PDA

View Full Version : Pathfinder RPG sells out first print run ten days ahead of debut



Pages : [1] 2

joela
2009-08-04, 01:58 AM
Ten days before the launch of their much-anticipated Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook, Paizo Publishing today announced that the first print run of the book has sold out, with all preordered copies on their way to stores for an August 13 release.

Full PR can be found here (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/announcements/pathfinderRPGCoreRulebookSoldOut).

bosssmiley
2009-08-04, 05:23 AM
Full PR can be found here (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/announcements/pathfinderRPGCoreRulebookSoldOut).

The con goes from strength to strength. A triumph of hype over substance. Proof positive that the critical faculties of many gamers extend no further than "new/pretty = good". :smallamused:

Unofficial Pathfinder FAQ/Critique (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083)

Yora
2009-08-04, 05:50 AM
Yeah, it's not so great... :smallwink:

kamikasei
2009-08-04, 05:53 AM
Unofficial Pathfinder FAQ/Critique (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083)

That was highly entertaining, thanks for posting it.

Yora
2009-08-04, 05:59 AM
It's a lot of flaming and almost trolling, but he does tell the truth on most points.
Pathfinder is not a bugfixed 3.5e.

kamikasei
2009-08-04, 06:05 AM
It's a lot of flaming and almost trolling, but he does tell the truth on most points.

It's neither. It's someone voicing harsh criticism of something they hold in low regard, and not bothering to moderate their language in doing so. It it were posted on Paizo's forum, it might be either trolling or flaming; in its own topic on an open forum with different standards of moderation, it's simply speech.

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-04, 06:10 AM
It's neither. It's someone voicing harsh criticism of something they hold in low regard, and not bothering to moderate their language in doing so. It it were posted on Paizo's forum, it might be either trolling or flaming; in its own topic on an open forum with different standards of moderation, it's simply speech.

A better language could be more appreciated, I guess.

Anyway, I see that he says that this or that thing fails, but in some issues he does not says how. A lack of details.

kamikasei
2009-08-04, 06:18 AM
A better language could be more appreciated, I guess.

I've never understood the "profanity burns my eyes" attitude. If he had refrained from swearing his post would have been more polite, but neither more nor less correct.


Anyway, I see that he says that this or that thing fails, but in some issues he does not says how. A lack of details.

I don't believe it's supposed to be an argument, but a summary of many arguments ongoing on that board.

Anyway, it's not my intention to defend someone I don't know posting somewhere I don't frequent about something I don't care about. I just don't like to see simple vehemence labelled as trolling and/or flaming. The debasing of language bothers me.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-08-04, 06:21 AM
Didn't Pathfinder do the biggest open RPG playtest in history? Doesn't that mean they solved all of D&D's problems?

No. In this case, the "playtest" was a lie. Destructive playtesting was not only not encouraged, it was actively and specifically rejected. The Paizo leadership only wanted to hear about whether people had fun or not. Which means that the most pried playtest reports were seriously ones in which the players spent all night in immersive roleplaying or where the fun centered around "awesome" artifacts that broke the rules. In short - things that didn't use the rules at all and didn't demonstrate anything. People who actually ran apples to apples comparisons, same game tests, or repeated experiments to get controlled results or regressed bugs were not only ignored, they were banned from their forums.

Their playtest was a marketing ploy and nothing more. It was never intended to uncover problems or produce real results.
That alone is enough to convince me not to buy any of their books. It looks like all you'd get out of buying their game is a lot more learning their backwards rules and a coming up with your own houserules/fixes all over again, so I'll just stick to my 3.5 and be happy.

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-04, 06:25 AM
I've never understood the "profanity burns my eyes" attitude. If he had refrained from swearing his post would have been more polite, but neither more nor less correct.

Don't get me wrong: I didn't run to my mommy after I read the bad words. But If you expect I take a review or something similar seriously, such review should be written in a way that makes me think that conclusions are drawn after an analysis. This way, sounds "nerd-ragey".

BobVosh
2009-08-04, 06:26 AM
It is fairly biased on a few changes, but accurate overall.

Imp grappled was nerfed, but so were size catagories to the point that large is break even, but each one above (huge+) you have a higher bonus(relative).

Just as an example, I can point out a few others.

daggaz
2009-08-04, 06:34 AM
Don't get me wrong: I didn't run to my mommy after I read the bad words. But If you expect I take a review or something similar seriously, such review should be written in a way that makes me think that conclusions are drawn after an analysis. This way, sounds "nerd-ragey".

Id wonder then if the bad words did indeed burn your eyes, or if you had even actually read thru them and took in the whole article, because he is very specific on a large number of points and his conclusions are most certainly drawn after an analysis. The ultimate conclusion being : This system is a PR fraud, dont get scammed, dont give them any of your money.

Eldariel
2009-08-04, 06:38 AM
I've never understood the "profanity burns my eyes" attitude. If he had refrained from swearing his post would have been more polite, but neither more nor less correct.

In my eyes, profanity devalues a text. There's no actual need for profanity in any kind of a rational argument so the choice to use profanity is indeed a conscious choice and can tell of many factors, such as:
- Profanity is often used as a substitute for actual points; the attitude is meant to carry the argument in the absence of concrete issues (not the case here).
- Profanity shows little respect for the point you are addressing. If you have little respect for what you're talking about, there's little reason for anyone to care about what you have to say, and your information is likely to be incomplete and biased (to make the issue appear in worse light than it deserves to). Also, it gives the vibe that you aren't really interested in actually discussing the matter but just decided to vent.
- Profanity easily comes out as emotionality. When acting excessively emotional, your capability for rational and logical analysis is reduced potentially making the whole argument come out as more of an outburst and less of an argument.


I'm mostly of the opinion that if you care about a point enough to post an argument on it, you should care about it enough to make a calm and composed argument about it; I've yet to hear of anything that would require profanity to get anything across. If you don't care about it enough to make calm and composed arguments, it's hardly worth anyone's time to read the what you wrote.

That said, given that Trollman's post is written in a correct tone and it's really the only post of relevance in the thread (most of the rest is just barning and "I agree"s), that particular thread does not really seem to suffer of the whole "pointless profanity spoiling good arguments"-problem.

Epinephrine
2009-08-04, 06:45 AM
Many people disagree about Pathfinder. Obviously, fixes to spells don't matter if you allow unaltered spells from other sources, but changing spells and spell mechanics is exactly where changes need to be made on spellcasters. And while the beta didn't change all the spells, it showed promise on many - and we don't know what the final spell list looks like.

They've made it harder to cast defensively, concentration is no longer a skill and can't be pumped with skill bonus items, and fighters can take feats that allow them to follow those who try to get away with a 5' step. Despite that not sounding like a huge deal, it's a nerfing of casters - they can't just stand in combat and cast.

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-04, 06:57 AM
Id wonder then if the bad words did indeed burn your eyes, or if you had even actually read thru them and took in the whole article, because he is very specific on a large number of points and his conclusions are most certainly drawn after an analysis. The ultimate conclusion being : This system is a PR fraud, dont get scammed, dont give them any of your money.

In the while, I've read the whole thread. I see the argumentation, and I see you point (and the point of people above).

I wait to see the final version of PF, and I see the thread as an advice.

IMHO, anyway, the form whit you write things matter.

Nine Hells, the whole thing has been prolonged too much. It seems I'm an iper-sensitive person. Well, I'm not! :smalltongue:

daggaz
2009-08-04, 07:01 AM
No I agree with you, the style with which you present yourself does matter. This is hardly a professional write up. But as a scientist, I have to look past the image and find the facts. Assuming what this author says is true, it looks real bad for pathfinder.

T.G. Oskar
2009-08-04, 07:01 AM
I dunno...what kind of constructive critique I can get from someone who has the surname "Trollman" in his username and that apparently finds it entertaining to have a FAQ...with the "Frequently Asked" questions being mostly reactions to himself.

I really have to see the books to believe a word that he says. I've only heard the basics (Power Attack got nerfed, things work a bit differently now), but that isn't enough to make a real critique of the work. It's difficult to expect that the only new content for 3rd Edition will be truly the awaited solution to the problems of 3.5, but it's one of the few things we've got.

The other being homebrewing, whatever can be scavenged from the Gleemax forums, BG, and this site.

I'd take what he says with tweezers and a pinch of salt for kickers. It may be that he's speaking the truth...or just wishes to add more wood to the fire of "damn you WotC for leaving a fine game rot while you praise 4th Edition!!". In either case, it would be fine to apply the best solution to the Edition Wars: treat 3.X, 4th, and Pathfinder as different games with similar rules. Like...Dragonmech, or Iron Kingdoms.

Jayabalard
2009-08-04, 07:19 AM
But If you expect I take a review or something similar seriously, such review should be written in a way that makes me think that conclusions are drawn after an analysis. This way, sounds "nerd-ragey".Absolutely. nerd rage isn't particularity impressive.

kamikasei
2009-08-04, 07:31 AM
But If you expect I take a review or something similar seriously, such review should be written in a way that makes me think that conclusions are drawn after an analysis. This way, sounds "nerd-ragey".

See, this strikes me as similar to the misuse of "ad hominem". An ad hominem attack is invalid because you can't say a person's argument is bad just because (you assert) they're a bad person. However, it's no fallacy to say both that someone's argument is bad and that they're a bad person, or that they're a bad person because they're advancing a bad argument.

In this case, the profanity (and the real vitriol) in Frank's post only come in after several rounds of "well, have they in fact followed through on claim X they made?... no?". The impression I get from it is that he's making his analysis and that the conclusions anger him. That's different from reaching untrustworthy conclusions because the analysis is made in anger.

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-04, 07:37 AM
See, this strikes me as similar to the misuse of "ad hominem". An ad hominem attack is invalid because you can't say a person's argument is bad just because (you assert) they're a bad person. However, it's no fallacy to say both that someone's argument is bad and that they're a bad person, or that they're a bad person because they're advancing a bad argument.

In this case, the profanity (and the real vitriol) in Frank's post only come in after several rounds of "well, have they in fact followed through on claim X they made?... no?". The impression I get from it is that he's making his analysis and that the conclusions anger him. That's different from reaching untrustworthy conclusions because the analysis is made in anger.

I see. Fair enough.

Kaiser Omnik
2009-08-04, 07:38 AM
Unofficial Pathfinder FAQ/Critique (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083)

Apparently "neutrailty" has left the building long ago.

kamikasei
2009-08-04, 07:43 AM
Apparently "neutrailty" has left the building long ago.

Who said anything about neutrality?

Seriously, why does this guy have some obligation not to have an opinion?

Kaiser Omnik
2009-08-04, 07:45 AM
Who said anything about neutrality?

Seriously, why does this guy have some obligation not to have an opinion?

Making it appear so formal (A angry Q&A with himself? Seriously?) may be the problem.

EDIT: Oh, and things like "If you talk to 95% of the D&D players who are aware of balance issues in the D&D game who don't eat paste" makes him lose all credibility.

kamikasei
2009-08-04, 07:50 AM
Making it appear so formal (A angry Q&A with himself? Seriously?) may be the problem.

A) It's an "FAQ" intended "to act as a sort of "go to" thread about why you should not make the switch to Pathfinder..." (emphasis mine): no claim of neutrality is being made. It's not a pros-and-cons thing, it's "this thing is bad, here are the reasons I say that".

B) It does in fact incorporate questions posed by other posters later in the thread, so it's not simply a dialogue of one.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-04, 08:53 AM
Just FYI for everyone complaining about his lack of credibility: Frank Trollman wrote the Tome series (Tome of Fiends, Tome of Necromancy, and Dungeonomicon are all posted there for perusal) on the WotC board (and is working on finishing it up), which is his and a few others' revision of 3e that actually does fix a lot of issues, bring bad classes up to par, explain things like the purpose of a dungeon, the D&D economy, and other things from an in-game perspective. It's been playtested in a bunch of games and critiqued and revised since it was posted in...2005, I think?

That forum was started for people to read about, critique, revise, test, and add to the Tome series, so while I completely agree the discussion there is not at all as "fair and balanced" as the discussion here (because most everyone there thinks that 3e is borked and needs a fix), I'd say the people there have the most credibility when talking about 3e's internal workings outside of the WotC CharOp boards or BrilliantGameologists's.

Curmudgeon
2009-08-04, 10:21 AM
However, it's no fallacy to say both that someone's argument is bad and that they're a bad person, or that they're a bad person because they're advancing a bad argument.
Actually, yeah, that last point is fallacious.

Say someone says "The Earth is flat." That's a bad argument. But in most cases this would indicate that the speaker is an ignorant person, not a bad person. You'd need to show intent to deceive, or some other bad motive, for them to be a bad person. A bad argument alone is not enough.

DragoonWraith
2009-08-04, 10:27 AM
Actually, yeah, that last point is fallacious.

Say someone says "The Earth is flat." That's a bad argument. But in most cases this would indicate that the speaker is an ignorant person, not a bad person. You'd need to show intent to deceive, or some other bad motive, for them to be a bad person. A bad argument alone is not enough.
At least in that particular instance, that degree of ignorance is bad, in my opinion. You've crossed (well past, to be honest) the line of "oh, I did not know that" and entered into the territory of willful ignorance, the "I do not know that because I do not want to know it! You must respect my beliefs! It's not true, I've got my head in the sand!" - that kind of attitude is easily one of the biggest "evils" in the world today.

Doc Roc
2009-08-04, 10:30 AM
Here I am, backing up Pair again. I myself will be waiting to see the final rules, but suffice to say that I was not content with the fix-list deployed in the beta rules. Ranger remained a four level long class unless you were running swift hunter, fighter was only moderately improved, and then primarily by feats open to other classes, the usual list of my complaints.

I am, I must clarify, a tremendous fan of Paizo products. 3.75 is a huge and brave undertaking that I support the spirit of, if perhaps not the substance. I'll be watching quietly as is my wont.

Fiery Justice
2009-08-04, 10:48 AM
Profanity is considered, especially in America, a sign of weakness of intellect and logic as well as anger, which is looked down on. In addition to that, it's rather like CAPS LOCKING your words or putting in too many exclamation points. It's irritating and it doesn't add anything to a reasonable or intelligent discourse.

If it weren't looked down on and considered vulgar, it wouldn't be profanity. Talking about it like centuries of cultural development haven't affected it's perception doesn't do you any good. It's still profanity, it's still going to be looked down on. More than that, it is a poor way of expressing anger that is destructive when directed at other people (hence it being vulgar in the first place). I feel that he would have quite conveyed his anger (ignoring that emotions are considered inherently weak in debate, even if they are merely a reflection of the debate itself.) without profanity.

Maerok
2009-08-04, 10:58 AM
I thought this was already out the way people have been talking about it over the years(?)?

As for profanity, whatever, man... Don't let it get your sensibilities in a twist. You'd listen to George Carlin swear on and on and call the man a comedy genius.

Meek
2009-08-04, 11:08 AM
The con goes from strength to strength. A triumph of hype over substance. Proof positive that the critical faculties of many gamers extend no further than "new/pretty = good". :smallamused:

Unofficial Pathfinder FAQ/Critique (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083)

My love for you posting that link is like a truck. Thank you. Time to bookmark.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-04, 11:17 AM
I feel that he would have quite conveyed his anger (ignoring that emotions are considered inherently weak in debate, even if they are merely a reflection of the debate itself.) without profanity.

To be fair, the point of that thread was to point people posting on that board to the common arguments, where they'd already be used to that style. I don't post there, but I do frequent it for homebrew ideas, and most of those folks use profanity like punctuation marks.

HamHam
2009-08-04, 11:26 AM
Profanity is considered, especially in America, a sign of weakness of intellect and logic as well as anger, which is looked down on.

What America do you live in?

I don't want to even think about what would happen to some of you if you watched Zero Punctuation.

Shisumo
2009-08-04, 11:29 AM
(cross-posted from the the marketing hype thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120422))

Unofficial Pathfinder FAQ/critique (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083)

Cross-posting right back...


It's really astonishing how much misinformation, hyperbole (despite the disavoal of same) and outright lies are in that "FAQ." The author has an axe to grind against Paizo, one whose size would make Paul Bunyan feel inadequate, but mysteriously fails to mention the fact; he repeatedly refers to Beta rules as though they were the final ones, even though the information otherwise has already been released in the previews (some of which he also refers to, so he apparently has read them); he either says or implies several things that are literally untrue (for instance, the idea that the Improved [Maneuver] feats are nerfed because they only give a +2 bonus now? Since the maneuver system doesn't use opposed rolls anymore, the +2 is exactly the same statistical bonus as the +4 used to be - and yes, I have the math to prove that); and for no apparent reason spends about a third of the time actually attacking a book called Gods and Magic, though he never says that he is doing so and despite the fact that the book was released at roughly the same time as the Alpha playtest document and therefore doesn't have a thing to do with the Pathfinder RPG.

There are reasonable critiques of Pathfinder out there, some of which are on this thread. Trollman's is not one of them.

Eldariel
2009-08-04, 11:30 AM
What America do you live in?

I don't want to even think about what would happen to some of you if you watched Zero Punctuation.

Well, since his whole point is not to be taken seriously (it is comedy after all), it's kind of a different matter. Comedy is another thing entirely and profanity can serve as a great tool there.

HamHam
2009-08-04, 11:34 AM
Well, since his whole point is not to be taken seriously (it is comedy after all), it's kind of a different matter. Comedy is another thing entirely and profanity can serve as a great tool there.

I'm pretty sure the reviews are actual reviews about the actual strengths and weaknesses of the game being reviewed.

lesser_minion
2009-08-04, 11:38 AM
I'm pretty sure the reviews are actual reviews about the actual strengths and weaknesses of the game being reviewed.

At the risk of derailing the thread, while they are reviews, ZP is also intended as entertainment. The profanity and so on aren't meant to be taken seriously, and aren't used as if they were going to add emphasis.

Standing up on a soapbox and yelling sometimes gets you more attention than trying to engage in a reasoned debate.

KIDS
2009-08-04, 11:40 AM
Good for Paizo, even if I don't like Pathfinder.

Mongoose87
2009-08-04, 11:52 AM
I'm pretty sure the reviews are actual reviews about the actual strengths and weaknesses of the game being reviewed.

I'd say they're more just about the weaknesses, considering Yahtzee is a rather harsh critic. However, they serve a dual purpose of entertaining and reviewing, which means the swearing isn't so out-of-place.

Maerok
2009-08-04, 11:54 AM
Well I for one am entertained by the vulgarity of FrankTrollman's postings.

kamikasei
2009-08-04, 12:07 PM
Actually, yeah, that last point is fallacious.

