Pathfinder: the Lowdown

[hogarth]

According to someone on the Paizo boards, he did some stuff for d20 Modern

Wow, I know Paizo like sifting through other people's garbage for their stuff, but taking on someone who touched d20 modern? That's low.

Apparently that poster was just smoking something. He worked on RPGA stuff (with Erik Mona, e.g.), Star Wars Saga Edition, and 4E stuff.

[Koumei]

That's a relief. I mean, 4E is still a bad sign, and Saga is basically "d20 modern adapted to Star Wars" with the feat-talent-feat-talent thing, but with any luck the talents might be halfway interesting and the classes more balanced.

[ubernoob]

Saga was actually a halfway ok game, actually. More playable and interesting than 4E by far.

[For Valor]

Saga was actually a halfway ok game, actually. More playable and interesting than 4E by far.

... There are things less playable and less interesting than 4e?

[ubernoob]

Saga was actually a halfway ok game, actually. More playable and interesting than 4E by far.

... There are things less playable and less interesting than 4e?

Saga uses a LOT of the same design as 4E. The system isn't exactly balanced (like, why would you ever play anything besides a jedi), but it is INTERESTING (especially force choke, which can solve every problem at lower levels).

[Username17]

The Saga skill system is actually kind of interesting. It's basically the 4e system, where you get a level bonus to everything and then binarily get training and focus bonuses or you don't. It has problems, but without skill challenges to muck shit up it is a perfectly acceptable replacement for the 3.5 skill system. Basically it guarantees that anything you actually spend for is something that is at least kind of level appropriate. More so than in the skill ranks system anyway. You can make a very good argument that starting at the Saga Skill System and working up would be better than starting at the 3.5 or 4e skill system.

But the question nonetheless remains: if Paizo is setting themselves up as the white knight to save us from 4e, why are they buying up people who got fired from 4e to do it?

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

Saga was broke as all crap.

It probably WAS a better skill system to start from but the actual end point it reached was pretty bad.

The fact of the matter was that while skills scaled with level the skill proficiency/specialization stuff allowed you to front load your so called level appropriate ranks to the point that you were so far off the level appropriate scale that you were basically off the RNG.

And since you could do that with a skill that became an attack bonus that targetted a weak defense that meant that force stun and friends ruled the universe.

Aside from that basically everything it did as a system was in some way a hybrid of something done in 4e... or something done in D20 fucking Modern. There were things that were good "ideas" like... but they were implemented sufficiently badly to discredited the actually potentially good ideas.

The only thing that made SAGA any good to any bugar was how insanely bad the prior d20 star wars edition was. SAGA still wasn't actually playable.

[magnuskn]

Saga uses a LOT of the same design as 4E. The system isn't exactly balanced (like, why would you ever play anything besides a jedi),

Skill points, lots of talents from other classes... basically, if you want to play a Jedi as you know them from the movies or books, the worst thing you can do is take Jedi as your first class level. Jedi suck at negotiating. They only have two skill points and Persuasion isn't even on their class skill list. And since you never receive new skill points due to changing classes, your first level class choice impacts everything going forward.

Taking a level or ten of Jedi doesn't necessarily mean that you are one in Saga. As a player and GM for SW: Saga, I've found that a generic random dude with force sensitivity and some Jedi levels added on later for Block/Deflect beats out a pure Jedi on all levels in power. You don't have to deal with the Jedi code and you get all the doodads a Jedi gets. And you can take some of the best talents of other classes, like Fool's Luck or Evasion.

[magnuskn]

The only thing that made SAGA any good to any bugar was how insanely bad the prior d20 star wars edition was. SAGA still wasn't actually playable.

Well, I got to dispute that. I definitely agree with your assertion that Use the Force vs. defenses was broken as hell at the lower levels, especially with Skill Focus ( which is why I restricted Skill Focus: UtF to be admissable only as early as level 6, to at least balance it somewhat out ). But since I've been playing at level 10-12 for some time now, I've noticed that things definitely even out somewhat. Force Stun still is very good, but not as amazingly so as it was some levels ago.

It's still pretty much the best thing for a player to make his character force sensitive, as this opens up tons of options with just a few feats, but the game becomes actually less broken the higher up the level goes, as opponents defenses outstrip skills checks by a sizable margin. Destiny points are still broken as hell, though.

[PhoneLobster]

Well the main problem with the skills vs defense issue was the front loading, over time this reduced, but not enough, but also over time there accrued various bonuses through measly ugly little stacking of crappy +1 talents in a giant pile.

There was always some possibility that EVENTUALLY those crappy +1 talents wouldn't be enough to keep up, or would sway to the defensive side (unlikely) but seriously if you stuck around playing SAGA edition to find out then you were some sort of hideous masochist.

