Pathfinder RPG
Edit: In retrospect, this probably should have gone in the Running the Realms forum.
Do what before?
This has NOTHING to do with the 'canon' issue (which I assume you are talking about) - this is a revised set of 3e rules for people who ARE looking for an improvement over the old rules but don't want anything as drastic as the 4e rules.
I'm also not suggesting people switch to Golarion (even if it is VERY good); plenty of people say they will continue to play in the Old Realms, and this book might have a few things in it that will improve their game.
@Entombment - I'm not understanding your response.
Do what before?
This has NOTHING to do with the 'canon' issue (which I assume you are talking about) - this is a revised set of 3e rules for people who ARE looking for an improvement over the old rules but don't want anything as drastic as the 4e rules.
I'm also not suggesting people switch to Golarion (even if it is VERY good); plenty of people say they will continue to play in the Old Realms, and this book might have a few things in it that will improve their game.
Well uh, sorry for off-topic if I had thought it to be something else. But now since I brought it up, do you think you could relate and not understand why people whine about such things instead of taking matters into their own hands with 4E and such?
*bows elegantly*
[edit; having glossed over this, I have to thank you for posting the link. I may not have bothered to get around to investigating pathfinder on my own. I like what I see.)
18DELTA ;)
Having run several 4E games now, I would be loath to return to that grind. However, one of my players has taken on the task of GMing the Pathfinder and I enjoy it. Especially now that the rules have done baking.
Bel
It looks like it could be fun just like 3.0 was fun when I first ran it, but I suspect the novelty of kewl new powerz will wear away quickly for the players, and even quicker for the DM.
-Now, just like a lot of things changed in the setting to make sense because of the 4e rules, what things would need to be changed in the setting to make sense because of these rules?
So far, the only thing thats really different is that the humanoids have been given their own supplement, and are fully fleshed-out cultures with their own quirks and what-not.
Considering we didn't get ANYTHING approaching this in FR, it should be rather easy to backwards-engineer everything in Pathfinder. I think the Elves are taller - but 4e did that anyway. :D
I think it doesn't have an Underdark in the way we have come to know the term, either, but thats just a setting-thing (Golarion), and not a rules-thing (Pathfinder). Their Dark Elves live above ground, if I'm not mistaken, in tunnel-warrens or some-such (I could be way off here - I only know a little). Also, I don't think they are allowed to use the word 'Drow', but I'm not sure on that point either.
Either way, the rules were designed with backwards-compatibility in mind, so most of the PrCs and what-not should still work fine.
Now, just like a lot of things changed in the Forgotten Realms setting to make sense because of the 4e rules, what things would need to be changed in the Forgotten Realms setting to make sense because of these new Pathfunder rules?
Probably not much. My first impression of Pathfinder Beta is 3.5 on steroids. More powers for everyone, more feats for everyone, more bookkeeping for everyone, same old imbalance between casters and non casters. Save the trouble if 4E ain't your cup of tea stick with 3.5 unless you want characters with more abilities, which really do nothing to fix the balance problems go for it.
The designers actually explain why they did certain things, or altered them, in sidebars in the rules. The increase in overall power level of base classes/races is specifically addressed - this was due to the general power creep of the rules themselves in other supplements, over whom Paizo/Pathfinder has no control. Thus, they can't bring other things in line, but they can adjust the power of the 'base' stuff to be on par.
Personally, I don't agree with your assessments, but I intend to actually playtest out the rules in a weekly game, so we'll see how it works in practice, rather than at a theoretical glance. (After all, wasn't that the criticism leveled by so many 4E rules fans? "Oh, but you haven't actually tried playing it yet")
Now, just like a lot of things changed in the Forgotten Realms setting to make sense because of the 4e rules, what things would need to be changed in the Forgotten Realms setting to make sense because of these new Pathfunder rules?
Basically, NOTHING.
The rules are written with Golarion in mind (the way the 3e ones were written with GH in mind), but the rules are STILL 3e... they are just an 'extension', if you will, of the existing ruleset. Sorcerors had some major changes, but its mostly a fluff-thing (the Bloodlines) that adds some new coolness to the class, and they implimented a Ki system for Martial Arts/OA type classes (Monk) - for that, a few Feats might have to be altered, but it should be a simple enough. For instance, if a Feat grants you an extra useage of a Monk ability per day, then you could just say that Feat grants X amount of extra Ki points per day, with 'X' equalling the number of points neccessary for that ability under the PF system.
Seriously - to convert each PC on a case-by-case basis shouldn't take more the a few minutes. As for NPCs - you can actually leave them as-is; just keep in mind that PF PCs are slighlty stronger then their 3.5 counterparts, so you'd have to adjust the threat level (CL) of some encounters.
I don't understand what the deal on these boards is regarding actually playing a game to know what you are going to get. I have been a GM for 29 years now, I think I am fully capable of reading something, and discerning whether I am going to like it. As I said I like PLAYING 3.5E in the past, I am sure I would like PLAYING Pathfinder, and I am equally sure I would hate being the GM for a Pathfinder game, just as much or rather ,more than I hated being the GM for 3.5E games as time progressed. Years ago I would gladly waste a month or two trying it to see if I missed something, but when you have less time you tend to want to make the most of it. Sorry the ROI was too low on 3.5 why would I want to use something which, looks, reads, based on what I have read mostly acts the same, and has the same problems for me as a GM.
If Pathfinder works for you great play it, run it. I just don't see the purpose of spending money on a product that is heading further down the road of power creep than the original product it is based on. You set the base bar higher everything will creep up from there, instead of where it was. In other words enjoy the arms race. I know 3.5E does not give me what I want, I know Pathfinder won't, so why would I want to play it unless someone else wanted a migraine from running it.
Basically, NOTHING.
-Then, that's one plus for that ruleset.
If Pathfinder works for you great play it, run it. I just don't see the purpose of spending money on a product... (emphasis added)
Er, right now, the Pathfinder rules are FREE. You only have to pay if you want them to print you up a nice soft or hardbound version - the pdf is openly available for download, at no cost, on their website (in a nice printable version).
It's not to say that it's a one-size-fits-all solution, or that *everyone* will like it. Certainly there are people who prefer a more 'realist' approach to gaming, even hardcore realist, a la HarnMaster or the like.
You know, I wish people would phrase things more in terms of "This is not for me, because I don't like XYZ (in a non-pejorative sense)" rather than stating that "it's bad/sucks/etc," and then phrasing their complaints in such a way as to make it sound like no one should like it, because of that. This goes for complaints about 4E, just as much as it does about Pathfinder, or anything else.
Right - "I don't like 4th Edition D&D, because it doesn't fit my style of play. It doesn't offer me the options I want, and it focuses more on combat than I feel comfortable with."
Wrong - "4th Edition D&D is horrible. There are no options at all, and everything is bland. It's all about combat, and is designed for munchkin gamers that want to use dice rather than roleplay."
See what I mean? :P
As far as arguments about power level comparisons, well 4th Edition as I see it dropped the casters down a bit, bumped up the non casters a bit, and found a middle ground. This particular point has been argued over and over, and it really is a matter of personal taste.
Anyway enjoy playing whatever makes ya happy.
Personally, I just find it ironic that someone complains about Pathfinder increasing the overall power of the player-characters, and then... turns to 4th Edition instead. :P
It's not to say that it's a one-size-fits-all solution, or that *everyone* will like it. Certainly there are people who prefer a more 'realist' approach to gaming, even hardcore realist, a la HarnMaster or the like.
You know, I wish people would phrase things more in terms of "This is not for me, because I don't like XYZ (in a non-pejorative sense)" rather than stating that "it's bad/sucks/etc," and then phrasing their complaints in such a way as to make it sound like no one should like it, because of that. This goes for complaints about 4E, just as much as it does about Pathfinder, or anything else.
Right - "I don't like 4th Edition D&D, because it doesn't fit my style of play. It doesn't offer me the options I want, and it focuses more on combat than I feel comfortable with."
Wrong - "4th Edition D&D is horrible. There are no options at all, and everything is bland. It's all about combat, and is designed for munchkin gamers that want to use dice rather than roleplay."
See what I mean? :P
-This.
18DELTA
Wrong - "DIE, 4th EDITION, DIE!!!"
Right - "IMHO, I feel that 4th edition should perish"
:D ;) :P
I can see totally where Kerym is coming from, though - I think, in time, I will prefer to run 4e as well, because of its simplicity.
Which is a shame, because I feel the older rules are more comprehensive and allow a player much more freedom to do what he/she wants, and are therefore better for the player.
So as a DM, I vote 'Yes' to 4e, but as a player, I'd much rather be in a 3e game.
[...] Edit: In retrospect, this probably should have gone in the Running the Realms forum.
Wrong, this should at best have been placed in General Discussion as it has zero to do with the FR, neither fluff- nor crunchwise. Just because some FR forum regulars have a very high opinion about PRPG doesn't make it any less off-topic for these forums.
Anyway... when I put forth my major criticism of the PRPG in an earlier thread, I said I would wait until Beta to render pre-final judgement. Beta is here, I took a look at it, and my sentence is: 4 out of 10 possible points, the same as Alpha.
As it has been my fear since Alpha, the classes have been changed too little or in the wrong places to keep backwards compatibility. This prevented the necessary changes to fix the really gaping holes in 3E's rules set and the most glaring gameplay issues. I could easily just copy&paste my complaints about Alpha in here, as 99% of those also fit Beta.
The classes are still unbalanced and not treading on equal terms. The fighter is still ridiculously useless outside of combat (at least he now can prevent himself from getting lost in the wilderness), and the druid is still the strongest class (still can gain a rhinoceros animal companion at level 7, and at level 12 can gain the fighter's level 19 class feature several times per day with Wild Shape). The additions done to the fighter are very weak, even more so when compared to the additional goodies and free spell-like abilities the casters get.
Trap finding is still restricted to rogues only, fly is still a separate skill, Diplomacy still allows the party to change any captive to "helpful" in 2 days (but not in actual combat, which is at least a bit of improvement), and the Craft skill still enters an state when trying to make quarterstaffs. Disguise is still laughable, in that it is easier for a male half-orc to pass off as a female halfling (-4 penalty), than it is for a young human to pass off as a venerable human (-6 penalty).
I practically laughed my ass off when I noticed that they made Gate even stronger than in 3E. Instead of 1000XP it now costs 5000gp while doing the exactly same thing as in 3E. That the infinite magic item loop with Astral Projection is still possible is less than a surprise for me.
The big surprise, however, were the changes made to Disjunction. This spell is now a nuke that doesn't irradiate the target area and doesn't produce any fallout - you have no reason not to use it from the moment it becomes available whenever possible. You can use it now without the risk of destroying more than 50% of the party loot (as the items are merely suppressed and only destroyed on a natural 1 on their save), while the risk of destroying artifacts and (potentionally) suffering bad consequences for it has been removed from the area version of the spell.
Actually, the argument that PRPG would balance casters and noncasters by making spells weaker falls flat on its face right there - spells are still infinitely more powerful than any "mundane" class abilities.
And finally, people complaining about the artwork of certain parts of anatomy in 4E should better stay clear of PRPG. At least, 4E doesn't have females with boobs the size of their head running around in what would be fitting for a prostitute (*cough*page 66*cough*).
Or...
Wrong -"DIE, 4th EDITION, DIE!!!"
Right - "IMHO, I feel that 4th edition should perish"
:D ;) :P
-It needs to be purple for the visual effect. :P
-Yeah I was kinda disappointed by the Beta myself. :embarrass I guess I was expecting more out of it. But we get a year to playtest it, or I get a year to get more pathfinder stuff and then call it quits on 3E, or 3P. Time will tell.
18DELTA ;)
And finally, people complaining about the artwork of certain parts of anatomy in 4E should better stay clear of PRPG. At least, 4E doesn't have females with boobs the size of their head running around in what would be fitting for a prostitute (*cough*page 66*cough*).
Ummmm...
Doesn't that count as a positive?
Sure these rules aren't perfect, but thats because they are built off of the 3e ones.
I'm sure when they do the 2.0 version of PF in a couple of years, it will put 5e to shame.
Of course 5e isn't going to come with a rulebook - just a box of figures and rubberbands to shoot at them to decide combat. :D
Ummmm...
Doesn't that count as a positive?
Only if you're a certain type of male teenager going through a certain phase in bodily development. :P
Sure these rules aren't perfect, but thats because they are built off of the 3e ones.
No, the rules aren't perfect because they promised almost full backwards compatibility which prevented them from doing the really necessary changes to the rules or classes.
I'm sure when they do the 2.0 version of PF in a couple of years, it will put 5e to shame. [...]
I'm sure you mean Pathfinder 1.5.
Balance issues aside (I've never paid much attention to those) it does fix the two major issues I've had with 3e ever since its first release - namely, not enough feats and not enough skill points. Finally, I don't need to cheat to get all the skill ranks I need for a given character concept! That by itself is a major point in Pathfinder's favor in my books.
Skill ranks are alive and kicking, just check page 52. You still have to distribute your few skill points you gain each level. And the fighter still only gains 2+Int, as does the paladin. You do get 3 feats more (10 instead of 7), that's true. However, feats are still mostly static, and there's no possible way to change learned feats - which in turn means that the mundane character's are stuck with suboptimal choices forever, while almost all spellcasters can exchange their spell lists on a daily basis.
No, the rules aren't perfect because they promised almost full backwards compatibility which prevented them from doing the really necessary changes to the rules or classes.
I can see your point here. I've spent a good portion of my afternoon looking over this pdf, and I do get the impression that the backwards compatibility issue is holding the rules back some. The problem is that they are adding things on top of 3.5, instead of rebuilding it from the ground up. However I would say that it is (or rather, seems to be on my initial analysis) to be an improvement over 3.5 pretty much across the board. And to be honest, even if it is holding the rules back, backwards compatability is a big plus.
Skill ranks are alive and kicking, just check page 52. You still have to distribute your few skill points you gain each level. And the fighter still only gains 2+Int, as does the paladin. You do get 3 feats more (10 instead of 7), that's true. However, feats are still mostly static, and there's no possible way to change learned feats - which in turn means that the mundane character's are stuck with suboptimal choices forever, while almost all spellcasters can exchange their spell lists on a daily basis.
Skill points are a lot better though. You don't need to get more skill points if the skill points you have go further, which is what they've done. I won't argue with you on the point about feats.
All in all, my initial system analysis on this is rather positive. Not sure how I would compare it to 4e, but it certainly feels like an improvement to 3.5.
-How can things be backwards compatible if many things have been inherently changed? Like, for example, I know that Barbarians have (had) 'Rage Points' that they spend on their Rage abilities.
Basically in this case "backwards compatible" means "quick and easy to update". Barbarians and monks work on this kind of point system, but it really does not take much effort to move over from "rage 2/day" or "stunning fist /1 day" to a generic pool from which those abilities derive how often they can be used.
Skill ranks are alive and kicking, just check page 52.
But cross-class skills at 2-for-1 aren't. 1-for-1 skill ranks for all skills for the win!
-How can things be backwards compatible if many things have been inherently changed? Like, for example, I know that Barbarians have (had) 'Rage Points' that they spend on their Rage abilities.
Which is another "peeve" of mine with PRPG: inconsistent mechanics. Why in all Nine Hells is it necessary that barbarians and monks work off two completely different point systems? Does it make either class more "unique"? No, it only introduces additional unnecessary subsystems into the game.
Also, some sacred cows just refused to die in PRPG. Like the "rogues only" thing regarding trap finding, or the stockpiling of abilities on the druid (full spellcasting plus full wild shaping plus full animal companions stuff).
What they should imho have done was to introduce three "trees" of abilities for each class, and give each character the option of being really good in one tree, sort of good in another tree, and only average in the third tree. This would have given the designers the opportunity to keep favorite class abilities (see sblocks below, just some quick examples), while making characters more unique and preventing some unholy stockpiling of abilities and as well allow all classes to gain generally useful or unconventional abilities.
Example: Druid
Tree - Spellcasting
Tree - Animal companions
Tree - Wild shape
Tree - Spellcasting
- excellent: Gain druid spells up to spell level 9.
- good: Gain druid spells up to spell level 6.
- average: Gain druid spells up to spell level 3.
Tree - Animal companions
- excellent: Gain animal companion as written.
- good: Gain animal companion as written, but tread druid class level as 3 lower.
- average: Gain animal companion as written, but tread druid class level as 6 lower.
Tree - Wild shape
- excellent: Gain wild shape as written.
- good: Gain wild shape as written, but tread druid class level as 3 lower.
- average: Gain wild shape as written, but tread druid class level as 6 lower.
Things I liked:
1) the new Fighter abilities - the fighter has new things to look forward to each level
2) Channel Energy of the clerics - the 3.5 rules for turning undead were AWFUL - I like the Pathfinder version better
3) Cantrips as spell-like abilities - this is how it should have been in the first place
4) Acrobatics skill - combines jump, tumble and balance together
5) Perception skill - combines spot and listen
6) Dodge is now actually useful!!!
7) Concentration merged into Spellcraft
8) Druids can focus on elemental magic instead of animal companion :D
9) Wizard schools being much more than just spells
10) Clerics get their deity's favored weapon proficiency (many groups house-ruled this anyway)
11) Better art!
12) Combat maneuvers - FINALLY a streamlined way of doing grappling, disarming, etc.
Things I am not sure about:
1) new Rogue talents - would have to see it play tested as it is basically Skill Tricks - most rogues spend skill points on Skill Tricks anyway so I think it might even out
Going to incorporate some of these things into my 3.5 campaign - thanks Paizo for the download!
Which is another "peeve" of mine with PRPG: inconsistent mechanics. Why in all Nine Hells is it necessary that barbarians and monks work off two completely different point systems? Does it make either class more "unique"? No, it only introduces additional unnecessary subsystems into the game.