It may be false, but it's not fallacious. Now, you can't reason from "your argument is bad" to "you are bad" in a general sense, certainly. But I was referring to the case where the poor quality of the argument being made points to failings of the person arguing - that they're lying, or willfully ignorant, or similar such undesirable things. I was also using "bad" as a general stand-in for more specific complaints.

Point being, you can't say "you are a liar; therefore, the argument you have made is false" - that's an ad hominem. You can say "the argument you have made is false (and you know it); therefore, you are a liar". This is not a fallacy even though those guilty of dishonesty and ignorance will frequently claim that any attack made on them based on their character as revealed through their argument is somehow an attempt to attack the argument through them.

@FireyJustice: Actually, profanity does not have its status because it's lowbrow or looked down upon. It has its status because it's taboo one way or another and thus breaks the rules of polite discourse. This is often useful for rhetorical emphasis or shock value.

Anyway, at this point none of this has anything much to do with the subject of the thread so I'll leave it there.

Fixer
2009-08-04, 12:08 PM
Having read the "Unofficial Review" I found it entertaining, but not informative.

I have been following Pathfinder for some time and discovered, very quickly, that anyone not on the, "This is great, please do more," fanboy wagon was doomed to obscurity. Thus, after a few attempts at posting some issues I had found with the system back in the beginning of the project, I frankly gave up to see if they would take my complaints to heart eventually.

I have not seen the final document for Pathfinder. I do know that, what I have seen of the beta, is not promising. They have several very good ideas, but they don't really belong in 3.5, or 3.75, or whatever you want to call this. This isn't a version of D&D. It is a game similar to D&D, with many of the same rules, but with an entirely different take on the matter.

This is a different species, but not a different genus. I do not intend on picking it up for the simple sake of it (likely) not addressing the issues I have with 3.5. If it *does* happen to fix the issues I have with 3.5, I will reconsider but not before I have proof of it.

Umael
2009-08-04, 12:53 PM
That alone is enough to convince me not to buy any of their books. It looks like all you'd get out of buying their game is a lot more learning their backwards rules and a coming up with your own houserules/fixes all over again, so I'll just stick to my 3.5 and be happy.

While I completely support your decision to not engage Paizo in any future purchases, and I might myself follow suit (a not unlikely scenario), I am motivated to denounce your reasoning as unsound, in practice if not in truth.

To condemn a product over a single analysis, especially one that comes across as biased, seems a mark of unstable and unsound judgement. The analysis in question might be even lenitent on the matter, but I believe a more rational, objective, and balanced view should be taken on the matter.


No I agree with you, the style with which you present yourself does matter. This is hardly a professional write up. But as a scientist, I have to look past the image and find the facts. Assuming what this author says is true, it looks real bad for pathfinder.

As a scientist, you should know better than to accept a single source of possibly tainted information.

You said it yourself that presentation matters, and if the author of the analysis cannot be bothered to present himself professionally and with a clear lack of bias, than I shall weigh his opinion on the matter accordingly. Unless I miss my mark, there are plenty of other sources that approach the matter from a more objective stance and proceed to decry the Pathfinder's system.


To everyone else: I apologize for my disagreeable disposition.

Zeta Kai
2009-08-04, 12:55 PM
In my eyes, profanity devalues a text. There's no actual need for profanity in any kind of a rational argument so the choice to use profanity is indeed a conscious choice and can tell of many factors, such as:
- Profanity is often used as a substitute for actual points; the attitude is meant to carry the argument in the absence of concrete issues (not the case here).
- Profanity shows little respect for the point you are addressing. If you have little respect for what you're talking about, there's little reason for anyone to care about what you have to say, and your information is likely to be incomplete and biased (to make the issue appear in worse light than it deserves to). Also, it gives the vibe that you aren't really interested in actually discussing the matter but just decided to vent.
- Profanity easily comes out as emotionality. When acting excessively emotional, your capability for rational and logical analysis is reduced potentially making the whole argument come out as more of an outburst and less of an argument.

These are some of the best anti-profanity arguments that I've seen, all in a concise package. Expect to get quoted.

As for PF, it is fairly common knowledge that discent is not greeted warmly. Some things have been improved, many things have been nerfed, & just about everything got tweaked. I have yet to see any significant balance issues addressed in a concrete or systematic manner, in either the Alpha or Beta testing. If anything, the balance seems to skew more heavily in favor of casters. But I have to give Paizo some points for trying. Whether that will be enough to make for a worthwhile continuance of the D20 legacy is anyone's guess. But so far, it looks like homebrew is all we've got left of a once-united base.

Rion
2009-08-04, 01:02 PM
Sorry for going off-topic by discussing swearing, but I saw this clip some time ago and I think it needs to posted.
Stephen Fry on the joys of swearing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM) (the clip contains swearing. It may be obvious, but I'm not taking any chances).
Unfortunately my lurking nature means I'm not one to prove Stephen Fry right on this forum (though I certainly hope I do on others), but I still think it fits (though that could be because I'm Danish and Fry's English, and from what I understand swearing is more looked down on in USA).

Eldariel
2009-08-04, 01:08 PM
Sorry for going off-topic by discussing swearing, but I saw this clip some time ago and I think it needs to posted.
Stephen Fry on the joys of swearing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM) (the clip contains swearing. It may be obvious, but I'm not taking any chances).
Unfortunately my lurking nature means I'm not one to prove Stephen Fry right on this forum (though I certainly hope I do on others), but I still think it fits (though that could be because I'm Danish and Fry's English, and from what I understand swearing is more looked down on in USA).

He advocates it for comedic purposes, which we pretty much have concluded is perfectly alright and works. Rational discussion where actual conclusions are to be reached is a different matter entirely though. :smallwink:

Tengu_temp
2009-08-04, 01:17 PM
Since the maneuver system doesn't use opposed rolls anymore, the +2 is exactly the same statistical bonus as the +4 used to be - and yes, I have the math to prove that

How? I fail to see how +2 vs a fixed DC is the same bonus as +4 vs an opposed roll.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-04, 01:24 PM
How? I fail to see how +2 vs a fixed DC is the same bonus as +4 vs an opposed roll.

I believe the fixed DC is determined by assuming the defender rolls a 15. In which case going from +4 to +2 is indeed a nerf, since you go from a +4 against an average roll of 10.5 to a +2 against a guaranteed roll of 15.

HamHam
2009-08-04, 01:24 PM
He advocates it for comedic purposes, which we pretty much have concluded is perfectly alright and works. Rational discussion where actual conclusions are to be reached is a different matter entirely though. :smallwink:

Not really, but whatever.

Epinephrine
2009-08-04, 01:26 PM
How? I fail to see how +2 vs a fixed DC is the same bonus as +4 vs an opposed roll.

It isn't.

In fact, using same CMB, but giving one the +2 bonus results in a 40% chance of success, while two even bonuses in 3.5 plus the +4 bonus for one results in a 70% success.

Edit: Ninjas!

Rion
2009-08-04, 01:37 PM
Try reading the comments page. While there are people using l33t-speak (Don't they comment on every Youtube video?) or using it as an opportunity to have posts mostly containing various swear words, there are also some people who are very eloquent at expressing their views.

Tengu_temp
2009-08-04, 02:04 PM
@PairO'Dice Lost, Epinephrine - I know that it isn't the same. That's why I'm asking Shisumo. I want to see his math proof.

Nero24200
2009-08-04, 02:04 PM
While I honesty think he should work on his langauge skills, I can agree with most of his points.

The playtest is a joke (I should know, I took part). When I complained that the bard's changes could be very hit and miss, their exact response was "Well, if you don't like it, just house-rule it"....sorry, but if they really thought that was a viable excuse, they wouldn't be trying to "Fix" 3.5 and sell the "Fix" for $50 a pop.

The changes don't fix the problems. Most folk seem to, however, lap up what paizo says about their change's actually fixing the problem, when it doesn't. For people who constantly cry "At least play-test it first" they never do so themselves (Hell, there was a topic on their forum entilted "Paizo made me want to play a bard for the first time in 30 years"...though the topic was up a weak before they releasesed their version of the bard.)

Though what I strongly dislike is the unproffesional attitude they have, such as openly badmouthing rival companies on their forums (Seeming to forget that without wizard's of the coast they wouldn't have a product to sell, since the game they're making uses their rules).
The point-blank refusual to accept certain problems within their produce (seriously, you can tell just by going to their forum. You can tell right from the Alpha stage what they planned to change and what they planned to keep).
And theres such poor logic behind some of the changes (Sorry, but boosting the cleric's healing powers and saying they're less healing focused? Paizo, I might not like the change, but I'd at least have more respect if you just out-right admitted that you did it because you want your clerics to heal first and foremost).

And as for feedback...don't bother, their forums are chalkful of fanboys who will argue every point. It's silly really...3 out of 4 posts aren't actually in their own words, they're just repeating what the paizo staff tell them.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-04, 02:12 PM
@PairO'Dice Lost, Epinephrine - I know that it isn't the same. That's why I'm asking Shisumo. I want to see his math proof.

That was meant to be a supporting post, not a contradiction. I'd like to see his math as well.

Set
2009-08-04, 02:15 PM
That alone is enough to convince me not to buy any of their books. It looks like all you'd get out of buying their game is a lot more learning their backwards rules and a coming up with your own houserules/fixes all over again, so I'll just stick to my 3.5 and be happy.

The thing is, several of the ideas that I proposed on the Beta boards made it in.

So it seems that playtesters who stuck around and continued to contribute, instead of running away to complain after one of their icons got himself banned after saying that anyone who disagreed with him was retarded and fellating the developer, actually got to see their contributions discussed, and, in some cases, implemented. (And in other cases, cruelly dismissed before my genius was recognized. *Choke.* I shall rend my garments and pour ashes over my head because my idea to give Fighters a Defense Bonus and a Damage Bonus and the ability to shuffle numbers around between them and their BAB, like free Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Defensive Attack, Reckless Attack feats was not given it's day in court!)

There are plenty of reasons not to buy into Pathfinder. You might not like what's changed. You might not think that some things have changed enough. You might be perfectly happy with 3.5 (with or without houserules). You might think that anything other than 4E is 'boring math' (to quote Mike Mearls). You might simply not have the cash to blow on yet another iteration of Dungeons & Dragons.

And you can take the advice of people who are lying about how the playtest worked (because they weren't treated as very special princesses during the process, and are now all butthurt about it) as gospel.

It's a free country.

Riffington
2009-08-04, 02:20 PM
Even if you never play Pathfinder in your life, you still benefit from it.
WOtC has shown a real desire to kill 3.5, and without Pathfinder they would have succeeded. The best illustration of their early attempts is this: a requirement that you cannot create new 4.0 products if you create more OGL products. With that sort of attitude, they would eventually reduce the playerbase of 3.5 to the point where they can successfully prevent the creation of 3.5 materials.

But with a viable Pathfinder, they can't do that anymore. Because it's anti-competitive, and Paizo/3.5 (the two combine because it's compatible) will have enough playerbase to support companies who want to produce modules.

So even if you never play Pathfinder in your life, you should still give thanks that it was created and will be the vehicle by which 3.5 is kept alive.

Nero24200
2009-08-04, 02:33 PM
Even if you never play Pathfinder in your life, you still benefit from it.
WOtC has shown a real desire to kill 3.5, and without Pathfinder they would have succeeded. The best illustration of their early attempts is this: a requirement that you cannot create new 4.0 products if you create more OGL products. With that sort of attitude, they would eventually reduce the playerbase of 3.5 to the point where they can successfully prevent the creation of 3.5 materials.

But with a viable Pathfinder, they can't do that anymore. Because it's anti-competitive, and Paizo/3.5 (the two combine because it's compatible) will have enough playerbase to support companies who want to produce modules.

So even if you never play Pathfinder in your life, you should still give thanks that it was created and will be the vehicle by which 3.5 is kept alive.

It could be argued that PF is the reason Wotc have such a restrictive license. Would you allow such an open license when the last time you did a company that openly bad-mouths your buisness style and products declared they'd be making their own version, using your rules, and potentially making a fair bit of money from it?

I know I wouldn't.

Indon
2009-08-04, 02:34 PM
@PairO'Dice Lost, Epinephrine - I know that it isn't the same. That's why I'm asking Shisumo. I want to see his math proof.

I imagine it's something along the lines that a 2 difference in a 20-point spread is similar to a 4 difference in a 40-point spread.

I'd have to actually crunch the numbers to make sure that's the case, and I suspect that even if it is, it's not identical, just similar. Also, I'm not sure if that's still the case considering it's not a uniform distribution across the 40-point spread.

AstralFire
2009-08-04, 02:37 PM
So even if you never play Pathfinder in your life, you should still give thanks that it was created and will be the vehicle by which 3.5 is kept alive.

I wasn't aware I needed more materials to use my 3.5 collection.

So, no, given the quality of work Paizo's published through Dragon and now this, I don't care.

Riffington
2009-08-04, 02:40 PM
It could be argued that PF is the reason Wotc have such a restrictive license. Would you allow such an open license when the last time you did a company that openly bad-mouths your buisness style and products declared they'd be making their own version, using your rules, and potentially making a fair bit of money from it?

I know I wouldn't.

Wouldn't your argument require time travel?

Also yes, yes I would. As long as WotC kept making 3.5 stuff, they made a huge amount of money off 3.5 even while other companies (some of whom badmouthed WotC) made smaller amounts. Now they've decided to maximize their profits off 4.0 by killing off 3.5.

Astralfire:

I wasn't aware I needed more materials to use my 3.5 collection.
You don't, but go ahead and find players for a 1st edition game.

HamHam
2009-08-04, 02:40 PM
It could be argued that PF is the reason Wotc have such a restrictive license. Would you allow such an open license when the last time you did a company that openly bad-mouths your buisness style and products declared they'd be making their own version, using your rules, and potentially making a fair bit of money from it?

I know I wouldn't.

WotC didn't make the original OGL out of beneficence. They made it in order to make d20 the market standard, so that 3rd parties, instead of developing their own competing systems, would make d20 compatible systems which still required the Core books in many ways.

And it more or less accomplished this, and was probably a successful business decision.

Yora
2009-08-04, 02:41 PM
But now, they can't get rid of it again. :smallbiggrin:

HamHam
2009-08-04, 02:42 PM
But now, they can't get rid of it again. :smallbiggrin:

Which would be the only thing making the original agreement fair and not just pure exploitation on the part of Wizards. Which is what they would prefer to be the case.

AstralFire
2009-08-04, 02:46 PM
You don't, but go ahead and find players for a 1st edition game.

I might find your argument relevant if it's been 25 years since 3rd edition ended and I haven't, for some reason, found a system that I feel is more mechanically appealing and neither am I able to play with all of my old friends - especially given my dependency on the electronic medium, which means we don't get broken up by someone moving away.

Sticking to a basic set of core mechanics forever doesn't interest me; there's always a system that does it better, and there's always a way to better synthesize and combine and match.

So... no, I don't have any benefit I care about whatsoever from Paizo, and frankly I think bad mechanics hurt the industry more than they help it.

Nero24200
2009-08-04, 02:51 PM
Wouldn't your argument require time travel?

Nope, although Paizo hadn't started it, they had decalred that they would be considering making a 3.75 not long after 4th Edition was released, and before the GSL was created.



Also yes, yes I would. As long as WotC kept making 3.5 stuff, they made a huge amount of money off 3.5 even while other companies (some of whom badmouthed WotC) made smaller amounts. Now they've decided to maximize their profits off 4.0 by killing off 3.5. I know, a company deciding to try somthing with their products. Alot of people seem to forget that making 4th Edition doesn't prevent people from using the 3.5 books they own.

Shisumo
2009-08-04, 02:52 PM
I believe the fixed DC is determined by assuming the defender rolls a 15. In which case going from +4 to +2 is indeed a nerf, since you go from a +4 against an average roll of 10.5 to a +2 against a guaranteed roll of 15.

Which is why you should verify your assumptions rather than going off of the tainted analysis quoted above. That was the case in the Beta - it is not in the final, as been clear from the previews for some time. The DC is determined effectively by adding the defender's combat maneuver bonus (CMB) to their touch AC, swapping size bonuses to AC for penalties and vice versa. It's extremely difficult to generalize about combat maneuver defense (CMD), save that high BAB classes and monks tend to have high ones and other classes tend to have worse ones.

And no, it isn't "similar" - it is literally the exact same thing. Run the numbers. It's an increase of exactly 10% for both. The shift to a DC from a contested roll, in fact, favors the attacker, since ties no longer go to the defender.

Riffington
2009-08-04, 03:04 PM
I know, a company deciding to try somthing with their products. Alot of people seem to forget that making 4th Edition doesn't prevent people from using the 3.5 books they own.

The OGL means they're trying something with our products, not theirs. Attempting to force people to "upgrade" is anticompetitive behavior.


I might find your argument relevant if it's been 25 years since 3rd edition ended and I haven't, for some reason, found a system that I feel is more mechanically appealing and neither am I able to play with all of my old friends - especially given my dependency on the electronic medium, which means we don't get broken up by someone moving away.

Sticking to a basic set of core mechanics forever doesn't interest me; there's always a system that does it better, and there's always a way to better synthesize and combine and match.

So... no, I don't have any benefit I care about whatsoever from Paizo, and frankly I think bad mechanics hurt the industry more than they help it.

I think you're being a bit short-sighted. Yes, tomorrow you should go out and play an awesome horror game whose mechanic is Jenga. And next year you should play a game that uses Perversity Points or Rock/Paper/Scissors. But when you decide to come back to D&D six years from now, there's a decent chance you'll have different friends and will be picking between Pathfinder 2.7 and D&D 5.0.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-08-04, 03:06 PM
Oh, and things like "If you talk to 95% of the D&D players who are aware of balance issues in the D&D game who don't eat paste" makes him lose all credibility.That didn't impact my credibility, I actually got a chuckle from that. I mean, come on. We all know at least a few supporters of D&D 3/3.5 who refuse to admit that the game has balance issues, or who hand wave it away in any number of ways.* My own opinion of these people is rather aligned with the author of "Pathfinder: the Lowdown".

People who actually ran apples to apples comparisons, same game tests, or repeated experiments to get controlled results or regressed bugs were not only ignored, they were banned from their forums.

Their playtest was a marketing ploy and nothing more. It was never intended to uncover problems or produce real results.Is this an accurate statement? Can anyone confirm or deny this? If it is accurate, then the (deserved, in my opinion) disdain for the WotC D&D play testers will have to make room for paizo beneath them.

