Adaro

Diffan's page

1,249 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,249 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:

When D&D 5E came out in 2014, it was not an immediate smash. Pathfinder 1E was still quite dominant in the marketplace.

What happened?

Couple of reasons:

#1 Appealing to the Average/Weekend Gamer. This is, I believe, one of the biggest appeals for the game. It's simple enough on the player that his choices need not be in-depth min/maxing calculations where Theorycraft is largely irrelevant and pointless OR it can be far more in-depth if you want - still the disparity of someone who goes full-hog Min/Max and that Casual Person that doesn't isn't substantially high.

#2 It's Easier to Run. Seriously, running a combat encounter is so much simpler from a DM perspective and a lot of that is because there aren't TONS of sub-systems where people are constantly looking up rules and modifiers and adjustments based on a specific spell in it's application to that particular instant...it gets bogged down real quick. 3.5 and 4E (the latter due to too many Interrupts) meant that combat had the potential to turn into a slog, which got worse at you go higher level.

Just look at something simple like a bigger crit range. In 5E, the Champion just crits on a 19. Easy peasy. No additional rolling to "confirm". Now multiply that by 3-4 per character and/or monster. Yeah no thanks.

#3 It's more modular AND your options matter. Lets face it, the VAST majority of Feats in 3.5 (and PF1) aren't great or - at best - simply add a bonus, but it's largely Exception-based. Meaning that you can do X, but it usually a horrible idea that will fail unless you roll high. This feat eliminates that penalty. Meaning these feats are the "exception" to the normal rule. 5E just says "nah, those penalties are pretty dumb, lets ignore them." Like Firing into Melee. In 5e, the monster might provide cover but...that's it. In 3.5 it's Cover plus you take a penalty to attack rolls. More math means less time playing.

As for it being modular, well it's easy to change campaign specifics to make it more lethal or more heroic with very little change to what the PCs or Monsters do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:


More dex to damage options. Yes I know this is "controversial".

I still don't see why this is controversial? What, it causes a bump in DPR? Oh heavens no! It makes strength less necessary? Yeah welcome to 3.5/PF where magic trumps everything! Honestly, I lump Dex-to-Damage haters in with those who thought Monkey Grip was too good (still laughing at that one) and how the Vow of Poverty is super broken (yeah, ok...)

I'm just glad we got the Unchained Rogue when we did.


It is Dragon magazine #310, page 46. Champions of the Divine lists Paladins for NG (sentinel), CG (avenger), LN (enforcer), Incarnate (Neutral), & Anarch (CN). They list the "Paladin" as the LG version.


Wow a 9-year old thread Resurrection....that's impressive.

I ended 2008 finishing up some 3.5 games.

I started 2019 with a 5e and a 4e game, lol.


I never enforced it because its unrealistic and ridiculously penalizing. Ive slept in gambison and plate over night and woke up pretty much ok. Not overly fatigued or in that much pain either. There's some stiffness but that goes away after about 10 min of moving around. I don't think I'm any more capable or better than D&D fighters...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Barathos wrote:
You know all those feats and class features that let you do things that any person could reasonably try? I'd delete them.

I can disagree with this at all, lol. Mundane feats that basically let you not get punched in the face for trying a "maneuver" yea ditch those things OR at least let one feat cover them all under one umbrella.


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Diffan wrote:
What determines morality is specifically what people pull from their own experiences. Your preference is the Paladin falls. Mine is he wouldn't is a good example of why this matters.

And that, to my mind, is exactly why the rules should specify this; so that players will have a consistent framework of expectation on alignment from table to table.

I would far rather have an established system within that game that was utterly at variance to my personal morality, than have it vary depending on DM whim. Because personal experience and real-world morality does not matter in this context, any more than Macbeth's personal morality is any reflection on the beliefs of any actor who has ever played him, and reliable consistency within the game does.

Except the rules are pretty ambiguous in terms of specific actions as they relate to particular circumstances. In my Paladin - demon example is there a specific rule in the game that says this is an evil act?


Piccolo wrote:
Diffan wrote:
OmniMage wrote:

In regards to quantity of spells, I prefer to have more spells than I need than not having enough.

Diffan wrote:

Practical Metamagic (quicken spell) -1 to spell adjustment

Arcane Thesis (enervation) -1 to any Metamagic feat used for the spell.

Slaymate (Libris Mortis) -1 to Metamagic spell adjustment for all Necromancy spells.

So split, empowered, and fell drain are all now at 0 and quickened is now 1.

I haven't heard of many these. This is one of the things I dislike about DND/Pathfinder. So many little things you need to learn to compete with the big players.

I think your problem is allowing so many things affect the effective level of spells. Wait! Do all of those belong to the same version of the game? I think I see a bit of DND 3.5 in your pathfinder game.

This was a 3.5 game (the forgotten realms super adventure path) and we were already at 16th level. Of course I said no to the character but it easily expressed one way that the mechanics were really ridiculous

Why did you decide not to allow it? It's perfectly legitimate, and intelligent of the player. Granted, it wouldn't work on a lot of foes like undead, constructs etc, which you could then use against the necromancer. But them's the breaks if you are a one trick pony, Pc's like that have huge weaknesses.

I didn't allow it because I read the rest of the adventure and out of the remaining 12 or so encounters there were only 2 that heavily involved constructs and undead (one of which included both). And there are other gimmicks that he had besides a suped up Enervate spell. He's a pretty smart guy.

The party make-up consisted of a scout/ranger, duskblade, a fighter/crusader/purple dragon knight, and another Fighter. Not exceedingly optimized but has held their own through the adventure. By allowing the DN in, he most likely would've dominated all but a few encounters, making their presence all but needless.