Also, some sacred cows just refused to die in PRPG. Like the "rogues only" thing regarding trap finding, or the stockpiling of abilities on the druid (full spellcasting plus full wild shaping plus full animal companions stuff).
What they should imho have done was to introduce three "trees" of abilities for each class, and give each character the option of being really good in one tree, sort of good in another tree, and only average in the third tree. This would have given the designers the opportunity to keep favorite class abilities (see sblocks below, just some quick examples), while making characters more unique and preventing some unholy stockpiling of abilities and as well allow all classes to gain generally useful or unconventional abilities.Example: Druid
Tree - Spellcasting
- excellent: Gain druid spells up to spell level 9.
- good: Gain druid spells up to spell level 6.
- average: Gain druid spells up to spell level 3.
Tree - Animal companions
- excellent: Gain animal companion as written.
- good: Gain animal companion as written, but tread druid class level as 3 lower.
- average: Gain animal companion as written, but tread druid class level as 6 lower.
Tree - Wild shape
- excellent: Gain wild shape as written.
- good: Gain wild shape as written, but tread druid class level as 3 lower.
- average: Gain wild shape as written, but tread druid class level as 6 lower.
I'll try to say this as diplomatically as I can, and apologize if my tone becomes too snarky, but...
So you like 4th Edition. That's fine, nothing wrong with that. So you don't like Pathfinder. That's fine too, nothing wrong with that either. But what I don't get is this burning desire to nitpick the heck out of a game that you claim not to like, and have no interest in period. I'm inclined to think that you're somehow, perhaps subconsciously, trying to take the diehard 4E fan notion of convincing the old guard to play 4E by telling them that "3E sucks," and extend it to Pathfinder. This sort of thing is no better than what many people here who are interested in the new Realms have complained about lately in terms of old guard sorts trashing the new stuff.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with posting criticisms... but it's one thing to make a post or two, and then let it go, and another entirely to keep at it relentlessly (even in the same thread).
In a less snarky manner...
You want to know why I like rules like Pathfinder, and not those like 4E? No, Pathfinder is not airtight and completely unabuseable.* That's because it, like its predecessors, and many other roleplaying games out there, is not expected to be used without an intelligent arbiter to interpret and rule on things - the sort of person who can decide when the rules do not apply precisely, or should not apply. That's because they're meant to try and model the 90%-99% of situations that may come up, but are not meant to limit you to strictly those options (in the way that, say, 4th Edition tends to). Put another way, it is a game where you choose what you want to accomplish, and then try to apply the rules to that, rather than looking in the rules for what you can do, and then selecting from that (limited) list.
*Chess, for example, is airtight as far as rules go. That doesn't mean it's the game I want to play.
3e/3P = Chess, and
4e = Checkers, right? :P
Just kidding - I like 4e for its logical rules and simplicity, while I love 3e/3P for the fact that I can STILL USE the $1000 worth of books on my shelf.
Money talks, and - in this case - logic walks. ;)
But I'll use both, and enjoy both, because it really doesn't matter what rules you use, so long as the 'snack guy' comes through.
:D
But I'll use both, and enjoy both, because it really doesn't matter what rules you use, so long as the 'snack guy' comes through.
:D
What, not a fan of the classic "bribe the GM by paying for the pizza"? :D
Unfortunately, lately I have to also provide the snacks, so there's no bribery possible ATM.
I do give out magic items for backrubs, though. :P
On Topic:
Weather you're a fan of Pathfinder or not, Paizo is sweeping the awards right now - check this thread - they only missed an award in one category!
From what I understand, WotC and Paizo were very 'congratulatory' of each other.
To be honest, I used to drink beer when I played once in awhile, a LONG time ago, but its not the greatest way to keep a game 'on track'.
Mm, "Trees"... so, say, we could have "Arms", "Fury", and "Protection" for Warri- I mean, Fighters? :P
:P
I'll try to say this as diplomatically as I can, and apologize if my tone becomes too snarky, but...
It has nothing to do with whether I "like" Paizo or PRPG, but rather with a somewhat cynical look at what they told us PRPG would deliver. I've made my position more than clear in the last thread, and to be honest I couldn't care less if you accepted it or not. However, if I put up a post like yours, with a similar choice of words, regarding for example Alediran's or Lord Karsus's position regarding the 4E FR setting, I'd have my post deleted faster than I could say "baiting".
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with posting criticisms... but it's one thing to make a post or two, and then let it go, and another entirely to keep at it relentlessly (even in the same thread). [...]
In the last thread you said something similar, and that you didn't approve of my criticisms of the PRPG rules. My response was to challenge you to explain how the rules supplied by Paizo did deliver what was promised - a correction of the gameplay and rules problems of 3E while staying compatible. You've never answered to that post. I really wonder why...
Ok, let's look at the alternatives you have. You can either ignore me and my points, accept my position that the PRPG rules are highly flawed and basically only mask 3E's problems under a fresh paintjob, or you can discuss the issues with me and point out where and why my perceived criticisms are flawed.
However, I don't think you'll actually do the latter. There's incredibly little in the rules that would support your position, because the PRPG fighter and rogue are still weaker than the PRPG cleric/druid/wizard, the rules are inconsistent, the spells are still just as strong or even stronger (astral projection, gate, disjunction) and while some problems were solved really excellent (CMB) they dropped the ball quite hard on others (fly skill).
And they involve the fans in the design process, rather then create top-secret, clandestine 'timelines' behind closed doors (the whole while selling us 3e books for the last three years).
It doesn't matter which system is better - some companies you want to deal with, and others you don't.
Paizo sold out of the Pathfinder book at Gencon in NINE hours - WAY beyond expectations. That had little to do with the product, and more about the company that stands behind it.
What I liked most about 4th Edition was that, although it grew from similar roots, it was ultimately an evolution. I also loved how they streamlined things, and feel that, overall, that was the biggest selling point. As well things became more balanced.
However, 'more balanced' did come at a price. I hate some things about 4E, but unlike 3E I find it hard to house rule things because of how tightly woven it is together. I dislike how powers were done, over all, and believe that 4E could still be simplified and streamlined even more.
Pathfinder I think could have been awesome if they had simply dropped the notion of backward compatibility. If I want to play in 3.5E, I'll just play in 3.5E. Although, it's pretty clear who their target market is: Those who don't like / won't use 4E rules. That's fine, but really I'm not likely to go backward. If I don't use the 4E rules, I'll likely use another system entirely. I am more likely to play using the 2E AD&D rules than Pathfinder, at least at this time.
Pathfinder I think could have been awesome if they had simply dropped the notion of backward compatibility. If I want to play in 3.5E, I'll just play in 3.5E.
That's all well and good for you, but what about people a few years down the road who won't necessarily have access to a 3.5 PHB? Wizards is destroying its back stock - in order for the OGL market to remain sustainable, someone else has to step into the vacancy. Sticking with vanilla 3.5 is only a viable option if you already have the books (yes, you could use the SRD... but how many new players are necessarily going to know about that?).
I like Paizo and wish them the best of luck. I don't really see much evolution in these rules though.
It not so much about evolution, as it is about revolution.
D&D has sat at the top of the RPG pile for a long time, and now, like any empire, it has grown stagnant and decadent.
Its time for the little guys to take back this hobby from giant corporations, and put designing back into the hands of people who still care!
We are the Barbarians to WotC's Rome!!!
Via la' Ravolution! :D
errrr... sorry... was having a 'moment' there... :embarrass
Paizo products are better because they just are.
I'm not saying Paizo products in general are bad. I really enjoyed the various adventure paths in Dungeon back then. However, my point is that PRPG doesn't stand up to what it could be, nor to what was promised.
And they involve the fans in the design process, rather then create top-secret, clandestine 'timelines' behind closed doors (the whole while selling us 3e books for the last three years).
Which is not necessarily a good thing, considering "vocal minority" et al. There's a certain saying about too many cooks for a reason. ;)
It doesn't matter which system is better - some companies you want to deal with, and others you don't.
Paizo sold out of the Pathfinder book at Gencon in NINE hours - WAY beyond expectations. That had little to do with the product, and more about the company that stands behind it.
It's like with operating systems. Linux may be the technologically better operating system, but it does nothing for me if it doesn't run the programs I need/want. Supporting a system that doesn't fit your needs is quite pointless. Pointing out why it doesn't fit your needs after giving it a close look is not - and I'm doing nothing else.
I'm not ranting about how much Paizo sucked, that Paizo ruined the legacy of DnD, that Paizo's designer were morons and retards, and so one (by the way, all of that WotC had to deal with on their own forums). I'm not making empty claims, but supporting and explaining my points.
I admit I can be quite cynical at times. But other than that I really don't get the veiled hostility. Is it some "he's insulting the messiah!" kind of thing?
The print edition was just for people who insist on playing with a physical book in front of them - they had no idea so many people would be willing to pay for the Beta!
The only game I rate better than D&D 4e/3.x/2E/1E is Arduin and I'm waiting (patiently) for the new ruleset to come out sometime around Christmas.
Bel
The only game I rate better than D&D 4e/3.x/2E/1E is Arduin and I'm waiting (patiently) for the new ruleset to come out sometime around Christmas.
Bel
never heard of it
It not so much about evolution, as it is about revolution.
D&D has sat at the top of the RPG pile for a long time, and now, like any empire, it has grown stagnant and decadent.
I actually agree. I'm rather sick of D&D in general, but as you pointed out in a previous post, it's what everyone knows. So it is a catch 22.
I just find myself very conflicted about the 4th Edition rules. On the one hand, they call to me, and on the other, I want to burn them. :P
For example, I like how streamlined and balanced it is and yet at the same time, it completely killed the flavor of the wizard. I like rituals, but I hate how in most cases a fighter can just take a feat and then suddenly have the ability to raise the dead via a ritual. I like how dependence on magic items has been lessened from 3E, but at the expense of making PC's more powerful.
You know, everyone says 4E is like a MMORPG, but I disagree. It feels so much more like Magic: The Gathering. Seriously, look at the powers and the way they work. Just picture them on playing cards, and you have D&D: 4th Edition.
I hate how powers are at will, encounter and daily. I wish they had simply tried to use the ideas presented in the psionic's system of 3E instead. That way you have a 'power pool' (just like hit points). It represents a character's stamina, and how long it takes until he grows exhausted. Then come up with a way to balance / judge the cost of the powers. The whole 'you can only do X once per day' thing just doesn't make sense role-playing wise, especially for melee characters.
What? I can only try to impale someone with my sword once per-day? WTF, why?
The strongly tactical nature of the 4E rules also just doesn't sit well with me.
Bleh, there are some things I like and some things I hate, and changing what I hate would cause the entire system to collapse, which sucks.
In the end, though, I feel that 4E is a superior system to 3E, simply based on how much easier it is for DM's, the balanced nature of the game and the streamlined rules.
Eventually, after their rules and setting books come out next year, they plan on making a better system, still built off of 3e, but from the ground-up, so it will be recognizable and fix all the problems.. but will sacrifice backwards-compatibility at that point. They know that 3e will not last forever - they just want too give the old system a 'shot in the arm' so we can get another 2-3 years out of it.
I don't understand why Paizo just didn't do this to begin with, by the time they get ready to make their new system everyone will either be happy with 'previous edition' Pathfinder or be happy playing 4th Edition D&D. They'd have to work to get both groups to cross over, instead of just giving the 4th Edition haters an alternative - which is something I would have liked.
[...] I hate how powers are at will, encounter and daily.
Would it help if you didn't call them "powers" but rather "class features"? Think about it, with powers you're effectively designing your own class with class features that can be used at various intervalls. ;)
[...] Then come up with a way to balance / judge the cost of the powers. [...]
Which may be impossible, or result in drastically nerfed actions/skewed costs (just compare some psionic powers to their arcane/divine counterparts).
Also, it would result in repeated spamming of the "best" actions again and again. After all, why should you use a subpar power if it costs the same amount of points?
never heard of it
Arduin Eternal
Thats why its a FREE download - they want people to play it and tell them about all the bugs.
The print edition was just for people who insist on playing with a physical book in front of them - they had no idea so many people would be willing to pay for the Beta!
Lol. Ok.
Or they were just fishing.;)
Which is another "peeve" of mine with PRPG: inconsistent mechanics. Why in all Nine Hells is it necessary that barbarians and monks work off two completely different point systems? Does it make either class more "unique"? No, it only introduces additional unnecessary subsystems into the game.
-No, that, I like.
A Beta for a MMORPG I understand. I cannot see doing that for a Pend and Paper RPG. Odd.
-That's a good thing. These are Alpha rules, and Beta rules, and so on and so on. People play them, and give their input and suggestions, and all of the bugs that are in the system can get systematically eliminated. I've never seen anything before like this, I'll admit, and really, it's a good idea. You get to:
A) Hype your system and,
B) Have your game play tested for free, and have the kinks worked out for free
-And, I'll repeat myself: MT, is their Ki System anything like the Ki System we developed?
I'm also not suggesting people switch to Golarion (even if it is VERY good); plenty of people say they will continue to play in the Old Realms, and this book might have a few things in it that will improve their game.
Don't know much about Golarion itself, but the Pathfinder Society campaign (Paizo's living campaign) looks quite nice. Fun concepts, such as factions, spiffy looking adventures, etc.
I'll be running one adventure at GenCon-UK. I am hoping some of the people who play Pathfinder Society may also play LFR. Maybe I can convince a few to try it out at the social gathering.
In the last thread you said something similar, and that you didn't approve of my criticisms of the PRPG rules. My response was to challenge you to explain how the rules supplied by Paizo did deliver what was promised - a correction of the gameplay and rules problems of 3E while staying compatible. You've never answered to that post. I really wonder why...
Because I believe the greater question gets lost when you begin to harp on minutiae, which is what I see the majority of your criticisms falling under, and I didn't feel like letting the thread devolve into a flame war - I posted my responses "post it to the Paizo Playtest board" and "It's just an Alpha release". There wasn't much more that could be constructively added at that point, on the grounds you wanted to discuss. I figured I'd let it go, but I guess that's not going end it. Ironically, I actually said to myself when this thread started, "Gee, I wonder how long before he posts here too with the same argument." :P
To give an example... Just because there are a number of flaws in the rules to Australian Design Group's Massive WWII game, "World in Flames", doesn't mean it's not a good game, for instance. I would rather discuss the overall design principles, ideas, and such (For Example, whether a WWII game should attempt to emulate the historical as much as possible, or whether it should allow for 'alternate history' type events, and to what extent), rather than the merits of the Line of Supply rules, or whether or not there are potential abuses of the advance-building rules.
Why? Because this isn't the place for such nit-picking. There is a place to bring that sort of thing up - it's on Paizo's own forums, where they are asking for people to give feedback of that sort so they can fix it. Ironically, they did fix some of the things you complained about (spell-like abilities granted to sorcerers/etc were changed to simply be bonus spells, for one) - why? Because some fan stepped up and said 'hey, there's a potential problem with this, maybe we could do X instead?'
Ok, let's look at the alternatives you have. You can either ignore me and my points, accept my position that the PRPG rules are highly flawed and basically only mask 3E's problems under a fresh paintjob, or you can discuss the issues with me and point out where and why my perceived criticisms are flawed.
Again, see above. In my opinion, you're coming at this from a pretty biased viewpoint, from someone for whom 4E is really what you want. And that's perfectly fine - 4E was designed with certain things in mind, and those things are what some people want and enjoy. More power to 'em. But some of us don't, and some of us prefer 3E's general design. We do think there are things 3E could do better, but we don't want to give up the other things we like by going to 4E to fix them. My ultimate problem here is that you seem to refuse to accept this point - that for some of us, the solution to issues with 3E is not switching to 4E.
because the PRPG fighter and rogue are still weaker than the PRPG cleric/druid/wizard
Some of us don't want all the classes to be hammered into perfect equality. 4E's classes are, but they're also ridiculously similar once the fluff is pulled away. I still see a lot of reasons to play a fighter or rogue - in fact, I wanted to roll one up for the current PFRPG game I'm starting in. The only reason I'm not is that the group needed a cleric.
the rules are inconsistent
So I guess reality is inconsistent because Newtonian mechanics don't apply to everything, then? :P Seriously, sometimes it is better to have different mechanics to resolve different things. To use my World in Flames example again, is it a bad game because there are different mechanics to resolve land combat than there are from resolving sea combat? Sure, we could just reduce everything to factors and roll on an odds-chart, the way more generic WWII games do - but then a lot of the flavor that makes sea combat different than land combat is lost. Not everyone agrees that simple = better in every case.
to challenge you to explain how the rules supplied by Paizo did deliver what was promised - a correction of the gameplay and rules problems of 3E while staying compatible. You've never answered to that post. I really wonder why...
Because I believe the greater question gets lost when you begin to harp on minutiae, which is what I see the majority of your criticisms falling under, and I didn't feel like letting the thread devolve into a flame war - I posted my responses "post it to the Paizo Playtest board" and "It's just an Alpha release". There wasn't much more that could be constructively added at that point, on the grounds you wanted to discuss.
To give an example... Just because there are a number of flaws in the rules to Australian Design Group's Massive WWII game, "World in Flames", doesn't mean it's not a good game, for instance. I would rather discuss the overall design principles, ideas, and such (For Example, whether a WWII game should attempt to emulate the historical as much as possible, or whether it should allow for 'alternate history' type events, and to what extent), rather than the merits of the Line of Supply rules, or whether or not there are potential abuses of the advance-building rules.
Why? Because this isn't the place for such nit-picking. There is a place to bring that sort of thing up - it's on Paizo's own forums, where they are asking for people to give feedback of that sort so they can fix it. Ironically, they did fix some of the things you complained about (spell-like abilities granted to sorcerers/etc were changed to simply be bonus spells, for one) - why? Because some fan stepped up and said 'hey, there's a potential problem with this, maybe we could do X instead?'
