Quote from: jeff37923;254524Just to make sure I'm understanding your criticism here, you don't find the Pathfinder Playtest appealing because the non-standard races or classes from 3.x are now really non-standard, correct?

Quote from: jeff37923;254526Except that:

b) A major design goal for Pathfinder is that it will be backwards compatible with previously published 3.x material. So far it has done that with the playtest versions released.

Just to make sure I'm understanding these two posts: you're taking me to task for complaining about a major area of backwards compatability that isn't compatible, and in the very next post you claim the playtest versions are backwards compatible?

No, you don't understand my point.  You're misrepresenting my point.  I don't care how standard material is or isn't; by default the entire Pathfinder game is non-standard.  I do care, however, that the supposed, purported and reported goal of backwards compatability was sacrificed on the altar of powering up the core races and classes.

Which meets a design goal that I don't share with the Pathfinder team.  I think 3.5 is powerful enough by far.  And I think keeping the core classes on the same level as non-core classes is a design imperative.  Since the Pathfinder Campaign setting refers to non-core races and classes (including psionics, by the way) there's a significant compatability disconect.  If the Pathfinder campaign setting references them, they are not non-standard anymore; they need to be compatible with material in the Pathfinder game itself.

Unless, of course, the Pathfinder campaign setting isn't actually for the Pathfinder game, but is instead just another 3.5 setting.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;254552I thought it was a very productive article. Seriously, low-level characters being able to thwart invisibility and arcane lock spells cast by high-level characters is just one kind of nonsense that needs to go,

You mean with a bag of flour or taking the hinges off?

Quote from: Hobo;254553Just to make sure I'm understanding these two posts: you're taking me to task for complaining about a major area of backwards compatability that isn't compatible, and in the very next post you claim the playtest versions are backwards compatible?

Yes, because in your own words, the backwards compatibility problem was centered upon non-standard races and classes. Which, doesn't sound like a problem with Pathfinder as much as it sounds like a problem with the non-standard races and classes being too non-standard.

Quote from: Hobo;254553No, you don't understand my point.  You're misrepresenting my point.  I don't care how standard material is or isn't; by default the entire Pathfinder game is non-standard.  I do care, however, that the supposed, purported and reported goal of backwards compatability was sacrificed on the altar of powering up the core races and classes.

If you do not care how standard material is or isn't and consider the entire Pathfinder approach to be non-standard, then I'm sure you can grok my confusion. Which is why I asked you for clarification.

Quote from: Hobo;254553Which meets a design goal that I don't share with the Pathfinder team.  I think 3.5 is powerful enough by far.  And I think keeping the core classes on the same level as non-core classes is a design imperative.  Since the Pathfinder Campaign setting refers to non-core races and classes (including psionics, by the way) there's a significant compatability disconect.  If the Pathfinder campaign setting references them, they are not non-standard anymore; they need to be compatible with material in the Pathfinder game itself.

Unless, of course, the Pathfinder campaign setting isn't actually for the Pathfinder game, but is instead just another 3.5 setting.

OK, so you do not share a design goal of a design team which you are not a part of for a game which you think is non-standard. Right?

Maybe I could understand your position better if you gave some examples of the compatibility disconnect as you see them. Could you give some examples?

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;254471Further, they did hire two people to do just that: Monte Cook and Sean Reynolds. Now I frequently disagree with Reynolds' gaming ideals, but you can't say he doesn't know the game.

I love Monte, and think he's an awesome designer.  I've also seen the caster/non-caster power differentials in Arcana Evolved, bought a number of power-boosting supplements, and generally had to conclude that he really rewards munchkinism.  With all due respect to his talent, I don't know that he's a good choice to help the designers scale back the power levels in Pathfinder.

As far as Pathfinder goes, it took the wrong tack for me from Alpha 1.  I agree with Hobo that compatibility was somewhat sacrificed and replaced by increased character power.  This is fine - but it makes it a standalone game, much like the aforementioned Arcana Evolved.