So to make D&D less unbalanced, it would be logical to either make spellcasters less powerful or sword wielders more powerful. Pathfinder does the opposite, and mysteriously makes spellcasters more powerful and fighters less powerful. Thus, it's more unbalanced.Is this true? If so, then I believe that it demonstrates one thing very clearly: A large number of D&D players are far more interested in the wiz-bang of spell casters and care not one bit for class balance. If paizo had an opportunity to produce a balanced but unappreciated version of D&D, and instead produced a even more unbalanced version of D&D which sold out their initial print run, who can blame them for chasing profits over making a good and balanced game?



* The one which amuses me the most goes like this: "But the guy who spends all his time learning how to break the laws of physics should be much more powerful than the guy who spends all his time learning how to swing a sword better." And never mind that if this is true then there is no need at all to even print rules for playing a Fighter, because everyone should be playing caster classes. Because in a game played by equals no one should have the role of Those Chumps Who Hit Things For You, Stop Things From Hitting You, And Heal You When You Need It, While You Do All The Important Stuff (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19085).

kc0bbq
2009-08-04, 03:06 PM
You don't, but go ahead and find players for a 1st edition game.It's really not that hard, is it? I think I could fill a table with a few hours of phone calls for less common games like Boot Hill or Shattered Dreams.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-04, 03:06 PM
And no, it isn't "similar" - it is literally the exact same thing. Run the numbers. It's an increase of exactly 10% for both. The shift to a DC from a contested roll, in fact, favors the attacker, since ties no longer go to the defender.

No, the shift from +4 to +2 favors the person with the lower bonus, and serves to decrease the number of successful CMB actions relative to if it were +4.

But yes, they changed the rules since the Beta and never told anyone what the changes are and we've had to backwards engineer what the DCs are.

And you know what? They are printing and selling these DCs that were never playtested by anyone. Hey look. Not an open playtest.

But yes, the new formula is:

10+ Dex+ Str + deflection + luck + miscellaneous + BaB + 2 per size category larger -1 per size category larger

vs

roll at BaB + Str + 2 per size.

So yes, it's really hard to trip Pixies and it's really hard to trip Giants and it's really hard to trip anything in between, and they have succeeded in their goal of making all CMBs have approximately a 25% success rate, and thus making anything besides damage that a Fighter tries to do irrelevant.

Epinephrine
2009-08-04, 03:07 PM
Which is why you should verify your assumptions rather than going off of the tainted analysis quoted above. That was the case in the Beta - it is not in the final, as been clear from the previews for some time. The DC is determined effectively by adding the defender's combat maneuver bonus (CMB) to their touch AC, swapping size bonuses to AC for penalties and vice versa. It's extremely difficult to generalize about combat maneuver defense (CMD), save that high BAB classes and monks tend to have high ones and other classes tend to have worse ones.

And no, it isn't "similar" - it is literally the exact same thing. Run the numbers. It's an increase of exactly 10% for both. The shift to a DC from a contested roll, in fact, favors the attacker, since ties no longer go to the defender.

Ties never went to the defender for grappling.

"In case of a tie, the combatant with the higher grapple check modifier wins. If this is a tie, roll again to break the tie."

As to the other, it sounds like the base of 15 was changed to be a base of your touch AC, roughly.

+4 in a contested roll isn't +10%. It varies depending on the relative bonus. On even chances, with even bonuses, it's +20%

+2 on a DC is +10% on nearly all values.

AstralFire
2009-08-04, 03:08 PM
I think you're being a bit short-sighted. Yes, tomorrow you should go out and play an awesome horror game whose mechanic is Jenga. And next year you should play a game that uses Perversity Points or Rock/Paper/Scissors. But when you decide to come back to D&D six years from now, there's a decent chance you'll have different friends and will be picking between Pathfinder 2.7 and D&D 5.0.

I think you're trying to push a benefit that just doesn't exist for me. Sorry. There's absolutely no way you can spin this as 'good for me' except in the general sense that any level of competition brings to any industry.

Fixer
2009-08-04, 03:14 PM
Is this an accurate statement? Can anyone confirm or deny this? If it is accurate, then the (deserved, in my opinion) disdain for the WotC D&D play testers will have to make room for paizo beneath them.[/SIZE]I can confirm that I was ignored on a couple issues I came up with revolving around the Fighter class balance issues. They were never resolved in the final detail I saw.

Indon
2009-08-04, 03:15 PM
If so, then I believe that it demonstrates one thing very clearly: A large number of D&D players are far more interested in the wiz-bang of spell casters and care not one bit for class balance.
I agree right here with this.

A D&D player who considers game balance to be a primary consideration in their game already has an immeasurably superior option to any modification to the 3.x ruleset: 4th edition. These players are not the prospective demographic for the Pathfinder game.

If Paizo indeed focused on 'fun' rather than mechanical balance, that's certainly a good idea - it allows Pathfinder to fill a different niche than the newest version of D&D. You can not make an OGL product balanced in a way that can make it compete with 4th edition - so why try?

Riffington
2009-08-04, 03:16 PM
It's really not that hard, is it? I think I could fill a table with a few hours of phone calls for less common games like Boot Hill or Shattered Dreams.

Your life is different from mine.
The only roleplaying games I could get with less than a week's notice involve either Kobolds, a D20, or handcuffs.

Jerthanis
2009-08-04, 03:29 PM
The only thing I found disingenuous about Trollman's post was his mentioning that all Sorcerer Bloodlines gave you was melee BS that you weren't going to use, but IIRC from the beta build that was sold in stores, they additionally grant you bonus spells on your spells known list, which is significant.

Wizards still got it better.

I see no reason to play Pathfinder because of the fact that I'm used to 3.5, and how to make encounters for it, and how to take account for all its balance foibles and all Pathfinder seems to have done is rearrange furniture so I'd stub my toe in the dark.

Roland St. Jude
2009-08-04, 03:32 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Obviously, this is a subject charged with considerable emotions on all sides. Please remember to keep it civil and non-profane on this forum.

Tengu_temp
2009-08-04, 03:36 PM
And no, it isn't "similar" - it is literally the exact same thing. Run the numbers. It's an increase of exactly 10% for both. The shift to a DC from a contested roll, in fact, favors the attacker, since ties no longer go to the defender.

What? A +4 bonus is not a 10% increase. If you want us to believe you, could you show us the proof you said you have instead of telling us to run the numbers?

Kelpstrand
2009-08-04, 03:37 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Obviously, this is a subject charged with considerable emotions on all sides. Please remember to keep it civil and non-profane on this forum.

Everyone run! It's a Dragon. With a Gun!

Riffington
2009-08-04, 03:41 PM
Everyone run! It's a Dragon. With a Gun!

You flee a knife. You charge a gun.

chiasaur11
2009-08-04, 03:44 PM
You flee a knife. You charge a gun.

That's not the Chicago way at all!

Yakk
2009-08-04, 03:44 PM
It's really astonishing how much misinformation, hyperbole (despite the disavoal of same) and outright lies are in that "FAQ." The author has an axe to grind against Paizo, one whose size would make Paul Bunyan feel inadequate, but mysteriously fails to mention the fact; he repeatedly refers to Beta rules as though they were the final ones, even though the information otherwise has already been released in the previews (some of which he also refers to, so he apparently has read them); he either says or implies several things that are literally untrue (for instance, the idea that the Improved [Maneuver] feats are nerfed because they only give a +2 bonus now? Since the maneuver system doesn't use opposed rolls anymore, the +2 is exactly the same statistical bonus as the +4 used to be - and yes, I have the math to prove that); and for no apparent reason spends about a third of the time actually attacking a book called Gods and Magic, though he never says that he is doing so and despite the fact that the book was released at roughly the same time as the Alpha playtest document and therefore doesn't have a thing to do with the Pathfinder RPG.

There are reasonable critiques of Pathfinder out there, some of which are on this thread. Trollman's is not one of them.
Actually the multiplier going from opposed to non-opposed is closer to 1.5 not 2.0.

(it is actually the square root of 2, but 1.5 is close enough).

+2 on a non-opposed roll isn't as good as +4 on an opposed roll.

The math to show this involves the linearity of variance under addition and subtraction, and standard deviation being the square root of variance.

...

Or, in short, a +2 vs static target is about as good as a +3 vs opposed roll.


And no, it isn't "similar" - it is literally the exact same thing. Run the numbers. It's an increase of exactly 10% for both. The shift to a DC from a contested roll, in fact, favors the attacker, since ties no longer go to the defender.
No, it isn't. Yes, I have run the numbers.

Define f_NdX(x) := CDF(NdX)((x - E(NdX))/SD(NdX))

Then graph f_1d20, f_2d20, f_3d6, f_1d10, f_2d10, etc.

And notice that all of the graphs overlap very closely.

Second, you'd need some statistical understanding, but 1d20-1d20 is very similar in behaviour to 1d20+1d20, as far as this analysis is concerned. f_{1d20-1d20} can be dealt with the same way as f_2d20, and you also end up with a graph that overlaps quite closely.

There are differences at the tail end of the graph that get significant -- at or around the 5% threshold -- but those are mostly subsumed in the auto-miss/hit rules.

This states that the 'scale of modiers' is the same as the standard deviation of the dice.

SD of 1d20 is sqrt( (20^2-1)/12 ) =~ 5.76.
SD of 2d20 (or 1d20-1d20) is sqrt( 2 * (20^2-1)/12 ) =~ 8.15
The ratio between the SD is sqrt(2) =~ 1.42.

A +2 vs static comes out to a +2.84 opposed roll.
A +3 vs static comes out to a +4.26 opposed roll.

One of these two is closer to the default 3e +4 vs opposed roll. And it isn't +2 vs static.

All of this assumes, of course, that players could get their ability to do a move up to about the same chance as they could pre-pathfinder.

That is hard to determine. On top of that, Pathfinder reduced the 'size nerf' problem (where large opponents become exceedingly hard to trip/grapple/disarm), which tended to start causing problems about the time that fighters started losing ground to casters.

Practically, I don't see how it fixed the 'one trick pony' problem: there is lots of incentive to get really good at doing a move, then repeating it over and over again on your target.

HamHam
2009-08-04, 03:46 PM
What? A +4 bonus is not a 10% increase. If you want us to believe you, could you show us the proof you said you have instead of telling us to run the numbers?

Seriously, what?

On a d20 roll, a +4 is a 20% increase, and a +2 is a 10% increase, unless you go past the range of the die (ie you need a nat 20 before and after the modifier).

The DC you are rolling against does not change this.

It might change the final probability, but it won't change the worth of a bonus.

Indon
2009-08-04, 03:47 PM
Practically, I don't see how it fixed the 'one trick pony' problem: there is lots of incentive to get really good at doing a move, then repeating it over and over again on your target.

Why is this a problem? To my knowledge, the game is still some variant of 3.5, and you can always play a class that doesn't function that way.

Yakk
2009-08-04, 03:49 PM
HamHam, roll d20 vs d20 -- high roll wins. If you tie, reroll.

Your chance of winning is about 50%.

Get a +4 bonus. Your chance of winning isn't 70% -- it is more like 64%[1].

Meanwhile, a d20 vs DC 11 has a 50% chance of winning. Get a +4 bonus, and your chance is 70%.

It is true that bonuses against a static DC are worth more than contested bonuses -- but the amount that it is better isn't a factor of 2. It is actually a factor of square root of 2.

[1] Using the central limit theorem, so this is an approximation. The actual value will be 64%-ish.


Why is this a problem? To my knowledge, the game is still some variant of 3.5, and you can always play a class that doesn't function that way.Because the one trick pony the combat manoeuvre classes (fighter, etc) have isn't that good, even after you make it your one trick?

I mean, you could use non-pathfinder classes (like Bo9S) to play melee. But now you are competing for spotlight with Pathfinder-buffed-up spellcasters, and you already had a gap with the pre-buffed 3.5e spellcasters.

Or did you mean "don't play a non-caster if you want to be effective"? The competent and useful melee fighting character that is an archtype that I think a fantasy game should support.

Now maybe everything is fixed with the official release.

Or, in short, could you clarify what you mean?

HamHam
2009-08-04, 03:58 PM
HamHam, roll d20 vs d20 -- high roll wins. If you tie, reroll.

Your chance of winning is about 50%.

Get a +4 bonus. Your chance of winning isn't 70% -- it is more like 64%[1].

Meanwhile, a d20 vs DC 11 has a 50% chance of winning. Get a +4 bonus, and your chance is 70%.

It is true that bonuses against a static DC are worth more than contested bonuses -- but the amount that it is better isn't a factor of 2. It is actually a factor of square root of 2.

[1] Using the central limit theorem, so this is an approximation. The actual value will be 64%-ish.

Okay fine.

Indon
2009-08-04, 03:59 PM
Because the one trick pony the combat manoeuvre classes (fighter, etc) have isn't that good, even after you make it your one trick?

That's the answer I wanted to hear.

My question implied, 'what's wrong with being a one-trick pony if the trick is a good one?' - that is to say, I was asking what problem there was in being a one-trick pony in and of itself. I'd had the impression Pathfinder tried to increase the viability of such approaches, you see.

Being consistently ineffective is a problem, however.

Edit: Oh, and the square-root standard deviation comparison isn't necessarily a good predictor, either, since the factor changes based on the relative advantage between the attacker and defender: The Sqr(2) is assuming an equal distribution across all target numbers, if I'm not mistaken, which is a tricky assumption to make in a system as notoriously unpredictable in application as 3.x is.

Nero24200
2009-08-04, 04:00 PM
Is this an accurate statement? Can anyone confirm or deny this? If it is accurate, then the (deserved, in my opinion) disdain for the WotC D&D play testers will have to make room for paizo beneath them.

Yes, it is. I've personally been on their forums since the start of the play-test. Alot of valid surgrestions and critiques have been ignored. Many people asked, for instance, for the monk to get Full BAB. Rather than actually give them it, they kept giving them Full BAB in round-a-bout manners (such as boosting their grapple bonus, or in their final version where monks get Full BAB when they flurry). What about Cleric healing? Alot of people complained (myself included) straight from the get-go that channel energy does not decrease the need to play a cleric as a heal-bot. Paizo just point-blank refuse to accept that however. What about the fighter? Quite alot of folk have said their changes don't actually fix the classes problems, yet the final version doesn't show any real changes.

thegurullamen
2009-08-04, 04:03 PM
I agree right here with this.

A D&D player who considers game balance to be a primary consideration in their game already has an immeasurably superior option to any modification to the 3.x ruleset: 4th edition. These players are not the prospective demographic for the Pathfinder game.

If Paizo indeed focused on 'fun' rather than mechanical balance, that's certainly a good idea - it allows Pathfinder to fill a different niche than the newest version of D&D. You can not make an OGL product balanced in a way that can make it compete with 4th edition - so why try?

I agree with this assessment. Pathfinder looks like fun, even if it isn't balanced.

When did the gunslinger become a dragon?! That guy's gone through more high-powered avatars than Blorch, the Amorphous God of More Dakka. Also, why does a dragon need a gun?!

Indon
2009-08-04, 04:04 PM
Also, why does a dragon need a gun?!

Presumably, to shoot people with.

chiasaur11
2009-08-04, 04:04 PM
I agree with this assessment. Pathfinder looks like fun, even if it isn't balanced.

When did the gunslinger become a dragon?! That guy's gone through more high-powered avatars than Blorch, the Amorphous God of More Dakka. Also, why does a dragon need a gun?!

To shoot people, of course.

Random NPC
2009-08-04, 04:04 PM
Stuff


Have I told you that I like you a lot? :smallsmile:

Tengu_temp
2009-08-04, 04:04 PM
HamHam, roll d20 vs d20 -- high roll wins. If you tie, reroll.

Your chance of winning is about 50%.

Get a +4 bonus. Your chance of winning isn't 70% -- it is more like 64%[1].


More like 68,7%, to be precise - if you reroll ties. If you go with the "in case of a draw, the one with the higher total modifer wins" rule, then it's exactly 70%.

HamHam
2009-08-04, 04:12 PM
More like 68,7%, to be precise - if you reroll ties. If you go with the "in case of a draw, the one with the higher total modifer wins" rule, then it's exactly 70%.

God dammit don't make me get out my Prob-Stat textbook to figure out which one of you is right! :smallmad:

Umael
2009-08-04, 04:18 PM
HamHam, roll d20 vs d20 -- high roll wins. If you tie, reroll.

Your chance of winning is about 50%.

Get a +4 bonus. Your chance of winning isn't 70% -- it is more like 64%[1].

[1] Using the central limit theorem, so this is an approximation. The actual value will be 64%-ish.

It's 68.75%

...are you going to want to see the math?

Yakk
2009-08-04, 04:19 PM
Edit: Oh, and the square-root standard deviation comparison isn't necessarily a good predictor, either, since the factor changes based on the relative advantage between the attacker and defender: The Sqr(2) is assuming an equal distribution across all target numbers, if I'm not mistaken, which is a tricky assumption to make in a system as notoriously unpredictable in application as 3.x is.
Ya, but barring "you roll 20 times and expect to win about once" style situation (ie, where the probability of success is in the 5% range), the sqrt(2) approximation is pretty damn good.

The graphing trick I mentioned -- give it a try. It is shocking (shocking) how much the rescaled CDF's overlap. Multiple-die ones have a bit more curve to them than the single-die ones, but only a bit. And the tails where they differ significantly are seriously bounded by a 5% chance of occuring.

Basically, d20 vs d20 with a *1.4 multiplier on modifiers is "black box" indistinguishable from d20 vs static with some "on a 20, you add 1d10 to your roll -- on a 1, you subtract 1d10 from your roll" type system attached without rolling many thousand times.

Tengu_temp
2009-08-04, 04:19 PM
God dammit don't make me get out my Prob-Stat textbook to figure out which one of you is right! :smallmad:

Let me show you my math. It's assuming the "in case of a draw, higher total modifier wins" scenario.


A - their roll
B - the lowest roll you need to beat it
C - the percentage chance of rolling B

A 1 B 1 C 100%
A 2 B 1 C 100%
A 3 B 1 C 100%
A 4 B 1 C 100%
A 5 B 1 C 100%
A 6 B 2 C 95%
A 7 B 3 C 90%
A 8 B 4 C 85%
A 9 B 5 C 80%
A 10 B 6 C 75%
A 11 B 7 C 70%
A 12 B 8 C 65%
A 13 B 9 C 60%
A 14 B 10 C 55%
A 15 B 11 C 50%
A 16 B 12 C 45%
A 17 B 13 C 40%
A 18 B 14 C 35%
A 19 B 15 C 30%
A 20 B 16 C 25%

The average C is 70%.