And yes as the DM it's my job to change - alter - fix - challenge the PCs based on the party makeup, but with a premade adventure I simply didnt want to. Plus the other players weren't too keen on simply sitting back while another player runs rough-shod over most of the challenges. So I said no.


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Diffan wrote:

As for alignment, I don't have a problem with them being elements in a game. Certainly continuing the trend of L/C - G/E axis is something I'd like to see, but it's the forcing of this forced behavior that I really don't think adds to the game, especially when it's often used as a cudgel to enforce Catch-22 scenarios or simply make it all the more difficult on a party of varying people's ethos.

That's exactly what I see as the strong point of it, though. Enabling role-playing challenges, requiring people to play a character's worldview consistently to derive the benefits of that worldview (and incidentally, strongly encouraging people to get inside the head of moral and ethical perspectives different from their own seems a positive thing to me.)

Ok but then why not enforce that across the board? All of what yiu said is fine and definitely can be fun but if only a few PCs are affected by it, I think that's where the problem is. Like I said, all in or all out.

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Quote:


For example, if I paladin were to say he's going to torture a captured demon with holy water and religious relics to obtain information, I'd probably say "OK". I believe that such creature is the embodiment of evil and immortal, thus no quarter or mercy is applicable. Some DM's would out-right rule that as a violation of a Paladin's code. Who's right? Who's wrong?

In-game, whoever the rules say is right or wrong. End of discussion. (My own preference would be to rule that example as making a paladin fall, for what that is worth, because I do not view a commitment to Lawful Good behaviour as flexible based on whether the entity one would be behaving badly towards deserves it or not.)

In contexts other than in-game, it doesn't matter. Tying in-game alignment rules to real-world morality issues misses the fairly fundamental aspect of role-playing that your character isn't you.

What determines morality is specifically what people pull from their own experiences. Your preference is the Paladin falls. Mine is he wouldn't is a good example of why this matters.

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Quote:


If a DM feels really strongly about such aspect, make them put them in the game, thus holding strong to their convictions, don't let them justify their decisions because they point to the rule book and say "well it IS the rules *shrugs*".

Asking the DM to justify their decisions based on anything other than an objectively specified ruling is pulling directly against the potential benefits of alignment as a system, because it goes right back into making it an issue of individual perspective. If you don't like alignment, don't play a game with alignment, but if you are going to play one with alignment, agreeing to a consistent and coherent basis beforehand is definitely more practical than allowing for ongoing debate.

I disagree. In our 5e games we certainly kept all the alignment aspects of previous editions but dont have hard-coded requirements or "falls" for special classes and it works just fine, we have moral dilemmas and morality tests but failing them doesn't turn just one PC into a pile of empty waste.

For example if a Paladin in our 5e game decided to do something against his oath and deity - based on severity - he might be forced into the Oathbreaker path instead of the one he's currently on. Maybe it's gradual, maybe it's a full change. Its up to the DM to decide. But he doesn't become a pretty useless tag-along to the group.


OmniMage wrote:

In regards to quantity of spells, I prefer to have more spells than I need than not having enough.

Diffan wrote:

Practical Metamagic (quicken spell) -1 to spell adjustment

Arcane Thesis (enervation) -1 to any Metamagic feat used for the spell.

Slaymate (Libris Mortis) -1 to Metamagic spell adjustment for all Necromancy spells.

So split, empowered, and fell drain are all now at 0 and quickened is now 1.

I haven't heard of many these. This is one of the things I dislike about DND/Pathfinder. So many little things you need to learn to compete with the big players.

I think your problem is allowing so many things affect the effective level of spells. Wait! Do all of those belong to the same version of the game? I think I see a bit of DND 3.5 in your pathfinder game.

This was a 3.5 game (the forgotten realms super adventure path) and we were already at 16th level. Of course I said no to the character but it easily expressed one way that the mechanics were really ridiculous


Thedmstrikes wrote:
Diffan wrote:
With these, he augmented the Enervation spell to a point where he could cast a Split Ray empowered fell drained quickened Enervation using a 5th level spell slot and a split ray empowered fell drained enervation using a 4th level slot. That's 4 rays a turn that dropped targets on average 7 to 10 level per ray.
I am confused by this situation as all of the metamagics which are added to these castings make the spells above 9th level slots. Enervation by itself starts at level four, quickened adds +3, split ray, +2, empowered, +2, fell drained another +2. By my math, the character needs a 13th level spell slot he does not even have access to. Maybe he is using a metamagic wand, that still gives him 10th level spell slots to memorize the rest. Am I missing something else here (I realize it is 3.5, but I also checked those as well)?

Practical Metamagic (quicken spell) -1 to spell adjustment

Arcane Thesis (enervation) -1 to any Metamagic feat used for the spell.

Slaymate (Libris Mortis) -1 to Metamagic spell adjustment for all Necromancy spells.

So split, empowered, and fell drain are all now at 0 and quickened is now 1.


Piccolo wrote:
I definitely agree about reducing the number of feats needed to use various maneuvers, like dirty trick, item tricks, wrestling, unarmed combat etc. Honestly, all those booklets with additional combat options that are only useful if you blow a few feats on them seems silly. Everyone should be able to do them somewhat effectively.

Exactly! Looking at most forms of medieval combat, the notion is that a shield IS a weapon and often effective at being one too. A Fighter, for instance, shouldn't have to burn precious resource commodity (feats) on using a weapon he's already proficient with in the first place. Hitting someone with a sword - shield bash combo was an extremely effective tactic and this goes back waay before medieval Europe.