So far, it has also fixed things I didn't think were broke, and didn't address things that I actually did think were broke.

I'm glad it's appealing to so many people - but sadly, much like 4e for some others, I don't think it's the game for me.

-O

Quote from: Hobo;254553I do care, however, that the supposed, purported and reported goal of backwards compatability was sacrificed on the altar of powering up the core races and classes...Which meets a design goal that I don't share with the Pathfinder team.  I think 3.5 is powerful enough by far.  And I think keeping the core classes on the same level as non-core classes is a design imperative.

I understand your point, but fundamentally disagree.

I've been running D&D 3.5 since 2003, and as time as gone on I have seen players consistently choosing the non-core races and classes over the core races and classes, for one simple reason: the non-core classes are better, more powerful, and more effective.

This is, of course, too broad a statement.  Not all non-core classes are created equal.  The early non-core classes -- Hexblade, Healer, Marshall, Samurai, Flavored Soul, etc. -- sucked and were largely viewed as sub-par compared to core.  The next wave of classes -- Warmage, Warlock, Binder, Namer, etc. -- were about on par with the core.

Then WOTC started upping the ante.  PHB 2 introduced several new classes significantly more powerful than the core classes: Duskblades, Knights, and the fucking Beguiler.  Jesus Beguilers are fucking awesome.  Then Tome of Battle came out, and fuck me if I can think of reason to play a Fighter over a Warblade.

Pathfinder reset the core classes to the power level of these later classes.  At least, that was my group's experience.  YMMV, and obviously does.

I do think that Paizo will need to redo the Psionics book to bring those classes up to par.  I think the Psychic Warrior and Psion are still good (the Psychic Warrior really benefits from the faster feat gain), though a lot could be done with the Psion's discipline, but the Soul Knife and Wilder need serious improvement -- the Soul Knife in particular should be way more "I'm a fucking JEDI bitch!" than he is.

QuoteSince the Pathfinder Campaign setting refers to non-core races and classes (including psionics, by the way) there's a significant compatability disconect.  If the Pathfinder campaign setting references them, they are not non-standard anymore; they need to be compatible with material in the Pathfinder game itself....Unless, of course, the Pathfinder campaign setting isn't actually for the Pathfinder game, but is instead just another 3.5 setting.

The Pathfinder Campaign Setting is a 3.5 setting, not a Pathfinder RPG setting.  Paizo is not releasing any material for the Pathfinder RPG until August 2009.  All of the material in Campaign Setting should be compatible with the Pathfinder RPG however (and it would require a radical departure from the Beta for this to not be true of the Final version).

The real improtant part is whether a PF PHB will have the unchanged 3.5 spells in it or not.

Quote from: Jackalope;254599This is, of course, too broad a statement.  Not all non-core classes are created equal.  The early non-core classes -- Hexblade, Healer, Marshall, Samurai, Flavored Soul, etc. -- sucked and were largely viewed as sub-par compared to core.  The next wave of classes -- Warmage, Warlock, Binder, Namer, etc. -- were about on par with the core.

Then WOTC started upping the ante.  PHB 2 introduced several new classes significantly more powerful than the core classes: Duskblades, Knights, and the fucking Beguiler.  Jesus Beguilers are fucking awesome.  Then Tome of Battle came out, and fuck me if I can think of reason to play a Fighter over a Warblade.

Pathfinder reset the core classes to the power level of these later classes.  At least, that was my group's experience.  YMMV, and obviously does.

I think that the goal of making interesting choices/abilities at every level is the central goal (and a laudable one), with the power consequences an afterthought.

I disagree with commonly held assertion that fighters got the shaft and suck arse compared to wizards in 3.x, except outside of combat. Creatures are so loaded with resistances and immunities at high levels (where wizards become problematic). Meanwhile, under 3.5, power attack was significantly powered up, allowing two-weapon power attackers to blow through the most common fighter defense: DR, which had been nerfed. The result was, I found that I was designing encounters around the fighter whereas I found the typical creature selection to be pretty effective at perturbing the mage.