I'm sure I could pick up a copy of the 4E rules (which I'd have to pay WoTC for, rather than download for free, at least legally) and go through and find a number of things I consider bad, overpowered, or inconsistent (lore or rules wise), and post repeatedly in threads talking about the 4E rules about how bad I think they are, and challenge people to argue with me over it, thread-jacking into a flamewar over minutiae rather than letting them enjoy the broader themes of the game. But is that really fair, considering that I've long since made up my mind about it?
Ok, let's look at the alternatives you have. You can either ignore me and my points, accept my position that the PRPG rules are highly flawed and basically only mask 3E's problems under a fresh paintjob, or you can discuss the issues with me and point out where and why my perceived criticisms are flawed.
Again, see above. In my opinion, you're coming at this from a pretty biased viewpoint, from someone for whom 4E is really what you want. And that's perfectly fine - 4E was designed with certain things in mind, and those things are what some people want and enjoy. More power to 'em. But some of us don't, and some of us prefer 3E's general design. We do think there are things 3E could do better, but we don't want to give up the other things we like by going to 4E to fix them. My ultimate problem here is that you seem to refuse to accept this point - that for some of us, the solution to issues with 3E is not switching to 4E.
because the PRPG fighter and rogue are still weaker than the PRPG cleric/druid/wizard
Some of us don't want all the classes to be hammered into perfect equality. 4E's classes are, but they're also ridiculously similar once the fluff is pulled away. I still see a lot of reasons to play a fighter or rogue - in fact, I wanted to roll one up for the current PFRPG game I'm starting in. The only reason I'm not is that the group needed a cleric.
the spells are still just as strong or even stronger (astral projection, gate, disjunction) and while some problems were solved really excellent (CMB) they dropped the ball quite hard on others (fly skill).
Now we're into the heart of the nitpicking. I have to laugh when you complain about Astral Projection being used to duplicate items, because I know that any DM worth their salt would just say "...um, no, no, and heck no?" to any player that tried to pull such a stunt. As far as potential power levels of other spells, I dunno, have you tried playing with them, in the context of the system? Maybe they're not so imbalanced as you seem to think at a glance.
And as far as flying skill... actually, that makes a lot of sense to some of us. I've seen glowing posts over there talking about how people think it was a great inclusion. You don't - but then, you also like 4E's mechanics, so... maybe some people just like different things?
Now, once more I pose the question to you. Are you going to keep dogging this, until we somehow magically resolve all your issues for you, or are you going to say your piece and drop this?
Because I believe the greater question gets lost when you begin to harp on minutiae, [...]
I'm getting at your repeated use of this word later. But let's remember that you said all my complaints were "harping on minutiae".
[...] Ironically, I actually said to myself when this thread started, "Gee, I wonder how long before he posts here too with the same argument." :P
[...] Why? Because this isn't the place for such nit-picking. There is a place to bring that sort of thing up - it's on Paizo's own forums, where they are asking for people to give feedback of that sort so they can fix it.
You're right, this forum isn't the place for PRPG at all. It should be in General Discussion or Off-Topic Tavern or Other Published Worlds, but not in the FR boards. One could even think of this thread as either baiting or advertising, considering how much off-topic it is for these boards.
Also, good to know that you consider pointing out glaring holes in power balance and completely failing to deliver the promised result as "nit-picking". Let me remember than when LK or Alediran rant about how 4E killed the Realms again, I'll just throw "STOP NIT-PICKING!!!" at them and everything's set while I completely disregard their individual points as "nit-picking" without dealing with them.
Ironically, they did fix some of the things you complained about (spell-like abilities granted to sorcerers/etc were changed to simply be bonus spells, for one) - why? Because some fan stepped up and said 'hey, there's a potential problem with this, maybe we could do X instead?'
However, by doing so they broke another of their promises regarding spellcasters. That all casters (with the exception of the sorcerer) would have the same amount of spells per day. Now, a level 20 wizard has slots 4/14/5/5/5/5/5/5/5/5 and a level 20 cleric is more along the lines of 4/14/5/4/4/5/5/4/5/5. Paizo has actually broken two promises in that case; first, they didn't remove all bonus slots from casters, and second, they didn't weaken the spells enough to bring them down to sensible levels. Corpus delicti: magic missile is still the best level 1 attack spell, far surpassing burning hands and shocking grasp.
Again, see above. In my opinion, you're coming at this from a pretty biased viewpoint, from someone for whom 4E is really what you want. [...]
And certain other posters aren't biased? "Paizo is the heir of WotC", "Pathfinder is the true new DnD", "Paizo is so much better than WotC", and so on, and so forth, ad nauseam. I wonder if all that is true, why are those posters still here and not "gracing" the Paizo forums with their presence?
[...] And that's perfectly fine - 4E was designed with certain things in mind, and those things are what some people want and enjoy. More power to 'em. But some of us don't, and some of us prefer 3E's general design.
However, those "some of you" apparently take PRPG as it is presented by Paizo, without looking at the details. The class imbalance is still there, the overpowered and broken spells are still there. Sure, Paizo fixed the SoD spells... but in the same breath gave rangers and rogues cap abilities that are SoDs.
We do think there are things 3E could do better, but we don't want to give up the other things we like by going to 4E to fix them. My ultimate problem here is that you seem to refuse to accept this point - that for some of us, the solution to issues with 3E is not switching to 4E.
I'm not looking at PRPG from what the players want, but rather what Paizo promised it would accomplish.
Some of us don't want all the classes to be hammered into perfect equality. 4E's classes are, but they're also ridiculously similar once the fluff is pulled away.
One of the times I gladly invoke Godwin's Law.
[indent]"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." --Joseph Goebbels[/indent]
Your statement just isn't true. Try playing a wizard like a fighter, or a rogue like a paladin, or a ranger like a wizard, and you'll have problems in no time (one of them most likely being one or more dead PCs). The classes in 4E play distinctly different from each other.
I still see a lot of reasons to play a fighter or rogue - in fact, I wanted to roll one up for the current PFRPG game I'm starting in.
And what reason would that be besides "unnecessary fluff"? The fighter still can't do anything better than the other melee classes. He's still dependent on mama cleric to get back up after each fight, and he still doesn't do enough damage to be comparable to the barbarian. He still can't do jack outside of combat, or even do as little as train a militia and rally them for a battle, because the frigging bard is a better army general than the fighter. The fighter still doesn't have any unique class abilities that really distinguish him from the other combat classes.
And the rogue is enforced by the rules, by making trap finding a rogue only ability. I though we had left the days behind where only clerics could heal, only wizards could fly, only rangers could track, and only rogues could find traps. Apparently I was wrong.
The only reason I'm not is that the group needed a cleric.
Thank you for proving my point.
People complain about 4E being "WoW-y", but PRPG is actually even more so. You need a healer (cleric) and you need a trap monkey (rogue), and no other class can fill these spots.So I guess reality is inconsistent because Newtonian mechanics don't apply to everything, then? :P Seriously, sometimes it is better to have different mechanics to resolve different things.
Reality is even more consistent than you think, because Newtonian mechanics aren't the baseline. ;)
Anyway, why didn't pathfinder introduce new attack rolls for ranged and unarmed strikes? Like, melee is d20 + BAB + Str, ranged is d20 + BAB + sqrt(abs(2*DEX - 3)), and unarmed is d20 + sq(BAB + 3*ln(STR))? That would be better according to your position, because they all are "different things" after all. Or why doesn't the rogue use some other skill mechanic? Rogue's a different class, after all. Why doesn't the sorcerer use psionic powers and power points? Sorcerer's a different class, after all.
In some cases they put things on the same baseline (sorcerer and wizard using the same spell list, or cleric and druid spell preparation working the same) while for other things that are basically the same they introduce different subsystems (monk pool = WIS + 1/2 monk level, barbarian pool = 4+CON + (2+CON)/barbarian level).
[...] minutiae [...] minutiae [...] minutiae [...]
I said I'd get at this. ;) Ok, what isn't a "minutiae" then? Classes carrying the same imbalance as 3E? Spells still being as overpowered/broken? Casters still having the most options? If these problems are "minutiae" in your opinion, then, please, enlighten me what are "real" problems?
Now we're into the heart of the nitpicking. I have to laugh when you complain about Astral Projection being used to duplicate items, because I know that any DM worth their salt would just say "...um, no, no, and heck no?" to any player that tried to pull such a stunt.
Oberoni Fallacy. Nothing more to say here.
As far as potential power levels of other spells, I dunno, have you tried playing with them, in the context of the system? Maybe they're not so imbalanced as you seem to think at a glance.
Gate still allows a level 17 caster to call a CR 27 (or so) pet (like, a 34HD balor or 34HD solar) for basically nothing (5000gp) and automatically control it. Why shouldn't a level 17+ caster use that spell in any remotely challenging combat as an opening move? He doesn't lose anything after all, now that XP costs have been removed. Mechanically speaking, there's little the DM can do for preventing the party wizard from dropping 34HD outsiders left and right on his encounters.
Disjunction has been made even more broken than it was before. While the automatic "loot destruction" aspect of the spell prevented it from becoming a no-brainer opening move, it now has become just that. In PRPG, enemies have no reason to not open each and every combat with dropping a Disjunction on the opposing party, as it's the ultimate debuff spell. Even the "destroy an artifact and you're F'ed" aspect has been removed as a drawback - now you must specifically target a single item/artifact to actually risk the consequences.
Dispel Magic is still a pain to take in account in the middle of the combat. The game still grinds to a halt when the party wizard drops a successful targeted dispel on the BBEG as the DM has to recalculate the BBEG's complete statblock depending on which buffs were dispelled and which are still running.
The candle of invocation unlimited-Wish-loop has been elegantly prevented by removing the "can create magic items" section from the spell. However, something else is now wrong with it: how can an item storing a spell that requires a 5000gp material component only cost 4200gp to create?
I do appreciate Paizo's fix to the whole polymorph mess, thou. Splitting the form changing spells into multiple spells regarding creature type has already been hinted at by WotC in their latter supplements.
And as far as flying skill... actually, that makes a lot of sense to some of us. I've seen glowing posts over there talking about how people think it was a great inclusion. You don't - but then, you also like 4E's mechanics, so... maybe some people just like different things?
With the exception, that Paizo promised some skill condensation and generalization. Introducing a skill that is only useful to three classes, and only if those classes use a certain set of spells or class abilities runs counter to their intent. It's like giving the fighter a different BAB on days when he's wearing green socks instead of blue socks.
Now, once more I pose the question to you. Are you going to keep dogging this, until we somehow magically resolve all your issues for you, or are you going to say your piece and drop this?
You've scored a victory. I won't bother discussing PRPG - or, in that regard, mechanics at all because you constantly ignore them or drift into Oberoni Fallacy terrain - with you any longer. Happy gaming.
Oberoni Fallacy
Tell Oberoni to stay away from my macaroni.
...what?
You've scored a victory. I won't bother discussing PRPG - or, in that regard, mechanics at all because you constantly ignore them or drift into Oberoni Fallacy terrain - with you any longer. Happy gaming.
I'll snip most of the diatribe, because I'd just as soon this whole matter be dropped - nevermind the whole matter is a huge waste of space. You do have a fair point in that this particular thread probably is verging on off-topic, but then, is it really all that hard to grasp that some of us plan to, or are considering, using the Pathfinder rules for our Forgotten Realms games?
As far as bias, yes, many of them are. I freely admit to preferring 3.5E/Pathfinder. Again, though, you don't see me telling people that 4th Edition is a horrible monstrosity that they shouldn't enjoy, and trying to convince them that it's so bad that (by derivation) they should go to a better alternative, ie, the system that I like. I try to keep opinions and preferences stated as such, and try also to be open-minded enough to admit that other people may not like the same things I do.
Thank you for proving my point. People complain about 4E being "WoW-y", but PRPG is actually even more so. You need a healer (cleric) and you need a trap monkey (rogue), and no other class can fill these spots.
Actually, I had a number of other options there, but I chose cleric because the class appealed to me more than other healing options, and I wanted to see how some of the power changes played out in game. I think this proves my point, though - not all of us see the notion of having specific party roles, or class strengths and weaknesses, as a bad thing. Considering that this was an aspect that WoW took from D&D, I find it a stretch to think that Pathfinder (or any other D&D derivation) should be blamed for this. I can flip back to my basic set, and - yep, there it is.
Really, I find that the notion of working together as a team made of individuals with different strengths and weaknesses, who fill different roles, is much more realistic than making everyone equal, whether we're talking about Sports, Modern Combat, or even a work-type environment. Again though, that's me - not everyone agrees with it, and hey, for them, there's 4E to play.
Also, good to know that you consider pointing out glaring holes in power balance and completely failing to deliver the promised result as "nit-picking".
Let me try and explain. I think there's a fair argument as to why someone might like 4E better than Pathfinder, and it hinges on broader design principles, and reasons why people like or dislike 3.5E. I can see hints of it in your postings, and it's certainly fine to be of that opinion. However, instead of contrasting those two, and explaining clearly why you feel 4E was the better solution for you, you seem to be trying to find ways to find fault with Pathfinder. The reason I think it comes off this way is that you're assuming that your basis (i.e., your views of what was wrong in 3.5, and what needed fixing) are universal, rather than subjective. Thus, rather than debating the premise, we are arguing over details - details that, if changed, would not change your underlying opinion, because your basis for evaluating it has not changed.
In short, if we start with the premise that you, and the Designers at WotC did, that 3.5E was inherently flawed on a number of levels, then 'promising to try and fix 3.5E' ought to result in 4E, or something similar.
If on the other hand, we start with the premise that 3.5E was pretty good, but has some aspects that could be improved... then why is it "a failure to fulfill that promise" when we end up with something like Pathfinder?
I won't bother discussing PRPG - or, in that regard, mechanics at all because you constantly ignore them or drift into Oberoni Fallacy terrain - with you any longer.
I really don't see how asking the DM to have a brain, or a spine, is really all that big of a deal. Only in computer games is the 'DM' expected to have to follow the literal letter of the rules, and not sometimes go "Hey, this doesn't make sense, maybe we should go by what they probably meant instead." I guess that's just another area where we disagree.
Honestly, I don't like getting into these arguments. I would much prefer a "let's agree to disagree, and have salient discussion on areas of mutual interest" rather than these religious-war type deals.
They know how to draw the fans in further, rather then alinate them.
They had TOO MUCH stuff to fit into that 400+ rulebook, so they published the extra 65 pages of material as web-enhancement (rather then just editting it all out for the customers to never see, or buy in a future product). Now, I can say "Gee, that was swell of them", but think about how insidiously clever they are -
Everyone who bought the Beta at Gencon - that sold out in NINE hours - will now all go online and download the free WE. Then they find the forums, the Pathfinder Factions, all the other free goodies in thieir download section, etc...
Since GenCon began, there are hundreds of new faces popping up over there wanting to know more.
Not only did they produce a gorgeous 400+ page product and give it away for FREE (as a pdf), walk away with most of the Ennies (Gaming's 'People's Choice Awards), but they also managed to direct most of the folks attending to THEIR SITE!
They are not just good game designers, they are brilliantly savy business people.
Pathfinder WON'T fail, and it has NOTHING to do with how good or bad either 3PF or 4e are - it has to do with how well they manipulate their customers. Paizo knows how to take something small and snowball it, whereas WotC has a history of making promises they can't keep.
This about business, not about game rules, and on that front WotC gets a great, BIG FAIL!
It is just fun to se people saying WOTC is putting out a "video game RPG" but when Paizo puts out a "beta" nobidy says a peep. Yeah it is free but so was WOW Beta.
-You definitely are drunk, as you are making no sense. Again, Alpha and Beta rules are a good thing. They allow the kinks to be worked out before the actual rules are published. That's a good thing for the company, and for people who are going to use the rules.
And, I'll repeat myself a third time: MT, is their Ki System anything like the Ki System we developed?
And I still don't think that the Wild Shape class feature fits the druid well. Just give the class access to the new shapechanging spells, and replace Wild Shape with something akin to the Archivist's Dark Knowledge feature.
First Off, the Pathfinder Society will probably blow the LFR right out of the water. Whereas WotC has dropped the ball with their 'Digital Initiative', Paizo has already divided up its fans into factions - Factions that can buy Shirts and other gear with their logo on it. Members even get an extra little icon next to their names on their boards.
They no how to draw the fans in further, rather then alinate them.
They had TOO MUCH stuff to fit into that 400+ rulebook, so they published the extra 65 pages of material as web-enhancement (rather then just editting it all out for the customers to never see, or buy in a future product). Now, I can say "Gee, that was swell of them", but think about how insidiously clever they are -
Everyone who bought the Beta at Gencon - that sold out in NINE hours - will now all go online and download the free WE. Then they find the forums, the Pathfinder Factions, all the other free goodies in thieir download section, etc...
Since GenCon began, there are hundreds of new faces popping up over there wanting to know more.
Not only did they produce a gorgeous 400+ page product and give it away for FREE (as a pdf), walk away with most of the Ennies (Gaming's 'People's Choice Awards), but they also managed to direct most of the folks attending to THEIR SITE!
They are not just good game designers, they are brilliantly savy business people.
Pathfinder WON'T fail, and it has NOTHING to do with how good or bad either 3PF or 4e are - it has to do with how well they manipulate their customers. Paizo knows how to take something small and snowball it, whereas WotC has a history of making promises they can't keep.
This about business, not about game rules, and on that front WotC gets a great, BIG FAIL!
Guess we've seen the rise of a new nation and the fall of an old empire. And history repeats again.
maybe the 5th edition, until that I'm fine with the homebrew
Just kidding - I like 4e for its logical rules and simplicity,
While I think 4.0 was a heroic effort, I hardly find the "monsters" logical. Two different characters viewing the same monster see a different monster depending on their level.
