|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
You know, a few hundred years ago the obvious conclusion was that the earth was flat and the universe revolved around it. But when people actually started to analyze things it became apparent that wasn't the case. Maybe there's relevance to be found in bad analogies.
But I suppose I need to check out this new book, if only to see if any of the new feat chains are worth the paper they are printed on. Frankly, when people think of feat chains it's difficult to not think of 'Combat Reflexes->Improved Disarm->Greater Disarm->Directed Disarm' or 'Combat Expertise->Spring Attack->Whirlwind Attack'
Underwhelming. Overcosted. Nearly useless by the time you get them in the environments that forumites (at least) seem to play the game in. Also, none of which do a darn thing to increase a fighter's narrative scope. :)
The Sword wrote:
To this point, I agree with you I think.
The Sword wrote:
I don't think that tracks. (with exceptions given for railroading and prison-break-style) The adventure that you're running doesn't suddenly make a caster less capable, or a martial more.
The Sword wrote:
Good question. Can there be too much player agency? I mean, the GM is another player and he's got quite a bit of agency. :)
Most of the player agency I see is small scale (but potentially large impact...teleport for example). That doesn't strike me as something that prevents a GM from having a plot.
GM 1990 wrote:
The entire game is built on the idea that the players have just as much narrative agency as the GM does. I'm pretty sure that every class has some ability, or at least access to some ability, that rewrites the rules or the narrative. In some cases drastically.
'This shot will add damage equal to how tough the creature I shoot is'
and so on. And if class abilities aren't enough, the resolution system explicitly gives narrative control of rolled effects to the person performing the action. Got a great roll? Sure, you get a bonus to your roll. Tell me why and that's part of the narrative now. I have never personally encountered another system that makes it so absolutely clear that it's not the GM's story. It's everyone's story. And everyone should have a part to play.
GM 1990 wrote:
In another game I play, there's a class with an ability called 'biggest fan' or something similar.
The player of that character has the ability, once per session, to point to an npc and say 'hey, GM, that guy is one of my fans'.
Now the GM is forced, by player agency, to respond to the change in story.
Players of casters in pathfinder have that capability. 'Hey GM, I cast aqueous orb...that half of the room is underwater and the orb provides cover from everyone except these guys.' 'Hey GM, I charm him.' 'Hey GM, I cast pull out a couple of teleport scrolls that I made a week ago.'
Players of fighters/rogues say 'oh, I get behind cover and shoot them'. 'I try to make a diplomacy roll...does a 23 do anything?' 'Is there a level 9 wizard in the area with teleport?'
Any caster has vast potential to force the to GM respond. Martials have less of that potential.
After all, which is easier to plan for? If you put a wall in front of a fighter, he has basically 6 options...go left, go right, climb up, dig down, go through, or go back. If you put the same wall in front of a caster, he has the same six options, except that any of his potential answers involves more potential sub responses. 'Go through' could be shapeshift into big thing and punch through, could be passwall, stone to mud, earth glide, teleport, and probably 3 dozen more things that I don't know or remember.
Which is easier to plan for? Which is easier to deal with?
The one that's harder has more narrative agency.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
It's not at all clear that spellcasting should provide greater and more effective options than non-spell options.
Actually, I think it is clear. There are problems in implementation but it is always the case that limited use abilities should be more effective than always-on abilities. Otherwise you lose obvious progression paths (more uses per day progresses to always on, for example) and create trap choices that are generally unattractive.
It's fairly well argued and almost certainly a Truth that between bonus spells, cheap consumables, item crafting, and a number of other things, casters don't really face an issue of limited use. As such, spells are almost certainly over-valued as a resource.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
If every spell in Pathfinder had its casting time increased by one level (so a spell that is now a standard action takes a full round, and a spell with a one round casting time takes a minute), casters would still have overwhelming narrative power (I...
Most of your suggestions are only effective if you also remove the ability of casters to create and use easy consumables. Wands and scrolls largely eliminate most of those problems and have the benefit of bringing wealth by level back into expected patterns (referencing half-remembered, previous discussions about how characters don't tend to use enough consumables, and apparent expectations about adventure and game design where modules tend to over-reward players).