Druids and clerics I agree need the nerf stick as their over-poweredness pretty much makes them "better fighters".

I think there need to be two major corrections to the fighter, and it's not more power:
1) make more options viable than two weapon power attack.
2) give the fighter more to do out of combat. That means lean heavier on the skill system.

Considering that in the first Alpha was ready to kick the skill system in the nuts the same way 4e does, I'm not holding my breath for #2. #1, on the other hand, seems to be in striking distance.

Quote from: jeff37923;254558Maybe I could understand your position better if you gave some examples of the compatibility disconnect as you see them. Could you give some examples?

:confused:  I already did.  Psionics is described several times in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, yet psionic classes are noticably weaker than "core" classes.

Seriously; how many times do I have restate my point?  I don't think it's a particularly difficult one.  If the stated design goal was to be compatible with 3.5 products, therefore not obsoleting all my 3.5 material (of which I've got quite a bit) then why were the races and classes all rebalanced on a completely different playing field?  The obvious result of that is that any non-standard race or class is no longer balanced with the core races and classes.  You keep jumping on non-standard as if that's some kind of "a-ha! Gotcha!" kind of thing, but I don't see how it is.  Non-standard is not equivalent to unimportant.  My group uses at least as much (if not considerably more) non-standard material than it does standard material.  In fact, that's one of the main attractions of 3.5 as near as I can tell; so much material has been published for it that you've got tons of options.  If you're going invalidate fairly large chunks of 3.5 material, you've kinda missed the point.  For us, that makes Pathfinder a non-starter, and personally I'm kinda disappointed that the design goal of compatability with 3.5 seems to have been more or less chucked aside.

That's all I'm saying.  That's difficult to understand?  If you think I'm being overly dramatic about making this an issue, just say so, don't be coy and say you don't understand what I'm talking about.  Otherwise, I'm not sure where you're going with this clarification thing.  I thought I stated my main complaint about the system sufficiently clearly.  :confused:

Quote from: Jackalope;254599I understand your point, but fundamentally disagree.

Fair enough.

Quote from: JackalopeI've been running D&D 3.5 since 2003, and as time as gone on I have seen players consistently choosing the non-core races and classes over the core races and classes, for one simple reason: the non-core classes are better, more powerful, and more effective.

We all laughed at the Duskblade in our last campaign because he was obviously broken.  Other than that, we've had a lot of non-core races and classes and not seen a balance disparity.  Granted, maybe our playstyle disguises power levels to a certain extent, but that's the only really egregious case we've seen.  And frankly, given that player, he needed the handicap just to keep up anyway.

Quote from: JackalopeThen WOTC started upping the ante.  PHB 2 introduced several new classes significantly more powerful than the core classes: Duskblades, Knights, and the fucking Beguiler.  Jesus Beguilers are fucking awesome.  Then Tome of Battle came out, and fuck me if I can think of reason to play a Fighter over a Warblade.

Ah, well, we've experimented more with the earlier classes than the later ones, then.

Quote from: JackalopePathfinder reset the core classes to the power level of these later classes.  At least, that was my group's experience.  YMMV, and obviously does.

Probably because we've mostly run with different non-standard classes.  With the exception of the duskblade, as mentioned above.

Quote from: JackalopeI do think that Paizo will need to redo the Psionics book to bring those classes up to par.  I think the Psychic Warrior and Psion are still good (the Psychic Warrior really benefits from the faster feat gain), though a lot could be done with the Psion's discipline, but the Soul Knife and Wilder need serious improvement -- the Soul Knife in particular should be way more "I'm a fucking JEDI bitch!" than he is.

I agree; but again---my early understanding, and my early interest in the Pathfinder game, was its stated goal of backwards compatability.  I'd have liked to see a game that was more usable out of the box with existing 3.5 classes rather than one that resets the balance meter at some other point.  Otherwise, it isn't backwards compatible (to a certain extent; obviously it's still mechanically similar enough that a lot of stuff can be ported) and is more of a stand alone game.