AstralFire
2009-08-04, 04:21 PM
Ya, but barring "you roll 20 times and expect to win about once" style situation (ie, where the probability of success is in the 5% range), the sqrt(2) approximation is pretty damn good.

The graphing trick I mentioned -- give it a try. It is shocking (shocking) how much the rescaled CDF's overlap. Multiple-die ones have a bit more curve to them than the single-die ones, but only a bit. And the tails where they differ significantly are seriously bounded by a 5% chance of occuring.

Basically, d20 vs d20 with a *1.4 multiplier on modifiers is "black box" indistinguishable from d20 vs static with some "on a 20, you add 1d10 to your roll -- on a 1, you subtract 1d10 from your roll" type system attached without rolling many thousand times.

So, do they teach advanced statistics to many Yaks in your part of the world?

Hurlbut
2009-08-04, 04:27 PM
Could we please stop whipping out mathametical bats and see whose is bigger? :smallsigh:

Tengu_temp
2009-08-04, 04:29 PM
Could we please stop whipping out mathametical bats and see whose is bigger? :smallsigh:

The point of all this math is to show one thing - that Shisumo's argument of "+4 versus an opposed roll is the same bonus as +2 versus a static DC" is not true. That +4 is a significantly higher bonus.

Lappy9000
2009-08-04, 04:34 PM
What on earth is this thread even talking about anymore?! :smalleek:

Yakk
2009-08-04, 04:35 PM
More like 68,7%, to be precise - if you reroll ties. If you go with the "in case of a draw, the one with the higher total modifer wins" rule, then it's exactly 70%.
Neat, that is true. 0.6875 actually seems to be the fixed point for rerolls, and 0.7 with the 'higher modifier wins'.

The central limit theorem approximation fails by exactly 6%. :)

Thus a +4 bonus (where ties go to the higher bonus) against an even opponent has exactly the same impact on a d20 vs d20 (otherwise even) as it does under a d20 vs static DC 11.

(I did it by throwing together a spread sheet with all 400 possibilities, then manually converging to the 0.6875 -- the higher modifier case was much easier).

So, do they teach advanced statistics to many Yaks in your part of the world? I blame an at least half effective public education system.

...

As a note, this means that the +2 given under pathfinder is even worse than I thought it was -- a +4 vs static might be closer.

On the other hand, pathfinder did reduce the bonuses for size -- so a fighter at level 10 will have fewer penalties using trip/disarm/etc.


My question implied, 'what's wrong with being a one-trick pony if the trick is a good one?' - that is to say, I was asking what problem there was in being a one-trick pony in and of itself. I'd had the impression Pathfinder tried to increase the viability of such approaches, you see.
There is also the problem that one-trick ponies can make the game less interesting for other players and the DM.

The DM also runs into the problem where the one-trick can be vetoed. Does the DM coddle the player and never veto the power? Does the DM seek to provide content where the one-trick is key? Does the DM veto the power in order to 'punish' a lack of width of play? Does the DM get bored by the player tripping every opponent, and "retaliate" with tripping NPCs? (You are adventuring in the kingdom of no-magic; the monster you are fighting is immune to all melee damage; You are fighting a super-gargantuan creature with 200 legs who levitates, giving him a +800 against trip checks; etc) Does the DM build the entire adventure, and then look at the PCs produced in order to avoid veto-style decisions based around player one-trick ponies?

With a class that has a selection of tricks, this problem doesn't develop nearly as much: The DM can veto one or more tricks, and leave the other ones exposed, and the variations makes the combats more interesting and diverse.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-08-04, 04:39 PM
Is this an accurate statement? Can anyone confirm or deny this? If it is accurate, then the (deserved, in my opinion) disdain for the WotC D&D play testers will have to make room for paizo beneath them.


QFT. WotC "playtesters" ignore the second half of the word, but current reports suggest Paizo's "playtest" didn't do either part worth half a damn.


What on earth is this thread even talking about anymore?! :smalleek:

General discussion on Pathfinder, specifically focusing on criticism of it.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-08-04, 04:49 PM
Also, why does a dragon need a gun?!
What does God need with a starship?Quotes don't count for post length, apparently.


Well, at least I have some fuel for laughter every time I see someone post something along the lines of "I'll skip 4e and play Pathfinder."

Hurlbut
2009-08-04, 04:52 PM
Because a dragon with a menacingly looking gun is a bad mother(you know rest) bastard you don't want to mess with!

Tiki Snakes
2009-08-04, 04:59 PM
Wouldn't your argument require time travel?

Also yes, yes I would. As long as WotC kept making 3.5 stuff, they made a huge amount of money off 3.5 even while other companies (some of whom badmouthed WotC) made smaller amounts. Now they've decided to maximize their profits off 4.0 by killing off 3.5.

Astralfire:

You don't, but go ahead and find players for a 1st edition game.

Paul, a member of my rp group, has repeatedly teased us with the idea of maybe running a game of 1st ed. The response was overwhelmingly positive, but the cad never gets round to it. :(

(Mostly he is a good, but inherantly not terribly eager DM. It takes him months to recover whenever we make him run a Toon one-off to fill in. ^_^ )

The Glyphstone
2009-08-04, 05:27 PM
I'll bet this is the only forum on the Internet where people whip out statistical analysis to prove their point instead of jumping to flaming and insults against the opposing side's mother...

Carnivorous_Bea
2009-08-04, 05:31 PM
QFT. WotC "playtesters" ignore the second half of the word, but current reports suggest Paizo's "playtest" didn't do either part worth half a damn.



General discussion on Pathfinder, specifically focusing on criticism of it.

Preferably carried on with the maximum amount of vitriol and minor-detail nitpicking, and the least amount of factual basis possible. The entire game apparently hinges on this +4/+2 bonus, for example. The whole dang thing. Everything.

Do you honestly expect them to take every opinion offered during the playtest and incorporate it into the game? Just because somebody suggested it doesn't mean that they have to incorporate it -- or should.

Having an open Alpha and Beta playtest is a heck of a lot more responsive to their customer base, IMO, than anything WotC or any other game company I can think of off the top of my head has done.

The finished product isn't out yet, and you're already tearing it apart and insulting the intelligence of those who are anticipating it? Insulting everyone who wrote it? Dismissing Paizo's efforts to gain playtest feedback as not enough because your specific suggestions (or the specific suggestions of a specific person) weren't adopted with salutes, kow-towing, and lightspeed alacrity? And stating that there is NO merit in the game whatsoever, and its success is solely due to some sort of unspecified PR coup?

Come on, people. Get some maturity and respect.

HolderofSecrets
2009-08-04, 05:35 PM
I'll bet this is the only forum on the Internet where people whip out statistical analysis to prove their point instead of jumping to flaming and insults against the opposing side's mother...

The WotC forums were like that a while back. Don't know how they are now as I haven't really looked at them since the full release 4E.

Asbestos
2009-08-04, 05:41 PM
The WotC forums were like that a while back. Don't know how they are now as I haven't really looked at them since the full release 4E.

They remain very similar.


Anyway... key question, this first print that sold out, how many books is that?

Shisumo
2009-08-04, 05:42 PM
Because I am a big believer in owning up when I screw up, I must admit I was wrong. I dropped a zero right at the beginning of my calculations, and things got very, very stupid after that.

Random832
2009-08-04, 05:47 PM
And no, it isn't "similar" - it is literally the exact same thing. Run the numbers. It's an increase of exactly 10% for both. The shift to a DC from a contested roll, in fact, favors the attacker, since ties no longer go to the defender.

Except A) they put the DC several points higher than the defender's average roll would have been, and B) [and this is more important and hasn't been addressed at all] it eliminates the off chance that the defender rolls low in situations that now become where the attacker cannot win even with a 20.

Even if the average would be the same - even if it would favor the attacker more, the spread is by definition only half as large. So when the attacker's victory falls at the bottom end of the wider spread, it is cut off entirely.

erikun
2009-08-04, 05:54 PM
Well, at least I have some fuel for laughter every time I see someone post something along the lines of "I'll skip 4e and play Pathfinder."
Funny, I was thinking the same thing reading this.

After all, why do people like 3.5e? Most of the responses I've heard are "already have the books" or "free to learn, free reference online" or "already know the system" or "compatable with all my other 3.5 books." And now I see Pathfinder, which is (apparently) a new $50 book which changes most of the core system and needs conversions to with with 3.5 material.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing - heck, and "3.5 fix" is going to be a significant change from the core rules, and you can't run a company without money. However, $49.99 for the core rules certainly makes the 4e PHB pricetag look a lot less silly. I wish Paizo the best of luck, although I don't think they're the 3.5e successor some people have made them out to be.

ericgrau
2009-08-04, 06:07 PM
I disagree with some of the stuff in the link on how bad Pathfinder is, but ya I'd agree with most. And that's the thing. Even everyone's reasons for hating Pathfinder is different from place to place. The whole system is "Let's take X set of arbitrary opinions and make a system out of it." Except then every other group out there disagrees, each for entirely different reasons. Ya... what a load of hype. If you're gonna screw with 3.5 in 1000 different confusing ways, at least do it in your own gaming group. Then at least most of them may agree with you even if you're wrong.

Thane of Fife
2009-08-04, 06:40 PM
I'm not saying that's a bad thing - heck, and "3.5 fix" is going to be a significant change from the core rules, and you can't run a company without money. However, $49.99 for the core rules certainly makes the 4e PHB pricetag look a lot less silly. I wish Paizo the best of luck, although I don't think they're the 3.5e successor some people have made them out to be.

You're aware that the PDF version of Pathfinder is $10, right? And that the book is supposed to be PHB and DMG combined?

I don't get the Anti-Pathfinder rage. Why do people hate it so much?

Yora
2009-08-04, 06:45 PM
I'll bet this is the only forum on the Internet where people whip out statistical analysis to prove their point instead of jumping to flaming and insults against the opposing side's mother...

Claiming to have arguments based on math is just a sophisticated form of flaming. Like nuclear powered flaming. :smallbiggrin:

Shisumo
2009-08-04, 06:51 PM
That being said, however, I am going to engage in some blatant goalpost shifting, because there’s a better point to be made, which is, are you actually a better or worse grappler or tripper (used because those are the most common 3.5 special combat maneuvers) in Pathfinder than you are in 3.5?

Let’s take a look at two characters. First we have Rhonda Rassler, a 6th level human warrior with Str 13, Dex 10, and the following four feats: Improved Unarmed Strike, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip. She has a BAB of +6, and nothing else relevant to this discussion save for several local wrestling tournament trophies. Her opponent is Corky Cook, who is a damn fine chef but basically rubbish at fighting. Corky is a human commoner 6, has Str 8, Dex 10, and no relevant feats. Her BAB is +3. (I am using NPC classes here to avoid bringing class abilities into the discussion, though I should note that doing so would favor Pathfinder, as there actually are some class abilities that are relevant…)

Once Corky’s so-called friends shove her into the ring one night at the bar, Rhonda tries to grapple Corky. In 3.5, it goes like this: Rhonda has to make a touch attack against Corky’s touch AC of 10. With a total bonus of +7, she only fails on a 2 or worse, a 90% success rate. She then makes a grapple check against Corky, pitting her total bonus of +11 against Corky’s bonus of +2. With an advantage of 9 points over her rival, Rhonda has a 88.75% chance of winning (and yes, I did the math right this time). Combined with the 90% of succeeding on the touch attack, Rhonda has a 79.875% chance of succeeding on her grapple attempt. In Pathfinder, on the other hand, it looks like this: Rhonda has a CMB of +9 for grapple attempts, while Corky has a CMD of 12. Rhonda succeeds on a roll of 3 or better, and thus has a 85% success rate. (And did I mention how much easier the math is?)

Now, what if Corky manages to win initiative (hell, they’re tied, it could happen!) and grapple Rhonda first? In both cases, Rhonda could get an AoO, but for this argument, we’ll say she doesn’t – she is, after all, flat-footed. (Note that, unlike in 3.5, in Pathfinder Rhonda getting a shot in doesn’t automatically mean Corky fails.) In 3.5, the attempt goes like this: Corky makes her touch attack, using her +2 bonus against Rhonda’s touch AC of 10. Corky hits on an 8 or better, meaning she has a 65% chance of hitting. Then come the grapple rolls, but poor Corky only has a 11.25% chance of pulling this off. That puts her total success rate at a mere 7.3125%. In Pathfinder, she would be putting her CMB of +2 against Rhonda’s CMD of 19 against grapples, meaning she succeeds on a 17 or better for a 20% chance of victory.

Yes, this means it’s easier across the board to perform combat maneuvers.

Interestingly, Rhonda in 3.5 has a much worse chance to trip Corky than she does to grapple her (she doesn’t win ties and her advantage in the contested roll is only 5 points [+5 Rhonda, +0 Corky]): 60.75% to be precise. Her chance to trip Corky in Pathfinder is identical, however – it remains 85%. Conversely, 3.5 Corky has much, much better odds of tripping Rhonda than grappling with her: 22.1%, which is ironically very similar to her Pathfinder odds of 20%.

So, serious question – are the maneuvers actually nerfed here?

AstralFire
2009-08-04, 06:54 PM
I don't get the Anti-Pathfinder rage. Why do people hate it so much?

I'm not at the level of rage, but I certainly do view it with some level of condescension. I dislike the idea of charging people for mechanics that are generally inferior to what I've made (arrogant? sure, but...) or what I can get for free from Szatany (WotC boards), Tempest Stormwind (same), Fax Celestis (here) and a lot of other people, all just to try and keep a system alive that's mostly been slammed with everything it possibly can be combined with, like Godzilla crossovers.

Still, I wasn't going to make a serious comment until I was informed I should be grateful for Pathfinder for some reason (?).

Shisumo
2009-08-04, 06:57 PM
Except A) they put the DC several points higher than the defender's average roll would have been,

Like I said, this isn't true. It was in the Beta, it's not in the final.


and B) [and this is more important and hasn't been addressed at all] it eliminates the off chance that the defender rolls low in situations that now become where the attacker cannot win even with a 20.

Even if the average would be the same - even if it would favor the attacker more, the spread is by definition only half as large. So when the attacker's victory falls at the bottom end of the wider spread, it is cut off entirely.
Also not true, because nat 20s always succeed in CMB rolls, and nat 1s always fail. There is always a chance for success, something that is simply not true in 3.5 at all (an advantage of +20 on the contested roll is an autowin, pure and simple).

BillyJimBoBob
2009-08-04, 07:03 PM
However, $49.99 for the core rules certainly makes the 4e PHB pricetag look a lot less silly.Yeah, if someone is choosing between games based on price, $49.99 and $66.12 (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Core-Rulebook-Gift/dp/0786950633/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249430823&sr=8-1) aren't that many dollars apart.

Eldariel
2009-08-04, 07:05 PM
I'll bet this is the only forum on the Internet where people whip out statistical analysis to prove their point instead of jumping to flaming and insults against the opposing side's mother...

It's a longstanding tradition here, derived all the way from the original Monk-threads. We should be proud.

thegurullamen
2009-08-04, 07:16 PM
I wish Paizo the best of luck, although I don't think they're the 3.5e successor some people have made them out to be.

I used to think that, back during the 4E/3.P reveal, but yeah, it's its own thing now. It'll take some homebrewing to get it as compatible with the 3.5 library, but the more I look at it, the more I see it as a version of 3.5-esque D&D that still updates with new material. That won't appeal to so many (as they have massive libraries as it is) but it sounds good to me.


I'm not at the level of rage, but I certainly do view it with some level of condescension. I dislike the idea of charging people for mechanics that are generally inferior to what I've made (arrogant? sure, but...) or what I can get for free from Szatany (WotC boards), Tempest Stormwind (same), Fax Celestis (here) and a lot of other people, all just to try and keep a system alive that's mostly been slammed with everything it possibly can be combined with, like Godzilla crossovers.

Still, I wasn't going to make a serious comment until I was informed I should be grateful for Pathfinder for some reason (?).

I wouldn't take the musings of the forums that seriously. Best just to ignore the demands of others (especially as they pertain to your required emotive responses to a given subject) than to make anything that would feed the sentiments that led to the demand in the first place.

I wasn't aware Szatany or T.Stormwind had a full ruleset available. I know Fax' is still in its early stages (and the cleric is proving to be an "epic undertaking" as he put it.) Still, any new flavors for 3.5 are usually worth checking out at the very least.

AstralFire
2009-08-04, 07:22 PM
I wouldn't take the musings of the forums that seriously. Best just to ignore the demands of others (especially as they pertain to your required emotive responses to a given subject) than to make anything that would feed the sentiments that led to the demand in the first place.

I wasn't aware Szatany or T.Stormwind had a full ruleset available. I know Fax' is still in its early stages (and the cleric is proving to be an "epic undertaking" as he put it.) Still, any new flavors for 3.5 are usually worth checking out at the very least.

I meant more generally from the standpoint of something fully compatible with 3E, those homebrewers (and many more) have produced extensive sets of classes and rules that generally work with each other, are around the same power level within those works (because each homebrewer has a power level they are most comfortable with) and greatly enhance the game - and seemed to be better thought out than what I saw of the beta and what we've seen from Paizo over the years in Dragon.

I no longer keep up religiously with reformatting attempts for 3.5, haven't for a year and a half at least.

Tengu_temp
2009-08-04, 07:32 PM
I'll bet this is the only forum on the Internet where people whip out statistical analysis to prove their point instead of jumping to flaming and insults against the opposing side's mother...

Bet how much? :smallamused:

erikun
2009-08-04, 07:45 PM
Yeah, if someone is choosing between games based on price, $49.99 and $66.12 (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Core-Rulebook-Gift/dp/0786950633/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249430823&sr=8-1) aren't that many dollars apart.
If I wanted to just play the game, why would I need more than the $23.07 (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Players-Handbook-Roleplaying/dp/0786948671/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249433294&sr=1-1) PHB?

Kelpstrand
2009-08-04, 08:18 PM
quick, does anyone know if Pathfinder has CMB defense bonuses against being tripped for being a quadruped or whatever?

Shisumo
2009-08-04, 08:24 PM
quick, does anyone know if Pathfinder has CMB defense bonuses against being tripped for being a quadruped or whatever?