As my group and I sit down to discuss how to "Fix" various issues with 3.5/PF one of the points I'm going to bring up is either A) eliminating the "cool tricks" Feat Tax and just make combat manevuer simply non-penalizing (no provoke AoO's, no chance to disarm on failed attempts, etc.) and just make maybe one feat that incorporates ALL specific forms of combat maneuvers, granting you a bonus to all the checks at once. And the effects would naturally scale with level (probably +4 from 1-5; +6 from 6-10; +8 from 11-15; +10 from 16-20).

Other aspects, such as Two-Weapon Fighting would also be simplified too. It's simply off-hand needs to be light with -2/-2 to all attacks. If you want to wield two one-handed weapons, grab the Dual-Wielder feat (grants bonus to AC, removes the penalty, and allows you to use a one-handed weapon in your off-hand). This whole "it's -8/-10 with this condition, -6/-6 with this condition...blah blah" is too convoluted and almost never ever used at the table because NO player I've ever encountered was like "yeah, I'll grab two weapons and incur penalties so darn steep that it makes me less effective that simply punching with my bare fist!".

Piccolo wrote:
I have no problems with alignments or ability modifiers granting more spells.

I had a buddy wanting to join our long-running 3.5 game (we're finishing up the Cormyr, Shadowdale, Anauroch adventures) and he wanted to make a Dread Necromancer. Said DN character had 8 castings of his 5th and 4th level spell slots (the campaign is at 16th level). With these, he augmented the Enervation spell to a point where he could cast a Split Ray empowered fell drained quickened Enervation using a 5th level spell slot and a split ray empowered fell drained enervation using a 4th level slot. That's 4 rays a turn that dropped targets on average 7 to 10 level per ray. He had 16 castings of this a day. More if he used higher level slots to cast them (which he did). There was nothing in the campaign that was ever going to withstand that and I honestly didn't want to have to re-write the whole thing so everyone had Deathward cast on them 24-7.

Even with my "nerf" of no-modifier to extra spells he was getting 6 spell slots from 1st through 6th level. That's 36 spell castings (not including five 7th level and three 8th level slots). I mean, again at what point does the notion of resource management even become an issue in D&D/PF? Everyone always exclaims "well martial get to use their stuff all day long with no chance of tiring...." I don't know about you but at that point, I don't think I've ever witnessed a PC burn through 44 spells in a single adventuring day. Even with more conservative numbers such as from the Wizard, that's still 32 casting of spells from 0 thru 8th level by the time they're 16th.

As for alignment, I don't have a problem with them being elements in a game. Certainly continuing the trend of L/C - G/E axis is something I'd like to see, but it's the forcing of this forced behavior that I really don't think adds to the game, especially when it's often used as a cudgel to enforce Catch-22 scenarios or simply make it all the more difficult on a party of varying people's ethos. For example, if I paladin were to say he's going to torture a captured demon with holy water and religious relics to obtain information, I'd probably say "OK". I believe that such creature is the embodiment of evil and immortal, thus no quarter or mercy is applicable. Some DM's would out-right rule that as a violation of a Paladin's code. Who's right? Who's wrong?

This is why I don't think hard-lined alignment mechanics really do much for the betterment of the gaming system. If a DM feels really strongly about such aspect, make them put them in the game, thus holding strong to their convictions, don't let them justify their decisions because they point to the rule book and say "well it IS the rules *shrugs*".

Piccolo wrote:


You do know that Wish and Miracle etc are not only expensive to cast, but the GM is encouraged to mess with whatever the PC asks for, right? It's like that movie Wishmaster. Those superpowered spells are a last resort, and a trap for munchkins/powergamers/"optimizers".

At the point they can cast these spells, the assumed WBL is so astronomical that the cost is negligible for the most part. And I never really got the whole "Gotcha" aspect DMs did with these spells? Like, it's just not really what I like doing to my players.


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Diffan wrote:

5. Stop Meta-magic stacking

6. Wizards pick 1 school, cast all spells outside that school at 1/2 CL.
I'm strongly in disagreement here. The way to address CMD is to make martials more awesome, not to nerf casters. (People who object to martials being too unrealistic/anime can always play E6 in a system that makes martials awesome at higher levels.)

While I'm not in total disagreement here, HOW do you achieve that? 4e did a great job but people didn't like that approach. The only other way is to give Fighters amazing deadly or imposing critical hit effects and increase how often they trigger. For example DCC does this and on a crit you could make someone deaf permanently or limb loss or decapitate people at later levels. Unless people are willing to accept amazing effects of a weapon-user the CMD will always be a thing where Martialss will never compete with the likes of Wish or Miracle or Gate.

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Diffan wrote:

8. Remove hard-lined alignment requirements. Make DMs own up to their convictions and force it themselves.

Oh heck no. The last thing you want involved in alignment is the DM's own convictions.

Something along the lines of "Here are some common issues that come up with alignment. For game purposes, A, B and C are defined as Good, X, Y and Z are defined as Evil, 1, 2 and 3 are defined as Lawful and 7, 8 and 9 are defined as Chaotic. Good, Evil, Lawful and Chaotic are game-specific technical terms, their purpose is to be consistent and coherent and allow for quick judgements to keep a game moving. Any resemblance to any real-world morality, living or dead, is entirely accidental. Also, Paladins can only ever be Exalted Good, So There."[/I]

Alignment requirements and mechanisms are mostly an old-guard notion that really needs to die in a burning fire. Either everyone gets one or no one gets them. LG only paladins are largely dead (thankfully) and if a DM wants to really keep them then make him the one that enforces it. There's literally zero balancing reason they exist anymore.