Saga edition had like 3 things you could do.
1) Punch things, do it slowly, take your time, add all your fucking +1s in a god damn pile. Say "I attack" and roll a dice each turn, FOREVER.
2) Punch things with force, do it quickly, win pretty much without rolling, screw the plus ones, you front load with +5s or +10s or something stupid like that (it's been a while but I remember some BIG bonuses there). Also do this FOREVER.
3) Abuse the wealth system and stupid ass noble or whatever it was cash as class features and buy an army of droids. Also if possibly be a droid who owns and army of droids. Also if they die you are screwed because cash bonus class features ARE NON REFUNDABLE.

Potential viable builds were... far too narrow and dull.

Hell wasn't saga edition the one with the prestige class that actually sold you the ability "Cut someones arm off with your light saber... but only if the blow is killing them anyway". No really how incredibly badly written is a rules set that gives away the power to say "and his hand falls off!" when you kill people and makes you exchange that for things like +1 to attack rolls or the ability to deflect god damn blaster bolts with a skill check that will vastly exceed your defense ratings?

No really. SAGA edition was written by utter incompetents. If you need any further proof of that then remember that the "brilliant" minds behind SAGA brought us things like 4E and THIS and THIS sort of utter stupid-o-wank-o-crappery.

PS, Seriously. Two of those projects are so crappy they (STILL!) haven't even produced any more stuff for me to like, scathingly review or anything, they are just on going content free scams designed to earn money off stupid RPG fan boys without actually providing an RPG system of any form, let alone a functional form, in return.

[magnuskn]

Well the main problem with the skills vs defense issue was the front loading, over time this reduced, but not enough, but also over time there accrued various bonuses through measly ugly little stacking of crappy +1 talents in a giant pile.

There was always some possibility that EVENTUALLY those crappy +1 talents wouldn't be enough to keep up, or would sway to the defensive side (unlikely) but seriously if you stuck around playing SAGA edition to find out then you were some sort of hideous masochist.

Saga edition had like 3 things you could do.
1) Punch things, do it slowly, take your time, add all your fucking +1s in a god damn pile. Say "I attack" and roll a dice each turn, FOREVER.
2) Punch things with force, do it quickly, win pretty much without rolling, screw the plus ones, you front load with +5s or +10s or something stupid like that (it's been a while but I remember some BIG bonuses there). Also do this FOREVER.
3) Abuse the wealth system and stupid ass noble or whatever it was cash as class features and buy an army of droids. Also if possibly be a droid who owns and army of droids. Also if they die you are screwed because cash bonus class features ARE NON REFUNDABLE.

Potential viable builds were... far too narrow and dull.

Hell wasn't saga edition the one with the prestige class that actually sold you the ability "Cut someones arm off with your light saber... but only if the blow is killing them anyway". No really how incredibly badly written is a rules set that gives away the power to say "and his hand falls off!" when you kill people and makes you exchange that for things like +1 to attack rolls or the ability to deflect god damn blaster bolts with a skill check that will vastly exceed your defense ratings?

No really. SAGA edition was written by utter incompetents. If you need any further proof of that then remember that the "brilliant" minds behind SAGA brought us things like 4E and THIS and THIS sort of utter stupid-o-wank-o-crappery.

I don't got the energy to refute all that and I'd probably agree in essence with half of what you said, but the point I tried to make remains, that Saga actually gets more playable and fun as the levels go higher. I've been having tons of fun with my character in the last levels, although that could also be because the GM is very good and varies encounters up enough to challenge everybody.

Even while force-users remain the characters with the most varied options, their powers are not automatic successes anymore ( and there are feats to mitigate that further ). Even non-force users by now have a huge host of options to choose from, due to the system having a big enough number of source books. At least 70% of the new options are very situational, but there are always gems to be found.

[malak]

but the point I tried to make remains, that Saga actually gets more playable and fun as the levels go higher. I've been having tons of fun with my character in the last levels, although that could also be because the GM is very good and varies encounters up enough to challenge everybody.

Please leave 'but I have tons of FUN' as answer to a post detailing mechanical problems on the paizo board.

[Roy]

Saga was actually a halfway ok game, actually. More playable and interesting than 4E by far.

... There are things less playable and less interesting than 4e?

Fatal?

As for Pathfailure and 4.Fail, well let's put it to you this way.

It's been how long into both of their life cycles?

I've been tracking some statistics and 3.5 games have very consistently outnumbered 4.Fail games by a factor of 2:1. Pathfailure is lucky to be outnumbered 8:1 by 3.5. Often, it is more outnumbered than this.