Just nutty stuff.
Guess we've seen the rise of a new nation and the fall of an old empire. And history repeats again.
Crap me this gets tiresome, I'm guessing you don't like 4E or 4E FR?:rolleye2:
The Pathfinder setting is very enjoyable I like the effort and skill that have gone into creating a really fun and interesting setting.
I look forward to converting the setting and the Ap's to 4th edition. Why convert you ask?
Simple really PFRPG has failed (IMHO) to resolve any of the issues or problems of 3.5 and added a few in for fun. That being the case why not stick with 3.5? If I were so inclined.
P.S. Pathfinder society rules, no way LFR will complete with the sinister domain of Nicholas Logue.
The Paizo guys & gal (Hi Lisa:love
produce without exception the best adventures out there (again IMHO) and I will continue to purchase them for usr regardless of the extra work I now have to do to convert them to 4E.Also I have to agree with an earlier poster, surely this is an inappropriate forum for this discussion?
I repeat - Paizo is NOT trying to 'steal' WotC or 4e customers - they are producing products for the rather large number of gamers unwilling to move to the 4e rules, for whatever reason. Those people existed without Paizo's interference, and it was a smart business move to cater to that part of the fanbase.
Since the intent has been side-tracked to an 'Us vs Them' thing, maybe its best if we shut this puppy down?
-anything like the Ki System we developed?
I've yet to do a side-by-side comparison, but off the top of my head from quickly perusing both awhile ago, I'd say they were very similar.
While I think 4.0 was a heroic effort, I hardly find the "monsters" logical. Two different characters viewing the same monster see a different monster depending on their level.
Just nutty stuff.
-What? Care to further elaborate?
I've yet to do a side-by-side comparison, but off the top of my head from quickly perusing both awhile ago, I'd say they were very similar.
-Hmm...Interesting. Maybe I'll download the new rules and take a look, so see if there is anything I can improve on looking at their version.
Character Creation: This seemed to go pretty smoothly. I did spend a lot of time tinkering with my scores, as the DM went with a point-buy option, but I had a decent overall idea of how I wanted to weight them, generally. Picking my character's skills went noticeably faster, in part due to the combining of a number of skills, but also due to the alteration/simplification of skill ranks. I still got the same 'bang for my buck' I would have in 3.5. Feats were likewise easy, mostly glancing over for any major changes in the system.
Low Level Surviveability: We used the "Max HP + Con + Racial Mod" option. Essentially, that gave the 'frail' races like elves +4 hp, 'moderate' ones like humans +6, and 'tough' ones like dwarves or half orcs +8. Thus, as a human cleric with 12 con, I started with 15hp. How did this play out? Well, there were a few hairy situations where I got low, and had to break out some in-combat healing, but overall I felt pretty surviveable - even when I managed to trip over my own sword and stab myself on one critical fumble. :raincloud
Orisons at will: This was useful, though certainly not game-breaking. I did have to think once or twice about switching which ones I had prepared for the day. Most of them were more non-combat oriented, though a few gave a minor buff, or had specific uses (like 'Stabilize', which automatically stops bleeding).
Channel Energy: I took the Extra Turning feat (which should probably be renamed now, or perhaps I'm just forgetting the new name), since I figured I wanted to try and push things to see if I could break it. With a 14 Charisma, this gave me 7 uses per day of Channel Energy. The first time I attempted to use it, I ran headfirst into one of the drawbacks of the power, by accidentally healing one of the monsters we were fighting, as well as myself, since it affects all living creatures in the radius of effect. :embarrass Chastened, I focused on using it more in a post-battle state. Even with 7 uses, 1d6 per, it still seemed to strike a good balance between having too much healing, and not enough. The only time I had to convert a spell into cure light wounds was one time in combat, when I got too low for comfort. We did at one point run into undead as well, and it came in handy there, though no more or less than old-style turn undead.
Domain Powers: This was the big surprise, for me at least. Clerical domains work very differently in the PFRPG, and I found myself liking it quite a bit. It gave me a few extra things to do, that helped display the flavor of my cleric - for instance, as a Priest of the Luck Goddess, I had a power that gave the person I touched a minor luck boon. Essentially, they could take the best of 2 rolls on any d20 roll made in the next three rounds. Each domain had similar powers, and it seemed to add a lot of versatility and usefulness to my low level cleric.
Overall Considerations for 3.5 Compatibility: The DM seemed to have few problems if any with using a 3.5 adventure under Pathfinder rules. The only hiccups we seemed to run into were with skills, though that seemed as much due to the newness of Pathfinder, and old 3.5 reflexes - "Make spot and listen checks." "You mean Perception?" "Oh, right, yes." We didn't really have any issues after that, though - all of the corresponding numbers were on par, as were DCs. I think with more time spent, the issue would disappear entirely.
-This new Beta version can be downloaded from the same place the Alpha version was downloaded, right? I always get lost at Paizo's site...
Yes. You have to add it to your cart (though you won't be charged anything for it). Once you check out, it will be added to your available downloads section, and you can grab it in the same manner as the Alpha.
-This new Beta version can be downloaded from the same place the Alpha version was downloaded, right? I always get lost at Paizo's site...
Yea, I would give you a direct link, but I'm too lazy to go get one.
You have to upload it back to them, and use my link to download it all over again...
or I'll cry...
Be patient - they may not even be allowed to call it the same thing, but they are planning on adding it in none-the-less.
BTW, I REFUSE to play 4e for the same reason. :D
At least you can use WotC's psionic books with Pathfinder...
Oh yeah... and they got these two REALLY cool classes call the Bard and Monk... you should check 'em out. :P
I wil not be playing pathfinder, as it seems in their effort to make 3.5 "better" they left out a part of the game that I enjoy, Psionics. I read through the beta and found no reference to it. That implies to me that the "creative minds" at Paizo feel that psionics is not a valid part of D&D and I will not pay one penny for a rule systems that won't let me play a character I want to play. At least 4e has claimed to be including Psionics (which are at least semi-core in 3.5) as core, so I will be staying with 4e and the new realms thank you very much.
3.5e psionics are perfectly playable with the Pathfinder rules.
3.5e psionics are perfectly playable with the Pathfinder rules.
But in no way supported, which means a lack of treasures and encounters that have a psionic feel to them, except the standard Illithids. No good NPCs, no psionic cults, etc. Always made to feel like the neglected step-child. At least 4e has promised to incorporate it into core, and are actively working on it.
I've yet to see D&D include psionics in any of its three core books.
Be patient - they may not even be allowed to call it the same thing, but they are planning on adding it in none-the-less.
BTW, I REFUSE to play 4e for the same reason. :D
At least you can use WotC's psionic books with Pathfinder...
Oh yeah... and they got these two REALLY cool classes call the Bard and Monk... you should check 'em out. :P
Psionics was in core in 1st edition AD&D.
And the Bard was in the appendix in the same edition.
Psionics weren't in core 3.0/3.5, or core 2nd edition, either. :P
Psionics for 3.5 was core for me. XPH was the lost 4th Core Rulebook.
Psionics for 3.5 was core for me. XPH was the lost 4th Core Rulebook.
Agreed.
Paizo seems to have neglected the fact that despite the "psionics aren't fantasy" crowd, psionics are a part of d&d and have been added, even if not core, in every edition. They have been made core in FR and Eberron. If Pathfinder works them in as core, then I might give them a second look, but for now, I am more interested in converting all my Psi stuff over to 4th.
First Off, the Pathfinder Society will probably blow the LFR right out of the water. Whereas WotC has dropped the ball with their 'Digital Initiative', Paizo has already divided up its fans into factions - Factions that can buy Shirts and other gear with their logo on it.
Yeah, but Celiax is obviously the only one that rocks... :D
Feel our boots of oppress... ehr... justified law enforment!
Note btw that while Gencon Indy may have sold out, GenCon UK is not doing that well so far. quite a few LFR slots soldout, but PF has loads of empty seats left.
It is likely due to advertisement rather than (potential) interest though.
O.t.o.h., PF does have at least one full-evening social event organized by its fans (no PF games in the evenings), while LFR has a one-hour kick-off meeting before sending people off to play games.
Agreed.
Paizo seems to have neglected the fact that despite the "psionics aren't fantasy" crowd, psionics are a part of d&d and have been added, even if not core, in every edition. They have been made core in FR and Eberron. If Pathfinder works them in as core, then I might give them a second look, but for now, I am more interested in converting all my Psi stuff over to 4th.
I haven't heard them announce zero support for psionics (though if they did, that would suck!). I'm sure they will come out with something, if not they're most likely considering it. There is a lot of psionic fans after all.
All in all, very intriguing but with some dissappointments. Once we start using the rules and seeing how things work out, i'll see if it's worth all the trouble.
But in no way supported, which means a lack of treasures and encounters that have a psionic feel to them, except the standard Illithids. No good NPCs, no psionic cults, etc. Always made to feel like the neglected step-child. At least 4e has promised to incorporate it into core, and are actively working on it.
What are you talking about? You can use the entire XPH. Plus there are three really excellent 3rd party products out there.
You don't have to use Pathfinder adventures. Just make your own, and set them in Golarion.
I wil not be playing pathfinder, as it seems in their effort to make 3.5 "better" they left out a part of the game that I enjoy, Psionics. I read through the beta and found no reference to it. That implies to me that the "creative minds" at Paizo feel that psionics is not a valid part of D&D and I will not pay one penny for a rule systems that won't let me play a character I want to play. At least 4e has claimed to be including Psionics (which are at least semi-core in 3.5) as core, so I will be staying with 4e and the new realms thank you very much.
Hmm. So, since an Alpha product doesn't have psionics you won't play the completed version. BUT, 4.0 as released doesn't have psionics and you play it.
So, based on your rant above, what psionic char do you play in 4.0?
[...] So, based on your rant above, what psionic char do you play in 4.0?
One can easily play a "psionic" character if you reflavor the powers.
But in no way supported, which means a lack of treasures and encounters that have a psionic feel to them, except the standard Illithids. No good NPCs, no psionic cults, etc. Always made to feel like the neglected step-child. At least 4e has promised to incorporate it into core, and are actively working on it.
4E has promised a lot of things
. Last time I checked I didn't see any psionic classes in the PHB, though. So far pathfinder is a) still at beta and b) only covers the PHB - and the other 2 core books, perhaps, I do not have a PHB MM or DMG. Give it some time, why don't you? The only core book iirc ever to have them was AD&D, in the optional rules.Anyway, I think the 3.5 Psionic classes - except the soulknife - are well-balanced and can be put in Pathfinder with minimal or no adaptation.
[...] Anyway, I think the 3.5 Psionic classes - except the soulknife - are well-balanced and can be put in Pathfinder with minimal or no adaptation.
I think that this may be more difficult than you think. On page 51 of the Beta PDF it explicitly says:
Designer Notes: Race and Class Power
These rules increase the power of the base races and classes to some extent. This was done for a number of reasons, the most important of which was to balance them with the current level of power in the game. Over the years, a number of other races and classes have been released that are a bit more powerful than the base options. Since we do not want the core races and classes to be suboptimal choices, and we cannot change the other material, adding to the base choices seemed like the best option. We think that you will find these changes are not all that intrusive, and might even allow you to play with some of the other races and classes on an even scale.
Ok, let's say P is the power rating of a certain class or group of classes, expressed in P(). Now, let's say that psi was a representative for all psionic classes, while arc was a representative for all arcane spellcasting classes and div was a representative for all divine spellcasting classes.
In 3E, the following equations were generally considered to be true:
- P(psi) < P(arc)
- P(psi) < P(div)
Now, PRPG increased the power of all classes, including arcane and divine spellcasters, while not dealing with psionics at all.
If we look at the equations again, we now have:
- P(psi) < P(arc) + X
- P(psi) < P(div) + Y
While the rules sets may be compatible with each other, the power level is most likely out of proportions and would require some serious work by the DM (like, for example, creating "discipline abilities" similar to "school abilities" or "domain abilities").
One can easily play a "psionic" character if you reflavor the powers.
It can be done? I thought classes in 4th edition were unique. If you say that just by reflavoring the powers you can make other classes then it means all classes are the same.
One can easily play a "psionic" character if you reflavor the powers.
Please, do provide an example psion for 4.0. I'd love to see it.
-I like Psionics. It's a good system in 3e. Never saw what the big deal was about "Eww! Psionics!"
I didn't either. But, I can count on one hand the players I've known who like playing with them. And, that is since the release of 1st Ed...
Show
Converting Your Character, Part 8
Psionics
08/01/2008D&D Archive
When it comes to converting characters from 3.5 to 4th Edition, we’ve previously stated that “there's no conversion guide that could adequately cover the vast array of options that have been published over the lifespan of the game.”
That said, we also recognize that if you don’t wish to set aside your favorite character in order to start up a new 4th Edition campaign, some amount of conversion will be attempted. To that end, Andy Collins put together the following recommendations for playing your favorite 3.5 character in 4th Edition.
This week, we look at psionic classes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characters using psionic powers deserve an entire new power source of their own (and yes, it’s on the way). But until that day comes, most psionic characters are best served by choosing an existing class that matches their role in the party, then layering on additional powers via multiclass feats. Feel free to rename or re-flavor your powers and class features to evoke a more psionic mindset; the fighter’s Boundless Endurance power feels a lot more psionic when you call it “Psychic Renewal”… even though it still does the same thing.
In addition, we offer a new option (Augment) for any psionic character to help recapture a key element of that class from 3rd Edition. This is completely untested, so use it only with your DM’s permission!
Augment: Once per encounter, you can augment any attack power that you use. To augment a power, you must expend an encounter attack power that you haven’t used yet during the encounter. If you don’t have any encounter attack powers left, you can’t augment the power. You must choose to augment before you resolve the success of the attack.
When you augment a power, you may apply one of the following effects (chosen when you decide to augment):
Increase the damage dealt by the power by an amount equal to the power expended to augment it. (For example, if you expend a 3rd-level power to augment your fireball, add +3 to the damage.)
Increase the range of the power by 5.
Increase the burst or blast size of the power by 1.
Ardent (Complete Psionic)
An ardent’s role in the party depends entirely on the mantles chosen by the character. Mantles that focus on dealing damage to individual foes and personal mobility suggest a striker role (perhaps a warlock), while those that lean toward influencing or damaging groups of enemies function better as part of the arsenal of a controller (such as wizard). You might even decide that your primary function is that of party healer, choosing a cleric build (Player's Handbook p61).
Divine Mind (Complete Psionic)
This class matches the leader role most closely, so the battle cleric build (p61) is an ideal choice. Alternatively, you might choose to play an inspiring warlord (p154); ask your DM if you can change any Charisma-based warlord features or powers to Wisdom-based instead.
Erudite (Complete Psionic)
This variant of the psion should use the guidance provided for that class, found below.
Lurk (Complete Psionic)
This class is basically a psionic rogue, so start with either the brawny rogue or trickster rogue build (p117). A few warlock powers can also add the right supernatural feel to your character.
Psion (Expanded Psionics Handbook)
The psion’s role is determined entirely by his power selection. Most psions are either controllers (and should thus use the control wizard or war wizard build; p157) or strikes (and should use either the deceptive warlock or scourge warlock build; p130).
Psychic Warrior (Expanded Psionics Handbook)
Most psychic warriors are a hybrid of defender and striker. Those who focus more on personal durability and standing toe-to-toe with enemies—with powers such as biofeedback, expansion, and vigor—should select a build from the fighter or paladin class.
On the other hand, if your psychic warrior prefers powers that enhance mobility or deal large quantities of damage (burst, hustle, dissolving weapon, and so forth), you should embrace your striker identity. Try the two-blade ranger build (p104) or brawny rogue build (p117), layering on a warlock power or two to add some spice.
Soulknife (Expanded Psionics Handbook)
The soulknife fits the striker role most cleanly. Try the brawny rogue build (p117), adding the ability to create a mind blade as a minor action. It’s just like a short sword, except you can also throw it (Range 5/10). When using a ranged attack that requires you to throw multiple weapons, you can throw multiple mind blades.
Wilder (Expanded Psionics Handbook)
The wilder is mostly a psion with a different style of power and power point acquisition, so refer to that class’s entry above for advice.
Whenever a wilder uses the augment option listed above, she can choose to invoke a wild surge as a free action. If so, she rolls a saving throw at the end of her current turn (or immediately after resolving the power, if she used the power on another character’s turn). Success indicates that she gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls until the end of her next turn (“surging euphoria”). Failure instead renders her dazed until the end of her next turn (“psychic enervation”).
Psionics
08/01/2008D&D Archive
When it comes to converting characters from 3.5 to 4th Edition, we’ve previously stated that “there's no conversion guide that could adequately cover the vast array of options that have been published over the lifespan of the game.”
That said, we also recognize that if you don’t wish to set aside your favorite character in order to start up a new 4th Edition campaign, some amount of conversion will be attempted. To that end, Andy Collins put together the following recommendations for playing your favorite 3.5 character in 4th Edition.
This week, we look at psionic classes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characters using psionic powers deserve an entire new power source of their own (and yes, it’s on the way). But until that day comes, most psionic characters are best served by choosing an existing class that matches their role in the party, then layering on additional powers via multiclass feats. Feel free to rename or re-flavor your powers and class features to evoke a more psionic mindset; the fighter’s Boundless Endurance power feels a lot more psionic when you call it “Psychic Renewal”… even though it still does the same thing.
In addition, we offer a new option (Augment) for any psionic character to help recapture a key element of that class from 3rd Edition. This is completely untested, so use it only with your DM’s permission!