That's fine, if that's what you want.  I took the backwards compatability claim to heart and was therefore mostly disappointed when it failed to live up to that claim.

Oh, and for my money, the simple fix of giving the Soulknife fighter BAB makes it OK.  Still a bit blander than I'd like, but not a bad class anymore at that point.

Quote from: JackalopeThe Pathfinder Campaign Setting is a 3.5 setting, not a Pathfinder RPG setting.  Paizo is not releasing any material for the Pathfinder RPG until August 2009.

:confused:  I have the, admittedly, Prototype, rules pdf.  I've seen the rules book on sale in my FLGS.  I didn't realize that the CS was explicitly a 3.5 setting instead of a PRPG setting though.  Although that explains a lot of my disconnects with the Pathfinder ruleset.

Quote from: JackalopeAll of the material in Campaign Setting should be compatible with the Pathfinder RPG however (and it would require a radical departure from the Beta for this to not be true of the Final version).

Depends on what you mean with compatible.  My group isn't made up of powergamers by any means, but at the same time, nobody wants to play obviously inferior characters either.

Quote from: Hobo;254606:confused:  I already did.  Psionics is described several times in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, yet psionic classes are noticably weaker than "core" classes.

Psionics are only addressed on two pages of the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting (p234 & p235) in a "fluff text" manner. There have been no rules mechanics for psionics published yet for Pathfinder.

Thus, my request for clarification because I cannot see how "fluff" weakens  character classes that have yet to be described by actual rules in Pathfinder.

Quote from: Hobo;254606Seriously; how many times do I have restate my point?  I don't think it's a particularly difficult one.  If the stated design goal was to be compatible with 3.5 products, therefore not obsoleting all my 3.5 material (of which I've got quite a bit) then why were the races and classes all rebalanced on a completely different playing field?  The obvious result of that is that any non-standard race or class is no longer balanced with the core races and classes.  You keep jumping on non-standard as if that's some kind of "a-ha! Gotcha!" kind of thing, but I don't see how it is.  Non-standard is not equivalent to unimportant.  My group uses at least as much (if not considerably more) non-standard material than it does standard material.  In fact, that's one of the main attractions of 3.5 as near as I can tell; so much material has been published for it that you've got tons of options.  If you're going invalidate fairly large chunks of 3.5 material, you've kinda missed the point.  For us, that makes Pathfinder a non-starter, and personally I'm kinda disappointed that the design goal of compatability with 3.5 seems to have been more or less chucked aside.

That's all I'm saying.  That's difficult to understand?  If you think I'm being overly dramatic about making this an issue, just say so, don't be coy and say you don't understand what I'm talking about.  Otherwise, I'm not sure where you're going with this clarification thing.  I thought I stated my main complaint about the system sufficiently clearly.  :confused:

I'm a little suspicious of your motivations here because instead of giving examples of non-compatibility in Pathfinder for us to examine, you are instead crying "foul" that you've been asked to provide some proof for your assertion.

Do I think you are being overly dramatic? Yes.

Do I think you know what the fuck you are talking about? No. Why? Because you have yet to give any solid examples of all the 3.5 material that is invalidated by Pathfinder and your position reads like something derived from reading other people's forum postings without finding anything out for yourself and coming up with your own informed opinion.

Or is that too coy for you?

Quote from: Hobo;254606:confused:  I already did.  Psionics is described several times in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, yet psionic classes are noticably weaker than "core" classes.

Psionics are only addressed on two pages of the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting (p234 & p235) in a "fluff text" manner. There have been no rules mechanics for psionics published yet for Pathfinder.

Thus, my request for clarification because I cannot see how "fluff" weakens  character classes that have yet to be described by actual rules in Pathfinder.