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Diffan wrote:

313. Stop excessive number scaling for the sake of scaling. It basically has no meaning after a certain level.

The bigger your numbers, the more granularity you have, and this strikes me as a plus. I want to see lvl 20 Fighters with effective Str of 40 once all the relevant buffs are counted.

If I wanted superheroes I'd play a superhero game. By the late portions of 3e/PF (and to a similar extent - 4E) PCs started looking like God's. Yeah no thanks. I don't want 3/4 of the Monster Manual / Beastiary completely useless because the PCs aren't challenged by them. It just forces the video-game mentality further.

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Diffan wrote:

14. Ability modifiers dont give you extra spells.

Why not ?

Why do casters need 8 spells of each level from basically 1st thru 5th to feel relevant? At a certain point (limited spells and resource management) is a sham of any argument and pointless. It becomes wildly unbalanced as all their spells level AND they get more of them they'd probably ever cast in a single day.

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Diffan wrote:

17. Limit multiclassing. Honestly the GURPS-style of plug-in-play class/feature PF espouses is really annoying.

18. Remove prestige classes, treat them as extensions of the main character - sort of like a template.

I'm strongly in agreement here. GURPS is a great game if you want to play GURPS, but what I want from PF or any other D&D-type game is well-defined classes with a distinct feel to them as they progress from newbie to legend.

I'd go so far as; no multi-classing. No prestige classes. No archetypes. Give me forty well-tested base classes with solid progressions that fit forty worthwhile character concepts, or fifty, or seventy, rather than hundreds of feats and skills and whatnot where it is not humanly possible to test all possible interactions for trap options or game breakers.

(Also, I would like something front and centre that says "Here are the basic axioms about how the game and the game world work. Any combination of interactions between game rules that causes these axioms to break is automatically not valid.")

Less feats that do more is certainly something I'd like to see (a la 5e) and the same goes for Skills (as per my paird down list) and overall less granular minute of options. The whole concept of Exclusion Mechanics (practically what 3e is based on) is dumb. If you wanna trip someone just try. No half-dozen caveats with "fixer" feats to not suck as described action that is the whole Improved [insert CMB trick here] feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:


How about starting here for a base of what people are looking for?

Well when theres nothing really there to begin with, I think its a good base lol. Id honestly take anything that helps facilitates that sort of Character concept better.


Ruzza wrote:

We should take a look at some of these and see why they aren't well known or brought up more often.

Diffan wrote:

· Goad (complete adventurer)

Goad from 3.5 had a Charisma pre-req which necessitates a certain build of a tanking character. There are big and obvious trade offs for building a character in this way. This is a time where each ability point is a lot more important than it is in the playtest right now (where we're seeing a lot higher stats thanks to the ability boosts). If a player showed me a "tanking fighter" that focused on Charisma (of which the DC was based on), then it's an interesting choice and build. But, not optimal. Sub-par for sure.

I dont see why a specific Charisma score is required to get the feat but I dont have objections to using Charisma in this fashion.

Ruzza wrote:
Diffan wrote:

· Test of Mettle (knight 4th level, PH2)

· Glowering Threat (fighter 2 exploit, Heroes of the fallen lands)
· Come and Get It (fighter 7 exploit, PHB)
I don't think it's fair to include 4e content in this list as the game was much more focused around grid movement and battle mechanics. I know that I don't speak for everyone, but this isn't any direction I would like the game to go in. The end result is that Pathfinder and 4e are apples and oranges and comparing their mechanics doesn't really apply here.

1. The knight is from 3.5 with the use of his Knightly Challenge feature (test of Mettle at 4th level). It requires a caveat to CR, language, and specific Int scores of the target. It's one of the classes better features.

2. I added in 4e exploits because its important to show the concept isn't alien to TTRPGs or D&D specifically. The fact that 4e uses squares (as opposed to feet) is a non-sequitur as is the notion that somehow 4e is more combat focused than PF (it isn't at all, BTW). The ability to draw fire is certainly a tactic many class-based RPGs use in some capacity.

Ruzza wrote:
Diffan wrote:

· Antagonize (PFsrd)

This is actually what I thought more people would bring up. PF1e had an easily accessible "taunt" mechanic that no one ever used. Why? The action economy for it was terrible. You use your singular standard action to get one enemy to attack you on your next turn. It's a trap feat in PF1e. To make that equivalent, would you accept a 3 action use taunt in the playtest? I feel like I most would decry that as a trap feat.

We can't simply fix that? Make it require less actions to use? I dont see that as a problem per-se.

Ruzza wrote:
Diffan wrote:

· Boasting Taunt (barbarian 6th level, APG)

This is a good example of a "taunt" mechanic that I would love to see. It debuffs the opponent with the shaken mechanic until they succeed at an attack on the barbarian. It's not forcing any action and it's making your choices impactful for your team. Yes, this 100% all the way.

It certainly a step in the right direction, I'll grant you that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Secondly, run it where the enemies have the access to taunt and see how your players feel after encountering. Once more, I feel like taking away player autonomy is going to feel, at the end of the day, not fun. It introduces a challenge, yes, but overcoming it doesn't feel like a victory so much as it does, "Oh, good, that annoying obstacle is gone."

Unless you're suggesting that we also get rid of spells, such as Command, fear, sleep, confusion, or most spells of the Enchantment school then I don't think "player agency" is really that much of an problem. Heck at least with a taunt you're not losing your actions at all unlike many spells where's it's you stand there babbling like an idiot or drop everything and walk stupidity towards the guy commanding you.

I dislike very much the free pass magic always gets simply because it's magic yet Martials have an ability that's not as reliable, usually has caveats, and functions in a limited factor but its considered "broken".