Consider that carefully. At least 2/3rds of the people playing D&D are still playing the previous edition. And everywhere except the Pathfailure forums, no one really cares about Pathfailure.

[Xur]

[...]

I've been tracking some statistics and 3.5 games have very consistently outnumbered 4.Fail games by a factor of 2:1. Pathfailure is lucky to be outnumbered 8:1 by 3.5. Often, it is more outnumbered than this.

Consider that carefully. At least 2/3rds of the people playing D&D are still playing the previous edition. And everywhere except the Pathfailure forums, no one really cares about Pathfailure.

Really? Didn't expect that... did you count PbP into this? Because I got the impression there are quite some 4E PbP games going on.

[Username17]

Looking through U-Con's upcoming events, there is only one 4e and one Pathfinder game on the schedule. d20 has that shit beaten with its Starship Troopers variant alone. Now, the "living campaigns" field a lot of table space. Pathfinder society is putting up thirty four tables over the weekend, with the Living Forgotten Realms people hosting 22, and the 3.5 Blackmoor people putting up only 16. Now personally, I don't give a rat fuck about the living campaigns, because they are stupid. But it seems clear that if you really cared about those things, the Pathfinder Society is the way and the future. At least, for the foreseeable future anyway.

Outside the persistent tournament environment, yeah 4e and Pathfinder both seem like ghost towns.

-Username17

[hogarth]

Outside the persistent tournament environment, yeah 4e and Pathfinder both seem like ghost towns.

Isn't that just the Law of Conservation of GMs (i.e. every additional Pathfinder Society GM is one fewer miscellaneous Pathfinder game GM in the same slot)?

[Roy]

but the point I tried to make remains, that Saga actually gets more playable and fun as the levels go higher. I've been having tons of fun with my character in the last levels, although that could also be because the GM is very good and varies encounters up enough to challenge everybody.

Please leave 'but I have tons of FUN' as answer to a post detailing mechanical problems on the paizo board with the rest of the fail.

Fixed. Haven't you already been lectured on masochism magnus?

[Roy]

[...]

I've been tracking some statistics and 3.5 games have very consistently outnumbered 4.Fail games by a factor of 2:1. Pathfailure is lucky to be outnumbered 8:1 by 3.5. Often, it is more outnumbered than this.

Consider that carefully. At least 2/3rds of the people playing D&D are still playing the previous edition. And everywhere except the Pathfailure forums, no one really cares about Pathfailure.

Really? Didn't expect that... did you count PbP into this? Because I got the impression there are quite some 4E PbP games going on.

A PbP forum was the primary source of statistics.

3.5 games = ~20, give or take 1-2.
4.Fail games = ~10, give or take 1.
Pathfailure games = 1-2.

[Username17]

Outside the persistent tournament environment, yeah 4e and Pathfinder both seem like ghost towns.

Isn't that just the Law of Conservation of GMs (i.e. every additional Pathfinder Society GM is one fewer miscellaneous Pathfinder game GM in the same slot)?

No. Living campaigns are a very different animal from actual role playing, and the overlap between people who play Living Forgotten Realms and people who play actual RPGs where you can affect the world is surprisingly minimal. One more Pathfinder Society DM is one less Pathfinder Society player, but there's not much reason to believe that the Pathfinder Society DMs draw much from the Pathfinder DMs of real games. Certainly that was never much true of RPGA titles.

What would be really interesting is to walk through the convention center itself and see what people were playing in pickup games on random unassigned tables. Because that has a tendency to be less skewed towards the unusual and bizarre. See con schedules are weird things, where people who have a fondness for weird games will put one in the schedule to attract other people to the same thing. So you get a bunch of entries for Paranoia, Gumshoe, Savage Worlds, and Kobolds Ate My Baby. None of those are bigger than 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons, but if you checked the schedule alone, you would think that they were.

Of course, even then, people play more unusual games at conventions than they do in real life. Schedule or no schedule. But it's instructive that 4th edition D&D has less of a scheduled appearance than Pathfinder does, just as it is instructive that neither has much of a presence that isn't company sponsored and filled with RPGA mouthbreathers.

-Username17

[hogarth]

One more Pathfinder Society DM is one less Pathfinder Society player, but there's not much reason to believe that the Pathfinder Society DMs draw much from the Pathfinder DMs of real games. Certainly that was never much true of RPGA titles.

I think you just never noticed the RPGA eating into the pool of DMs for 3.X because of the overall popularity of 3.X D&D at the time. I suspect that organized play demand at cons is less elastic.

Let's say there's a fixed appetite for 50 organized play tables at your convention. If you have 100 local 3.5 DMs willing to run games, that makes it look like organized play and regular play are equally popular. But if you only have 55 local Pathfinder DMs, that doesn't necessarily mean that organized play is ten times more popular than regular play.