The disparity exists objectively. The fact that casters can fly, turn invisible, travel the planes, cure HP damage, foretell the future and summon fantastical minions is not subjective; it's objective fact, written right there on the page in black and white. The fact that martials can't do those things is similarly objective, not subjective. The disparity exists.
That's like saying it's objectively true that a low level/high level disparity exists. It's an objective truth, but by itself it isn't a useful one.
It is true that the more spells you have available to you, the more options you have, and that range of options is generally greater and more effective than the range of options provided by non-spell options (class abilities/feats).
The latter is, as I see it, the source of these discussions. Casters get to have more fun. It's also the source of the counters (like the funny story I posted), because sometimes you can go loooong stretches where the roles are reversed and someone else gets to have more fun.
Ideally, the asymmetric balance between classes, roles, abilities, spells would be tailored so that the level of fun you have isn't generally tied to the number of spells you get to cast per day or per encounter, and we're not there AT ALL, but in the end I still see this as a very subjective subject because you won't ever be able to escape that every discussion, at its core, is going to come back to fun.
IMO, of course. :)
Just point him to myth #1. The C/MD isn't subjective, at least it isn't totally subjective. Player skill can influence table experience with it, but on a fundamental level it exists. I believe that's another one of the myths mentioned in the OP.
Of course it's subjective. As I see it, at its heart, CM/D is about one group of players getting to have more fun than the others. The reasons for that are well-described in this thread and the many others like it.
Subjectively, the GM doesn't get to have fun because he always feels like the big, epic battles on the various floors just aren't. In the specific instance of this campaign and this adventure, C/MD exists in the other direction in his eyes.
In a more general campaign...in a more general setting...hell, in bigger rooms where I can't get face to face with Mr I-Hate-PC's in a single round (and damn the consequences), the typical disparity of casters and martials would reassert itself.
And then who knows...maybe I'd be the one not having fun.
If you're trivializing everything because of Paladin smite the last floor might be the absolute worst time for your GM to ramp up the difficulty... you start to fight less "evil stuff that took over the spire" and more "neutral stuff that built the thing in the first place". You will be very short on Smite targets towards the end of the adventure.
Smite is one of his pet peeves (a big one, of course, but not the only). Specifically that smite bypasses all forms of DR on the target creature.
I won't say it was completely unintentional, but I didn't plan for an evil-caster-chasing-beat-down-machine paladin when I built him. It just so happens that many of our fights have gone 'the caster does something horrid, make a save.' 'I pass, move adjacent, mark him as my smite target, and hit for some significant portion of BBEG's hit points'. BBEG tries to take a 5' step to cast safely and, whoops, paladin's still there! Tries to cast defensively and fails because 15+2x level is not an easy check for spells at the caster's top level.
So, DM ends up feeling like 'wow, this fight that was supposed to be an awesome test of their capability was complete crap because zilvar just wtfpwned the bad guy'.
The point of all this is that CM/D is often a subjective subject. In this specific instance, I wouldn't be able to bribe my GM into believing in the concept of CM/D because recent experience tells him that (his NPC) casters don't ever get to do interesting things, because zilvar's paladin is a meaniepantsdouchebag and carries badwrongfun around in a big bag o' SMITE.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Possibly true, yes, but in this case the character is far from invincible. I've never gone down, but I've been in single digit hit points multiple times.
Emerald Spire is badly designed to deal with someone getting into a caster's face. Many of the end level fights have, so far (level 5, or 6) taken place in small rooms against a single, or at most 2, bad guys.
But no, I'm short on AC. Far from unhittable. :)
I'm playing a paladin in the Emerald Spire and didn't really bother to build him for any sort of optimization. He's got Power Attack and Step Up and Following Step.
My GM is basically threatening to kill everyone in the party (by ramping up encounter difficulty) because my paladin is trivializing end-level encounters (who are mostly evil caster types who can't 5' step to get away from me). He's been rolling poorly on concentration checks and complains a lot about not being able to Do Anything.
This is a funny story to me because he doesn't get it. That's pretty much how anyone who accepts that CM/D is A Thing feels any time a caster steps up and does what needs to be done and the non casters just shrug and wait for another opportunity to roll a d20.
The best speakers in groups are usually casters.