6 people marked this as a favorite.

· Goad (complete adventurer)
· Test of Mettle (knight 4th level, PH2)
· Antagonize (PFsrd)
· Boasting Taunt (barbarian 6th level, APG)
· Glowering Threat (fighter 2 exploit, Heroes of the fallen lands)
· Come and Get It (fighter 7 exploit, PHB)

And the list goes on...

Taunts, goading, pulling Aggro, and other distracting or creative non-magical devices have had places in D&D/PF for many many years so lets stop pretending that the notion is crazy or doesnt have precedent in TTRPGs


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RazarTuk wrote:

Once again, Sentinel and the Guardian sphere. If you're wearing a tin can and have a massive pool of hp to boot, most remotely intelligent enemies will ignore you in favor of that squishier-looking person in back casting spells and not wearing armor. But then you challenge them and even give them a bonus to hitting you, while if they try attacking anyone else, they take a penalty to attack and trigger an attack of opportunity from you. Suddenly, ignoring the tin can doesn't seem like as smart of a decision.

It may not be aggro in the sense of forcing enemies to attack you, but you're still forcing them to think about whether it's worth it to ignore you.

Or practically every defender-role character in 4th Edition. There was an article written long ago called "why fighter the Fighter?" and went on to list the dozens of reasons why vanilla flavored Fighters in 3e/3.5 (article was written pre-PF) were never engaged with until all the other squishes were dead or dropped.

Unless you were a chain-tripper or some other AoE-style warrior with tricked out Strength and size buffs (Certain items, enlarge person, Jotunbrud feat, etc) then people were running right past your slow butt to hit the allies. They'd suffer a one-shot AoO and continue on and you'd have to huff and puff to get back to your allies for that one attack standard action.

As for the Fighter itself - I think they're missing the mark in just how versatile the class should be in terms of handling of his tools (ie. weapons and armor). Just as an example - the shield. Every major warring culture in our known history has used a shield at some point. Every one of them knew a shield was a weapon. There is no arguing about it, it's fact. Unfortunately RPGs think this isn't so and PF2e isn't any different because they list it as an Improvised Weapon (history says otherwise).

Or how about the penalties to speed in heavy armor despite numerous examples of the weight being evenly distributed and not really hampering maneuverability OR speed yet here we are again, thinking your classic armored knight walked like a stiff-legged Tin-Man without his oil-can.


Oh where to begin...

1. Remove iterative attack penalties
2. Allow all attacks on a standard action, full-attack action adds one additional attack.
3. Reduce the Skills to 17
4. Give Martials more skill points
5. Stop Meta-magic stacking
6. Wizards pick 1 school, cast all spells outside that school at 1/2 CL.
7. Special Mounts are a spell, not class feature for Paladins.
8. Remove hard-lined alignment requirements. Make DMs own up to their convictions and force it themselves.
9. Cut down on the types of modifiers. More than 10 is ridiculous.
10. Make it easier to perform combat maneuvers.
11. Couple Feats together, make them bigger and actually worth their investment.
12. Remove most Stat requirements for Feats.
13. Stop excessive number scaling for the sake of scaling. It basically has no meaning after a certain level.
14. Ability modifiers dont give you extra spells.
15. Less higher level spell slots (1 or 2 less at 9th level)
16. Dex to damage with specific weapons.
17. Limit multiclassing. Honestly the GURPS-style of plug-in-play class/feature PF espouses is really annoying.
18. Remove prestige classes, treat them as extensions of the main character - sort of like a template.
19. Add in non-magical healing
20. 5-ft. step causes an AoO if it leaves a threatened area into a non-threatened area.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighter
Cleric
Wizard
Rogue

Branch off these with Archetypes:
Fighter/Cleric = Crusader
Cleric of Nature = Druid
Wizard/Rogue = Bard
Fighter with emphasis on hand-to-hand combat = Monk
Wizard that foregoes traditional training = Sorcerer
Fighter/Rogue with emphasis on foraging, tracking, and camouflages = Ranger
Fighter with irresistible surges of wrath and fury = Berserker.

Done.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Igwilly wrote:

The Paladin, as any other class, has changed with time. However, they still are the Paladin. Just as the Wizard still is the Wizard, and the Fighter, and...

"Opening" up the Paladin to other alignments is not "changing" the class, is destroying it by changing their fundamental nature.
A fighter still fights. A wizard still casts arcane spells. Therefore, paladins should still be paladins, even if their abilities change over time.

And this article proposes a terrific approach to the paladin! Paladin fans have much to celebrate!
If you don't like the class, play another ;)

Doesn't work that way.

Part of the appeal of the type of hero the Paladin represents is the exclusivity.

If you open it up, you destroy that exclusivity, and you destroy the class.

So yes. You being able to play an CG Paladin of Milani damages the LG Paladin, because for us it isn't about what we can play. It is about the class's place in the world. You have to understand that.

Then that should be up to the DM to distinguish. If the exclusivity is important, the DM should then have the conviction to implement that on the game/setting/campaign. That's their job anyhow. Why does a designer in Seattle get to dictate what my Paladin does in Pittsburgh??


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:


All of those words are perfectly appropriate to an archetype or prestige class type mechanic - not a base/core/whatever common 'class' as presented as the fundamental building blocks of YOUR character in the core rulebook. What they are doing here is saying that you can make a fighter yours, and make a rogue yours, and a cleric yours - but Paladin? No - you have to play Gygax's paladin.