There are legless creatures in the Bonus Bestiary who are immune to being tripped. I can't remember if it says anything about quadruped bonuses. Might be in the core rules, though, even if its not in the BB.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-04, 08:46 PM
Giant Commoner versus Warrior thing.

Here's the problem. That has nothing to do with D&D.

Now let's take the same system, change the level to level 5, and see how well each grappler fares:

1) Level 5 Orc Fighter 3.5: BAB +5/Has improved Grapple and Improved Trip for some reason. Str 24. +16 Grapple check, +12 against touch AC, +11 against Trips.

2) Level 5 Orc (Half Orc?) Fighter Pathfinder (pretty sure they get no class abilities that add to grapple of trip): BAB +5/Has Improved Grapple and Improved Trip, also has Str 24. +14 on both his CMB attempts.

A set of CR 5 challenges blatantly ripped off from that other forum:
A huge Animated iron statue.
A Basilisk.
A Large Fire Elemental.
A Manticore on the wing.
A Mummy.
A Phase Spider.
A Troll.
A chasm.
A moat filled with acid.
A locked door behind a number of pit traps.
A couple of Centaur Archers in the woods.
A Howler/Allip tag team.
A pit filled with medium monstrous scorpions.
A Grimlock assault team.
A Cleric of Hextor (with his zombies).

Reduced to only monsters that can be grappled:
A Basilisk.
A Large Fire Elemental.
A Manticore on the wing.
A Mummy.
A Phase Spider.
A Troll.
A couple of Centaur Archers in the woods.
A Howler
A pit filled with medium monstrous scorpions.

I'm going to ignore the things that screw grapplers and even trippers in this example, like Basilisk gaze and Elemental Burn and Mummy Rot and Phase Spider leaving and any type of monster kiting, and we are just going to assume the fighter get's them into a grapple somehow, and gets to trip them.

Touch AC/Grapple checks/trip checks/CMB defenses in that order:

9/+8/+6/DC 17
14/+12/+6/DC 24
11/+15/+9/DC 24
11/+11/+7/DC 21
12/+12/+11/DC 22
10/+14/+10/DC 23
12/+15/+13/DC 25
10/+2/+5/DC 12


So, the first thing to note is that the Fighter always hits touch AC on a 2 or higher. So people who do math can add that 5% failure rate to the bastardization of math I am about to perform:

Adding up all the modifier for the 8 monsters then divide by 8, and then comparing that to the Fighters bonus, I'm going to declare that to be his average chance of success. This probably glosses over a lot, and is almost certainly wrong in some way, but whatever.

Likewise for the CMB, I'm going to subtract 10 from each number, add them all up, divide by 8, then add ten again, and call that the average DC he needs to hit. Note that all of this assumes Pathfinder gives no stability bonus of any kind. If it does, then a lot of those monsters are going to be harder to trip.

Grapple average bonus +11.125 compared to the Fighters +16.
Trip Average bonus +8.375 against Fighter +11.
Average CMB DC: 21 to be hit by +14 bonus.

Now somebody who knows math can tell me what the average chance of success is for the 3.5 Trip fighter and Grapple Fighter. The Pathfinder one is apparently a 65% chance of success.

But I honestly feel like all the numbers are buffed a bit, what with being averaged in the one where you fight a bunch CR 1 scorpions and only addressing the bonus of one of them at a time.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-04, 09:13 PM
Preferably carried on with the maximum amount of vitriol and minor-detail nitpicking, and the least amount of factual basis possible. The entire game apparently hinges on this +4/+2 bonus, for example. The whole dang thing. Everything.

Calm down. There isn't enough vitriol in this thread to neutralize seawater, and the combat maneuver argument is a single issue which happens to have taken a bit of math to work out.


Do you honestly expect them to take every opinion offered during the playtest and incorporate it into the game? Just because somebody suggested it doesn't mean that they have to incorporate it -- or should.

Having an open Alpha and Beta playtest is a heck of a lot more responsive to their customer base, IMO, than anything WotC or any other game company I can think of off the top of my head has done.

Do I expect them to take every opinion? No, of course not.

Do I expect them to completely ignore the systematic mechanical playtests in favor of the "yeah this is cool" playtests, in precisely the same way WotC offered to let the CharOp folks playtest two books and then totally ignored their feedback? Also a definite no.

WotC has done playtests that were more or less open for various 3e books and for tons of 4e material; the only material whose playtest advice was incorporated was the 4e Dragon material, and they still have yet to listen to those pointing out flaws that still exist and have been there from day 1. Given that Paizo is trying to claim that WotC is evil and all that, one would expect them to take a different tack in that regard.


The finished product isn't out yet, and you're already tearing it apart and insulting the intelligence of those who are anticipating it? Insulting everyone who wrote it? Dismissing Paizo's efforts to gain playtest feedback as not enough because your specific suggestions (or the specific suggestions of a specific person) weren't adopted with salutes, kow-towing, and lightspeed alacrity? And stating that there is NO merit in the game whatsoever, and its success is solely due to some sort of unspecified PR coup?

Come on, people. Get some maturity and respect.

Well, let's face it--Pathfinder is the Paizo folks' homebrew wrapped up in a fancy book with nice pictures. I find myself once again agreeing with AstralFire; for every single nitpicking little change in Pathfinder that really doesn't fix anything, there are pages and pages of very good homebrew by very competent homebrewers available for free all over the net.

Why should I pay for this particular set when Szatany's fighter, or the Tome fighter, or Fax's martial classes, or one of many other fixes beat the Pathfinder fighter up with their respective hands tied behind their backs?

Why should I bother to purchase these good-intentioned-yet-futile combat changes when grapple fixes are prevalent and martial feats burst from the screen in such quantities as to make an everflowing bottle blush?

Numbers don't lie--if the fighter sucks at grappling and other combat stunts and the Pathfinder system is shown to make him objectively, mathematically inferior, then why bother switching if the problem isn't fixed (not that that has in fact been shown for certain here)? If instead it is shown to have not made him worse, but instead is shown objectively and mathematically to not have made him drastically, obviously better, then why bother switching if you're simply trading one set of bad mechanics for another?

Epinephrine
2009-08-04, 09:41 PM
Numbers don't lie--if the fighter sucks at grappling and other combat stunts and the Pathfinder system is shown to make him objectively, mathematically inferior, then why bother switching if the problem isn't fixed (not that that has in fact been shown for certain here)? If instead it is shown to have not made him worse, but instead is shown objectively and mathematically to not have made him drastically, obviously better, then why bother switching if you're simply trading one set of bad mechanics for another?

Good points. I suspect that all combat maneuvers are harder. Fighters add their weapon training bonus to CMB checks made using the weapon. That is a scaling bonus to trip or disarm (for example) that grows to +4 over the levels; that certainly can help.

I've played Pathfinder, but nobody has run a fighter. I thus can't comment how well it works in play, but I think it could provide an advantage for tripping at least. Grapple had BAB involved before, but tripping didn't. The fighter bonus of up to +4 can help make him beter at it, too. The reduced advantage of size helps a bit, but frankly it's wrong. I've wrestled and sparred with bigger guys; 20% more mass makes for a HUGE advantage in a grapple, I can't imagine what 700& more mass is like. It's not +4. There's a reason they have weight classes in wrestling.

Thane of Fife
2009-08-04, 09:42 PM
If I wanted to just play the game, why would I need more than the $23.07 (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Players-Handbook-Roleplaying/dp/0786948671/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249433294&sr=1-1) PHB?

Isn't citing the Amazon price for one game but not the other (http://www.amazon.com/Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Core-Rulebook/dp/1601251505/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249438702&sr=1-1) a bit of a double standard?

erikun
2009-08-04, 09:48 PM
However, $49.99 for the core rules certainly makes the 4e PHB pricetag look a lot less silly.


Yeah, if someone is choosing between games based on price, $49.99 and $66.12 (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Core-Rulebook-Gift/dp/0786950633/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249430823&sr=8-1) aren't that many dollars apart.


If I wanted to just play the game, why would I need more than the $23.07 (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Players-Handbook-Roleplaying/dp/0786948671/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249433294&sr=1-1) PHB?


Isn't citing the Amazon price for one game but not the other (http://www.amazon.com/Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Core-Rulebook/dp/1601251505/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249438702&sr=1-1) a bit of a double standard?

Hey now, I didn't start the Amazon pricing comparison. Even then, though, you're talking $31 (Pathfinder) versus $23 (4e).

thegurullamen
2009-08-04, 09:53 PM
And let's not even start with this nice thing ($230) (http://www.amazon.com/Yellow-2-7mm-Cuban-Chain-Necklace/dp/B000VHW3NY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=jewelry&qid=1249441053&sr=8-3).

Are we done comparing prices on disparate items?

chiasaur11
2009-08-04, 10:05 PM
And let's not even start with this nice thing ($230) (http://www.amazon.com/Yellow-2-7mm-Cuban-Chain-Necklace/dp/B000VHW3NY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=jewelry&qid=1249441053&sr=8-3).

Are we done comparing prices on disparate items?

Not until we bring up the tank.

thegurullamen
2009-08-04, 10:07 PM
Not until we bring up the tank.

Will this (http://www.missilebases.com/properties) suffice?

chiasaur11
2009-08-04, 10:11 PM
Will this (http://www.missilebases.com/properties) suffice?

Not unless you throw in that one Deus Ex "What a Shame" video.

If so, than yes.

AstralFire
2009-08-04, 10:17 PM
Not unless you throw in that one Deus Ex "What a Shame" video.

If so, than yes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAlPx7ll7kA&NR=1

This is awesome, and I've never even played the game

chiasaur11
2009-08-04, 10:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAlPx7ll7kA&NR=1

This is awesome, and I've never even played the game

An older one was awesomer.

There, every comment was "What a shame". Every. Single. One.

And Deus Ex is awesome. You can help a father and daughter make their relationship work, prevent any deaths in a tense hostage crisis, and debate political philosophy with bartenders.

Or you can give a candybar to a small child to bribe him into letting you into a terrorist base...

then kill him with a crowbar to steal it back.

Edit: BINGO!

Found the tank I was looking for on Amazon.

'Tis here. (http://www.amazon.com/JL421-Badonkadonk-Land-Cruiser-Tank/dp/B00067F1CE/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=miscellaneous&qid=1249444817&sr=8-9)

Myrmex
2009-08-04, 11:48 PM
Wasn't the other half of Imp Trip nerfage the loss of a free attack after you tripped your opponent?

Shisumo
2009-08-04, 11:59 PM
Wasn't the other half of Imp Trip nerfage the loss of a free attack after you tripped your opponent?

Yeah, but on the other hand, Greater Trip makes the poor sucker provoke an AoO from everyone who threatens him when he falls down.

Mongoose87
2009-08-05, 12:11 AM
Wasn't the other half of Imp Trip nerfage the loss of a free attack after you tripped your opponent?

You could always just take Knockdown, and have the trip be a result of an attack.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-05, 12:12 AM
You could always just take Knockdown, and have the trip be a result of an attack.

You mean take a Non Pathfinder feat to be able to be half as good as a non Pathfinder character tripping?

Nero24200
2009-08-05, 04:41 AM
I don't get the Anti-Pathfinder rage. Why do people hate it so much?

Allow me to explain. Because Paizo promised alot, and while I can see the problems, many paizo fans can't. This in itself causes alot of problems.

For one, members of my playing group like the changes...so we're "upgrading" (I use the term very loosesly). I suppose what annoys me is that suddenly X Y and Z are problems for our gamming group simply because they're problems paizo have tried to fix.

Or how about their forums? In the Alpha and Beta I posted alot of legitamite critisim and asked a few questions (such as "Why make the base classes more powerful when the most powerful classes are core?") The response is silly answers from the team that don't answer the question directly, use some really bizzare logic, or out-right flamming from the fanboys.

Or theres the arogant attitude they've been taking of late. I mean come on, not even 4th Edition had splat-books set to be released on the same day as their core rule book.

Theres also the out-right stupidy of some things. They go on about how their system is backwards compatable when it isn't. My spell-based assassin no longer fits in their system, but when brought up all they could say was "backwards compatability doesn't mean it'll be 100% convertable"...if thats the case why not get off their asses and actually solve some of the problems?! Theres quite a few things I'd change given half the chance if I didn't have to worry about backwards compatability (Clerics, Druids, looking at you with your 9th level spells, you too Sorcerers, though for different reasons). I could probably give more examples of stupidy and flaws in their logic (like channel energy, that horrendous bard capstone ability, or their dire need to remove "Save or Death" effects from wizards but grant them to half a dozen classes as capstone abilities instead) but if I listed all I could find I'd be here all day.

But the worst part I guess is both Paizo's and their fan's inability to accept that maybe, just maybe, it's not as great as they say it is. Whenever someone points out a flaw it's always "Have you playtested it?" (Even though they usally have) "That's alright for your games, but what about everyone elses?" (If they're going to cateer to one specific area of the market, why go for yours over mine? Mines is just as valid).

Let me tell a little story, it's of my first play-test. I made a straight fighter, but gave him a few psionic feats. I was able to pump out a pretty powerful charger build using it, however, said build required alot of feats. Since my group has little-to-no optmization, the fighter became overpowering. Did you know what the DM said?

"Psionics are broken"....yes, nevermind that I was able to pull the build off at 13th level, and I would've needed to wait till 18th level to pull it off without their rules (AND be human) or that horrendously unbalanced weapon I was given in one of Paizos adventure paths (For those unfamilier with Curse of the Crimson Throne, the weapon in question just happens to be a +5 intellegent weapon (which changes shape to a weapon of my choice), grants the holy ability (which affected every foe we fought therafter), grants a bane ability (which affected every foe we fought therafter...no I'm not kidding) and granted freedom of movement). I'd like to point out that I got this weapon at level 13....whilst the rest of the party had, at best, +2 weaponary. And the only thing the DM could think of was "Psionics are broken"...as you might have guessed, the DM was a paizo fan. And, as a fan, it take's alot (and sometimes not even then) to admit that theres even the possibility of a flaw...and he's one of the lesser fanboys.

Fixer
2009-08-05, 06:50 AM
I'll bet this is the only forum on the Internet where people whip out statistical analysis to prove their point instead of jumping to flaming and insults against the opposing side's mother...That is why I like it here. :)

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-05, 07:08 AM
I'll bet this is the only forum on the Internet where people whip out statistical analysis to prove their point instead of jumping to flaming and insults against the opposing side's mother...

Your mom.

Your mom about 65.43% of times.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-05, 07:12 AM
I really don't think you guys have any reason to be so uppity about your reasoned arguments and math.

I'm pretty sure that entire conception is merely confirmation bias applied to both here and where ever else you've been that makes you decide this place is so great.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-08-05, 07:18 AM
(If they're going to cateer to one specific area of the market, why go for yours over mine? Mines is just as valid).

Because yours is harder to cater to? Because the other market section is already being catered to? Just accept that Paizo doesn't have you as the target audience. That's business. I don't hate WotC for excluding me from their 4e target audience (though it is damnably annoying), and there's no reason to bring out true vitriol against Pathfinder.

IMO, this is the second-best RPG forum I know. Innovative, fairly reasonable, but not quite cosmopolitan enough.

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-05, 07:21 AM
I really don't think you guys have any reason to be so uppity about your reasoned arguments and math.

I'm pretty sure that entire conception is merely confirmation bias applied to both here and where ever else you've been that makes you decide this place is so great.

Barring my bad joke, and regardless the fact that this board has its downsides (just try to start a thread with "monk" or worse "wizard" in the title), and regardless the fact that I disagree about a big amount of the game with about 53% of people here, I found in this place people more polite than in a lot of other boards*.

Even offical ones, *coughcoughavengerscoughcough*

I say this without any fanaticism, and with respect for you, anyway.


*Considering, too, my not-so-polite exploit.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-05, 07:49 AM
Barring my bad joke, and regardless the fact that this board has its downsides (just try to start a thread with "monk" or worse "wizard" in the title), and regardless the fact that I disagree about a big amount of the game with about 53% of people here, I found in this place people more polite than in a lot of other boards*.

Well then you and I have very different views about the importance of the statement in question.

Where as you apparently privilege the avoidance of "jumping to flaming and insults against the opposing side's mother..."

I was mostly talking about how this place is maybe 3rd on the list of places I've been when the subject is "whip out statistical analysis to prove their point"

And I find the second to be far more important than the first.

Heck, my entire post comparing grapple/trip/CMB was statistical analysis blatantly stolen from another forum because no one was doing it here.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-05, 07:49 AM
Allow me to explain. Because Paizo promised alot, and while I can see the problems, many paizo fans can't. This in itself causes alot of problems.

For one, members of my playing group like the changes...so we're "upgrading" (I use the term very loosesly). I suppose what annoys me is that suddenly X Y and Z are problems for our gamming group simply because they're problems paizo have tried to fix.

This. I hate this part. It's just more hypocrisy. I mean, yes, 3e is obviously unbalanced, but we managed to deal with it somehow for a long time. Then the 4e devs start trashing 3e left and right, and suddenly people who were saying "The fighter sucks? Eh, it's okay for my group..." a month before started saying "3e is completely, absolutely broken! There's no recourse but to switch!" People who still liked 3e shrugged and said that the problems were blown out of proportion and that they weren't bad enough to switch.

Then what happens? Paizo comes along and does the same thing. "Oh 4e is a horrible idea, you shouldn't switch...but 3e is horribly broken when it comes to X, Y, and Z, so please please buy our fixes for those, even though until we mentioned them you either had your own fixes or didn't care." And yet Paizo still vilifies WotC.


I really don't think you guys have any reason to be so uppity about your reasoned arguments and math.

I'm pretty sure that entire conception is merely confirmation bias applied to both here and where ever else you've been that makes you decide this place is so great.

...what? :smallconfused: Of all the possible arguments you can find on the internet, logic and math are among the two you would be most justified in relying on; if you consider performing statistical analysis to be "uppity," I don't know what to say. Confirmation bias doesn't even play into it; one person can massage the numbers to say whatever, but it takes only a single person to point out that they messed with the numbers to have everyone else do out the math for themselves.

Take the current mathematical discussion regarding combat maneuvers. Are you saying that calculating the relative probabilities of a given bonus mattering to be "uppity" or to provide confirmation bias? If you roll a d20+X and the other guy rolls a d20+Y, you can analyze the probabilities; that's how it works. There's no fudging of numbers, no spinning the results--and if someone makes a mistake, a correction is quickly made.