But heaven forbid anything make the almighty caster's life more difficult. That's just not fun.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I know, 'not according to APs' or 'not according to PFS', etc. I'm just talking about home campaign that would attempt to make sense of things, considering the short supply of this metal AND locations that can transform it.
Someone's probably already out there counting the number of adamantine weapons that show up in AP's... you know that right?
(it's could be pretty low and support your thesis, who knows :)
Just make the players roll out all of the damage they are doing to your objects. Instead of saying "it takes you about 20 mins" say "make your attack roll". After 10-15 irl minutes of AC10 attack rolls and dealing damage, maybe they will be dissuaded from doing it and will instead try......dun dun dun....the door.
So let's stop fixating on the wall.
Let's ask questions about cutting through support pillars to bring down part of a ceiling. Or cutting the wheel off a wagon. Or severing part of a statue.
You know, the sorts of feats of awesome the are enablers of narrative power for people swinging pointy things and not just the finger twiddlers.
Why would anyone want to make players do game-destroying feats of repetitive mind-numbing MMO-grind in a passive-aggressive attempt to not have to say 'no, I don't like that and I don't want it in my game'?
Indeed, but they also existed as the sole magical items in a world and were created and empowered by gods whose power was waning in a last ditch attempt to get people to believe and empower them again. That particular comparison isn't strictly useful.
That said, Stonecutter was a beast at cutting through stone but had the benefit of actually being magical with an enhancement that made it perfect for the task. We're still talking about a simple masterwork adamantine sword. If someone came up with a 'RockSlicer' enhancement and applied it to an adamantine sword you could make a good argument that caster of level (n-1) with Transmute Stone To Mud (or whatever) just copied one of Vulcan's masterworks.
That's all it is? A really sharp sword? You could get the same results with steel, or iron, or bone, or brass?
There's something inherent in ad. that allows it to do this strange thing that somehow allows it cut stone and steel as easily as it cuts leather and paper (except that it doesn't, because they still have more hit points, hence 'strange'). It's something that we do not have a real world analog for. It's something that requires just as much suspension of disbelief as a fireball, or an elf, or a potion of healing, because it really is more than just a really sharp sword.
There's a reason we don't see Wolverine cutting through 10 foot walls; as I recall, even with his impossibly cool claws he has in the past lacked leverage, strength, or time to do so.
And because the writers of your average comic book have never needed, wanted, or been required to really answer those questions :)
As I said above, there is a line for most if not all of us. Where your line and what your likes are vary. For me, it's someone using this inappropriate weapon as a pick to do some mining, let alone someone WANTING to do that. In character. To their prized weapon. Oh, out of game we know that it is super duper metal and probably won't break. Does your character know that banging it over and over on a wall won't cause problems?
Why wouldn't he? What's the DC and knowledge check required (in your games) know know the general properties of adamantine? Is it arbitrarily high because your PC's aren't allowed to understand the world they live in? Is it unreasonably low because the world is well known? Is it somewhere in the middle for Reasons? The game doesn't specify as far as I know.
As for inappropriate weapons, I grew up on books about magic swords doing incredible and inappropriate things. The Saberhagen's first 3 Books of Swords were formative fiction for me. I have NO problem with a sword slicing chunks out of rock :) But obviously that's just me. :)
Because he's not a sunder-focused fighter, of course. :)
I didn't see any response to your question, but I may have missed it in the mayhem. For my own answer, I've no problem with an adamantine item designed to break down walls. I don't subscribe to the "It'd be cool if people could like, hack thru walls with adamantine butterknives!" Cool doesn't override silly or nonsensical for me. I'm willing to suspend disbelief a lot in games, but there are lines (and we all have them, even if we don't admit it on forums.)
Why is it a suspension of disbelief for someone to do inexplicable things with a sword made of an inexplicable material, but not one for a wizard to wiggle his fingers and turn the same wall into mud, or just make a magical hole appear, or just appear on the other side of it because reasons?
The problem is that "it's cool" is a matter of perspective; what seems cool for some games is a mess for others.
That's why I asked the question:
By no later than 9th level, any obstacle limited by walls is potentially a joke because of casters (probably earlier, dimension door is available earlier). Why is it such an issue if someone with an adamantine (sword/axe/pick/flail/hammer/whatever) gets a way to do the same thing by 5th or 6th level?