Gygax's Paladin was actually a sub-path / archetype of the Fighter anyways. With more limitations and unique characteristics than what this and 3e shadows essentially turned out to be


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serum wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


The Paladin is unique. It isn't "just a class" like many others. It is special. Singular. Unique.

Then it probably doesn't belong with the other classes.

I'd say anything that wasn't Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard is actually unique. The big 4 is the primary basis for all others and they need niché specialities to make them viable concepts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Pathfinder wasnt based on everything ever was, even more the core book. It was based on 3.5.

Which had a lot of roots in previous editions and their traditions. Still, is the Barbarian being saddled with an alignment restriction? The Druid or Monk or Bard? All classes in 3.5 that were alignment restricted.

And so they are in PF1? As far as im aware we dont know if they also wont be in PF2.

Or did they already list this for said classes?

If were going to be toted the "tradition" line then they absolutely should be. Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin all had alignment restrictions in PF1. It would make sense to maintain consistency

Nox Aeterna wrote:


Ultimately it doesnt matter what other editions are rooted on what, PF literally thrived over 4th edt, which is also D&D. The idea wasnt to make a game about everything D&D ever made, it was made to be made out of 3.5, again even more in core.

The idea is tradition. PF1 is simply a houseruled 3.5 system. 3.5 grabbed ideas from previous editions. The traditions of the Paladin are deep and very setting thematic. A LOT of that was lost in 3e (mainly because the class lost a lot of steam mechanically compared to the Fighter).

So if were keeping tradition, why are we also throwing away very strong thematic aspects that made the Paladin special?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:


Diffan wrote:


Which had a lot of roots in previous editions and their traditions. Still, is the Barbarian being saddled with an alignment restriction? The Druid or Monk or Bard? All classes in 3.5 that were alignment restricted.
You can take or leave the "Any Neutral," but for the love of Brigh, remove the restriction on metal armour!

It seems as the designers really want to maintain a consistent image of what thematic elements a class exhibits and for the Druid, a fur-clad savage with primitive weapons and armor is the clear definition here. Im sure some waxing poetic about metal and wild-shape will crop up as the reason.

Remember, "its tradition"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Pathfinder wasnt based on everything ever was, even more the core book. It was based on 3.5.

Which had a lot of roots in previous editions and their traditions. Still, is the Barbarian being saddled with an alignment restriction? The Druid or Monk or Bard? All classes in 3.5 that were alignment restricted.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

Now.. I know this is a playtest, and the point is to try out new things, but stripping that Paladin of this core piece of identity felt like changing what it was, making something else. I am fine with doing that through rules alterations and modifications, like archetypes, but it seems like we would lose something special if the class went away from its roots.

Then I guess we can also expect Barbarians to be non-Lawful, Druids to be any Neutral, Bards to be any non-lawful, Monks to be any-Lawful, Rangers to be any-good, etc?

What about it's roots in being Human only, or tithes, or having specific ability score requirements? Or only having a specific number of magical items?

These are just as significant in their legacy as the Lawful Good requirement or don't these count?

Honest Question.

Those aren't really a part of the paladins identity as a holy warrior dedicated to a cause of good and order. The restrictions of yesteryear are just the adornments surrounding that core identity.

me last year wrote:

..as I understand it...they were based off of a (primarily Victorian) romanticised and idealised version of that, (the blood-drenched crusaders) where chivalry and courtesy was offered to all, even the basest of knaves and unbelievers.

I happen to like that mythology and purity of vision despite the history behind it. Aspiring to an ideal that never really existed appeals to me, I guess.

I respectfully disagree. Tithes to a church or charity make perfect sense to a class all about chivalry.

Being human-centric and having ability score requirements were designed to limit the number of this special class because they were supposed to be rare.

Having a limited amount of magical gear showcased just how the Paladin felt about personal wealth - which isn't a lot - and focused more on using the monetary assessts to help their fellow adventures.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

Now.. I know this is a playtest, and the point is to try out new things, but stripping that Paladin of this core piece of identity felt like changing what it was, making something else. I am fine with doing that through rules alterations and modifications, like archetypes, but it seems like we would lose something special if the class went away from its roots.

Then I guess we can also expect Barbarians to be non-Lawful, Druids to be any Neutral, Bards to be any non-lawful, Monks to be any-Lawful, Rangers to be any-good, etc?

What about it's roots in being Human only, or tithes, or having specific ability score requirements? Or only having a specific number of magical items?

These are just as significant in their legacy as the Lawful Good requirement or don't these count?

Honest Question.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
If you stray from lawful good, perform acts anathema to your deity, or violate your code of conduct, you lose your Spell Point pool and righteous ally class feature

See, this always bugged me. If you don't act a certain way you become less, lose stuff, etc. I feel a Paladin fall should bring about a gradual change in abilities to reflect that. I mean look at your common "good guy goes bad" tropes - Anikan Skywalker didn't lose the abilities of a Jedi when he turned to the Sith or Arthas losing his abilities til after he gained Frostmourn, etc.

A Paladin falling should see a feature change, maybe his Lay on Hands hurt instead of heal, his spells can't fuel healing prayers but can be use for offensive powers, his righteous ally feature shifts, etc. I feel this better reflects the trope of falling from grace than just the faucet being turned off.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:


Just because you don't like them does not make them poor design choices.

I can't think of too many exclusion based mechanics that were ever really well received or didn't cause a slew of issues at the gaming table


So to change gears past alignment, what are the chances of paladins and Rangers getting access to 5th level spells? Was this ever discussed?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:
Diffan wrote:
'Meh' 5th Edition did a better job.

First and only time I have had this thought regarding a class too.

This just feels significantly watered down with only mastery of armor replacing a lot of iconic paladin things.