Augment: Once per encounter, you can augment any attack power that you use. To augment a power, you must expend an encounter attack power that you haven’t used yet during the encounter. If you don’t have any encounter attack powers left, you can’t augment the power. You must choose to augment before you resolve the success of the attack.
When you augment a power, you may apply one of the following effects (chosen when you decide to augment):
Increase the damage dealt by the power by an amount equal to the power expended to augment it. (For example, if you expend a 3rd-level power to augment your fireball, add +3 to the damage.)
Increase the range of the power by 5.
Increase the burst or blast size of the power by 1.
Ardent (Complete Psionic)
An ardent’s role in the party depends entirely on the mantles chosen by the character. Mantles that focus on dealing damage to individual foes and personal mobility suggest a striker role (perhaps a warlock), while those that lean toward influencing or damaging groups of enemies function better as part of the arsenal of a controller (such as wizard). You might even decide that your primary function is that of party healer, choosing a cleric build (Player's Handbook p61).
Divine Mind (Complete Psionic)
This class matches the leader role most closely, so the battle cleric build (p61) is an ideal choice. Alternatively, you might choose to play an inspiring warlord (p154); ask your DM if you can change any Charisma-based warlord features or powers to Wisdom-based instead.
Erudite (Complete Psionic)
This variant of the psion should use the guidance provided for that class, found below.
Lurk (Complete Psionic)
This class is basically a psionic rogue, so start with either the brawny rogue or trickster rogue build (p117). A few warlock powers can also add the right supernatural feel to your character.
Psion (Expanded Psionics Handbook)
The psion’s role is determined entirely by his power selection. Most psions are either controllers (and should thus use the control wizard or war wizard build; p157) or strikes (and should use either the deceptive warlock or scourge warlock build; p130).
Psychic Warrior (Expanded Psionics Handbook)
Most psychic warriors are a hybrid of defender and striker. Those who focus more on personal durability and standing toe-to-toe with enemies—with powers such as biofeedback, expansion, and vigor—should select a build from the fighter or paladin class.
On the other hand, if your psychic warrior prefers powers that enhance mobility or deal large quantities of damage (burst, hustle, dissolving weapon, and so forth), you should embrace your striker identity. Try the two-blade ranger build (p104) or brawny rogue build (p117), layering on a warlock power or two to add some spice.
Soulknife (Expanded Psionics Handbook)
The soulknife fits the striker role most cleanly. Try the brawny rogue build (p117), adding the ability to create a mind blade as a minor action. It’s just like a short sword, except you can also throw it (Range 5/10). When using a ranged attack that requires you to throw multiple weapons, you can throw multiple mind blades.
Wilder (Expanded Psionics Handbook)
The wilder is mostly a psion with a different style of power and power point acquisition, so refer to that class’s entry above for advice.
Whenever a wilder uses the augment option listed above, she can choose to invoke a wild surge as a free action. If so, she rolls a saving throw at the end of her current turn (or immediately after resolving the power, if she used the power on another character’s turn). Success indicates that she gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls until the end of her next turn (“surging euphoria”). Failure instead renders her dazed until the end of her next turn (“psychic enervation”).
I didn't either. But, I can count on one hand the players I've known who like playing with them. And, that is since the release of 1st Ed...
-Whenever I play, I am usually either a Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, or Psion.
-Here you go Psionics :D
-Very...ironic, the timing.
It can be done? I thought classes in 4th edition were unique. If you say that just by reflavoring the powers you can make other classes then it means all classes are the same.
You're never growing tired of this senseless tirade, are you?
Please, do provide an example psion for 4.0. I'd love to see it.
What 18Delta said. ;)
[...] -Very...ironic, the timing.
What's so "ironic" about the timing? The article is from August 1st.
I wil not be playing pathfinder, as it seems in their effort to make 3.5 "better" they left out a part of the game that I enjoy, Psionics. I read through the beta and found no reference to it. That implies to me that the "creative minds" at Paizo feel that psionics is not a valid part of D&D.
Psionics is referred to a fair bit in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting book, which suggests that they don't feel that psionics is not a valid part of D&D. That being said, I don't expect psionics to be included in the Pathfinder core book because it would require adding at least another 150 pages - and the book's already too long. Psionics really needs its own book to really do it justice.
Also, the psionics rules don't need nearly as much tweaking as the core did. Basically they just need to give the domain/school treatment to the psionic disciplines and come up with an at-will option for psions and wilders, and they're good to go.
While the rules sets may be compatible with each other, the power level is most likely out of proportions and would require some serious work by the DM (like, for example, creating "discipline abilities" similar to "school abilities" or "domain abilities").
Why? You just have to fiddle with the hit dice of the psionic classes, and they'll work. You don't need to adapt class abilities. Power-wise, they should be on equal footing.
Why? You just have to fiddle with the hit dice of the psionic classes, and they'll work. You don't need to adapt class abilities. Power-wise, they should be on equal footing.
I think you are mistaken on this one.
In PRPG, all spellcasters have a number of 0th-level spells as at-will abilities. 3E psionics not only don't have any 0th-level powers, but also have to pay power points for effects PRPG spellcasters can throw around nilly-willy like far hand (mage hand), psionic daze (daze), or detect psionics (detect magic).
Also, psionic classes like psion, erudite, and wilder would lack the additional benefits given to clerics, wizards, and sorcerers in the form of domain respectively school respective bloodline abiliites.
Hmm. So, since an Alpha product doesn't have psionics you won't play the completed version. BUT, 4.0 as released doesn't have psionics and you play it.
So, based on your rant above, what psionic char do you play in 4.0?
Like I said, I am converting over my psi stuff to 4th ed. Since they have moved back the release of psionics a bit, they were supposed to be in PHB2, I will have to house rule it for now.
In PRPG, all spellcasters have a number of 0th-level spells as at-will abilities. 3E psionics not only don't have any 0th-level powers, but also have to pay power points for effects PRPG spellcasters can throw around nilly-willy like far hand (mage hand), psionic daze (daze), or detect psionics (detect magic).
Also, psionic classes like psion, erudite, and wilder would lack the additional benefits given to clerics, wizards, and sorcerers in the form of domain respectively school respective bloodline abiliites.
I think you go a bit over the top here. The only 1st level power worth having as a psi-like ability is Detect Psionics, which is no big deal. The others are either more powerful than their arcane/divine counterparts and/or can be augmented.
Also, psionic classes like psion, erudite, and wilder would lack the additional benefits given to clerics, wizards, and sorcerers in the form of domain respectively school respective bloodline abiliites.
I can see a problem with the erudite, but that class is not open content, so not available to Paizo.
The others have their own class abilities. The Psion has his disciplines, and the Wilder his surges.
@naex: What stops you from adapting psionics to PRPG? It should be a lot less work than trying to achieve the same for 4e.
What 18Delta said. ;)
In other words, you've never worked it out yourself...
Admittedly, many of the issues may have been resolved in 3E, but by that point I just wasn't interested in buying the books. My dislike also probably had more to do with the way those players were acting, and what the DM let them get away with (or what I as DM had to overrule or counter), than any inherently unplayable status. Playing the mid to high level wizard, and seeing all of my tricks constantly countered by the monsters, while the psionicist bypassed all of the wards since they were magical, not psionic, really really irked me too - but that had nothing to do with it. ;)
Psionics is my favorite thing about D&D.
I think you go a bit over the top here. The only 1st level power worth having as a psi-like ability is Detect Psionics, which is no big deal.
But still does cost 1 power point. Also, it's not like players would like to have other powers for, you know, roleplaying reasons. I'm sure no wizard would ever bother with taking prestidigitation or something... :P
The others are either more powerful than their arcane/divine counterparts and/or can be augmented.
Which costs even more of a highly limited resource for little effect. Is lifting 9lb with far hand really worth the expenditure of the equivalent of a level 2 spell?
[...] The Psion has his disciplines,
Which should provide the same bonus as the wizard's schools. In case you don't remember, the XPH psion looks like this:
One can easily play a "psionic" character if you reflavor the powers.
And that, my friend, is the very heart of the problem with 4e.
There is no difference between classes - except for a little 're-flavoring', they all play the same. 4e fans say that 3e's seperate rules for each class was its biggest problem, but for those of us who love 3e, its the games biggest charm.
Seperate rules for everything may seem like a DMs nighmare, but for many of us, its worth the extra effort, because the possibilites are endless. 4e likes to fit every round peg into a round hole, and there is no room for 'square pegs'. If it doesn't fit into the core rules structure, it isn't possible. Some of you may think thats better for balance and cohesion, but it takes away from the 'free form' environment D&D was always known for.
Once you start placing people into pre-packaged categories, like 'Controller' or 'Striker', you're just playing a glorified MORPG (with elements of miniatures and card-games attached).
You're right, you can easily play anything you want simply by reflavoring the powers, because 4e really only has a single PC class with LOTS of reflavoring.
Seperate rules for every little thing may be a headache, but at least we know our 'guy' is very different then the one our friend next to us is playing.
In other words, you've never worked it out yourself...
How about...
Crystal shard (Wilder Attack 1)
You fire a razor sharp crystal at your enemy.
At will * Implement, Psionic
Standard action, ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma or Constitution vs Reflex
Hit: 1d10 + Charisma or Constitution modifier damage.
Increase damage to 2d10 + Charisma or Constitution modifier damage at 21st level.
Special: At 1st level, you determine whether you use Charisma or Constitution to attack with this power. Once you make that choice, you can't change it later. This power counts as a ranged basic attack. When a power allows you to make a ranged basic attack, you can use this power.
or
Mind thrust (Wilder Attack 1)
You focus your mental powers on the mind of your enemy, crushing his consciousness and sending him tumbling away from you.
Daily * Charm, Psionic, Psychic, Implement
Standard action, ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs Will
Hit: 3d8 + Charisma damage, and you slide the target 3 squares.
Sustain Minor: You slide the target 1 square, whether you hit or miss (save ends).
or
Baleful Teleport (Wilder Attack 23)
Your mind creates a distortion in reality, warping and tearing the form of your enemy, and allowing you to step through and take his place.
Encounter * Psionic, Implement, Teleportation
Standard action, ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs Will
Hit: 4d10 + Charisma modifier damage and you can swap places with the target.
Wild surge: After swapping places with the target, you can teleport a number of squares equal to your Intelligence modifier.
[...] There is no difference between clases - except for a little 're-flavoring', they all play the same. [...]
"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. " --Joseph Goebbels
Ok, assuming you're right. Then prove your claim. Show me how to play a wizard like a fighter. What armor do you take? What weapon do you take? What feats do you take? How do you prevent enemies from getting away from you to your squishy party members? How are you actually planning on surviving the frontlines with your pityful number of hitpoints and lack of any melee abilities?
Psion
Implements - Crystal Foci (Third Eye, Psionitrix, Crystal Capacitor)
class ability
Talents (choose 3 talents from the following list)
Empathy
Far Hand
Enhanced Senses
...
(These are used in a way similar to wizard cantrips.)
More to come
True, I haven't played 4e yet - I do plan to because it deserves a chance - but almost everyone I talk to say that the clases all feel the same to them.
This goes back to the argument that forced the designers to change FR - it didn't matter weather the problems were real or not, as long as people perceived them to be problems.
So even if poeople are wrong and the classes play very differently, if people perceive them that way, then it is the same as the truth. I have even heard from two pro-4e people who have been playing it like crazy since its release, who are now getting bored and want to give 3e another chance.
That can't be good.
But the mechanics in-combat are the same for everyone.
Omg, in 3E the fighter makes the same attack rolls as the barbarian!!!111!eleven
True, I haven't played 4e yet [...]
And yet you throw around unsupported, and repeatedly refuted, statements that are nothing but baiting. Saying "every class plays the same" about 4E is like saying "psionics are overpowered" about 3E - it's been done to death, brings nothing new to the discussion, and is only used to bait a negative or heated response from those who like the system. But the mechanics in-combat are the same for everyone.
True, I haven't played 4e yet - I do plan to because it deserves a chance - but almost everyone I talk to say that the clases all feel the same to them.
There is some truth to the cross over effect of classes in 4e (see my converting the paladin thread in my sig.) But a lot of the complaining is that no one class is superior to another now. Spellcasters are no longer the "best" characters.
And since we only have a few books and adventures, yes it seems a little boring, since we don't have nearly as much material to work with, that will change as time goes on.
There is some truth to the cross over effect of classes in 4e (see my converting the paladin thread in my sig.) But a lot of the complaining is that no one class is superior to another now. Spellcasters are no longer the "best" characters.
They should be, swinging a sword is something anybody without talent can do. Cast magic is something only the elected few can do.
They should be, swinging a sword is something anybody without talent can do. Cast magic is something only the elected few can do.
But coincidentally almost every party has at least one spellcaster. To make your statement true, you'd have to make spellcaster so exceedingly rare for players that there would be perhaps one full spellcaster in every 10th or every 20th campaign that goes from level 1 to 20.
However, with spellcasters being present in every party in every campaign in every game, the powerlevel was far too high.
They should be, swinging a sword is something anybody without talent can do. Cast magic is something only the elected few can do.
There is a big difference between swinging a sword, and swinging a sword well. Try it with a real, sharp blade, and see how much of your own blood you draw trying even simple moves.
There is a big difference between swinging a sword, and swinging a sword well. Try it with a real, sharp blade, and see how much of your own blood you draw trying even simple moves.
I have a decent skill with the short sword.
And there is an even bigger difference between swinging a sword well and understanding how existance really works. Bigger effort = bigger reward.
[...] And there is an even bigger difference between swinging a sword well and understanding how existance really works. Bigger effort = bigger reward.
But that's not how DnD magic works. DnD magic is not "understanding how existance works", but more like the wrong way how to get through college - learning stuff by rote. A wizard doesn't know how magic works, he just knows what he needs to say when to get a certain result - just like the student in an exam. Understanding is absolutely not required. If it was, DnD would have a skillbased freeform casting system similar to Ars Magica.
I have a decent skill with the short sword.
And there is an even bigger difference between swinging a sword well and understanding how existance really works. Bigger effort = bigger reward.
A true master of the fighting arts spends as much time in training, meditation and study as does any mage, just different subjects.
a) No class is more or less powerful than any other, and
b) No class has anything they bring that others can't do too, or can't do nearly as well,
Then this basic complaint is what you get - that they're all the same thing effectively, with different window dressing. Is it 100% true? No, not really.
But are those players' perceptions/opinions invalid? Not at all. :D
But still does cost 1 power point. Also, it's not like players would like to have other powers for, you know, roleplaying reasons. I'm sure no wizard would ever bother with taking prestidigitation or something... :P
Sorry, stopped short here. I wanted to say that it's no big deal to grant Detect Psionics as a psi-like ability to at least Psions and Wilders.
Which costs even more of a highly limited resource for little effect. Is lifting 9lb with far hand really worth the expenditure of the equivalent of a level 2 spell?
Well, that's because psionic powers were made more expensive than their magical equivalents.
Which should provide the same bonus as the wizard's schools.
Why? For the sake of similarity?
Which are a completely different can of worms.
That's right.
Sorry, stopped short here. I wanted to say that it's no big deal to grant Detect Psionics as a psi-like ability to at least Psions and Wilders.
So, psions and wilders get detect psionics as a psi-like ability, while all casters can select up to 4 from a huge list and swap their choice on a daily base? Talk about giving psionics the shaft again.
Well, that's because psionic powers were made more expensive than their magical equivalents.
Ever thought why psionics was regarded as the much more balanced version of spellcasting? You just gave the answer.
Why? For the sake of similarity? [...]
No, for the sake of equality. If you're fine with playing the sidekick to Mr AwesomeWizard or SuperCleric or MegaDruid, fine. However, I want my character to be able to contribute regardless of what class I selected, and not be reduced to sidekick status because of mechanics that treat me as a second class character or that are heavily weighted in favor or the full casters.
So, psions and wilders get detect psionics as a psi-like ability, while all casters can select up to 4 from a huge list and swap their choice on a daily base? Talk about giving psionics the shaft again.
Well, they got other nifty things. Like augmentation, for example. Or a power-point system.
Ever thought why psionics was regarded as the much more balanced version of spellcasting? You just gave the answer.
I know. But I don't get your point here.
No, for the sake of equality. If you're fine with playing the sidekick to Mr AwesomeWizard or SuperCleric or MegaDruid, fine. However, I want my character to be able to contribute regardless of what class I selected, and not be reduced to sidekick status because of mechanics that treat me as a second class character or that are heavily weighted in favor or the full casters.
Sorry, but I think you're using hyperbole here. Psionic classes are not "sidekicks" in regular 3.5, so they won't be in PRPG.
Well, they got other nifty things.
But they don't. The get the basically the same things in a different but weaker form.
Let's take psion and wizard as a comparison. The wizard gets a companion (familiar) and an item creation feat (scribe scroll) for free, while the psion gets a single bonus feat. Even if he wanted, the psion could not have both a companion (psicrystal) and item creation (imprint powerstone) at first level. The wizard is always one step ahead.
Like augmentation, for example.
Which is only a weak compensation for the casterlevel based auto-scaling all spellcasters get.
Or a power-point system.
Which is the fundamental principle of the psionic system.
I could just as well say "casters don't deserve domain/school/bloodline abilities, they get other nifty things, like a spell-slot system". Or how about "fighters don't deserve armor/weapon mastery, they get other nifty things, like bonus feats". Or "rogues don't deserve rogue talents, they get other nifty things, like sneak attack".
[...] Sorry, but I think you're using hyperbole here. Psionic classes are not "sidekicks" in regular 3.5, so they won't be in PRPG.
There are only a handful abilities that are exclusive for the psionic system. Everything else psionics can do, spellcasters can do better, easier, more efficiently, or at an earlier level.
3E psionics are weaker than 3E spellcasters, 3E spellcasters are weaker than PRPG spellcasters; take that as thou wilt.
