Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Roy]

Well, assuming that you, unlike Paizo who you are working with can do math you might actually succeed. However at the same time most people at Paizo despite math. As in Math bad touched them, slept with their sister, and kicked their dog. And since it's them you're making it for, expect to catch a lot of crap from the idiots.

Another thing is that playtesting in an actual game is almost meaningless. It would be meaningful if some conditions and standards were met. But since most people playing D&D cannot even agree what D&D is, much less how to play it what happens is you'll have one person playing Magical Tea Party, another person constantly fudging dice, and a third person actually testing the rules like they're supposed to. But they're all posting, and they are not all necessarily telling you what their test conditions are or even if those are valid test conditions.

The amount of effort required to substantiate opinions is prohibitively high. Facts are inherently substantiated. See what I'm saying here?

[Orion]

I assumed "unforeseen synergies" meant unforeseen by the designers. I would hope that designers would listen to "this combination of abilities is too strong" with or without an attached summary of play. (This doesn't mean that there aren't things which appear overpowered and aren't, so when looking at a purportedly overpowered combo, one good way to check it would be to play with it. Another would be to consider whether the hypotehtical in the bug report is an ideal case for the combo, then do some number crunching on your monster list to see how many enemies are actually vulnerable to it.)

[stormhierta]

Allow me to simplify - we're just two people. Two people will never, ever, have a chance to come up with every weird synergy or idea, that a larger base of playtesters will. Sure, we're not dumb so we don't throw away something that isn't based on playtesting but on math (some people DO spot the weird synergies just by looking) or other evidence.

[Datawolf]

@ stormhierta:

Have you considered giving guidelines for the actual "playing" playtest?

For example: Generate a character with levels in class X (X being one of the new psionic classes you have). Stat the character out at different levels (maybe levels 5, 10, etc.) and then run them through a gauntlet of EL Y challenges (where Y equals their character level). Report how well the character fared against each challenge. Also, do this multiple times to account for good/bad rolls and differing levels of system mastery/experience, etc.

[Ghostwheel]

@Ghostwheel: A "striker"-focused Soulknife will do a fair amount of damage. Not competing directly with a Rogue, but he's also far more of a "fighter" type than a damage dealer. Atleast this is the path we chose to take with the class.

The problem is though that "fighters" suck--they don't actually do anything well. They can't deal any actual impressive damage without going through long feat chains (shock trooper comes to mind), dumpster-diving for feats (stand still + thicket of blades via martial spirit), and don't have anything good. That's just it--they're fighter level.

(You can see what I mean by fighter-level vs. rogue-level and so on here.)

In order to be at the same level as classes such as the warblade, swordsage, duskblade, psychic warrior, and other rogue-level combatants, you need a much bigger "oomph", often either an alternate source of damage (in the case of the first three classes) or some kind of shtick that lets you be versatile enough to contend with many challenges that jump from the monster manuals (such as in the last case). Unfortunately, the revamped soulknife in UP didn't go far enough to actually get either of them, and ends up still being fighter-level and unable to contend with heavier hitters such as rogue-level party members (and that's not even mentioning wizard-level characters).

[Juton]

Goodman Games has begun work on their own heir to 3.5's crown, called Dungeon Crawl Classics (DCC). At least they are more upfront about things than paizo, I had high hopes for pathfinder for months, DCC dashed my hopes in mere minutes.

You can read an over-view here:
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... =60&t=7154

Highlights include:

• •Random spell effects, maybe you shoot one small magic missile, or 10 huge ones.
  •Races are classes
  •No feats
  •No skills

Bear in mind this product is meant to be somehow compatible with 3.5. The Pièce de résistance is the claim that the game will be 'impossible to power-game'

[hogarth]

The Pièce de résistance is the claim that the game will be 'impossible to power-game'

*cough*hubris*cough*

[fectin]

For when your favorite edition is 2nd, but you just can't get over 3.5 skills?

[Archmage]

Bear in mind this product is meant to be somehow compatible with 3.5. The Pièce de résistance is the claim that the game will be 'impossible to power-game'

"Impossible to powergame," notably, is due to heavy randomization of things like spell effects, according to the author.

Apparently the author's definition of powergaming is "making informed tactical choices." Which is indeed fixed by causing shit to have batshit insane random outcomes for everything.

[FatR]

Bear in mind this product is meant to be somehow compatible with 3.5. The Pièce de résistance is the claim that the game will be 'impossible to power-game'

Why the heck would anyone want to play a DnD clone without the main point of DnD?

[Midnight_v]

So...every caster is some kind of choas wizard?
Frightningly enough, there are people I've had the misfortune of meeting that will actually jump on board with bullshit like "impossible to powergame" though... I think thats likely a lie also.

[K]

This looks like a terrible game. They've not just taken out powergaming, they've taken out the gaming. I mean, how do you make meaningful tactical choices when you can't even get a magic missile to do anything consistent from what a 1st level and a 20th level is doing?

And rolling on all those tables sounds tedious. A combat turn must take a long time with people passing around the books with their spell for the tables to use them and extra rolls for spells.

[fectin]

This looks like a terrible game. They've not just taken out powergaming, they've taken out the gaming. I mean, how do you make meaningful tactical choices when you can't even get a magic missile to do anything consistent from what a 1st level and a 20th level is doing?

Roulette is a game too.
Wasn't this exactly what Frank was looking for in the Doubt thread? (kidding...)

[Juton]

I think the claim that it is impossible to power-game is laughably incorrect, although not necessarily a lie, because the creator doesn't know any better. We are going to get a range of classes, probably around 7, one of those will be the best and one will be the worst. Power-gaming will involve always taking the best class and never taking the worst. The only way to stop that is have all classes be the same, which they won't be.