[Kaelik]

I think the point Hogarth, is that RPGA DMs were traditionally people who played 3.5, but never DMed outside of RPGA ever, because they couldn't DM without the structure.

So a Pathfinder Society DM is pretty likely to be a Pathfinder player, who doesn't actually DM Pathfinder outside of Society.

[Username17]

The RPGA stuff is even more out-there than it used to be. You have to pay money per event to play in it, and your characters are stored in central databases and stuff. There is very little crossover between PAthfinder Society and people sitting around playing a regular game.

If you play Pathfinder normally, your character is not admissible in Pathfinder Society. And they won't just give you one either. In order to play in a Pathfinder society event, you would have to have a Pathfinder Society character and have paid money to participate in the events required to advance that character to high enough level to participate in that event.

It really is very starkly divided from real gaming. So no, I don't think that Pathfinder Society is absorbing a lot of DMs who would otherwise be doing regular play.

-Username17

[Juton]

At the last con I went to, there where about 8 3.5 games and 6 PF games, with 1 4e game bringing up the rear. So that's my anecdata.

Out of a strange masochistic urge I visit the PF forums, and they've finished their initial Magus play test. For those of you who don't like inflicting pain on themselves the PF Magus is supposed to be a Gish-in-a-can, but it's basically a Bard with the singing bits removed and evocation n' Fightan' bits grafted on. In short, it sucks.

The popular consensus is that Buhlman simply sucks at game design. I think he's a bit craftier than that, he takes an old flawed concept and makes it look shiny and new without actually fixing it. A lot of Paizos think that 3.5 is balanced, so actually making the Monk work would make it OP in their eyes. The Magus is a bit different because he's not cribbing of the Duskblade. My guess is it will focus on an inferior form of melee combat (1H) but will allow casting of certain spells in the same action (mainly evocations). I think it will keep the Bard's chassis but add on a bunch of unimpressive class features and be able to keep up DPS wise with low-optimization builds. Ultimately it will fail as a Gish because it will lack the utility spells of the Wizard and the endurance of the Fighter. For those playing along at home, that's exactly how it was during it's first play test, he'll just make it look brighter and shinier so that the guppies will swallow it.

[hogarth]

It really is very starkly divided from real gaming. So no, I don't think that Pathfinder Society is absorbing a lot of DMs who would otherwise be doing regular play.

Well, we can say "Is not!" and "Is so!" all day, I suppose. But I would be very surprised if the number of tables of folks playing Pathfinder went from 35 to 1 if Pathfinder Society play weren't offered.

[DMReckless]

The RPGA stuff is even more out-there than it used to be. You have to pay money per event to play in it, and your characters are stored in central databases and stuff. There is very little crossover between PAthfinder Society and people sitting around playing a regular game.

If you play Pathfinder normally, your character is not admissible in Pathfinder Society. And they won't just give you one either. In order to play in a Pathfinder society event, you would have to have a Pathfinder Society character and have paid money to participate in the events required to advance that character to high enough level to participate in that event.

It really is very starkly divided from real gaming. So no, I don't think that Pathfinder Society is absorbing a lot of DMs who would otherwise be doing regular play.

-Username17

This is not entirely true.

Your character has to be a Pathfinder Society Character, registered on the Paizo site, and have Chronicle Sheets showing each game you've played in, and what the results of those games were. These Chronicle Sheets/game results have to be reported by the GM for the characters involved in games they run. So, yes, your character can only level, get items, etc. in Pathfinder Society Games.

However:

1) Any GM and 4-6 players can play/run PFS games, at any time, not just at conventions or other places where you might have to pay to play. A number of brick n mortar stores have PFS tables on specific nights, with no pay-to-play.

2) There are guidelines for internet-based games, so you can get credit for Tabletop, OpenRPG, etc games. So you could have a higher level character from the comfort of your own home.

3) They are talking about looking at incorporating Adventure Path and Module play into PFS play... (Because people are complaining about having burned through all the available {2 per month} PFS Modules by playing a game or two a week.)

I think you'll find pay-to-play is pretty much a convention-only thing, not a PFS thing.


All that said, as someone who runs PF for a ftf group and a number of online games on OpenRPG, I have run PFS games at conventions because (a) they are formatted for a 4 hour slot (b) the low amount of prep they take (c) I was incentivised at the release of the PF RPG Gen Con (d) easier mustering in a convention setting, among other reasons. Primarily, when I go to conventions, I GM for incentives (free admission, TShirts, swag, whatever) and look for games I don't usually get to play in my non-gm time.