:Pathfinder has had that fixed for years with a bunch of different stuff. That sure is an... optimistic reading of that quote, given Pazio's track record on balance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
Capfalcon posted:That sure is an... optimistic reading of that quote, given Pazio's track record on balance. It's been mixed sometimes, sure, but Paizo's design team has consistently gone on the record as having a better eye for things than you'd think. They've been pretty upfront about how they're carrying 3.5 baggage they deliberately didn't eject for compatibility reasons in the first edition of Pathfinder, and that they can do better. This is their chance to fix that, and being aware of the actual issues with their system is a good step.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Arivia posted:It's been mixed sometimes, sure, but Paizo's design team has consistently gone on the record as having a better eye for things than you'd think. They've been pretty upfront about how they're carrying 3.5 baggage they deliberately didn't eject for compatibility reasons in the first edition of Pathfinder, and that they can do better. This is their chance to fix that, and being aware of the actual issues with their system is a good step. Being aware of actual issues and actually fixing them in lieu of fan backlash are two different things and poo poo like being forced to use an action to open a door shows a lack of the former while keeping the Wizard, at higher levels, Master of Most trades is indicative of the latter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Being aware of actual issues and actually fixing them in lieu of fan backlash are two different things and poo poo like being forced to use an action to open a door shows a lack of the former while keeping the Wizard, at higher levels, Master of Most trades is indicative of the latter. Okay let's try this a different way to make it clearer: I don't think anyone actually involved in the original Pathfinder 1e playtest was concerned about it taking a move action to open a door. That's not an issue for the people who actually play Pathfinder and enjoy it - the target audience all along. edit: Like Pathfinder is still gonna be Pathfinder no matter what 2e looks like. It's still gonna be a rules-heavy lots of options game for people that like the game 3.5 was. And Pathfinder 1e was even more so because it was built guaranteeing backwards compatibility. I'm not sure why you'd get upset expecting it to suddenly be a completely different game with a different approach when it's never pretended to be anything else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
I legit don't understand why you continue to defend Paizo as much as you do, especially considering how hard they've walked back on their whole "we're the good progressive company!" thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
I've never played pathfinder because it looks like a slog to me but "it takes a move action to open a door!!!" is exactly the sort of flippant non-criticism that everyone here complained about re: 4e. No RPG system lives and dies by how quickly a character can open a door relative to how quickly they can attack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I legit don't understand why you continue to defend Paizo as much as you do, especially considering how hard they've walked back on their whole "we're the good progressive company!" thing. I still play the game after all. Also people don't talk about FR enough and the 5e thread is sad and boring. And it's just really frustrating to see people being snarky about poo poo they don't know about and haven't bothered to learn about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I've never played pathfinder because it looks like a slog to me but "it takes a move action to open a door!!!" is exactly the sort of flippant non-criticism that everyone here complained about re: 4e. No RPG system lives and dies by how quickly a character can open a door relative to how quickly they can attack. yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I've never played pathfinder because it looks like a slog to me but "it takes a move action to open a door!!!" is exactly the sort of flippant non-criticism that everyone here complained about re: 4e. No RPG system lives and dies by how quickly a character can open a door relative to how quickly they can attack. Fwiw, if Path was a game that had extremely tight action economies, it'd be a big deal. It's not, so it's fairly trivial on the whole and exists more as an annoying quality of life thing like trying to shelve game book that's printed in a nonstandard size. It's a relatively trivial problem to solve and an odd design choice on the whole, but that it's an issue in the first place is what makes it stick out. Arivia posted:Okay let's try this a different way to make it clearer: I don't think anyone actually involved in the original Pathfinder 1e playtest was concerned about it taking a move action to open a door. That's not an issue for the people who actually play Pathfinder and enjoy it - the target audience all along. Sunk cost fallacy is a hell of a drug. Calling out and eliminating LFQW is definitely a good hill to die on imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Sunk cost fallacy is a hell of a drug. Calling out and eliminating LFQW is definitely a good hill to die on imo. Sunk cost fallacy is what all the complaining about the new edition breaking compatibility is coming from. That's different from a design decision to guarantee compatibility as part of ensuring a popular and profitable game line. Again, if you don't like Pathfinder that's fine. And I don't think the Pathfinder players on this forum are going to disagree with you that LFQW is a problem with Pathfinder in general. But screaming at that and that only as the sole sacred cow that needs MUST be killed in the new edition when Paizo has already talked about how much else they're doing that reflects the game they've made and how it's played is really short-sighted and doesn't reflect well on you as someone actually interested in the playtest in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Fwiw, if Path was a game that had extremely tight action economies, it'd be a big deal. It's not, so it's fairly trivial on the whole and exists more as an annoying quality of life thing like trying to shelve game book that's printed in a nonstandard size. Obviously your average peasant can't ever hope to afford a proper door and they use bead curtains.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