I bet the combat in this game will move quicker then an average 3.5 game, because there are less choices. Only people who love magic-tea-party will remember old characters since for the rest of us the only variation between characters of the same class are hitpoints and their name.

[Krakatoa]

"I have a brilliant idea! Make a d20 game that combines all the dumbest aspects of old school DnD and then throws new ones in for good measure!"

"Fantastic, it will sell millions!"

[Aharon]

Actually, the high result of magic missile is a lot better than the standard D&D magic missile (average of 5.5*(5.5+CL) damage, does not require LOS). I'm curious how hard it will actually be to achieve this result - seeing how it is, per Goodman's words, level-dependent...

[Roy]

Chances are, it'd take 5 minutes for someone to figure out how. And then total fail. Honest fail, but total fail. I suppose that's a little better than the Paizils.

[CatharzGodfoot]

It will probably be playable as long as NPC don't operate on the same rules and PCs. If Bolgard the 1st level evil wizard cultist has a 5% or greater chance of turning any PC into a grease streak...well, I just hope that character creation is quick and easy.

[Slade]

Bear in mind this product is meant to be somehow compatible with 3.5. The Pièce de résistance is the claim that the game will be 'impossible to power-game'

"Impossible to powergame," notably, is due to heavy randomization of things like spell effects, according to the author.

Apparently the author's definition of powergaming is "making informed tactical choices." Which is indeed fixed by causing shit to have batshit insane random outcomes for everything.

And if you read what the author says: he actually tells you good Luck Stat means less chance of a mishap thus he tells you how to powergame it.
Either he doesn't realize avoiding midhaps is a good enough thing to build toward or doesn't know what he means by power gaming.

apparently, you can have infinite spells/day with luck:

There are no "spells per day" in the traditional D&D sense, but there are "spells known," and higher-level wizards know more spells. So let's say your wizard knows 4 spells. When your wizard casts a spell, he makes a spell check. On a high roll, he achieves some result with the spell (the higher the roll, the better the result) and he retains the spell to cast it again. On a low roll, there is no result, and he loses the spell. (And if you roll a 1, bad things happen!) So those 4 spells you know could result in four fizzles. Or you could effectively cast the spells over and over and over again all day long.
Spellcasters in DCC RPG can be "streaky"...I've had spellcasters who fire on all cylinders and manage to throw out spell after spell, and I've had others that just continually fail their checks and accomplish absolutely nothing. And plenty in between.

Spellburn breaks the randomization (somewhat) by letting you make a pact with a supernatural power, and improve your chances of casting a spell. There is a table to roll on to determine the exact nature of the spellburn bargain, or you can role-play with the judge. The classic example is Elric: "Blood for Arioch!" Promise a demon three souls, and perhaps he'll aid your spell. Or not.
You role-play the spellburn negotiation, sacrifice the appropriate ability scores, and increase your spell check by that much. For example, sacrifice 4 Strength (to simulate, say, draining a pint of your blood) and you get +4 to your next spell check. (This is temporary ability score loss, healing at 1 point per day.) When you use spellburn, you can attempt to cast a spell you know but have already lost for the day by failing a prior check. And you gain a bonus equal to the drained ability score, so you improve your odds of casting. So, conceivably, a wizard could keep spellburning to keep casting spells, round after round, until he collapses in a heap at 1 Strength and 1 Stamina and 1 Agility...

So those who roll high = keep spells after casting them.
Reading up on stuff:
Spell check is where you roll a d20 modified by caster level & ability score to determine the effects of the spell you just cast.
So you have a high caster and ability stat = no mishap/keep spell slot.
So power gaming seems easy. Be smart have a good Int/(whatever Cleric type would use) score.

Stat generation:
•Roll 3d6 in order for six stats: Strength, Agility, Stamina, Intelligence, Personality, Luck

Stamina = Con score in 3.5 D&D.

Sleep Spell:
1-10: Fail
11-13: 1 foe drowsy d6 rounds
14-16: d8 hit dice put to sleep for d6+6 turns
17-20: 2d8 hit dice put to sleep for d6+6 turns
21-25: 3d8 hit dice put to sleep for d6+6 turns
26+: 4d8 hit dice put to sleep for d6+6 days

So you need to roll achieve an 11 on a 1d20+ caster + modifier to get any benefit. Seems stronger if can reliable make 11.

[fectin]

There are no "spells per day" in the traditional D&D sense, but there are "spells known," and higher-level wizards know more spells. So let's say your wizard knows 4 spells. When your wizard casts a spell, he makes a spell check. On a high roll, he achieves some result with the spell (the higher the roll, the better the result) and he retains the spell to cast it again. On a low roll, there is no result, and he loses the spell. (And if you roll a 1, bad things happen!) So those 4 spells you know could result in four fizzles. Or you could effectively cast the spells over and over and over again all day long.

Plus autofail and critical fumbles. Those are always a barrel of laughs.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I'm willing to bet that attributes will be randomized to prevent min/maxing. Which means that low-luck characters will tend to die a lot, and high-luck character will tend to survive. Naturally, party composition will progress towards high-attribute only characters just like in 2e.

[Roy]

Isn't this a different kind of fail? As in one that should have its own thread? With the slapstick fetish, it is very similar to Pathfailure though...

[A Man In Black]

Why are we talking about some unrelated game by unrelated people in the already overlong Pathfinder thread?

[For Valor]

I think this has degenerated to a "bad games are bad" thread... which I don't mind. I like to see all of the different types of awful games and game ideas being presented together. We should add more here.

[Koumei]

Most of the bad ones I know of (that aren't well-documented here) are ancient ones from before 3E, that nobody plays any more (Forge, anything by Palladium etc,)

Though I'm sure I could round up a few people I know and ask them to submit their D&D houserules to me trollface.psd