Quote from: Hobo;254606Seriously; how many times do I have restate my point?  I don't think it's a particularly difficult one.  If the stated design goal was to be compatible with 3.5 products, therefore not obsoleting all my 3.5 material (of which I've got quite a bit) then why were the races and classes all rebalanced on a completely different playing field?  The obvious result of that is that any non-standard race or class is no longer balanced with the core races and classes.  You keep jumping on non-standard as if that's some kind of "a-ha! Gotcha!" kind of thing, but I don't see how it is.  Non-standard is not equivalent to unimportant.  My group uses at least as much (if not considerably more) non-standard material than it does standard material.  In fact, that's one of the main attractions of 3.5 as near as I can tell; so much material has been published for it that you've got tons of options.  If you're going invalidate fairly large chunks of 3.5 material, you've kinda missed the point.  For us, that makes Pathfinder a non-starter, and personally I'm kinda disappointed that the design goal of compatability with 3.5 seems to have been more or less chucked aside.

That's all I'm saying.  That's difficult to understand?  If you think I'm being overly dramatic about making this an issue, just say so, don't be coy and say you don't understand what I'm talking about.  Otherwise, I'm not sure where you're going with this clarification thing.  I thought I stated my main complaint about the system sufficiently clearly.  :confused:

I'm a little suspicious of your motivations here because instead of giving examples of non-compatibility in Pathfinder for us to examine, you are instead crying "foul" that you've been asked to provide some proof for your assertion.

Do I think you are being overly dramatic? Yes.

Do I think you know what the fuck you are talking about? No. Why? Because you have yet to give any solid examples of all the 3.5 material that is invalidated by Pathfinder and your position reads like something derived from reading other people's forum postings without finding anything out for yourself and coming up with your own informed opinion.

Or is that too coy for you? Because I could always just say that you are full of shit on this subject and be done with it.

Quote from: jeff37923;254526Except that:

b) A major design goal for Pathfinder is that it will be backwards compatible with previously published 3.x material. So far it has done that with the playtest versions released.

Funny how folks don't think that's true then...

Seanchai

Quote from: jeff37923;254635Psionics are only addressed on two pages of the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting (p234 & p235) in a "fluff text" manner. There have been no rules mechanics for psionics published yet for Pathfinder.

No, psionics was mentioned at varous other sections in the setting; it was only specifically given a header on pages 234 and 235.

Quote from: jeffThus, my request for clarification because I cannot see how "fluff" weakens  character classes that have yet to be described by actual rules in Pathfinder.

And that's my confusion; who cares?  You're talking about a stand alone game that hasn't yet released the psionics module; I'm talking about a game where the stated design goal was backwards compatability wherein you wouldn't need to release a psionics module because you've already got one.

If there was an issue with class balance, and backwards compatability is the goal, the fixed classes should have been balanced to a 3.5 default level, not some new level that's obviously higher on the power scale.

I think we're talking past each other because you see Pathfinder as a complete replacement for 3.5 (correct me if I'm wrong here) wherein I saw it as a purported "fix" for things that were wrong with 3.5 that was fully integratable with 3.5 material.

If you're looking to chuck all your 3.5 material and play Pathfinder instead, sure, go right ahead.  I'm not even addressing that position, because my complaint (and my only real complaint) was that Pathfinder was sold (at least I was sold on this idea) as the backwards compatible game that fixed stuff the way 3.5 supposedly fixed issues with 3e.  The Pathfinder we got wasn't that.  But that's what I wanted it to be.  Hence I complained that it didn't meet what I needed nor what I understood the design goals to be.

Clearly if you don't care about freely integrating Pathfinder and 3.5 material, then that complaint is irrelevent to you.  That doesn't, however, mean that it's an invalid complaint.  Just that it's not relevent for you.

Quote from: jeffI'm a little suspicious of your motivations here because instead of giving examples of non-compatibility in Pathfinder for us to examine, you are instead crying "foul" that you've been asked to provide some proof for your assertion.