The problem is for me that I thought they understood their system too, I mean, they'd have to, right? But then Starfinder had really amateurish math mistakes in important parts of the system, and a lot of the side systems are fiddly and clunky even for an F20 game, IMO. Presumably that'll be an less of an issue with them being able to do the open playtest and then cycle around for a final product. But I honestly thought Paizo had enough experience not to make those kinds of mistakes, and yet they did. Maybe it was the rush to develop the game in roughly a year, maybe it was only having a closed playtest, but I have a lot less faith in them after Starfinder than I did before. Which feels weird to say, but there you have it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:The problem is for me that I thought they understood their system too, I mean, they'd have to, right? But then Starfinder had really amateurish math mistakes in important parts of the system, and a lot of the side systems are fiddly and clunky even for an F20 game, IMO. Presumably that'll be an less of an issue with them being able to do the open playtest and then cycle around for a final product. But I honestly thought Paizo had enough experience not to make those kinds of mistakes, and yet they did. Maybe it was the rush to develop the game in roughly a year, maybe it was only having a closed playtest, but I have a lot less faith in them after Starfinder than I did before. Which feels weird to say, but there you have it. Eh, I think that's fair. That's influencing my concerns about the second edition too! They've talked about having staffing issues around that time and not having enough people to really do Starfinder well (with Pathfinder products at the same time suffering) so we'll see what comes now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Sunk cost fallacy is what all the complaining about the new edition breaking compatibility is coming from. That's different from a design decision to guarantee compatibility as part of ensuring a popular and profitable game line. Part of the reason that I was and continued to be turned off by Path (and D&D) is the existence of LFQW. Part of looking in on the playtest for 2e is looking to see if an attempt to kill said sacred cow is killed and how or what the justification is to not kill it beyond some mealymouthed reasoning of it being part of Path's "identity."
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Part of the reason that I was and continued to be turned off by Path (and D&D) is the existence of LFQW. Part of looking in on the playtest for 2e is looking to see if an attempt to kill said sacred cow is killed and how or what the justification is to not kill it beyond some mealymouthed reasoning of it being part of Path's "identity." Great, so wait for that. Don't whine when the designers are dealing with the other issues and giving their existing audience details on those as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Thinking there's a possibility that Erik Mona would turn away from Vancian spellcasting or spellcaster dominance is precious. They'll very likely get toned down in some respects if Starfinder is any indication, but there isn't going to be a sea change. I mean, this is the company that has to reassure its fans in 2018 that don't worry, we won't take away your gnomes like the other bad people did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Great, so wait for that. Don't whine when the designers are dealing with the other issues and giving their existing audience details on those as well. I mean, no. I'll "whine" about seemingly bad design decisions when I see them, and if you don't like them,  just like I know you'll whine when someone brings up LFQW for the upteenth time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I legit don't understand why you continue to defend Paizo as much as you do, especially considering how hard they've walked back on their whole "we're the good progressive company!" thing. Wait, what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
I haven't yet seen a D&D variant or descendant that successfully balanced high level fighters against high level wizards except for 4e. Complaining that Pathfinder won't solve this problem seems somewhat strange.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
You can easily fix it by just making a fighter that is a wizard mechanically and flavoring all your spells to use your sword. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:I mean, no. I'll "whine" about seemingly bad design decisions when I see them, and if you don't like them, Good job on you for dragging the conversation down and not thinking critically! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:00
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:I haven't yet seen a D&D variant or descendant that successfully balanced high level fighters against high level wizards except for 4e. Complaining that Pathfinder won't solve this problem seems somewhat strange. why?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:I haven't yet seen a D&D variant or descendant that successfully balanced high level fighters against high level wizards except for 4e. Complaining that Pathfinder won't solve this problem seems somewhat strange. Dungeon World?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:why? Comparing a game against an ideal that does not exist within the genre is pointless. 