But they don't. The get the basically the same things in a different but weaker form.
Let's take psion and wizard as a comparison. The wizard gets a companion (familiar) and an item creation feat (scribe scroll) for free, while the psion gets a single bonus feat. Even if he wanted, the psion could not have both a companion (psicrystal) and item creation (imprint powerstone) at first level. The wizard is always one step ahead.
Because Imprint Stone is so terribly useful for psions...
Which is only a weak compensation for the casterlevel based auto-scaling all spellcasters get.
Except that augmentation is not capped.
Which is the fundamental principle of the psionic system.
Along with augmentation, it makes psionics more flexible than spellcasting. I can always determine how much energy I put in a power. A spellcaster can't do this. He may use metamagic feats, but there is a huge downside for using them. Psionics has metapsionic feats, but they are mostly redundant, because of augmentation. That leaves your feat slots free for other feats.
There are only a handful abilities that are exclusive for the psionic system. Everything else psionics can do, spellcasters can do better, easier, more efficiently, or at an earlier level.
Earlier level? Yes. The other points are simply not true. Due to the micro-management power points allow, psionics excel at efficiency. The system is also easier to use, because of the limited number of powers the classes know (except for the Erudite).
Better depends of the discipline. Kineticists are better blasters than Evokers (because the damage doesn't cap out). Astral Construct trumps the Summon Monster line of spells easily, which make Shapers better summoners.
The powers itself are a bit more expensive than similar spells. But that is a good thing. I think we agree here.
3E psionics are weaker than 3E spellcasters, 3E spellcasters are weaker than PRPG spellcasters; take that as thou wilt.
I disagree that 3e spellcasters are weaker than those in the pathfinder rules. A few spell-like abilities do not make for a power rise. The only thing they do better is surviving, due to higher hit dice. And here lies the crux of the argument.
Except that augmentation is not capped.
-I thought augmentation capped at the psion's current level. Unless you use overchannel.
-I enjoy psionics, it's a balanced system for 3.5. I have been thinking about using it for Arcane and Divine Magic also.
18DELTA
Because Imprint Stone is so terribly useful for psions...
Yes, it is. Not having to spend your own daily limited power point resources on utility stuff is useful.
Except that augmentation is not capped.
At this point, you demonstrated that you didn't even bother with actually looking up the psionic rules before making your claims.[indent]
Augment
Many powers have variable effects based on the number of power points you spend when you manifest them. The more points spent, the more powerful the manifestation. How this extra expenditure affects a power is specific to the power. Some augmentations allow you to increase the number of damage dice, while others extend a power’s duration or modify a power in unique ways. Each power that can be augmented includes an entry giving how many power points it costs to augment and the effects of doing so. However, you can spend only a total number of points on a power equal to your manifester level.
Augmenting a power takes place as part of another action (manifesting a power). Unless otherwise noted in the Augment section of an individual power description, you can augment a power only at the time you manifest it.
[/indent]
Along with augmentation, it makes psionics more flexible than spellcasting. I can always determine how much energy I put in a power.
Flexible != powerful. And augmentation makes you bleed power points like mad for effects spellcasters get shoved up their rear end for free.
A spellcaster can't do this. He may use metamagic feats, but there is a huge downside for using them.
A spellcaster doesn't need to do this. A spellcaster always expends a level X slot, no matter how powerful the effect is. A level 10 wizard casting fireball always gets 10d6 damage out of a single level 3 spell, while a level 10 kineticist manifesting energy ball always gets 7d6 damage out of the equivalent of a level 4 spell, unless he spends the equivalent of a level 5 slot (10 PPs).
Psionics has metapsionic feats, but they are mostly redundant, because of augmentation. That leaves your feat slots free for other feats.
Not every power allows for augmentation ... Earlier level? Yes.
And this is a very important fact, no matter how much you try to ridicule or downplay it. Psions don't get the fireball equivalent until level 7, and that only if they are kineticists. A non-kineticist has to wait until level 9 and spend a feat to get something every run off the mill wizard can do since level 5.
The other points are simply not true. Due to the micro-management power points allow, psionics excel at efficiency.
Again, you disregard the fact that power points are a much rarer resource than spell slots, and your proclaimed efficiency is eaten up by the fact that you have to pay power points for basically everything. Deal more damage? Pay more points. Lift heavier stuff with telekinetic force? Pay more points. Dominate a monstrous humanoid instead of a humanoid? Pay more points. Make your dominate last longer than "concentration"? Pay more points.
The system is also easier to use, because of the limited number of powers the classes know (except for the Erudite).
Unless you overlook or ignore some facts, like for example the limit on augmentation.
Better depends of the discipline. Kineticists are better blasters than Evokers (because the damage doesn't cap out). Astral Construct trumps the Summon Monster line of spells easily, which make Shapers better summoners.
You do realize that the most powerful powers are mutually exclusive, while a generalist wizard can be equally powerful as blaster/controller/summoner/enchanter/diviner/and so on? And no, astral construct is much weaker than summon monster, because with the summoning spell you can bring additional spells/spell-like/supernatural abilities into the field, while the construct is only a meatshield with some hit points and moderate damage. The summoning spells are much more flexible than the construct.Just go to the CO boards and look up the term "batman wizard" ...
I disagree that 3e spellcasters are weaker than those in the pathfinder rules. A few spell-like abilities do not make for a power rise. The only thing they do better is surviving, due to higher hit dice. And here lies the crux of the argument.
And what about the removal of all XP costs for the more powerful spells, Wish and Gate being the prime offenders? Did you really think burning 5k XPs was a decision made lightly by a player? Now it's only - again - a question of how big your coin purse is. Burning 25k gold is trivial, because the Wall of Iron + Fabricate instant money trick still works for casters. Gold is not a good thing to use as a limiting factor for powerful spells, never was, never will.
All in all, your statements leave the shallow taste of the talk of someone who either doesn't understand the psionic system at all, or can't be bothered with getting his facts right.
Yes, it is. Not having to spend your own daily limited power point resources on utility stuff is useful.
Spending money and XP on something you can manifest anyway is useful? Power Stones are crap for Psions. Cognizance Crystasl are a different thing.
Or I just failed to say what I mean.
Augmentation caps at your manifester level, yes. But it doesn't cap out suddenly when you reach a certain level. A 20 level Kineticist can deal 20d6 damage with his energy ball, plus the DC of the power rises. Plus he can choose which kind of energy damage he wants to deal.Flexible != powerful. And augmentation makes you bleed power points like mad for effects spellcasters get shoved up their rear end for free.
Flexible is not powerful? A Wizard that prepared the wrong spell mix for the day is pretty much powerless.
And the PP loss is not so bad. Your bonus power points grow with you class level. If you use them wisely, you last longer than the wizard.
A spellcaster doesn't need to do this. A spellcaster always expends a level X slot, no matter how powerful the effect is. A level 10 wizard casting fireball always gets 10d6 damage out of a single level 3 spell, while a level 10 kineticist manifesting energy ball always gets 7d6 damage out of the equivalent of a level 4 spell, unless he spends the equivalent of a level 5 slot (10 PPs).
See above.
Sure. But most of them do. Metapsionic feats are not as important as metamagic feats.
And this is a very important fact, no matter how much you try to ridicule or downplay it. Psions don't get the fireball equivalent until level 7, and that only if they are kineticists. A non-kineticist has to wait until level 9 and spend a feat to get something every run off the mill wizard can do since level 5.
Jup. But non-kineticists don't particularly need a power from a list not their own. That's just a bonus. If they want to deal damage, there are other options. Energy Bolt for example. Level 3, equivalent to Lightning Bolt, but much more flexible.
Again, you disregard the fact that power points are a much rarer resource than spell slots,
That may be true if you compare Psion and Sorcerer, but the Psion knows more powers than the Sorcerer knows spells.
Yes, he can. But only if he uses items like scrolls or wands. If he tries to be everything through his prepared spells alone, he will run out of relevant spells very quickly.
And no, astral construct is much weaker than summon monster, because with the summoning spell you can bring additional spells/spell-like/supernatural abilities into the field, while the construct is only a meatshield with some hit points and moderate damage. The summoning spells are much more flexible than the construct.
This becomes untrue if you count in the alignment issues inherent in the summoning spells. You want your character to become evil? Sure, go ahead, summon that demon. If you don't want an alignment shift, a lot of the creatures are simply a non-option.
And what about the removal of all XP costs for the more powerful spells, Wish and Gate being the prime offenders? Did you really think burning 5k XPs was a decision made lightly by a player? Now it's only - again - a question of how big your coin purse is. Burning 25k gold is trivial, because the Wall of Iron + Fabricate instant money trick still works for casters. Gold is not a good thing to use as a limiting factor for powerful spells, never was, never will.
I agree that this is a problem. They'll have to do something about it. But the number of these spells is not that big.
All in all, your statements leave the shallow taste of the talk of someone who either doesn't understand the psionic system at all, or can't be bothered with getting his facts right.
If you think so. At least, I don't use flamebait in a discussion that could be civil if both sides would make the effort, not just one.
And you continue to leave the shallow taste of the talk of someone who thinks a decent DM would allow anybody to do those cheats, like the Wall of Iron + Fabricate you mention.
I always had it that the iron rusted after a day whenever you "dismantled" a wall of iron. Kept the spell useful but not abusable.
If LK would be so kind as having it moved there, where it belongs, or maybe even closed, since people insist on arguing over the virtues of 3PF vs 4e (which is like arguing weather apples taste better then oranges).
I always had it that the iron rusted after a day whenever you "dismantled" a wall of iron. Kept the spell useful but not abusable.
Magical devices 'break down' when taken apart (broken), so there is a precedent for this ruling. I like it - anything created by magic but later disassembled would begin to deteriorate rapidly. The magic that created it is destroyed when the object is taken apart.
Thats pretty much how it works for most magical creations, so i don't see why it can't be aplied as a general 'umbrella rule'.
This, BTW, only works if you consider psionics just another form of magic. ;)
This, BTW, only works if you consider psionics just another form of magic. ;)
I don't psi in my game. If I did, it would be a form of magic.
I vote for closing it, and then you are free to open a new thread on the running the realms board, specifically to discuss using FR with this ruleset, that way we are not talking about whether or not PF is superior to 4e or 3.5 or whatever, and are actually on topic.
Or, you could just stop posting on the thread?
Or, you could just stop posting on the thread?
I could, but I choose not to.
EDIT: Everyone has the right to voice their opinoin.
Its original intent allows that it be helpful to those [b]Running the Realms[/i] with 3e rules, and I suggested at the beginning it should be moved.
If LK would be so kind as having it moved there, where it belongs, or maybe even closed, since people insist on arguing over the virtues of 3PF vs 4e (which is like arguing weather apples taste better then oranges).
apples are much better than oranges
apples are much better than oranges
Them's fightin' words... :P
I could, but I choose not to.
If you want to post on the thread why do you want it locked?
And I should know.
If you want to post on the thread why do you want it locked?
Not so much that I want it locked, as that to a certain degree it violates the CoC. It is not directly related to FR lore, and is an advertisement for another companies game. If the goal is to find a way to work the FR into this game system, then running the realms would be a better forum for it.
Personally, I think this whole discussion is the equivalent of a 15 year old screaming at his parents, "you never listen to me, so I am leaving," and then making a huge production number out of getting their stuff and getting out the door. Most of the time they will come back acting surly as always, rarely are they gone for good.
Not so much that I want it locked, as that to a certain degree it violates the CoC. It is not directly related to FR lore, and is an advertisement for another companies game. If the goal is to find a way to work the FR into this game system, then running the realms would be a better forum for it.
I understand where you are coming from then.
In FR - and probably a lot of other Fantasy worlds - gems of larger size are much more prevalent then in the RW. ;)
You're still not going to find 25k gp diamonds for sale anywhere you happen to look, and when you do, competition for them would likely be pretty stiff and they'll end up costing you more than 25,000 gold (after all, what collector is going to want a huge diamond, especially one that might have additional antique value, to be bought by a wizard who's just going to let it crumble into dust right away?).
Now, normally I don't care for material components, but in cases like this, where it can basically be used by the GM to dictate whether the player gets to use the spell at all, it's just fine in my book.
You're still not going to find 25k gp diamonds for sale anywhere you happen to look, and when you do, competition for them would likely be pretty stiff and they'll end up costing you more than 25,000 gold (after all, what collector is going to want a huge diamond, especially one that might have additional antique value, to be bought by a wizard who's just going to let it crumble into dust right away?).
You find them out in the Elemental planes (used to be a portion of the elemental plane of earth that consisted of minerals).
You find them out in the Elemental planes (used to be a portion of the elemental plane of earth that consisted of minerals).
Yes, but getting them off the plane without a major fight with the residents can be problematic, to say the least... :D
Yes, but getting them off the plane without a major fight with the residents can be problematic, to say the least... :D
Thus the cost... And it is easier to trade with a few of the less violent residents for them, than to try to get them yourself.
'Rare ingredients' not only gives the DM back quite a bit of power, but also gives him fuel for many a side-quest.
That was actually done of purpose, so DM coulds indeed control what spells their players had common access to.
'Rare ingredients' not only gives the DM back quite a bit of power, but also gives him fuel for many a side-quest.
Which would be true if the ingredients were not only rare, but also hard to find. However, with Plane Shift and a party face it wouldn't be too hard for a high level party to go "hey, we're going go diamond trading (or farming, if the party face is in fact a half-orc barbarian :P) on the elemental plane of earth for a few" at the DM. This could not only throw the planned adventure completely off the tracks, but would also require the DM to adhoc a difficult situation.
Also, using the worth of the ingredients and not the amount was a quite stupid idea to begin with. In a region where diamonds are exceedingly rare a few small stones suffice, while in another region where those gems literally grow on trees you need a full wagonload of them to cast the spell.
The main reason to switch would be the "stick it to WotC" factor.
Which would be true if the ingredients were not only rare, but also hard to find. However, with Plane Shift and a party face it wouldn't be too hard for a high level party to go "hey, we're going go diamond trading (or farming, if the party face is in fact a half-orc barbarian :P) on the elemental plane of earth for a few" at the DM. This could not only throw the planned adventure completely off the tracks, but would also require the DM to adhoc a difficult situation.
Also, using the worth of the ingredients and not the amount was a quite stupid idea to begin with. In a region where diamonds are exceedingly rare a few small stones suffice, while in another region where those gems literally grow on trees you need a full wagonload of them to cast the spell.
Read Zelazny's Chrinicals of Amber. Corwin (the main character) needs to make a large purchase, so takes a walk into Shadow (there term for the multiverse) to a world where diamonds are just lying around waiting to be picked up.
LOL - because the FR boards are much like the trollmoors. :P
And I should know.
-I prefer The Evermoor's myself. ;)
-3E and 3P both have their merits, just like 4E has its merits. Like what you want. It's about having fun anyways. :D
18DELTA
This could not only throw the planned adventure completely off the tracks, but would also require the DM to adhoc a difficult situation.
Not really. Any decent DM who has run his group to that level has already fleshed out his campaign enough to handle minor side tracks like that.
If he hasn't and he's running that level of a game he needs to back to DM school.
Also, using the worth of the ingredients and not the amount was a quite stupid idea to begin with. In a region where diamonds are exceedingly rare a few small stones suffice, while in another region where those gems literally grow on trees you need a full wagonload of them to cast the spell.
Presumably they mean the objective worth that the GM thinks it is (and which you can get away with in RPGs) vs. the subjective worth that it actually ends up costing.
I'm not really sure Pathfinder is a good answer for the Realms. Pathfinder isn't terribly compatible with 3.5E, and using existing Realms crunch will require a decent amount of conversion if you want it to mesh well. Any merits of the Pathfinder system need to be weighed against just staying with 3E.
Honestly, after trying it out (that is, playing a 3.5 adventure using the Pathfinder Beta rules), it wasn't really a problem, I found. There weren't really any conversions that had to be done ahead of time - what little there was we just did 'on the fly', without any slow-down in game play. If anything, it feels much like the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 - your core rulebooks change, but a lot of the older source material is still perfectly valid.
Presumably they mean the objective worth that the GM thinks it is (and which you can get away with in RPGs) vs. the subjective worth that it actually ends up costing.
Actually in 4e D&D, just going after those easy to get diamonds would have a large material cost, you have to cast the plane shift ritual (which has material costs) also defending yourself from the prevailing conditions of the elemental wastes (water breathing, fire resistance, etc) (more materials used) so those free diamonds still aren't so free.
I was going to post a rebuttal myself, but I grow wearing of arguing this point.
The 3e to 3.5 conversion was an apt comparison - good job. Pathfinder is NOT a new rules system - it is a book of rules you can add on top of your 3e games to make them more fun.
Read Zelazny's Chrinicals of Amber. Corwin (the main character) needs to make a large purchase, so takes a walk into Shadow (there term for the multiverse) to a world where diamonds are just lying around waiting to be picked up.
Hehe, nice. :D
Exactly situations like these are a very good reason to not use anything that can be mined/farmed/harvested/created more or less easily.
Things that can be used well as restrictions for spells imho are places/objects/events related to
- stellar activity (total lunar eclipse, total solar eclipse, all planets of the system in a row, etc)
- social situations and status (the first tear shed by a newly crowned king, the first drop of blood shed by a repenting traitor, etc)
- tectonic activity (the first stream of lava expelled by a vulcano that was inactive for a century, earth overthrown by a powerful earthquake, etc)
- magical phenomena (Moons + Dragonlance, 'nuff said :P)
- annual holy days (most fitting for divine spells).
We'll start at the top:
Abilities: From going over the Pathfinder information, there haven't been any changes to ability scores or their modifiers. They have changed Point Buy some, but since it's mechanics and not FR related, we'll let it pass.