:confused:  Are you always this dense?  Proof?  That's absurd.

Complete Warrior.  Has several new core classes that would be incredibly dumb to play in a Pathfinder game, because they are incredibly low on the power scale.  Complete Adventurer too.  Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionic.

If you want to run an Eberron game with Pathfinder, you can't have shifters, kalashtar, changelings or warforged as races, without redesigning the stats yourself, since Pathfinder races are all more or less equivalent to LA +1 or even 2 compared to 3.5 races.  Same thing for any of the alternate races in the environmental or Races of... series.

Is that enough specific examples for you?  I've got plenty more.

Quote from: jeffDo I think you are being overly dramatic? Yes.

OK.  I said I have a problem with this aspect of the game because it doesn't meet my expectations.  You got all defensive.  Who's being dramatic again?

Quote from: jeffDo I think you know what the fuck you are talking about? No. Why? Because you have yet to give any solid examples of all the 3.5 material that is invalidated by Pathfinder and your position reads like something derived from reading other people's forum postings without finding anything out for yourself and coming up with your own informed opinion.

Or is that too coy for you?

That's more like it.  But honestly; you think I don't know what I'm talking about because I hadn't actually enough specific examples for you?  I think you're being wilfully obtuse here, or unforgively stupid if you couldn't put two and two together and figure out that, for example, that a goliath hexblade is way underpowered compared to a Pathfinder dwarf fighter, and that means that backwards compatability between Pathfinder and 3.5 material is limited.  Seriously?  I have to spell that out for you and you tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about?

You state that Pathfinder and 3.5 are backwards compatible, where I think it's immediately obvious that they're only compatible in that they use the same basic mechanics, not in the sense that they actually mesh well together.  I'm really perplexed how you're sitting here telling me that you think I'm just regurgitating fodder from other messageboard posters.  This has been my consistent complaint at every message board I've posted at, and I feel like the lone voice in the wilderness for thinking that this is a deal breaker for me.  On every messageboard; ENWorld, CM, Paizo, all of 'em.  This issue is especially my baby, and I've taken flak from people like you who feel like the Pathfinder cheerleader squad, for daring to even want to mix and match Pathfinder and 3.5, or for pointing out that it doesn't really work.

Quote from: Hobo;254606The obvious result of that is that any non-standard race or class is no longer balanced with the core races and classes.

Personally, I'm concerned with balance in terms of backwards compatibility but rather the basic building blocks of character. If Pathfinder barbarians all have Rage Points, I've got to all Rage Points to any 3.5 barbarian. If Pathfinder creates a new must have Feat for fighters, then I've got to rework the Feats of at least some of the fighter I bring from 3.5 into a Pathfinder campaign. And the same is true in reverse, using Pathfinder materials with bog standard 3.5.

As I said, I've got a shelf full of WotC and third party 3.5 materials. And ideas are a dime a dozen. Why would I want to go to that trouble to use Pathfinder when I've got plenty of materials I don't need to convert?

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;254652Personally, I'm concerned with balance in terms of backwards compatibility but rather the basic building blocks of character. If Pathfinder barbarians all have Rage Points, I've got to all Rage Points to any 3.5 barbarian. If Pathfinder creates a new must have Feat for fighters, then I've got to rework the Feats of at least some of the fighter I bring from 3.5 into a Pathfinder campaign. And the same is true in reverse, using Pathfinder materials with bog standard 3.5.

As I said, I've got a shelf full of WotC and third party 3.5 materials. And ideas are a dime a dozen. Why would I want to go to that trouble to use Pathfinder when I've got plenty of materials I don't need to convert?

Well, that's exactly what my point was too.  If Pathfinder had coherently fixed a few problems with 3.5 and been, as was initially promised, a kind of 3.75, that would have been one thing.  As it stands now, Pathfinder is, IMO, essentially telling you to quit playing 3.5 and play Pathfinder instead.  Which greatly weakens its appeal.