Nero24200
2009-08-05, 07:53 AM
Because yours is harder to cater to? Because the other market section is already being catered to? Just accept that Paizo doesn't have you as the target audience. That's business. I don't hate WotC for excluding me from their 4e target audience (though it is damnably annoying), and there's no reason to bring out true vitriol against Pathfinder.

IMO, this is the second-best RPG forum I know. Innovative, fairly reasonable, but not quite cosmopolitan enough.

The reason why it iritates me so much is because their fanboys act like there play-style should be the focus of a 3.5 revamp. As I said, my spell-focused assassin didn't fit into their "Backwards Compatability", and this is the reasoning behind it. Quite frankly, I think their Backwards compatability is a load of crap, somthing they say in order to justify keeping some of the poorer designed elements of the game since they can't bare to admit that it might not be such a good idea to keep them.

Indon
2009-08-05, 08:29 AM
There is also the problem that one-trick ponies can make the game less interesting for other players and the DM.
I'm inclined to agree, but only when the trick is too powerful.

I don't think DMing for one-trick characters is particularly hard - many genres feature extensive storytelling around such characters, and metagaming the trick can be used to make things more interesting ("What, he's immune to Sunder? *gasp* It's because the gem in the statue 500 feet away is making his gear invincible!").


With a class that has a selection of tricks, this problem doesn't develop nearly as much: The DM can veto one or more tricks, and leave the other ones exposed, and the variations makes the combats more interesting and diverse.

With this scenario, you instead risk the 3.x Caster Problem - a class that potentially has a selection of game-breaking tricks that all make the game less interesting for the other players and the DM, but that can not be vetoed without blatant contrivance.

Wizards' response with later 3.5 and eventually 4th edition, of course, was to remove all tricks which were potentially too good, and give everyone a handful of mediocre ones (also removing most trick-vetoing mechanics along the way).

I had the impression Paizo's response with Pathfinder was more along the lines of evening out the effectiveness of various single tricks.


Even if the average would be the same - even if it would favor the attacker more, the spread is by definition only half as large. So when the attacker's victory falls at the bottom end of the wider spread, it is cut off entirely.

Randomness favors the monsters, so frankly, if anything this is good for players.

You can't play a character contingent on hoping NPC's roll ones on their grapple checks. Conversely, the DM can totally play NPC's whose effectiveness is contingent on you rolling a one on yours - there are way more NPC's then there are you.

Navigator
2009-08-05, 09:09 AM
http://cs.oswego.edu/~farina/dnd/loldnd.bmp (http://www.google.com/)

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-05, 09:28 AM
...what? :smallconfused: Of all the possible arguments you can find on the internet, logic and math are among the two you would be most justified in relying on; if you consider performing statistical analysis to be "uppity," I don't know what to say. Confirmation bias doesn't even play into it; one person can massage the numbers to say whatever, but it takes only a single person to point out that they messed with the numbers to have everyone else do out the math for themselves.

Take the current mathematical discussion regarding combat maneuvers. Are you saying that calculating the relative probabilities of a given bonus mattering to be "uppity" or to provide confirmation bias? If you roll a d20+X and the other guy rolls a d20+Y, you can analyze the probabilities; that's how it works. There's no fudging of numbers, no spinning the results--and if someone makes a mistake, a correction is quickly made.

I think you drastically misunderstood my statement.

I am saying that they are being uppity in saying that it is the only forum that does that. I am saying that confirmation bias leads them to believe that they totally always use math, and all those icky (Paizo/WotC/Char Op/BG/RPG.net/tg/Gaming Den) people are never using math.

Obviously I don't think that doing the math comparison is uppity, since I personally am the one who did the math comparison of 3.5 trip/grapple vs CMB in this thread (admittedly only for a selection of CR 5 challenges, but it's still more math than 90% of this thread, and more applicable math than 100%).

Kaiyanwang
2009-08-05, 09:29 AM
[
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Sigworthy.

*cast fire resistance on Navigator*

*prepares an action*

Kelpstrand
2009-08-05, 09:31 AM
I'd switch Pathfinder and 4e actually. You'd have to be pretty out of it to find Pathfinder to be more simple than 4e.

Indon
2009-08-05, 09:40 AM
I wouldn't really try to compare RPG's with computer operating systems in such a sweeping approach.

And if I did try, all versions of D&D would correspond to versions of Windows.

Faulty
2009-08-05, 09:42 AM
4E is Mac. Shiny, insipid and boring.

HEYO!

AstralFire
2009-08-05, 09:44 AM
Massive Facepalm.

We have enough silliness in this thread already.

Just... cut out the Operating System Wars. Let's stick to our specialty of purposeless denigration of others' choice in game system rather than branching out.

jmbrown
2009-08-05, 09:45 AM
4E is Mac. Shiny, insipid and boring.

HEYO!

Yet clear, concise, and doesn't crash by being bloated from loads of extra software.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-08-05, 09:46 AM
Isn't citing the Amazon price for one game but not the other (http://www.amazon.com/Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Core-Rulebook/dp/1601251505/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249438702&sr=1-1) a bit of a double standard?Meh, I wasn't trying to give one side an advantage in a price comparison. I just assumed that the price cited for Pathfinder was the best reasonably available pricing, because that's the only price that matters. Amazon has had the Core 4e set at a deep and fairly steady discount from the list price since it was released, only going up a few dollars since the pre-release sale pricing.

With free shipping I don't know why anyone would buy game books from their local game shop if it insists on selling at face price. "Support your local game store" is only a reasonable philosophy when they are willing to be competitive.

The Pathfinder Core book is a DMG+PH combo, yes? Does the Pathfinder Core book include a MM analogue? If not, then adding in the $26.39 for the Pathfinder Bestiary makes the Amazon-to-Amazon price comparison $57.88 for Pathfinder vs $66.12. Still just a few dollars difference, and were I comparing systems this wouldn't be a deciding factor.

The Rose Dragon
2009-08-05, 09:46 AM
Let's stick to our specialty of purposeless denigration of others' choice in game system rather than branching out.

I thought Windows was sort of a gaming system.

I mean, it plays games, right?

EDIT: THIS IS A PUN. THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A COMMENT ON ANY COMPUTER OPERATING SYSTEMS IN ANY WAY.

YES I'M SHOUTING.

arguskos
2009-08-05, 09:48 AM
http://scienceblogs.com/sunclipse/picard-facepalm.jpg
Ugh. Let's leave the OS Wars at home please.

AstralFire
2009-08-05, 09:49 AM
I thought Windows was sort of a gaming system.

I mean, it plays games, right?

I'm glaring at you so hard right now you'd think I was an Arbok (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Arbok_(Pok%C3%A9mon)).

Please, let's not do OS wars. Please.

Frosty
2009-08-05, 09:50 AM
It crashes games, yes.

The Rose Dragon
2009-08-05, 09:51 AM
I'm glaring at you so hard right now you'd think I was an Arbok (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Arbok_(Pok%C3%A9mon)).

I'm ashamed that I had to click on the link to figure out what you meant.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-05, 10:21 AM
I think you drastically misunderstood my statement.

It looks like you're right. You had me worried for a moment there. My apologies.


Regarding the OS wars:
{table=head]OS|Why it's like 4e|Why it's like Pathfinder|Why it's like 3e
Windows|The developers limited options because they don't trust you to do things the "right" way|Each version of it supposedly improves on prior versions, but really just shuffles bugs|"functional" and "easy to use" aren't exactly the first terms you think of
Mac|Lots of style, little substance|"Hey look, we copied [3e/Linux] for our new version, and it's sooo much better!"|You can make its look fit the programming however you wish, but a lot of things still suck
Linux|All of the [classes/distros] are pretty much identical to the outside observer, and are seen as needlessly specific|It's built on [3e/Unix] and tries to improve on it, but many [3e/Unix] users think it should have died a painful death|Customizable to your every whim, but you need to be a hardcore expert to avoid the crappy, nonfunctional options[/table]

There. OS wars resolved.

Mongoose87
2009-08-05, 10:22 AM
I just lost The Game.

Shisumo
2009-08-05, 11:02 AM
You know, I've never actually seen someone win a thread before....

Foryn Gilnith
2009-08-05, 11:02 AM
лол шут (http://mirror.servut.us/kuvat/meinung/lol_wut_russian_pear.jpg)



The reason why it iritates me so much is because their fanboys act like there play-style should be the focus of a 3.5 revamp.

It should be the focus of a 3.5 revamp. It shouldn't be the focus of the sole 3.5 revamp, but it isn't - you cited many quality homebrew alternatives. I'm pleased with 3.5 vanilla and was resigned to waiting for 5e, so news that Pathfinder sucks (however unreliable this news may be) doesn't peeve me.



Quite frankly, I think their Backwards compatability is a load of crap, somthing they say in order to justify keeping some of the poorer designed elements of the game since they can't bare to admit that it might not be such a good idea to keep them.

A bit harshly framed, but I'd say this contains a bit of truth.

Faulty
2009-08-05, 11:15 AM
Yet clear, concise, and doesn't crash by being bloated from loads of extra software.

Cleverly done.

Though I've had crashing issues with my 4 year old Windows comp only twice, once because I didn't clean out the dust in the tower and it was hot out.

Myshlaevsky
2009-08-05, 11:17 AM
It looks like you're right. You had me worried for a moment there. My apologies.


Regarding the OS wars:
{table=head]OS|Why it's like 4e|Why it's like Pathfinder|Why it's like 3e
Windows|The developers limited options because they don't trust you to do things the "right" way|Each version of it supposedly improves on prior versions, but really just shuffles bugs|"functional" and "easy to use" aren't exactly the first terms you think of
Mac|Lots of style, little substance|"Hey look, we copied [3e/Linux] for our new version, and it's sooo much better!"|You can make its look fit the programming however you wish, but a lot of things still suck
Linux|All of the [classes/distros] are pretty much identical to the outside observer, and are seen as needlessly specific|It's built on [3e/Unix] and tries to improve on it, but many [3e/Unix] users think it should have died a painful death|Customizable to your every whim, but you need to be a hardcore expert to avoid the crappy, nonfunctional options[/table]

There. OS wars resolved.

So, wait... Let me get this straight. So one edition isn't clearly the best, and the other edition(s) don't have all the problems? You can criticize each one for something?

Hah. You had me going there - for about a second!

The Glyphstone
2009-08-05, 11:18 AM
WIN


That is all.

Yora
2009-08-05, 11:26 AM
Yet clear, concise, and doesn't crash by being bloated from loads of extra software.
yet. :smallbiggrin:

BillyJimBoBob
2009-08-05, 11:33 AM
Just as an aside on the OS wars:

I've worked in several all unix/linux shops. I love unix and linux. They are powerful, efficient, and have vastly open ended functionality.

I have Windows XP Pro on my main home computer. It runs all the latest, greatest software, and has been bullet proof since installation right after the release of XP.

In my penultimate job I was introduced to Mac workstations. I adore the fact that it has a shell where I can run the powerful command line linux tools such as sed, awk, grep, etc. And getting used to the user interface was as easy as remembering that cut/copy/paste was <apple>[z|x|c|v] rather than <ctrl>[z|x|c|v].

For any given job, one may be better than another. But they all rock.

But, just in case that wasn't inflammatory enough:

Consoles suck.

Yora
2009-08-05, 11:35 AM
Anyone noticed that this thread never included any discussion about the launch of Pathfinder? :smallbiggrin:

And I assume you never played on any console?

Kelpstrand
2009-08-05, 11:43 AM
Well no need. The actual thread title was based on faulty premises.

IE that Pathfinder giving all the books they did print (an unspecified number) to distributors was somehow a sign of success.

Which is pretty silly since standard industry practice consists of finding out how many each distributor is willing to take, and then printing exactly that many.

And so every company ever sells out their entire first print line to distributors immediately, because all the actual contracts were arranged before the print even began.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-05, 11:49 AM
You know, I've never actually seen someone win a thread before....


So, wait... Let me get this straight. So one edition isn't clearly the best, and the other edition(s) don't have all the problems? You can criticize each one for something?

Hah. You had me going there - for about a second!

:smallbiggrin:

Don't even get me started on 1e, 2e, 2.5, 3e OGL stuff, Unix, *BSD....

Epinephrine
2009-08-05, 11:55 AM
Well no need. The actual thread title was based on faulty premises.

IE that Pathfinder giving all the books they did print (an unspecified number) to distributors was somehow a sign of success.

Agreed, to some extent. More interesting would be the number of copies sold.


Which is pretty silly since standard industry practice consists of finding out how many each distributor is willing to take, and then printing exactly that many.

I'd argue that they don't print "exactly" to match; I've produced two publications and been involved in the contracting, both times an excess of copies were ordered to account for some future orders and for direct requests (since Paizo allows purchasing directly, this would likely be the case?). Also, typically amounts are rounded to nearest multiples of some sort - we rounded orders to the thousand, as we had smallish runs (government publications, not fun stuff like roleplaying games).

But the larger point stands - selling all your copies is nice, but you are apt to order close to the expected amount so as not to waste money. Commercial success is based on number of copies sold, not % of your print run sold.

Indon
2009-08-05, 11:59 AM
Agreed, to some extent. More interesting would be the number of copies sold.

According to the linked post at the start of the thread, supposedly more than five times that of their previous most successful product.

Make of that what you will.

Yora
2009-08-05, 12:00 PM
I don't know? Can shops return books if they don't get any buyers and the stuff collects dust?

Mark Hall
2009-08-05, 01:24 PM
I don't know? Can shops return books if they don't get any buyers and the stuff collects dust?

Usually, yes. However, I'll point out that the "only order what distributors want" model ignores direct on-line sales; I'll talk to my FLGS, but I'm also just as likely to order on-line something I want now.

Myrmex
2009-08-05, 01:37 PM
http://cs.oswego.edu/~farina/dnd/loldnd.bmp (http://www.google.com/)

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

4e is too solid a system to be running microsoft.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-05, 01:43 PM
Online and direct from Paizo is most likely to be the PDF though I would think. But yeah. The successful distribution of their print run being hailed as some huge success is pretty much exactly the kind of disingenuous market crap that the "Open Beta" was, even though the actual rules that they are actually publishing have never been seen or tested by anyone outside of the company.

Cedrass
2009-08-05, 01:52 PM
4e is too solid a system to be running microsoft.

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/9363/loldnd.jpg
This is more like what it should be.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-08-05, 01:54 PM
4e is too solid a system to be running microsoft.

On the contrary, all roleplaying systems are unsolid enough to be running microsoft.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-05, 01:55 PM
4e is too solid a system to be running microsoft.


This is more like what it should be.


On the contrary, all roleplaying systems are unsolid enough to be running microsoft.

We have already signed the OS War's Treaty of Paris. Stop there. Do not make me make another chart.

AstralFire
2009-08-05, 02:03 PM
We have already signed the OS War's Treaty of Paris. Stop there. Do not make me make another chart.

I will hurt things (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/10/) if the OS war does not halt.

Asbestos
2009-08-05, 02:05 PM
According to the linked post at the start of the thread, supposedly more than five times that of their previous most successful product.

Make of that what you will.

But again... what does that mean?! What was Paizo's previously most successful product? Some random adventure? How successful was it?

chiasaur11
2009-08-05, 02:07 PM
We have already signed the OS War's Treaty of Paris. Stop there. Do not make me make another chart.

He will too.

He might even include...

BAR GRAPHS!

Cedrass
2009-08-05, 02:15 PM
BAR GRAPHS!

Hey hey woah! I made a mistake, no need to threaten me :smallfrown:.

Yora
2009-08-06, 05:06 AM
New Classes for Pathfinder: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/the4NextPFRPGCoreClassesToBeAnnouncedAtGenCon


I like warlocks, blackguards are fine I guess, but I am deathly afraid of prestige or indeed core class bloat so the idea that these are the 'next' 4 core classes and the possible implication that there will be more and more core classes fills me with dread.
Well said.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-06, 07:51 AM
I like warlocks, blackguards are fine I guess, but I am deathly afraid of prestige or indeed core class bloat so the idea that these are the 'next' 4 core classes and the possible implication that there will be more and more core classes fills me with dread.
Well said.

So let me get this straight...the company that doesn't like 4e because it thinks (A) WotC's "everything is core" philosophy is BS and (B) releasing classes in bulk in each new PHB is just churning out material to make you buy stuff...is announcing the release of 4 new "core" classes before their core books have even been released!?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Paizo.

Hurlbut
2009-08-06, 09:03 AM
Hypocrisy, thy name is Paizo.Actually they mean classes that use the core rules, nothing fancy or extra in way of rules from what I can see.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-06, 09:10 AM
Actually they mean classes that use the core rules, nothing fancy or extra in way of rules from what I can see.

Well, how do you define "use the core rules"? Psionics probably wouldn't fit, because it's a different system, but blackguards? Warlocks? Artificers? Those are the three most common non-psionic suggestions on the linked thread, and all of those use just core stuff (paladin mechanics flipped in alignment, core spells turned into SLAs, and item creation with some boosts, respectively). Making those core classes takes no extra effort at all (heck, the barbarian's more "out there" mechanically with its rage points than the warlock with its SLAs), and it looks like that's exactly what they're doing.

Granted, we don't have all that much information at this point, but the simple fact that he called them "core classes" is most of the problem.

Cedrass
2009-08-06, 12:21 PM
Granted, we don't have all that much information at this point, but the simple fact that he called them "core classes" is most of the problem.

I am thinking it's because they will release them as part of the OGL. Which means we'll be able to access them on the Pathfinder SRD (If there is such a thing yet).

Or maybe it's just wishful thinking.

Indon
2009-08-06, 12:32 PM
Is Paizo releasing their content under the OGL? I had the impression they weren't.

Matthew
2009-08-06, 12:36 PM
Is Paizo releasing their content under the OGL? I had the impression they weren't.

They pretty much have to; whether they are releasing their new material as OGC is another matter (I do not think they are).

Yora
2009-08-06, 12:46 PM
All classes, feats, spells, magic items, creature stats that are based on the rules of the SRD, or on other publications based on the SRD, are automatically OGL.
They hold the right on the background texts and original names, but the rules and stats have all to be open content. If you're using d20, you can't get out of that rule.

Only exception is Wizards of the Coast. Everything they publish is not OGL, unless they put it in the SRD.

UglyPanda
2009-08-06, 01:16 PM
Is anyone else doubting the existence of the original poster as a real person and not somebody hired by a PR firm?

Looking at his posts, a lot of his posts are about Paizo & Pathfinder. And then there isn't much substance to his other posts.