4e is an incredible game but it escaped lfqw by exiting the genre and doing it's own thing; a game operating within the D&D-alike genre is stuck with the baggage that forces lfqw. Thranguy posted:Dungeon World? Dungeon World is just as subject to lfqw as any other D&D-alike. Fighters get better at fighting, Wizards get encounter solving or adventure solving powers. EDIT: Like, at a basic level, as a figher gets better in a D&D-alike, they get better at fighting people. As a wizard gets better in a D&D-alike, they get more spells that do more things. Getting access to both combat and non-combat magic means that casters will always end up with things to do, and frequently those things are going to be better than whatever a specialist in that application would be able to do. Casters get access to things like Teleport or Knock or whatever, and those things directly solve problems. Fighters just get to get better at fighting people. shades of blue fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Mar 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:Comparing a game against an ideal that does not exist within the genre is pointless. 4e is an incredible game but it escaped lfqw by exiting the genre and doing it's own thing; a game operating within the D&D-alike genre is stuck with the baggage that forces lfqw. Everything you say is true, except that "D&D and it's descendants" isn't a genre. The genre is swords & sorcery fantasy roleplaying games, and there are many examples that avoid the LFQW trap. D&D 4E didn't exit a genre, it just rejected sacred cows that Pathfinder customers weren't (and probably still aren't) willing to let go of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Everything you say is true, except that "D&D and it's descendants" isn't a genre. The genre is swords & sorcery fantasy roleplaying games, and there are many examples that avoid the LFQW trap. D&D 4E didn't exit a genre, it just rejected sacred cows that Pathfinder customers weren't (and probably still aren't) willing to let go of. No at this point D&D is very much a genre unto itself. D&D players aren't looking for other fantasy games, they really are specifically looking for D&D, and this has been demonstrated time and time again in RPGs. No one was looking at Pathfinder as another fantasy game, it was more of your favourite D&D.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
Arivia posted:No at this point D&D is very much a genre unto itself. What are the required traits of a D&D? (D&D is the singular of D&D, right? A dungeon and dragon?)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
Here's the thing though: lots of people don't want Pathfinder to be "fixed." I'm not talking about the sorts that are going to die on the hill of "3.5 compatibility or bust," I mean the thousands of players that enjoy PF because it's an iterative descendent of AD&D. It "feels" like D&D. So, the hope they have is to see something like the transitions from 1st to 2nd: lots of cleanup, integration of basic systems into the game, and a new unified presentation. Like, you can make all the jokes about brain damage you want but that's the game that the players want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Everything you say is true, except that "D&D and it's descendants" isn't a genre. The genre is swords & sorcery fantasy roleplaying games, and there are many examples that avoid the LFQW trap. D&D 4E didn't exit a genre, it just rejected sacred cows that Pathfinder customers weren't (and probably still aren't) willing to let go of. The sacred cow that 4e rejected was just one of the genre trappings of the D&D-alike genre (or subgenre or whatever); that magic does things in combat and out of combat. There's a reason why people complained about 4e D&D not feeling like D&D. It may have been a dumb critique of a game, but it's definitely true that 4e took huge strides away from what had come before it. Call it a subgenre or whatever you want to call it, but at this point there are certainly some trappings that a D&D or D&D-like game needs to have in order to feel like it's a D&D or D&D-like game. I don't think there's really any argument at all that those trappings exist and form a subgenre or genre or whatever, and non-combat magic is definitely one of those trappings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
Ultimately I think given infinite time most games will progress towards positive change, even with the regression we see. I spent a lot of my childhood under the shadow of AD&D, which seemed like it would never die, but it did. And for all of their bleating nostalgia, 5e and Pathfinder are not that game. Overall, the amount of growth in terms of "system technology" in the past 20 years dwarfs the previous 20 before that. Given infinite time, I think Pathfinder might come to resemble more progressive takes on the classic fantasy game just through erosion, but nobody here who wants that has that kind of time. But no system lasts forever unchanged. Even the OSR isn't AD&D for the most part. No matter how hard you try and go back, you keep on slipping forward. That's not to say you can't play old games RAW. But overall the industry has momentum, it's just frustratingly slow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I legit don't understand why you continue to defend Paizo as much as you do, especially considering how hard they've walked back on their whole "we're the good progressive company!" thing. I support Paizo, as well as Arivia 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
if the idea is that Linear Fighters Quadratic Wizards will never be "solved" by DnD because any game that doesn't have Vancian casting, doesn't limit Fighters to terrestrial capabilities, and doesn't have arcane spells with universally-useful effects is by definition not DnD, that's only tautological in that you're using an excessively narrow definition of what DnD is. (and it falls into trap of believing the talking point of 4e as a major departure from "what DnD is", as opposed to a thoughtful iteration of 3.5 meant to address specific issues and yield specific outcomes)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:I haven't yet seen a D&D variant or descendant that successfully balanced high level fighters against high level wizards except for 4e. Complaining that Pathfinder won't solve this problem seems somewhat strange. 1st and 2nd edition D&D were LFQW incarnate. 3/3.5/PF looked at that imbalance and said "Hold my beer" and actively made it worse. When the designers were challenged on that they doubled down and said the scaling should favor Casters even more. I give credit to systems that try to address a problem instead of doubling down on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