Races:
Dwarves- +2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha. Medium size. Base speed 20ft. Darkvision 60 ft. Stonecunning (same). Keen Senses-(+2 bonus on taste- and touch- based Perception skill checks :rolleyes
. Greed-(Treat Appraise as a class skill when attempting to determine the price of nonmagical goods that contain precious metals and gemstones). Hearty-(+2 racial bonus on SVs vs. poison, spell, and SLAs). Weapon Familiarity-(proficient with Battleaxes, heavy picks, and warhammers and treat any weapon with the word Dwarven in it's name as a martial weapon). Hatred-(+1 bonus on attacks vs. humanoid orc and goblin subtypes). Defensive Training (+4 dodge bonus vs. Giant type). Stability (same). Languages (same). Favored Class-(cleric or fighter and must choose at 1st level and cannot be changed thereafter). This should be the standard dwarven race of Faerun (Shield Dwarf). Suggested changes made to adjust for the Gold dwarf should be -2 to Dexterity instead of Charisma and Hatred should be changed to +1 against aberrations.
Suggested changes made to adjust for the Grey dwarf should be +2 to Wis, and +1 racial bonus on Perception skill checks.
Since I have to go make dinner now for the little lady, I can't further add to the Races section. Maybe someone else take up the mantle? If not, i'll try to come back later and add more information.
Spending money and XP on something you can manifest anyway is useful? Power Stones are crap for Psions. Cognizance Crystasl are a different thing.
I hope you are aware of the rule that you cannot combine sources of power points. This means that you can either use your own pp pool or the cognizance crystal, which makes the crystals a very weak choice. Even moreso if you consider that you cannot craft anything else with the associated item creation feat.
Or I just failed to say what I mean.
Yes, for 20 power points. And a pimped out psion (see below for example) only has around 450 of those. Also, the flexibility regarding the energy type pales in comparison to the spellcasters' abilities regarding save-or-die effects (almost all psionic SoDs are mind-affecting) and to deal untyped or force damage (magic missile, Orb of Force, Horrid Wilting, ...).
Flexible is not powerful? A Wizard that prepared the wrong spell mix for the day is pretty much powerless.
If flexibility comes at the cost of stamina, no. A psion is no more flexible than a sorcerer - even less so. Once a psion's powers are chosen he cannot swap them out (barring the use of certain powers - that he or one of his companions must know in the first place and that have an XP cost attached), while the sorcerer can swap one of his spells for free every even level.
And the PP loss is not so bad. Your bonus power points grow with you class level. If you use them wisely, you last longer than the wizard.
You haven't actually played a psion, have you? Because nobody on the psionics board could ever support such a claim. Ask Bacris, Tempest Stormwind, angellis ater, drunkenewok, carnivore, or any other regular from the old psionics board. They'd either shake their head in disbelieve or laugh at you for that statement.
See above.
"See above."
Sure. But most of them do. Metapsionic feats are not as important as metamagic feats.
Well, I can use that argument just as well. "Metamagic feats are unimportant, because most spells have autoscaling." And now? That's your argument, right back at you.
Jup. But non-kineticists don't particularly need a power from a list not their own. That's just a bonus. If they want to deal damage, there are other options. Energy Bolt for example. Level 3, equivalent to Lightning Bolt, but much more flexible.
Let's just take your example. A Lightning Bolt always requires only a level 3 slot, for a maximum of 10d6 damage. An Energy Bolt always gives you 5d6, no matter your level. If you want to get comparable damage to the Lightning Bolt you have to spend the equivalent of a level 5 slot.
While the power is a bit more flexible than the spell regarding the damage type, it's still much weaker regarding raw damage output.
That may be true if you compare Psion and Sorcerer, but the Psion knows more powers than the Sorcerer knows spells.
But still the psion is weaker. Ok, let's assume the following situation: Level 20, primary stat 32 (16 base + 5 level ups + 5 tome + 6 item). Now, let's compare the maximum possible direct damage output from sorcerer and psion. Only pure direct damage directed at a single target, no fancy DoT effects or loopholes like throwing stuff with Telekinesis.
Maximum theoretical damage output sorcerer
- 0th level (6 slots): Ray of Frost - individual: 1d3 - total: 6d3
- 1st level (9 slots): Shocking Grasp - individual: 5d6 - total: 45d6
- 2nd level (9 slots): Scorching Ray - individual: 3*4d6 - total: 108d6
- 3rd level (9 slots): Fireball - individual: 10d6 - total: 90d6
- 4th level (8 slots): Ice Storm - individual: 5d6 - total: 40d6
- 5th level (8 slots): Cone of Cold - individual: 15d6 - total: 120d6
- 6th level (8 slots): Disintegrate - individual: 40d6 - total: 320d6
- 7th level (8 slots): Delayed Blast Fireball - individual: 20d6 - total: 160d6
- 8th level (7 slots): Horrid Wilting - individual: 20d6 - total: 140d6
- 9th level (7 slots): Meteor Swarm - individual: 32d6 - total: 224d6
- TOTAL: 1247d6 + 6d3
Maximum theoretical damage output psion
- Total (453 pp): Mind Thrust - individual: 1d10/pp - total: 453d10
or (!) - Total (453 pp): Psionic Disintegrate - individual: 2d6/pp - total: 906d6
or (!) - Total (453 pp): basically any Energy X fire or cold power - individual: 1d6+1/pp - total: 453d6+453
If the sorcerer spends all his level 5 to 9 slots he already surpasses the psion's highest possible damage output, while still having all his level 0 to 4 spells available compared to the psion who's completely drained.
Yes, he can. But only if he uses items like scrolls or wands. If he tries to be everything through his prepared spells alone, he will run out of relevant spells very quickly.
Wrong. All he needs is to prepare the right spells. You don't have to fill all your slots with spells from the respective school. One or two are more than enough. The wizard can have all of fireball, teleport, charm monster, summon monster, and foresight, while a psion has to specialize at the expense of other equally important disciplines.
This becomes untrue if you count in the alignment issues inherent in the summoning spells. You want your character to become evil? Sure, go ahead, summon that demon. If you don't want an alignment shift, a lot of the creatures are simply a non-option.
Please point out where in the rules it says that arcane casters are subject to alignment restrictions regarding summoning spells.
I agree that this is a problem. They'll have to do something about it. But the number of these spells is not that big.
It's not "how many spells" that is a problem, but rather "which spells" that is a problem.
If you think so. At least, I don't use flamebait in a discussion that could be civil if both sides would make the effort, not just one.
It's highly ironic that you speak of flamebait when it was you who made the claim that psionics was as strong as arcane/divine magic, while this has been proven wrong countless times in the 3E psionics boards again and again and again.
Nontheless, at least I am able to provide mechanical support to my claims instead of only wishful thinking or empty statements that don't hold up a second if you actually look at the rules.
And you continue to leave the shallow taste of the talk of someone who thinks a decent DM would allow anybody to do those cheats, like the Wall of Iron + Fabricate you mention. On MMORPGS that equals to a permaban of your accound for cheating and in a PnP table either you are not allowed or your DM kills your character.
So, I'm not allowed to use my characters abilities if the DM doesn't allow it? How generous of you...
And I always thought that players were allowed to play their characters however they wanted within the boundaries of the rules. You know, freedom of choice, roleplaying freedom, and all that. But obviously, in your games players are merely your sockpuppets that have to do as you say so that you can have your fun, or get booted out.
Ok, so lets convert the Pathfinder stuff to the Realms-
-Thank you for bringing this back on-topic that was lost around page 1.
-Thank you for bringing this back on-topic that was lost around page 1.
I do what I can :D!
Elves- +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Con. Medium size. Base speed 30 ft. Low-light vision. Keen Senses-(+2 bonus on sight- and sound-based Perception checks. Can make a Perception check to spot a secret or concealed door if they pass within 10 feet, reguardless of whether or not they are actively looking). Elven Immunities (magical sleep). Elven Magic-(+2 racial bonus on casterlevel checks made to oversome spell resistance. In addition, +2 racial bonus on Appraise skill checks to identify properties of magical items). Weapon Familiarity-(proficient with longbows (including composite), shortbows, longswords, rapiers, and treat any weapon with the word elven in it's name ass a martial weapon. Languages (same). Favored Class-(wizard or ranger and must be made at 1st level and cannot be changed thereafter)
This should be the standard elven race of Faerun (Moon elf).
Suggested changes made to adjust for the Sun elf can be Arrogant-(-2 penalty to Charisma-based skill checks when dealing with non-elven races). Favored class (Cleric or Wizard).
Suggested changes made to adjust for the Wood elf can be +2 Str, +2 Dex, -2 Con. Favored class (Fighter or Ranger).
Suggested changes made to adjust for the Wild elf can be +2 Dex, +2 Wis, -2 Int. Favored class (Druid or Ranger)
Suggested changes made to adjust for the Star elf can be +2 Dex, +2 Cha, -2 Con. Favored class (Bard or Sorcerer).
Ever since I stole the Apple of Discord from Eris, I think I've been handling things pretty well. ;)
This should be the standard elven race of Faerun. Suggested changes made to adjust for the Sun or Moon elf is hard, considering the +2 Int already incorporated into the base race so maybe the changes are in cosmetics? Ideas are appreciated.
-Some sort of CHA penalty for dealing with N'Te'Quessir for Sun Elves?
[...] Ideas are appreciated.
Simply make the favored class choices dependent on race:
- Moon elves: Cleric, Rogue
- Wood elves: Ranger, Fighter
- Star elves: Bard, Rogue
- etc...
[...] To be honest, all that you really need to do to make psions nearly as powerful as a Pathfinder spellcaster is lower the DC for gaining psionic focus from 20 to 15.
And adapt the rest of the PRPG design philosophies, like bonus abilities based on primary discipline (compare school specialization) and the removal of XP costs (compare spells). ;)
-Some sort of CHA penalty for dealing with N'Te'Quessir for Sun Elves?
While I can see that many of the Sun elven sub-race are arrogant, the main character from the Last Mythal series had more N'Te'Quessir friends than he had elven friends, so I'm not entirely sure if a penalty is accurate. Maybe +2 Wis, +2 Int, -2 Con for a sun elven stats change?
While I can see that many of the Sun elven sub-race are arrogant, the main character from the Last Mythal series had more N'Te'Quessir friends than he had elven friends, so I'm not entirely sure if a penalty is accurate. Maybe +2 Wis, +2 Int, -2 Con for a sun elven stats change?
I'd leave the Sun and Moon elf atributes the same while giving them different favoured classes (such as Ra-Tiel suggests), regions (although they will share quite a few), and different special modifications, such as Hatreds.
For Wild elf abilities, I go +2 Dex, +2 Wis, -2 Int. For the Wood Elf, I'd use +2 Str, +2 Dex, +2 Wis, -2 Con, -2 Int (or, more simply +2 Str, +2 Wis, -2 Con). Beyond that, I'd go with my above assertions of different crunch (favoured classes, etc).
This should be the standard race of Gnome in Faerun (Rock Gnome).
Suggested changes made to adjust for the Deep Gnome (svirfneblin) can be -2 Str, +2 Dex, +2 Wis, -2 Cha. Darkvision 120 feet. Spell-Like Abilities: 1/day-blindness, blur, change self. This replacs the standard spell-like abilities of the gnome. Stonecunning (like the Dwarven ability). Nondetection-(continuous nondetection supernatural ability as the wiz/sor spell equal to their level. Spell Resistance 11 + character level. +4 dodge bonus (not specific to one creature type). +2 racial bonus on all saves. +2 racial bonus on Stealth checks (improves to +4 in darkened areas underground). Level adjustment +3.
Half-Elves- +2 to one ability score. Medium size. Base speed 30 ft. Low-light vision. Keen Senses-(+2 bonus on sight- and sound-based Perception checks and can make a Perception check to spot a secret or concealed door if they pass within 10 feet, reguardless of whether or not they are actively looking). Elven Immunities (magical sleep). Adaptability-(receive Skill Focus, as a bonus feat at 1st level). Elf Blood-(they count as both elf and human for any effects related to race). Languages (same). Favored class (any, but cannot change after it's chosen).
This should be the standard race of Half-elves in Faerun.
Suggested changes made to adjust for the Half-drow can be Darkvision 60 ft. in addition to the Half-elf's Low-light vision ability. Drow Blood-(they count as both Drow and human for any effects related to race).
Half-Orc- +2 Str, +2 Wis, -2 Int. Medium size. Base speed 30 ft. Darkvision 60 ft. Weapon Familiarity-(proficient with greataxes and falchions, and treat any weapon with the word Orc in it's name as a martial weapon. Orc Ferocity-(1/day, when brought below 0 hp but not killed, he can fight on for one more round as if disabled. At the end of his next turn, unless brought to above 0 hp, he immediately falls unconscious and begins dying). Orc Blood-(count as both orc and human for any effects related to race). Languages (same). Favored class (Barbarian or Druid and the choice is made at 1st level and cannot be changed thereafter).
This should be the standard half-orc race in Faerun.
Ever since I stole the Apple of Discord from Eris, I think I've been handling things pretty well. ;)
Oh, so you took it! Give it back right now, or we shall subject thee to the Inquisition of Tickles! Hail Eris! Fnord.
Oh, so you took it! Give it back right now, or we shall subject thee to the Inquisition of Tickles! Hail Eris! Fnord.
If he has it, then what the hell did I pay good gold for?
Half-Elves- +2 to one ability score. [...]
Half-Orc- +2 Str, +2 Wis, -2 Int. [...]
No, I disagree. There is absolutely no reason for the half-orc to have a penalty to Int, or for the half-elf not to have a penalty to con.
The half-orc's average non-human parent has Int 8, while the half-elf's average non-human parent has Con 8. But still, the Int penalty is inherited and the Con penalty is not.
If he has it, then what the hell did I pay good gold for?
That would be the Pyrite Pear of Perversity.
That would be the Pyrite Pear of Perversity.
Couldn't be, I live in Southern Oregon, we have huge pear orchards. I know the difference between an apple and a pear.
While I can see that many of the Sun elven sub-race are arrogant, the main character from the Last Mythal series had more N'Te'Quessir friends than he had elven friends, so I'm not entirely sure if a penalty is accurate. Maybe +2 Wis, +2 Int, -2 Con for a sun elven stats change?
-Araevin Telshurr was atypical of a Sun Elf, one of the reasons why I disliked the Last Mythal trilogy. That said, that he has N'Tel'Quessir friends doesn't mean that he hasn't worked past his natural penalty to dealing with them (added ranks in Diplomacy, or a higher CHA stat to begin with). Most N'Ar'Tel'Quessir find them haughty, arrogant, dismissive, things like that.
Couldn't be, I live in Southern Oregon, we have huge pear orchards. I know the difference between an apple and a pear.
Would you believe the Pomegranate of Pomposity?
Either that, or it's a Gold Dragon's Tes......
Either that, or it's a Gold Dragon's Tes......
Nah, I sold those to the giant the next village over and pretended they were golden eggs laid by this mangy goose I've been trying to offload for years. Then some snotty kid went and killed him, so he never got a chance to figure it out
No, I disagree. There is absolutely no reason for the half-orc to have a penalty to Int, or for the half-elf not to have a penalty to con.
The half-orc's average non-human parent has Int 8, while the half-elf's average non-human parent has Con 8. But still, the Int penalty is inherited and the Con penalty is not.
These are straight from the Pathfinder Campaign Guide and not my own ideas. Just listing what changes they made and trying to make them more Realms-ish. And considering that most of the races get two +2 adjustments to their abilities for each -2, I can see why the half-orc got a -2 to Intelligence instead of say Charisma. As for the half-elf, while many of their racial abilities stem from the elves, a few comes from humans (hence the +2 to any 1 score). For me, I like to use the K.I.S.S method. It works easiest.
-Araevin Telshurr was atypical of a Sun Elf, one of the reasons why I disliked the Last Mythal trilogy. That said, that he has N'Tel'Quessir friends doesn't mean that he hasn't worked past his natural penalty to dealing with them (added ranks in Diplomacy, or a higher CHA stat to begin with). Most N'Ar'Tel'Quessir find them haughty, arrogant, dismissive, things like that.
Ok, I've made an additional Racial change to Sun elves called Arrogant-(-2 to all Cha-based skills dealing with non-elven races), and Favored classes are now Cleric or Wizard. I kept the Ability adjustments the same though.
These are straight from the Pathfinder Campaign Guide and not my own ideas. Just listing what changes they made and trying to make them more Realms-ish. And considering that most of the races get two +2 adjustments to their abilities for each -2, I can see why the half-orc got a -2 to Intelligence instead of say Charisma. As for the half-elf, while many of their racial abilities stem from the elves, a few comes from humans (hence the +2 to any 1 score). For me, I like to use the K.I.S.S method. It works easiest. [...]
I know, but considering that some posters already suggested modifying the stats for certain subraces, why not change this as well? The half-orc stats as written only enforce the "strong and dumb" stereotype.
Also, remember I'm fond of consistent mechanics, and races that build on the same principle ("half-breed") but follow completely different mechanics (one race inherits its parent's weakness while the other race doesn't) are not consistent.
If anything else, the "beneficial" stats of half-elves without any real drawback make it seem of another instance of Elves Are Better.
I hope you are aware of the rule that you cannot combine sources of power points. This means that you can either use your own pp pool or the cognizance crystal, which makes the crystals a very weak choice. Even moreso if you consider that you cannot craft anything else with the associated item creation feat.
You cannot craft anything else with Imprint Stone, either. With Cognizance Crystals, you can use your own PP for bigger powers, and the crystals for utility powers you don't need to augment. Also, Crystals can be recharged. Power Stones not.