Shisumo
2009-08-06, 01:31 PM
So let me get this straight...the company that doesn't like 4e because it thinks (A) WotC's "everything is core" philosophy is BS and (B) releasing classes in bulk in each new PHB is just churning out material to make you buy stuff...is announcing the release of 4 new "core" classes before their core books have even been released!?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Paizo.

Uh... have they ever said either of things?

Ever?

Anywhere?

I'd really, really like a source for that. Because that sounds like something some Paizo fans have said, but I don't think I've seen anything really even close to that attitude from Paizo's staff.

Umael
2009-08-06, 01:41 PM
Is anyone else doubting the existence of the original poster as a real person and not somebody hired by a PR firm?

Looking at his posts, a lot of his posts are about Paizo & Pathfinder. And then there isn't much substance to his other posts.

Take another look.

The OP registered in September 2008 and has 18 posts, of which less than 6 are about Paizo. The OP admits to being a playtester, and is likely enthusiastic about Pathfinder, but his posts show about as much substance as most other people who post.

Mongoose87
2009-08-06, 01:46 PM
I don't get why everyone treats their dissatisfaction with Pathfinder like a crime. I mean, to start, they haven't even seen the release, yet. And, it's no like they're forcing you to buy it. Personally, I wouldn't pay for the book, but $10 for the PDF isn't too bad, and I'm sure there will be some interesting ideas in there, even if I don't like the whole rule set. What really interests me is the possibility of more sourcebooks to follow.

Thrawn183
2009-08-06, 02:29 PM
I've played a little of the beta.

Do I like 3.5? Yes.
Do I like 4e? Yes.
Do I like Pathfinder? Probably the same as 3.5 (so probably Yes)

What's the problem? Why pay to spend the time to learn different rules to have essentially the same amount of fun? Now, if I felt that Pathfinder was head and shoulders above 3.5, then yeah I'd support it. I don't, and, as such, I can't.

Jerthanis
2009-08-06, 02:42 PM
I don't get why everyone treats their dissatisfaction with Pathfinder like a crime. I mean, to start, they haven't even seen the release, yet. And, it's no like they're forcing you to buy it. Personally, I wouldn't pay for the book, but $10 for the PDF isn't too bad, and I'm sure there will be some interesting ideas in there, even if I don't like the whole rule set. What really interests me is the possibility of more sourcebooks to follow.

I imagine it's managed to make people angry in exactly the same way 2e->3e or 3e->4e made people mad. They say, "This game you're playing and have been playing for years is stupid, lame, and full of balance problems which will frustrate you and make your game not fun to play... here's our new ruleset that fixes everything wrong forever! Lo and it's a golden age!" and the people nod and say, "Yeah, there are some things about the rules that frustrate me, let's see what you've done" and they release a product inferior to the gaming group's own set of houserules. Naturally people of the old edition have the right to respond to what are basically insults to their preferred game with a demand of them to put their money where their mouth is and produce a better ruleset if the one THEY prefer is so bad.

This differs slightly from the 3e->4e switch because with 4e they offered something completely different, a long step away in a very different direction, and some people embraced it and some didn't... but no claim was made towards backwards compatability, or not needing to learn vastly different new rules. (a claim was made that the new rules were easier to learn than the old were to understand, but whatever). With Pathfinder they say, that they fixed it, but everything you liked about 3.5 is still around. From the beta we see choices going in the exact wrong direction, and from the forums we see the developers not listening to critique, so we have to conclude that this new revision of 3rd edition rules is probably going to be lower quality than most of US could make in a set of houserules given time, and we get half-insulted in the bargain.

That is, I think, why Pathfinder is so maddening and controversial a topic.

AstralFire
2009-08-06, 03:07 PM
An excellent post, Jerthanis.

I would like to append that I argue about almost everything for no good reason, and hey! Thread with an argument. And lo, here I am.

JaxGaret
2009-08-06, 03:16 PM
That is, I think, why Pathfinder is so maddening and controversial a topic.

IMO the reason why Pathfinder is so maddening a topic is because someone had the balls to pull something off like Pathfinder, but they didn't have the brains to do it properly.

Thus something that could have been great fails due to dreadful execution. A lot, and I mean a lot, of people (myself included) were very excited to hear about Pathfinder - and were equally disappointed when they read it and found out what it actually was.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-06, 03:46 PM
Thus something that could have been great fails due to dreadful execution. A lot, and I mean a lot, of people (myself included) were very excited to hear about Pathfinder - and were equally disappointed when they read it and found out what it actually was.

...myself included. Pathfinder's lack of ability to fix what I felt were problems with the game is part of what prompted me to work on d20 Rebirth.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-06, 04:08 PM
Uh... have they ever said either of things?

Ever?

Anywhere?

I'd really, really like a source for that. Because that sounds like something some Paizo fans have said, but I don't think I've seen anything really even close to that attitude from Paizo's staff.

On checking where I'd seen those opinions expressed, it looks like the devs were quoted out of context or the fans were saying things like "Well my friend heard...", so you're right in this instance. However, the general sentiment that WotC is Doing It Wrong is fairly prevalent, so the fact that they're following a bit in WotC's footsteps is surprising on that point alone.

Gnaeus
2009-08-06, 04:16 PM
Pathfinder is the best company making 3.5 ish material and getting it into cons. Their book isn't even out yet and they already have more events at Dragoncon than 3.5, because no developers are supporting 3.5. If any of you can write a better version of 3.5 than Pathfinder, (and I am certain that some of you can) and can get it published and widely enough distributed that I can find games of it (which I haven't seen) then I will buy YOUR product and play YOUR game. Until that day, even if the pathfinder release is worse than 3.5 in all ways and doesn't improve it at all, it will still be better than 4.0 and I will still have to grind my teeth and support it. Thanks Pathfinder.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-06, 04:23 PM
Pathfinder is the best company making 3.5 ish material and getting it into cons. Their book isn't even out yet and they already have more events at Dragoncon than 3.5, because no developers are supporting 3.5. If any of you can write a better version of 3.5 than Pathfinder, (and I am certain that some of you can) and can get it published and widely enough distributed that I can find games of it (which I haven't seen) then I will buy YOUR product and play YOUR game. Until that day, even if the pathfinder release is worse than 3.5 in all ways and doesn't improve it at all, it will still be better than 4.0 and I will still have to grind my teeth and support it. Thanks Pathfinder.

And what if we have written much better material, but for whatever reason choose not to sell it, and instead provide it free to everyone, like because we are feel that more people benefit from free gaming material, but therefore do not use our own money to sponsor it at a con as a marketing move, because we don't have a business trying to make money. Is there anything that stops you from going to a con and playing a game that wasn't bought by a corporate sponsor, they usually have lots of non corporate games to play there too.

I find the idea that money to afford corporate sponsored games is the arbiter of what game is best somewhere between crazy and annoying.

Mongoose87
2009-08-06, 04:28 PM
And what if we have written much better material, but for whatever reason choose not to sell it, and instead provide it free to everyone, like because we are feel that more people benefit from free gaming material, but therefore do not use our own money to sponsor it at a con as a marketing move, because we don't have a business trying to make money. Is there anything that stops you from going to a con and playing a game that wasn't bought by a corporate sponsor, they usually have lots of non corporate games to play there too.

I find the idea that money to afford corporate sponsored games is the arbiter of what game is best somewhere between crazy and annoying.
Being published lends legitimacy to something. People can wave off a homebrew off the internet as being made by "some guy," but once it's published there's at least someone, other than the author, who thinks it's worth something.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-06, 04:36 PM
Being published lends legitimacy to something. People can wave off a homebrew off the internet as being made by "some guy," but once it's published there's at least someone, other than the author, who thinks it's worth something.

Yeah, a printing company that the author payed a lot of money to.

The difference between Paizo's product and me commissioning artwork and fancy binding for a print run of a better product is that my product is better, and they can afford to sponsor corporate games at Dragoncon.

There is nothing about Pathfinder that makes it more popular than Fax.

In fact, I'd say more people would be willing to buy and uses fax's fix than Pathfinder if Fax started right now with a "open playtest" and published a year from now.

You know why that isn't going to happen? Because fax doesn't have a million dollars lying around and Jason Buhlman does.

HamHam
2009-08-06, 04:37 PM
Being published lends legitimacy to something. People can wave off a homebrew off the internet as being made by "some guy," but once it's published there's at least someone, other than the author, who thinks it's worth something.

This is a terrible attitude.

Matthew
2009-08-06, 04:42 PM
I will hurt things (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/10/) if the OS war does not halt.

The OS war? Operating System?

Fax Celestis
2009-08-06, 04:50 PM
In fact, I'd say more people would be willing to buy and uses fax's fix than Pathfinder if Fax started right now with a "open playtest" and published a year from now.

Actually, that's my exact plan as soon as I get more of the core bits complete. Mostly, what's standing in my way at the moment is the cleric, skills, and magic items. I am not looking forward to magic items: I suck at magic items, and I know it. The other two are just going to take time.

But, if I get those done, I'll have something representing every aspect of the game--skillful prowess, martial prowess, divine spellcasting, arcane spellcasting, a variety of races, some monsters, etc., etc. At that point I'll be able to say, "Okay, look, your wizard? Not done yet, but you can try out the cartomancer or the sorceror or the bladeweaver or the bard in the meantime and work out any bugs."

Zherog
2009-08-06, 04:53 PM
Pathfinder is the best company making 3.5 ish material and getting it into cons. Their book isn't even out yet and they already have more events at Dragoncon than 3.5, because no developers are supporting 3.5.

Huh, really? I guess the work I'm doing on a project for 0one Games (http://0onegames.com/catalog/) is a figment of my overworked imagination. :smallwink:

Random NPC
2009-08-06, 04:56 PM
...myself included. Pathfinder's lack of ability to fix what I felt were problems with the game is part of what prompted me to work on d20 Rebirth.

Add me to the list.

I was crazy happy about someone fixing 3.5 and was excited to implement their ideas on the gaming table when I was DMing for my friends. But then I downloaded their Beta and started reading it. I noticed immediately that Fighters were less effective and Wizards had more power than before. The gap between Casters and non-Casters felt like increasing. The spells had some changes, yes, but they were not as great as I imagined.

In my opinion, Paizo went the wrong way on changing things. Non-Casters needed a boost a la Tome of Battle. Casters were fine as a class (except big D), only the spells needed reworking. Perhaps spell mechanics, but not the chassis of the caster. Regarding classes, I can't think of one thing they did right. Monks stayed horrible. Bards became even less useless. Fighter feats seem even more lacking.

Perhaps the Sorcerer, but when compared to the Wizard, it does feel lacking.

And yes, what I saw was the beta, but I really doubt they will change anything worth noting since for what I saw, their mentality on how things should work will not change, and it is the mentality the one that needs changing.

Mongoose87
2009-08-06, 05:07 PM
This is a terrible attitude.

It's not an attitude, it's reality. If you show someone something on a forum, they'll think less of it than if it's in a book.

Matthew
2009-08-06, 05:15 PM
Huh, really? I guess the work I'm doing on a project for 0one Games (http://0onegames.com/catalog/) is a figment of my overworked imagination. :smallwink:

I like 0one Games; what are you doing for them, Zherog (if you can tell us)?

JaxGaret
2009-08-06, 05:17 PM
It's not an attitude, it's reality. If you show someone something on a forum, they'll think less of it than if it's in a book.

Allow me to fix that for you.

If you show some people something on a forum, they'll think less of it than if it's in a book. If you show other people the same thing, they'll judge it according to its worth, regardless of source.

It is well to remember that not everyone thinks the same way. Some of us (more than not, I hope and pray) read and interpret things for ourselves.

Gnaeus
2009-08-06, 06:00 PM
And what if we have written much better material, but for whatever reason choose not to sell it, and instead provide it free to everyone, like because we are feel that more people benefit from free gaming material, but therefore do not use our own money to sponsor it at a con as a marketing move, because we don't have a business trying to make money. Is there anything that stops you from going to a con and playing a game that wasn't bought by a corporate sponsor, they usually have lots of non corporate games to play there too.

Hey. If you can get the popularity to get your game out there, more power to you. Most people just don't.

Gnaeus
2009-08-06, 06:14 PM
Huh, really? I guess the work I'm doing on a project for 0one Games (http://0onegames.com/catalog/) is a figment of my overworked imagination. :smallwink:

Until you get it to a con near Atlanta, as far as I am concerned, it might as well be a figment. I monitor a couple of D&D forums, and I have never heard of it. Paizo threads, however, pop up on every board, and their games are at the local cons. Maybe you guys are awesome, and Paizo is just crushing you in name recognition and previous market share. Point is, I really don't care how good your game is. I have a shelf full of awesome games. If it isn't popular enough that local DMs will buy it and run it, it may as well not exist. Same goes for peoples free web supplements. If it gets enough hype as a good system, I might take the time to look it over and incorporate parts of its rules on the rare occasions when I have time to run a game, but for the most part if it can't get minimum market share to interest the local gaming community the fact that it is the best rules set ever is irrelevant.

Gnaeus
2009-08-06, 06:18 PM
Actually, that's my exact plan as soon as I get more of the core bits complete.

Rock on Fax. You make it happen and I look forward to giving you my money.

HamHam
2009-08-06, 06:42 PM
Until you get it to a con near Atlanta, as far as I am concerned, it might as well be a figment. I monitor a couple of D&D forums, and I have never heard of it. Paizo threads, however, pop up on every board, and their games are at the local cons. Maybe you guys are awesome, and Paizo is just crushing you in name recognition and previous market share. Point is, I really don't care how good your game is. I have a shelf full of awesome games. If it isn't popular enough that local DMs will buy it and run it, it may as well not exist. Same goes for peoples free web supplements. If it gets enough hype as a good system, I might take the time to look it over and incorporate parts of its rules on the rare occasions when I have time to run a game, but for the most part if it can't get minimum market share to interest the local gaming community the fact that it is the best rules set ever is irrelevant.

Well for those of us who couldn't care less about cons and just play with their friends, it most certainly is relevant.

Zherog
2009-08-06, 06:57 PM
I like 0one Games; what are you doing for them, Zherog (if you can tell us)?

I did a chunk of the Great City Campaign Setting and wrote the adventure Skullcrackers. I don't see any mention of my current project on the company's site, so I'll assume it's not announced yet.

edit:


Until you get it to a con near Atlanta, as far as I am concerned, it might as well be a figment. I monitor a couple of D&D forums, and I have never heard of it. Paizo threads, however, pop up on every board, and their games are at the local cons. Maybe you guys are awesome, and Paizo is just crushing you in name recognition and previous market share. Point is, I really don't care how good your game is. I have a shelf full of awesome games. If it isn't popular enough that local DMs will buy it and run it, it may as well not exist. Same goes for peoples free web supplements. If it gets enough hype as a good system, I might take the time to look it over and incorporate parts of its rules on the rare occasions when I have time to run a game, but for the most part if it can't get minimum market share to interest the local gaming community the fact that it is the best rules set ever is irrelevant.

The company's nominated for an ENnie award this year at GenCon for best cartography. (and, frankly, Mario's maps are the best I've seen in a while.)

Also, it's not a separate rules set. It's 3.5, which is why I linked it since somebody said nobody is making 3.5 material any longer.

edit part deux: Scrolling back, I see it was you who made the comment that there wasn't any 3.5 material. :smallwink:

Matthew
2009-08-06, 07:06 PM
I did a chunk of the Great City Campaign Setting and wrote the adventure Skullcrackers. I don't see any mention of my current project on the company's site, so I'll assume it's not announced yet.

Good stuff; obviously, their D20/3e stuff doesn't hold a great deal of interest for me, but their AD&D conversions have always been good, and the blueprint series is amazing. I enjoyed reading the preview for the Great City Campaign Setting.



The company's nominated for an ENnie award this year at GenCon for best cartography. (and, frankly, Mario's maps are the best I've seen in a while.)

I voted for them, definitely worth an award.

As an aside to edition war drama, anybody interested in what they were saying on UseNet about AD&D as compared to D&D back in 1982 should check this (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=6010&start=0) post out:

Kaihaku
2009-08-07, 05:03 AM
On a purely mechanical level share what you believe Pathfinder got right and what it got wrong. Please do try to remove the emotional element from your analysis.

Personally, I would probably go with something like the following...

These I like.
Channel Energy: On all levels I prefer Channel Energy to Turn Undead.
Fly Skill: Makes sense and makes the flying rules a bit more accessible.
Powered-up Races: I like that each of the core races received a decent power boost, not necessarily for their sake but more for the sake of planetouched and catfolk who are now playable without level adjustment.
Experience Costs: I've never cared for item creation and spells having an experience cost so I, personally, was pleased that Pathfinder did away with them. Though this didn't really help caster balance issues.
Orisons/Cantrips: I think making them at-will was the right idea.
Dead Levels: I like that they don't exist anymore.
New Class Abilities: I like things like Favored Terrain, expanded Rogue Talents, etc.


These I don't like so much.
Combat Maneuver Bonus: I find this more confusing than what it replaced...which is remarkable, to say the least.
Diplomacy: Even better than before.
Monk's Full "CMB": What? I don't think this was a big enough boost for the M.A.D. underdogs.
Conditional Perception: I have issues with sight, sound, taste, etc based Perception checks. Conditional bonuses were annoying enough before, this aspect of Pathfinder makes them even more so.
Wizard Additional Features: Um, there were other ways to discourage Wizard prestige classing than giving them tons of useful additional class features.
Arcane Power: Revising tons of spells was a noble effort but it didn't make any fundamental changes that would balance things a bit more.
Fighter/Monk Class Abilities: Fighters and Monks got boosts but I don't think they were sufficient ones.

These I haven't decided on yet.
Polymorph Fix: Ehhhhhh....
Compatibility: I have mixed feelings on this one...
Simplified Skills: This is a decent fix for skills but I can't help but feel that it could have been a bit better implemented.
Sorcerer Additional Features: I like them in theory but in practice...erh...

Navigator
2009-08-07, 06:38 AM
A discussion like this is a bit premature, but I will participate nonetheless.

Good changes

Their version of the Barbarian.
Forcecage allowing a reflex save.
Their version of the Sorceror. While this is not the change that many people wanted and really doesn't fix anything significant, it's nothing but additions to the 3.5 Sorceror, and it no longer has 19 dead levels.
Their version of mage's disjunction.
The new CMB system. This is personal to me, because it's far too easy to become a trip monkey in 3.5, and it hardly ever takes more than one swing to sunder a weapon. Officially, I would have done it differently, but I still think it's better.
Vast improvement of the core races. Everything gets two +2s, and one -2. Human is no longer the only sensible choice.
Their Ranger. Same deal as the Sorceror. It's at least a power-up, but still solves no problems.
How the new domain and specialist abilities are constructed.