I mean, notionally it's an easy fix. Just scale magic to combat, and remove non combat magic from casters entirely to the realm of magic items and plot macguffins.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:43
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:The sacred cow that 4e rejected was just one of the genre trappings of the D&D-alike genre (or subgenre or whatever); that magic does things in combat and out of combat. There's a reason why people complained about 4e D&D not feeling like D&D. It may have been a dumb critique of a game, but it's definitely true that 4e took huge strides away from what had come before it. Call it a subgenre or whatever you want to call it, but at this point there are certainly some trappings that a D&D or D&D-like game needs to have in order to feel like it's a D&D or D&D-like game. I don't think there's really any argument at all that those trappings exist and form a subgenre or genre or whatever, and non-combat magic is definitely one of those trappings. OK well, it's not that important, but 4E absolutely does have noncombat magic (both rituals, and utility powers with noncombat uses), and I think the core thing those people were objecting to was that non-wizards had Powers that acted exactly the same as wizard Powers and kept up with them in capability throughout the tiers of play, more or less. And then also what you're getting at sorta, that 4E tried to take away the tendency for noncombat magic to replicate (but be better than) skills and other classes' noncombat capabilities. But nevermind, because really I'm getting at this: gradenko_2000 posted:if the idea is that Linear Fighters Quadratic Wizards will never be "solved" by DnD because any game that doesn't have Vancian casting, doesn't limit Fighters to terrestrial capabilities, and doesn't have arcane spells with universally-useful effects is by definition not DnD, that's only tautological in that you're using an excessively narrow definition of what DnD is. 4E D&D really was still D&D. It was a classed-based leveling everything-and-the-kitchen-sink high fantasy RPG with all the same races and classes (eventually, plus some), equipment grind, beholders, and swords +1 you'd care to have. It had hit points and the same six ability scores and armor class and size categories and ten foot poles and on and on and on. It did somethings very differently of course, and sometimes what it did didn't really work (skill challenges) or felt underdeveloped (rituals) and it was probably a tactical error to leave out some beloved races and classes in the first set of core books. But yes, it is actually D&D. Too much so in several respects, actually. Anyway, all I'm really trying to get at is that I think Paizo is in a bind with this product. I'm sure it's possible to make some improvements to the mechanics without necessarily completely abandoning the things that attracted their 3.5 customers in the first place, but they're walking a tightrope, and the (in my opinion) most important weaknesses of the game can't be solved while still belonging within that so narrowly defined "genre" (or whatever). As an aside, I don't like that term as applied here, but I'm struggling to find a good term that categorically includes D&D through 3.5, plus Pathfinder, plus some of the retroclones, but excludes all other fantasy sword and sorcery games. e. Liquid Communism posted:I mean, notionally it's an easy fix. Just scale magic to combat, and remove non combat magic from casters entirely to the realm of magic items and plot macguffins. I think Pathfinder fans generally (I'm sure there's exceptions, don't @ me) don't want magic to "feel mundane" or for non-magical characters to have abilities that "feel supernatural" and that invariably means powerful magic has to trump even the most powerful non-magical people's abilities. And they're also not willing to hand off that powerful magic to exclusively be the domain of NPCs and other antagonists, which is how some other games deal with that. I don't see how Paizo can fix this problem while not offending these fans. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Mar 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
Zurui posted:Here's the thing though: lots of people don't want Pathfinder to be "fixed." I'm not talking about the sorts that are going to die on the hill of "3.5 compatibility or bust," I mean the thousands of players that enjoy PF because it's an iterative descendent of AD&D. It "feels" like D&D. So, the hope they have is to see something like the transitions from 1st to 2nd: lots of cleanup, integration of basic systems into the game, and a new unified presentation. (I'm not hopeful)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:52
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I mean, notionally it's an easy fix. Just scale magic to combat, and remove non combat magic from casters entirely to the realm of magic items and plot macguffins. Notionally, yes, but in practice the D&D audience didn't want that. They flipped out when 4e more or less did exactly what you described and decried it as dumbed-down babby WoW simulator.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:54
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I mean, notionally it's an easy fix. Just scale magic to combat, and remove non combat magic from casters entirely to the realm of magic items and plot macguffins. Just have realistic spellcasting grounded in reality, thus meaning that the only school of magic is Illusion, via cumbersome trick mirrors. “I roll to stun the Orc, by leaving him flabbergasted as I pull an extremely large set of handkerchiefs from my nose!” “Make a sleight of hand check to safely pull the deadly cobra from your hat!” And so on, there I’ve singlehandedly saved D&D your welcome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Bedlamdan posted:Just have realistic spellcasting grounded in reality, thus meaning that the only school of magic is Illusion, via cumbersome trick mirrors. This is excellent, as long as we assume that the setting considers this a necessary and worthwhile addition to a party, in much the same way it's ridiculous to assume adventuring parties exist in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 03:43
|
|