And the threat to bring rainbow alignment paladins in the game only reinforces that notion that we are getting the, as Wei Ji so elegantly put it, American Pilsner of Paladins.

We haven't see all of the changes but I liked how Smites were tied to spells and burning spells for smites is cool and not a separate thing.

As for rainbow of Paladins, 5e has zero "fail" policies and doesn't strictly enforce a specific alignment. Its all tied to the oath and if you start to "fall", you basically transition to an Oath Breaker.

Also there have been Paladins of different alignments since 1e so..yeah. Not to mention that originally the alignment was design to curb some of their power since they were Fighter+ extra stuff. Now though, its outdated and archaic with no significant purpose but nostalgia.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

'Meh' 5th Edition did a better job.


Weather Report wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I'd be all for Critial Fumbles if Criti Hits were better. If they were to look at a game like Dungeon Crawl Classics, classes get crit severity based on level and the effects get worse the higher you are. Its pretty awesome.
That could maybe work, a fighter might deal triple weapon damage on a critical at 7th level, and quadruple damage at 15th or something.

Its not just extra damage though. For example only the Warrior (DCC version of The Fighter class) gets access to Crit table V. Things on this table include cutting an opponent's scalp, dealing an extra +2d12 damage and blinding the target until healed or a blow destroys the opponents ear, dealing an extra 1d12 damage and he suffers permanent deafness.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What the hell is a "grey Paladin"?

And neither 4/5e Paladins were weak. Heck the Paladin of Freedom in UA was pretty cool and had some good spells and features.

The Paladins of other alignments in Dragon had some cool concepts too but I'm too lazy to go dig it up to have a side-by-side mechanics comparison right now


I'd be all for Critial Fumbles if Criti Hits were better. If they were to look at a game like Dungeon Crawl Classics, classes get crit severity based on level and the effects get worse the higher you are. Its pretty awesome.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Plethora of Paladins....
Anti-Paladin...
Paladins of different alignments from Dragon magazine and Unearthed Arcana...
The entire 4E game...
The entire 5E game...

All of them have Paladins that aren't forced LG and do/did just fine from both a mechanic and lore-based stand point.


Bluenose wrote:
ryric wrote:

Stuff that may be 4e-like but I'm still unsure about:

NPC/monster building uses different rules than PCs
That's how every edition of D&D has worked except for 3e. They even managed to restrain themselves from going that way with 5e, where nearly all the other times the 3e mechanics clashed with traditional D&D they went the 3e way.

I dunno, there's quite a bit of departure such as the removal of different attacks for classes (THACO & BAB) and alignment requirement for classes. They did go 3e's multiclass route though, which I'm rather 'meh' about. And the saves are pretty unique to themselves


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ched Greyfell wrote:

4E was terrible. I don't know anyone who liked it. I never played it because I read the rulebooks and they were a huge turnoff. I sat thru some of other people's 4E games and it sounded terrible. Those people quit playing it after a short time because they thought it was terrible.

Pathfinder 2E sounds the opposite of terrible. I'm excited about it.

While I don't know you personally, I enjoy 4E, as do the people in our group. I can't comment on how others play but for the majority of our sessions 4E is done pretty much the same way our 3.5 and PF and 5E games go. There are differences but the game usually takes the same time, though low level 5e is quicker.

For example, using the at-will spell Scorching Burst to melt the ice covering a door or using the Cleave exploit to cut through wooden pillars supporting enemy archers or Sacred Flame prayer to light up a hallway. All of these are "attacks" but used in utility-based ways. I had a Ranger player use Twin Strike to shhot the candles out so it would be easier to sneak down the hallway or Ray of Frost to freeze a small area of water to cross over.

I dunno, maybe we do things differently? We have a blast with 4E (as well as other systems too) and a lot of that comes from the more freeing feeling that system gives us than previous ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
I found it to be a reasonably enjoyable tactical game, as open to roleplaying as many other RPG options, but not very "D&D like."

I'd say that's an accurate portrayal. While I do see D&D-isms in there, they're not consistent with previous editions. Personally I thought it was a good thing, but I also know that's an outlier opinion.

ryric wrote:
So far what we've seen of PF2e doesn't have too much of a "4e vibe" for me - about the only 4e-ism I see that I don't like are the free +level to all skills.

Agreed. I'd like to see a more concrete product before judging it fully. I wasn't a fan of the Fighter preview or All About Actions but the Cleric and Rogue ones were intriguing. And mostly not like 4E.

ryric wrote:

What I don't see and I'm happy not to:

A complete lack of "noncombat" class abilities
Classes not getting anything permanent/distinctive past level 1(i.e. class abilities outside the AEDU structure)
Removal of traditional options like gnomes and druids
All spells turned into damage or healing with minor riders
"Noncombat" spells not usable in combat
Minion enemies that work on their own ruleset

You played 4E a handful of times, so I can only assume you had just the PHB to work with. I assure you, as the game progressed, all of what you stated (aside from Minion rules) is there in 4E.

· Druids were in PHB2, Gnomes were playable in Core but they were in the Monster Manual (later in the PHB2).
· All of the classes in Essentials got class-specific features after 1st level. Its the PHB 1, 2, & 3 that forced total AEDU structure.
· Non-combat spells in combat = Utility powers, Skill Powers, and some feats made casting times of Rituals much shorter.

ryric wrote:


Stuff that may be 4e-like but I'm still unsure about:
NPC/monster building uses different rules than PCs
Damage being weak compared to enemy hp

I've read a bunch of conflicting things about the last two so I'm reserving judgment for now.