Bad changes

The fact that +5 weapons go through DR/anything. In most cases, this makes printing damage reduction in stat blocks a waste of ink.
Feats every odd level. This does horrors for backwards compatibility, since you have to literally rewrite every single monster from 3.5 to put in on the table.
Favored classes. Halfing Rogues shouldn't get additional arbitrary bonuses for the class/race combination, because they are already better than most other races at being Rogues. This mechanic should have been completely and utterly removed.
Their Fighter. Basically, it's the old Fighter, just add +5 to damage, +5 to hit, and +5 AC. These are not the things Fighter needed help with. He's already really good at that stuff. He needed ways to avoid crowd control effects, and something to do other than "5 ft. step and full attack". Now, creatures that challenge the new Fighter will face-roll all other melee classes.
Their Paladin. They removed their turning ability, so by RAW, they lose the ability to take any divine feats from previous sources (also applies to cleric). Not only is this a power-down, but harms backwards compatibility. And now since the Fighter gets his attack routine and AC catapulted, the Paladin is not even comparable to the Fighter in melee, even when he smites.
Their Wizard. Seriously? More power? Awesome job guys.
Arcane Archer. Still. Completely. Useless. And this is after they made some (useless) changes.
Assassin. Why were our spells taken away? Another strike against backwards compatibility.
Eldritch Knight. Take the two feats, Arcane Strike and Armored Mage (whatever it's called) basically means that you're using your swift action every round to either get a damage bonus in melee, or to avoid arcane spell failure. So point #1, an Eldritch Knight will virtually never be able to throw quickened spells, or use a swift action. Ever. Point #2, The Eldritch Knight's capstone ability requires that you have an open swift action. Fail, fail, and more fail.


This is just off the top of my head, but I'm going to stop now. I didn't intend for this to turn into a Pathfinder bashing session. I hope to be proven wrong about the negative stuff in the final release.

Hunter Noventa
2009-08-07, 07:09 AM
The fact that +5 weapons go through DR/anything. In most cases, this makes printing damage reduction in stat blocks a waste of ink.


I actually think this is a good rule. It takes a lot of money to get a +5 weapon, and the idea of having to carry around a veritable golf bag of different materials is kind of bogus. Overcoming alignment based DR is nice, simply because I find it the most irritating sort of DR to face, being that there's technically four different type and the if you're not expecting it, the Cleric isn't going to have Align Weapon prepared. That, and DR only hurts non-casters, who arguably don't need to be hurt anymore. But that's just my rant.

Good Changes
-Fighters. I spent the last year or so playing a Pathfinder Fighter, and I enjoyed it immensely. A feat every level, power that actually scales, it was great fun to TWF even. Granted, I wasn't in a party with the most optimized arcanists in the world or anything, but in my personal experience, doing 1d10+15 damage per hit was enough to make my DM cringe a little bit.
-Sorcerers. The bloodlines are neat, and provide good RP hooks if you're into that sort of thing
-Skills. The new skill system is much simpler and easier than dealing with half-ranks. The consolidation of multiple skills into fewer makes a lot of sense to me.
-Races. I like what they did to power up the races for the same reasons as Kaihaku.

Not as good changes
-Monks. I'm still not entirely sold on the whole Ki Point thing. It reminds me too much of the 3.5 Ninja, which wasn't too good at all.
-Bards. It might of just been the player, but for a great part of our last campaign our Bard had little more to do than boost our morale.


That's all I can think of now.

Epinephrine
2009-08-07, 07:12 AM
Top of my head, too:

Good changes:

Rage powers for the barbarian: Some were unbalanced in beta, but they make it fun to play.
Monk ki pool and associated monk improvements (full BAB on flurry of blows, monk-related feats)
Sorcerer has non-dead levels, and has a boost relative to the wizard.
Channel energy!
Bardic knowledge and some new bard abilities
Tougher tumble, concentration
New feats to make standard actions useful for melee characters
Paladins worth playing
Poisons, disease both nastier
Dispel Magic greatly reduced in power


Bad changes:

Fly skill - I like parts of it, but overall handled somewhat poorly
Wind effects - nerfing across all of them?
Bardic music use in rounds/day
Cantrips - the spells become at will powers
Devastating Chop is *too* good
Reduction of size effect on grapple; +2 per category? Honestly, +4 for a guy 8 times your weight is nothing

Yora
2009-08-07, 07:24 AM
I like the Wild Shape ability and the general mechanic of polymorphing spells.



... but somehow I can't think of anything else I would include in my games.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-07, 08:09 AM
Cantrips - the spells become at will powers

Why do you consider cantrips being at-will a bad thing? Not sarcasm: Most people I've gamed with think things like light and mage hand are good flavor for a wizard and should be able to be cast as often as desired, so I'd be interested to hear why you don't like the change.

Typewriter
2009-08-07, 08:09 AM
Good Changes:

1. Monk is a lot more fun to play, with abilities that can be used more often.
2. Skills. I love the whole class skill is a +3, all cost 1 thing. Awesome.
3. Prestige Classes - I'm a big fan of the changes made to the prestige classes. Dragon Disciple especially got a nice boost.
4. Feats. I love feats, so the fact that you get more is pretty awesome, I just wish that the book was as backwards compatible as they'd like to claim so that the feat selection is a little bit bigger than Pathfinder Core.
5. Favored Class - I know my group at least always ignored multiclass penalties, so seeing something that's such a small, but nice, boost that theres no real reason to ignore is pretty cool.
6. Fighter - Someone said it before me, but a feat every level and some random bonuses are all awesome. I haven't looked into it much, but one of my players told me that you can get up a +7 dex bonus in full plate by max level, which I like.
7. Casters - Though I love spells, I always hated the classes because there was little flavor to them. The sorceror class is now somewhat customizable, and pretty neat. The wizard ones don't bother me so much because of the way my group plays, so OP wizards isn't really ever a problem.
8. Barbarian - Rage points makes more sense to me than the way they used to be.
9. Abilities as swift actions. A lot of feats/features/etc. are swift actions, so you must make decisions about what ability you use each round. You know you're not going to cast this round, so rather than cast in light armor, you choose to dodge and move through enemies or something with a bonus to AC. Next round, you're in position, so give up the dodge bonus to AC and cast in armor. Etc.

Bad Changes:

1. CMB is a good idea, but grapple is the only one that was ever confusing, and hey - it's still confusing.
2. Point buy - I think the cost of points makes more sense, but it's very easy to wind up with points left over, where you literally cannot spend them on anything.
3. Not backwards compatible. As I DM I will be implementing things very slowly from other books, and players will specifically not be allowed to do so without good reasoning, and convincing me.
4. Bards sing in rounds....
5. Another +2 to all stats? I don't mind this so much, just because of the way they changed point buy, but it just seems kind of silly to me. Obviously half-orc needed to be changed to a simple +2/-2 like everyone else, but giving a global upgrade seems like a bit much to me.

peacenlove
2009-08-07, 08:42 AM
Good Changes
Paladin upped in power and benefits team with his auras
More feats
Consolidated skills
Reflavored sorcerer
The nerfed control spells
Dispel magic usability on higher levels
The removal of spells that grant blank immunities

Bad Changes
"Bigger Number" Fighter still useless against any form of magic, still not able to be versatile and stand up to his name
Nerfed feats
The rest of the broken spells that are untouched
Superman/Batman hybrid Wizards
Monk: Either remove the class or make it a variant of fighter, Doing 20+ changes and still sucking?
Bard: see monk commentary
Human still beats all other races
Dependance on magic items/ magic items still rule the game on high levels
Increased power level (although that might be moved to positive if they increase monster power level too)
Few 2nd edition sacred cows removed/fixed
They didnt include a shadow blood line for the sorcerer :smallbiggrin:

Epinephrine
2009-08-07, 09:30 AM
Why do you consider cantrips being at-will a bad thing? Not sarcasm: Most people I've gamed with think things like light and mage hand are good flavor for a wizard and should be able to be cast as often as desired, so I'd be interested to hear why you don't like the change.

Well, it's Detect Magic, really. I'm finding Detect Magic at will to be a bit irritating as a DM. It can simply be used in every single room of a dungeon. A spell that can see through objects? You can scan through a wooden door to reveal magic on the far side, scan through a chest, look through walls (provided they are less that a foot of stone thick), etc.

Navigator
2009-08-07, 09:34 AM
I actually think this is a good rule. It takes a lot of money to get a +5 weapon, and the idea of having to carry around a veritable golf bag of different materials is kind of bogus.
This is a valid point, and I respect it.

I have a dozen reasons why I like the old system, but my opinions concerning that aren't better than anyone else's opinion. Aside from my personal feelings, I think it is an example of the many small tweaks made by the Pathfinder team that were ultimately unnecessary, and backfired on their design goals.


Nerfed feats
Man, totally forgot about the nerfed to useless rewrite of Power Attack. The main argument was "I don't want a spreadsheet to calculate my attack routine". If you need a spreadsheet to subtract X from attack rolls and add X*2 to your damage, you're doing it wrong.

subject42
2009-08-07, 10:15 AM
Well, it's Detect Magic, really. I'm finding Detect Magic at will to be a bit irritating as a DM. It can simply be used in every single room of a dungeon. A spell that can see through objects? You can scan through a wooden door to reveal magic on the far side, scan through a chest, look through walls (provided they are less that a foot of stone thick), etc.

As a player in a Pathfinder game, I can tell you that we have been abusing this for all it's worth. The DM finally put in the equivalent of a magical water main that temporarily blinded the guy who detected magic on it.

We're still doing it anyway. It's too tempting.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-07, 10:22 AM
As a player in a Pathfinder game, I can tell you that we have been abusing this for all it's worth. The DM finally put in the equivalent of a magical water main that temporarily blinded the guy who detected magic on it.

We're still doing it anyway. It's too tempting.

Solution: detect magic, moved to 1st level.

Epinephrine
2009-08-07, 10:32 AM
I actually think this is a good rule. It takes a lot of money to get a +5 weapon, and the idea of having to carry around a veritable golf bag of different materials is kind of bogus. Overcoming alignment based DR is nice, simply because I find it the most irritating sort of DR to face, being that there's technically four different type and the if you're not expecting it, the Cleric isn't going to have Align Weapon prepared. That, and DR only hurts non-casters, who arguably don't need to be hurt anymore. But that's just my rant.


I like this too - it makes for a bit of a toss up; do you go for multiple bonus-equivalents, have your casters use Greater Magic Weapon and Align weapon?
Or do you go with a real investment in a big bonus, but forgo the fun effects?

It brings back the iconic +X weapons, they aren't useless - they're harder to sunder, they punch through DR (like they did in the older D&D editions). You give up some fun effects, but you get a reliable, all around kind of weapon.

derfenrirwolv
2009-08-07, 11:01 AM
Human still beats all other races

Which race did it beat before?

Humans were all around good, but for every class but the spellcasters some other race had them beat in usefulness.

Barbarian: Dwarf for "rar hit points!" barbarian or half orc for rampaging destructo barbarian.

Bard: For a morale boosting bard humans probably the best choice. Archer bard go elf.

Cleric: Dwarf. Who turns undead anyway? More hit points, you're as fast as a human in armor, and +2 to all your saves.

Druid: Human, because you'll be outside your native species half the time and the feat is the only thing that transfers

Fighter: Dwarf. +2 to your horrible saves, +1 hp per level, free proficiency with a d10 single handed weapon, and you can carry all the gear you want without slowing down. Half Orc: skill points no good anyway axe is personal motivation device orc fighter hit hard

Unless you're only planning on playing till level 6 or so, theres no reason to be a human fighter. You'll have all the feats you want anyway. The epic failure of the fighter class in D&D is a lack of high level scaling feats. They're not even linear, they're regressive. After you reach the top of a feat tree around level 6 or so, you're stuck with feats that were available at 1st level.

Rougue: Halfling for the stealth, gnome for the hp, any small race for the +1 to hit. 1d6+5d6 damage vs 1d4+5d6 -1 damage is pretty much the same.

Sorcerer: Human for the feat

Wizard: Dwarf. one feat vs iron will, great fortitude, lightning reflexes, improved toughness AND the ability to see your foes in the dark to target them with spells? Stereotypes be damned, the pointy hat goes on the dwarf.

Mongoose87
2009-08-07, 11:34 AM
Wizard: Dwarf. one feat vs iron will, great fortitude, lightning reflexes, improved toughness AND the ability to see your foes in the dark to target them with spells? Stereotypes be damned, the pointy hat goes on the dwarf.

Who the heck takes those three feats, anyways? I like the human for one more metamagic or crafting feat.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-07, 11:41 AM
Solution: detect magic, moved to 1st level.

Yeah, essentially. If it's not the issue of at-will cantrips that's bugging you, but one specific cantrip in particular, you can houserule that one rather than saying the whole idea is bad.

I personally tend to implement at-will detect magic as a function of spellcraft, so (A) if even noncasters can detect magic, protections against it are much more common and (B) you can fail and get misinformation, which means you're less likely to just run after the first aura you find.

valadil
2009-08-07, 11:54 AM
Con

Community seems polarized about Pathfinder. Even moreso than 4e. I've seen a lot of love and a lot of hate and not much in between. This has effectively scared me off from even trying the game until things cool down a bit.

peacenlove
2009-08-07, 11:54 AM
My answers will be in bold, also do not forget that more feats = faster access to PRC's OR helps immensely feat starved clases (like sorcerer) in addition of what i will answer


Which race did it beat before?
Lets see
Humans were all around good, but for every class but the spellcasters some other race had them beat in usefulness.

Barbarian: Dwarf for "rar hit points!" barbarian or half orc for rampaging destructo barbarian.

You are maybe right. I would lean towards orc because they have options that improve their rage and not take a movement speed penalty

Bard: For a morale boosting bard humans probably the best choice. Archer bard go elf.

The +1 to hit from extra dexterity would be replicated by weapon focus (a BD feat)

Cleric: Dwarf. Who turns undead anyway? More hit points, you're as fast as a human in armor, and +2 to all your saves.

Turn Undead = Divine Meta Magic, Feats = Spellcasting prodigy (more spells). Armor is useless anyway at big levels

Druid: Human, because you'll be outside your native species half the time and the feat is the only thing that transfers

And the skills transfer too :smallbiggrin:

Fighter: Dwarf. +2 to your horrible saves, +1 hp per level, free proficiency with a d10 single handed weapon, and you can carry all the gear you want without slowing down. Half Orc: skill points no good anyway axe is personal motivation device orc fighter hit hard

Also agree at dwarf: 2/9 :smallwink: although human completes feat chains faster, thus you go out of the class faster :smallamused:

Unless you're only planning on playing till level 6 or so, theres no reason to be a human fighter. You'll have all the feats you want anyway. The epic failure of the fighter class in D&D is a lack of high level scaling feats. They're not even linear, they're regressive. After you reach the top of a feat tree around level 6 or so, you're stuck with feats that were available at 1st level.

Rougue: Halfling for the stealth, gnome for the hp, any small race for the +1 to hit. 1d6+5d6 damage vs 1d4+5d6 -1 damage is pretty much the same.

Good points. 3 classes out of 9 :smallsmile:

Sorcerer: Human for the feat

Wizard: Dwarf. one feat vs iron will, great fortitude, lightning reflexes, improved toughness AND the ability to see your foes in the dark to target them with spells? Stereotypes be damned, the pointy hat goes on the dwarf.

Darkvision is a 2nd level spell that lasts hours and core. Spell focus/spell casting prodigy gives you the resourses you REALLY need at low levels, mainly better spells. 1-2 hp ain't gonna save my butt when the average orc's damage is 10,5

Also you forgot monks and paladins out of your analysis :smalltongue: Paladin is favored by human and monk is favored by human or half orc (but better human for the extra feat)
so 7 out of 11 classes favor the human discounting feat starved classes. Not a total domination of human kind but close to it :smallamused:
EDIT: you also forgot rangers :smallannoyed: mmm human again so they have feats to assist their combat style? elf however helps with 2 weapon fighting prerequisites so i guess its a tie :smalltongue:

BillyJimBoBob
2009-08-07, 12:04 PM
Solution: detect magic, moved to 1st level.Well, sure. But is the just released paizo Pathfinder fix for the broken WotC D&D 3.5 supposed to need immediate house rules to be playable itself?

Or did the paizo play testers really enjoy casting Detect Magic in every room, every 20 steps in the wilderness, all over any town or city, and after every encounter, and since that was "fun" it was left in the game?

And if something as basic as a cantrip is broken, what else was overlooked?

Fax Celestis
2009-08-07, 12:05 PM
Well, sure. But is the just released paizo Pathfinder fix for the broken WotC D&D 3.5 supposed to need immediate house rules to be playable itself?

ANY game is going to be houseruled. Any game. My friends and I houserule RISK, for christ's sake, because it doesn't make sense how an army can march from Mexico to Berlin in one turn.

subject42
2009-08-07, 12:12 PM
Con

Community seems polarized about Pathfinder. Even moreso than 4e. I've seen a lot of love and a lot of hate and not much in between. This has effectively scared me off from even trying the game until things cool down a bit.

You should try playing a one-shot with the beta rules. Your own enjoyment should be the main decider here, rather than how people on a forum feel.

(Apologies to all you people on the forum)

AstralFire
2009-08-07, 12:18 PM
Humans were the best race because splatbooks came out with great regularity giving you feats that could be used in an ever increasing, slow powercreep. With every book released, every class that a human could be (all of them) got better.

Being able to move at full speed in armor? Nice, but kind of a moot point after a while. +2 Con? Never bad, ever. But what's 20 HP and a +1 to Fort against getting Divine Metamagic, Pierce Magical Protection/Concealment, etc 3 levels earlier? Or in some cases, at all?

Myrmex
2009-08-07, 12:28 PM
Well, it's Detect Magic, really. I'm finding Detect Magic at will to be a bit irritating as a DM. It can simply be used in every single room of a dungeon. A spell that can see through objects? You can scan through a wooden door to reveal magic on the far side, scan through a chest, look through walls (provided they are less that a foot of stone thick), etc.

That's why I get a wand of detect magic or an improved familiar. Then there's classes like swordsage or warlocks that get it all day, too.

Then, at higher levels, the caster just gets a permanencied detect magic or arcane sight. It's just the sort of thing a DM has to know about and purposefully put things into fool it or foil it.

/shrug