Btw, everyone who like to play psionic characters should get the books from Dreamscarred Press. There are options in there to 1) use the PP reservoir of crystal and that of the character together, and 2) to craft more then Cognizance Crystals with the feat.
Yes, for 20 power points. And a pimped out psion (see below for example) only has around 450 of those. Also, the flexibility regarding the energy type pales in comparison to the spellcasters' abilities regarding save-or-die effects (almost all psionic SoDs are mind-affecting) and to deal untyped or force damage (magic missile, Orb of Force, Horrid Wilting, ...).
20 of 450 is a little less than 5%. Big deal. Also, the Wizards flexibility depends on knowing beforehand which spells he's going to need.
If flexibility comes at the cost of stamina, no. A psion is no more flexible than a sorcerer - even less so. Once a psion's powers are chosen he cannot swap them out (barring the use of certain powers - that he or one of his companions must know in the first place and that have an XP cost attached), while the sorcerer can swap one of his spells for free every even level.
If you're using the Retraining rules from PHB 2, then you can swap out powers. Also, the psion can spend XP to develop additional powers.
You haven't actually played a psion, have you? Because nobody on the psionics board could ever support such a claim. Ask Bacris, Tempest Stormwind, angellis ater, drunkenewok, carnivore, or any other regular from the old psionics board. They'd either shake their head in disbelieve or laugh at you for that statement.
I am currently playing a gnome shaper obsessed with crystals in a FR campaign, with a wizard in the party. I usually last longer.
Have you played one? It seems that you are getting so desperate to win this discussion that you have to draw on outward opinions of people who cannot defend themselves.
Well, I can use that argument just as well. "Metamagic feats are unimportant, because most spells have autoscaling." And now? That's your argument, right back at you.
The autoscaling stops. You forget that you have to pay extra power points for metapsionic feats, too.
Let's just take your example. A Lightning Bolt always requires only a level 3 slot, for a maximum of 10d6 damage. An Energy Bolt always gives you 5d6, no matter your level. If you want to get comparable damage to the Lightning Bolt you have to spend the equivalent of a level 5 slot.
While the power is a bit more flexible than the spell regarding the damage type, it's still much weaker regarding raw damage output.
But still the psion is weaker.
He stays more flexible. Which offsets the weaker blasting abilities.
Wrong. All he needs is to prepare the right spells.
And that can be a problem, can't it? He's dependend on reconnaissance or precise divination to know what's coming. The psion doesn't need that. He can fit his power point usage to the circumstances on the fly. If the DM works with ambushes, the Wizard can be caught with his pants down, and has to rely on items. The Sorcerer is even worse in these situations.
Please point out where in the rules it says that arcane casters are subject to alignment restrictions regarding summoning spells.
Not restrictions. But using spells with the evil or good descriptor can shift your alignment.
It's highly ironic that you speak of flamebait when it was you who made the claim that psionics was as strong as arcane/divine magic, while this has been proven wrong countless times in the 3E psionics boards again and again and again.
It depends on how you define "strong". I take the flexibilty of psionics into the equation. You don't. The psionics board usually doesn't, too.
So, our premises are different. Does this justify your rudness?
Also, the psion can spend XP to develop additional powers.
So far, nothing in Pathfinder uses XP as a spendable resource, so presumably this would have to be revised in any update.
[...] 20 of 450 is a little less than 5%. Big deal. Also, the Wizards flexibility depends on knowing beforehand which spells he's going to need.
Yes, it is a big deal. It means that the psion is at most getting off around 22 fully augmented powers per day. Considering that he not only needs offensive powers, but eventually also uses several buff/debuff/utility powers over the course of the day, this brings the number down to something like 17 to 18. Compare that to the arsenal of 40 something spells (that automatically scale to full damage/benefit at no additional cost) the wizard can bring to bear and you get the picture why manifesters are weaker than spellcasters.
Also, spells are generally more powerful than the comparable powers. Greater Dispel Magic automatically gives you the full bonus to your dispells, while with Dispel Psionics you have to pay for a higher bonus. Telekinesis is much more versatile, because the psion requires three powers to do the same the wizard can do with a single spell.
If you're using the Retraining rules from PHB 2, then you can swap out powers.
Interesting that you need to bring in such a splatbook to make the psion equal to the core only sorcerer. However, the retraining rules in that case also apply to the sorcerer, so...
Also, the psion can spend XP to develop additional powers.
Which has been clarified that it doesn't allow you to learn any powers outside your alloted number. A level 20 psion knows 36 powers, no more no less, plus any powers he learned from the Expanded Knowledge feat.
Have you played one? It seems that you are getting so desperate to win this discussion that you have to draw on outward opinions of people who cannot defend themselves.
I've had my share of wilders, soulknives, telepaths, and nomads, yes. Interesting that you now disregard the facts proven time and again by people who you just some lines above advertised. You do know who's behind Dreamscarred Press?
The autoscaling stops. You forget that you have to pay extra power points for metapsionic feats, too.
The augmentation has hard limits and becomes excessively expensive. And metamagic spells increase the spell level. Again, what's your point? Everything you say about metapsionic feats I can say in a similar way about metamagic feats.
He stays more flexible. Which offsets the weaker blasting abilities.
But blasting is not everything. The general wizard is easily as powerful a blaster as the kineticist, easily as powerful an enchanter as the telepath, and easily as powerful a diviner as the seer. However, psionics has nothing to match the wizard's necromancy abilities or many of the powerful abilities (gate, finger of death, ...).
Not to mention that almost all spellcaster prestige classes are inhumanly more powerful than manifester prestige classes. Lost manifester levels hurt much more than lost spellcaster levels.
And that can be a problem, can't it? He's dependend on reconnaissance or precise divination to know what's coming. The psion doesn't need that. He can fit his power point usage to the circumstances on the fly. If the DM works with ambushes, the Wizard can be caught with his pants down, and has to rely on items. The Sorcerer is even worse in these situations.
Leaving one spell slot from each level open and prepare spells when the situation arises is no problem. And as said, using summon monster opens up a lot f additional spells and abilities for the wizard's use. The psion can also be caught with his pants down (having selected the wrong powers at level up) just as easily as the sorcerer, and also has to rely on items (coincidentally, the psionic ones are also often weaker than the magical items).
Not restrictions. But using spells with the evil or good descriptor can shift your alignment.
Please provide a link to the relevant section in the SRD or a page number in the PH.
It depends on how you define "strong". I take the flexibilty of psionics into the equation. You don't. The psionics board usually doesn't, too.
Because the psionics board focused on the purely mechanical aspects of the game, the rules as written, and not on what a DM may or may not make out of the rules.
On a similar note, this is why statements like Alediran's "any real DM would do this or that" are inherently flawed. You cannot expect all DMs to have an eye for mechanical problems and start fixing the system. That's the designers' job, to make sure that the rules are as secure and usable as possible. To use a computer game example, take Forged Alliance, the Supreme Commander add on. It plays rather nicely, until you find out about "shoring" and "off-mapping".
"Shoring" allows you to place a large unit (you can do that with almost any ground experimental) on a beach in a way that the weapons are out of the water while the rest of the unit is below the water. This makes the unit visually "invisible", and prevents certain units (like ground units/defenses and submarines) from attack it. This way you can make your experimental unit last much longer than anticipated, as most enemy attacks won't touch it.
"Off mapping" allows you to direct flocks of aircraft in a way so that they leave the visible area of the map. While being "off map", you can still issue orders to your aircraft and controll them, but enemies are unable to attack them, nor will automatic AA defenses target them. This way you can direct a huge number of gunships or bombers around an enemy's AA defenses or ASF flocks, and kill his commander or base without him being able to prevent it.
What would you expect to do? 99% of all gamers would expect (and rightfully so) that the developers of the game make a patch and fix those problems. Nobody would expect that each gamer himself should start to learn coding, decompile the program, learn how to script AI and unit behaviour, and fix the problems himself.
But it's exactly this what Alediran and others suggest for DnD. Instead of the designers (in this case Paizo) being responsible for fixing the bugs and exploits, they tell that each player (in this case DM) should learn coding and scripting (game design and statistical mathematics) himself, and correct the problems on his own.
And this is something I'll never come to agree with.
So, I'm not allowed to use my characters abilities if the DM doesn't allow it? How generous of you...
And I always thought that players were allowed to play their characters however they wanted within the boundaries of the rules. You know, freedom of choice, roleplaying freedom, and all that. But obviously, in your games players are merely your sockpuppets that have to do as you say so that you can have your fun, or get booted out.
Not if you use them in a way to cheat. Just try to do any of the things you mentioned on WoW or UO and you get a permanent ban, the same applies to my table and the tables of DMs with common sense.
Not if you use them in a way to cheat.
Really? And what is cheating? Using the spells as written? Shouldn't it be rather considered a "feature" of the spell to be able to create a huge army of titans, or to produce an nearly unlimited amount of money? After all, if the spells weren't designed with that in mind, they would have been worded differently.
Just try to do any of the things you mentioned on WoW or UO and you get a permanent ban, the same applies to my table and the tables of DMs with common sense. [...]
What, using abilities as they are described in the game? In that case I'd rather point to somewhat schizophrenic game designers...
And by the way: saying that you reported someone is considered baiting.
Ok, I've made an additional Racial change to Sun elves called Arrogant-(-2 to all Cha-based skills dealing with non-elven races), and Favored classes are now Cleric or Wizard. I kept the Ability adjustments the same though.
-That works.
-A similar ability(?) could also be given to "Wild" Elves. While not arrogant, they are isolated and such, and have trouble dealing with outsiders. That'd be the same -2 to all CHA-based skills.
-Please take the side-discussions to either another thread or PM, or make it relevant to the Forgotten Realms? Thank you.
I wouldn't be in such a hurry to cast Wish anyway, considering how the spell description encourages GMs to find intricate and inventive ways to screw you over for using it...
... but this clause only applies when the caster tries to create an effect that is not covered by the spell's description. The listed abilities (duplicating spells, granting a +1 or higher inherent bonus, revive dead creatures, remove afflictions, transportation, and undoing misfortune) work as written, unless the DM is going out of his way to actively screw his players over for using a spell as written.
... but this clause only applies when the caster tries to create an effect that is not covered by the spell's description. The listed abilities (duplicating spells, granting a +1 or higher inherent bonus, revive dead creatures, remove afflictions, transportation, and undoing misfortune) work as written, unless the DM is going out of his way to actively screw his players over for using a spell as written.
If they leave an open space in the wording of that particular Wish then yes. Makes players think more before rushing to do anything.
Unless, because its 3e, someone feels it will 'polute' the unofficial 4e half of these boards.
If they leave an open space in the wording of that particular Wish then yes. Makes players think more before rushing to do anything.
I must disagree. If a player cast's wish and says "I wish for my mental capacities to increase" (+1 inherent bonus to Int), then he should get it, no questions asked. If the DM actively tries to pervert any wish cast by the players, you rather sooner than later get to the point when players hit the DM with prepared 30 page blocks of 3 column 8pt Arial pseudo-legalese in order to avoid getting screwed over.
I know that the DM always is the final arbiter about "go" or "no go", but he should at least leave a little reliability in the system. If players couldn't get guaranteed effects from wish, why would they get guaranteed effects from any other spell? From this point it's not too far to "A cow falls out of the sky and hits you for *roll* 17 damage" - "Wha? I only casted mage armor?!" - "Yeah, I know, I just felt like screwing you over."
As said, the spells should always function exactly as written, and guarantee a specific effect that's not to be arbitrarily modified by the DM (if you wanted that you could easily play one of the countless rules-light free form rpgs floating around on the net). Anything that goes beyond that (like asking a magic item from a PRPG wish) is definitively in the DM's hand. If a certain effect or combination turns out to not be desired for an enjoyable game (gate and the titan loop, shapechange and the Balor sword loop, etc) the spells should get a frigging patch to close that exploit.
But leaving the ambiguous wordings or loopholes of certain spells in the game as a designer and asking/expecting the DMs to adjust it "on the fly" (as if DMs didn't have enough to do already!) is the equivalent of programmers of a bug infested application posting a link to a programming tutorial website and telling the customers to fix the app themselves. And that's just unacceptable from a customer relationship point of view.
Paizo has the chance to close all the loopholes and exploits and bugs right now, but they don't. They provide some patches for some of the problems, but don't dare to touch the glaring ones. I ask you, why?
- Why don't they just put "any item created by the spell disappears the instance the spell is dismissed, dispelled, or ends in any other way" into astral projection to avoid the infinite item cloning exploit?
- Why don't they reduce the "automatic controlling" paragraph in gate to "you can automatically control only a number of hit dice equal to your level, no matter if you called multiple creatures or a single creature" (or remove it altogether!) to avoid level 17 casters pulling 34 HD outsider pets out of their pockets?
- Why don't they give Wall of Iron a duration or make it worthless metal to avoid a level 12 caster creating around 36800 lb of iron worth over 3600gp from a common 50gp material component?
But you know what really gets me, here?
These are 'loopholes' that have always been there. I don't just mean in 3.5e, or even 3.x, but since pretty much the very beginning of the game. Spells like Wish, and Wall of Iron, have had these 'issues' ever since the D&D Basic set.
Maybe it's just me, but in my 20+ years of playing (dear god, has it been that long?
) I've never found them to be the game-breaking issues you seem to believe they are. Actually, quite the opposite - I've been in game groups that had a lot of fun playing with the wordings of wish spells, even to the point of nearly turning it into a mini-game.And of course, if you really wanted to see them closed, you could go open a thread on Paizo's feedback forums...
...but you don't. So why do you keep harping on it?
Why hasn't this been moved yet?
-Initially, I tried to make this Forgotten Realms related. That died out fairly quickly. Diffan brought things back on track, and we're doing Forgotten Realms things now. I'm not sure if this is more mechanical stuff now, though, or more lore related.
[...] And of course, if you really wanted to see them closed, you could go open a thread on Paizo's feedback forums...
...but you don't. [...]
Because I don't think that I'm the only person among a bunch of professional game designers and hundreds, if not thousands, of gamers that notices these things or finds them wrong. If that were true, that would cast a pretty dim light on the designers and the other fans. Also, I don't like sugarcoating my points just for the sake of someone not getting them the wrong way. Considering the flak I've gotten here from you and others for nothing more than an honest opinion about the mechanics of PRPG, I seriously doubt that it would be worth the time, energy, and stress to put up a thread about my list of criticism on the Paizo forums.
Additionally, even if I opened a thread, and even if I didn't get flamed from here to hell and back, do you really think it would change anything? Considering the typical development process of a product, the moment a beta version is published it's far too late to make any fundamental changes to the design of the individual components. At most my suggestions about adding sentences to certain loop holes had the chance of perhaps being added into the rules, but the major point of my concerns - the imbalanced and favoritistic races and classes - would never get corrected.
However, I know that you're active over there, so feel free to transcribe my points or link to the relevant posts.
...but there's a bit of a difference between 'eh, I don't like it' and repeatedly posting to insist that 'Paizo has broken its promises', among other things. When you start to post far more than anyone else in such stridently anti- tone.... :P
Aaaaanyway, back to the actual relevance of the thread...
Tieflings, Aasimar, and Genasi stats. None of these are in the base PFRPG rules, though I expect they'll show up later. In the meantime, what are peoples' thoughts on PFRPG stats for them? I'm inclined to try and make them as ECL/LA +0, since I don't think they're really out of line with the Pathfinder core race stats.
Anyway, I was contemplating some sort of customization there, to allow for non cha-penalty variants. Thoughts?
But since we are talking in 3e terms here, and the Tiefling in the PGtF that I'm looking at is quite the 'Honey'...
How about you make a specific type different - the Alufiend (half-Succubus) is perfect for this.
Alufiends are the same as standard Tieflings, but do not have the -2 CHA. They also do not get the Drakness ability of standard Tieflings, and they must choose only two of the three energy types (Cold, Fire, and Acid) to be resistance 5 to.
I'm also thinking about an Alufiend Paragon path (like the ones in UA), to allow a player to develop her into something more akin to her Succubus parent (gaining CHA, Charm abilites, etc).
I understand what you mean. Personally, I think I'd be happier with moving the -2 to another area. What would you think of, hm... +2 Cha, -2 Con, and then either +2 Int or +2 Dex? Would another stat fit better for the minus?
More importantly, what would we call them? Alu-Tiefling? :D Maybe something like "Tiefling (Succubus bloodline)", and then potentially add others as needed.
[...] Thoughts?
Perhaps you could use this respectively this and adapt the suggestions to planetouched.
So what you are saying is...
3e/3P = Chess, and
4e = Checkers, right? :P
Just kidding - I like 4e for its logical rules and simplicity, while I love 3e/3P for the fact that I can STILL USE the $1000 worth of books on my shelf.
Money talks, and - in this case - logic walks. ;)
But I'll use both, and enjoy both, because it really doesn't matter what rules you use, so long as the 'snack guy' comes through.
:D
More like...
3e/3P = Beer & Pretzels
vs.
4e = Sugar Free Kool-Aid & Gummi Bears
So far, the only thing thats really different is that the humanoids have been given their own supplement, and are fully fleshed-out cultures with their own quirks and what-not.
Considering we didn't get ANYTHING approaching this in FR, it should be rather easy to backwards-engineer everything in Pathfinder. I think the Elves are taller - but 4e did that anyway. :D
I think it doesn't have an Underdark in the way we have come to know the term, either, but thats just a setting-thing (Golarion), and not a rules-thing (Pathfinder). Their Dark Elves live above ground, if I'm not mistaken, in tunnel-warrens or some-such (I could be way off here - I only know a little). Also, I don't think they are allowed to use the word 'Drow', but I'm not sure on that point either.
Either way, the rules were designed with backwards-compatibility in mind, so most of the PrCs and what-not should still work fine.
The pathfinder drow do live underground. Only their background on how they became evil is different.