I can only hope Monster math and building is different than PC. Its one of th3 single biggest offenders of making classes compete against one another. Not to mention really dumb rules and requirements on monsters that are just going to often die anyways. Plus the metagaming...oh dear the metagaming.

"The enemy wizard shoots 2 bolts of magic missiles."

Player: "Oh so he's only 4th level tops. He doesn't even have access to 3rd level spells yet!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sgt. Ed Itionwarrior wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:
4e was a boardgame, not a role playing game.
Preach it! (wow, it's like 2009 again!)

If only they actually played it......*sigh*


I'm liking a lot of stuff here. Glad to see that Ability score modifiers won't add to oodles of bonus spells. It does make playing a cleric focusing on Strength more appealing.

I also like how Turn Undead is a feat now that just does more cool stuff with channeling. Hopefully there's no more dumb table with 3 different things to track.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about making Spears the amazing weapon they have proven to have been throughout history.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
As for the statement it was removed in errata: never saw that errata (although my group did stop reviewing it sometime around either Psionic Power/Martial Power 2). But your houserule or later errata doesn't mean it wasn't part of the rules for 4th ed.
PHB Errata, p.226 wrote:

"In the Daily entry of this section, delete

all material after the first sentence. This change makes the text consistent with the new rules for magic items."

It was apart of it originally, but removed because it was a bad idea.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
PCScipio wrote:
I played 4e Living Forgotten Realms up to 21st lvl, and I don't recall any encounter lasting longer than 2 hours. Meanwhile, I've been in a Pathfinder encounter that lasted ~10 hours over three gaming sessions.
I don't believe that.

Believe it. I still play 4E and most of our encounters (in paragon tier) are handled in under an hour. Better math from the Monster Manual 3 on, knowing how to play the game, cooperation with other players in terms of combinations that work well, and well designed encounters make for a fun - and fast - pased game compared to some of our mid-level 3.5 and PF games.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Due to the nature of RPGs, any critical failure system will effect PCs (who make more attack rolls than NPCs) far more than they will any individual NPC. This makes players feel incompetent and makes the game less fun.

So...no, this is not a good idea and in no way necessary to make the system work.

Well said. Crit fails always seem to effect martial characters far more than spellcasters and I can't see that as a good thing


Joana wrote:
Diffan wrote:

I consider 4E to still be my favorite edition and no, this doesn't feel like a spiritual successor. There's a LOT missing after reading the changes thus far.

· Non-magical healing? Do we have a way to heal sans divine magic (and not resting for a pittance of hp gain)?

Mark Seifter has already confirmed that healing is available via non-class-related options.

Cool, I didn't see that. I'm wondering if that's a Feat or other Skill option that allows you to delve further. I find that very refreshing.

Joana wrote:
Diffan wrote:
· Martials having extraordinary abilities? And getting 2 attacks a round isn't the same, compared to some of the powerful first-level daily abilities Fighters got.
Everyone can take three attacks a round in P2e if they choose, whether they're martial or not. "Swimming across an ocean" has been mentioned as something possible for Legendary characters to do, but that's skill-related, not specific to martial classes. I believe "splitting a mountain with a sword" has also been offered as something a high-level martial could potentially do in the system. There's a fighter-only ability to leap 20-30 feet into the air and smash flying foes to the ground.

Just because you can do it (hells, Wizards and PF1 could make two attacks as a full-round action) doesn't mean it can be done well or with a decent chance to hit. For example, a 4E Wizard could take Melee Training and use Intelligence for their Basic Melee Attacks, so they'd add +1/2 level + Int. mod + any other feat / weapon enhancement buffs to strike a foe. It's not going to do as much damage as a Fighter or Rogue or have the impact of a weapon-based spell of a Cleric but he still has a pretty good chance of hitting the monsters AC.

We haven't seen the numbers yet, so I'm hoping that this is similar to PF2. It'd be nice to see a wizard pull out the staff and knock some goblin heads without feeling like any attempt is a near improbably task.

Joana wrote:
Diffan wrote:

· At-will magic that actually does what it's designed to do, hold over casters in between bigger slotted spells?

There hasn't been a spellcasting preview yet, so we don't know yet. :)

I am curious how they're going to do Cantrips. If they'll remain their old (nifty yet hardly game breaking) effects of PF1 OR if they'll start to get beefed up like some of the X/day features they got instead?


Insight wrote:


So what do you think? Do you think there is a chance that PF2 is the spiritual successor to D&D 4th Edition that 4e fans have been waiting for?

I consider 4E to still be my favorite edition and no, this doesn't feel like a spiritual successor. There's a LOT missing after reading the changes thus far.

· Non-magical healing? Do we have a way to heal sans divine magic (and not resting for a pittance of hp gain)?

· Martials having extraordinary abilities? And getting 2 attacks a round isn't the same, compared to some of the powerful first-level daily abilities Fighters got.

· At-will magic that actually does what it's designed to do, hold over casters in between bigger slotted spells?


Steve Geddes wrote:
Crayon wrote:
I dropped 4E pretty quickly, but I believe most complaints of HP Bloat were directed at monsters.

Yeah the problem was the enemies had massive hit point totals and did pretty pathetic damage. So combats took ages but the party was never in any real danger.

The fixes generally involved leaving PC hp unchanged and halving monster hp whilst multiplying their damage (or similar).

Pretty much. By the Monster Manual 3 and beyond, they fixed HP/damage ratio to make encounters more challenging. After a couple of sessions of 4E, it was a house rule change we made that made 4E work better with faster combats.


Hm.. well maybe its tied to the weapon, which would be pretty cool. I hope they keep that element.

1 to 50 of 1,249 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>