If there was an answer, I've missed it. If there's an answer that involves 'spell slots' or 'limited uses', then I respectfully respond in advance: scrolls, staves (lol), wands, pearls, bonded items, etc. It might cost more than an ad. sword/hammer/pick, but it's also a lot more flexible.
Kirth's point is that you don't have to. There are only 2 differences between DR/- and hardness. Adamantine ignores hardness <20, and hardness reduces energy damage. Seems to me that it would have been just as easy to have used DR/- and given a rule that resistance=DR for objects (which gives you some latitude for special rules if you want to have something affected by something extra easily). One subsystem to remember. Writing rules for every scenario actually becomes more difficult the more rules you write :)
Is that really such a counter-intuitive concept that it needs specific codification in the rules? Do they need to go through every substance and spell out which tools are more or less effective in damaging those substances?
Yes, in the specific event that you have a material that is so extraordinarily hard that it has physical properties that we literally have no real-world counterpart to compare to.
You see the practical effects of that in a more restrictive fashion than I do. I believe there's no reason that someone couldn't take an adamantine sword, put the point against a wall, push really hard and force the blade in a bit and just cut chunks out, because that's how I envision ignoring hardness.
It's all about the awesome :)
Actually I have no problem with and adamantine hammer breaking through the wall with ease and not requiring the 4 cuts concept, but at this point I am more pointing out that the HP and Hardness apply to each section. The PC is using a adamantine blade which cuts cleanly through and when you do enough damage it will penetrate that section of wall, but the penetration is still in the shape of a cut, so a line... For this to be useable you need to make 3 more cuts. The only reason I think this description is truly important is to define the timeframe, difficulty (read fatigue) and amount of noise that will occur once the cuts have been complete and a slab of stone falls loudly slamming into the ground, not just making noise but a hell of a lot of noise and shaking the area with its force. No more surprise rounds against all the...
How much damage is enough though? I guess that's where I might be misunderstanding. Would you really require someone to do 172 points of damage to cut a single line through a 1 foot wall section? And then do it again 3 more times?
Because now you've made the guy with the sword do enough damage to reduce the wall to rubble 4 times.
If you tried to account for the log(n) nature of spells and feats, do you really feel like that would make the non-casters look ANY better? :)
For a quick answer next time calculate the HP of the object that is targeted calculate the PC's average damage minus any penalties for an inappropriate tool and give the PC a number of rounds it will take to get through ONE side of the hole they are cutting. Remember there are FOUR cuts required to make a square or rectangle like a door. Good luck!
This answer bothers me a bit. Maybe this is a problem with my view of the object breaking/hardness rules, but when I see someone say that you need to roll damage in excess of a wall's hit points in order to make a window, or a door, or whatever, I wonder why GM's rule that you've got to do the same damage to make an opening big enough to get through as you have to do to reduce the entire wall section to rubble.
Am I misinterpreting your position? If not, why is that your concern?
By no later than 9th level, any obstacle limited by walls is potentially a joke because of casters (probably earlier, dimension door is available earlier). Why is it such an issue if someone with an adamantine (sword/axe/pick/flail/hammer/whatever) gets a way to do the same thing by 5th or 6th level?
And now we're in the territory of the other thread. IMO, of course.
Much like Wolin says above, adamantine is a unique metal in the game with unique properties that we do not have a real world analogue for. We don't even REALLY have a good real world analogue for what ignoring hardness means. It's still harder to slice through leather than cloth with an adamantine weapon, but some aspect of what it means to be harder to cut leather is removed.
That just leaves us with the realm of what we imagine to be appropriate, cool, or fun. If complex locks or winding mazes are the challenges that you want your players to focus on by the time they can willfully afford a +1.something equivalent weapon (at current pricing...please remember I agree with Kirth's theory that the price might be a tad low for weapons (and high for armors, IMO)) then you're going to have extra issues with the idea of adamintine weapons being used to chop things up.
Me? Not so much. It's a narrative action, not a combat action. As far as I'm concerned someone with an adamantine sword and some knowledge in engineering can make a passage through a wall in a reasonable timeframe, because it's cool. :)
I think I like Kirth's answer the best, honestly, but not because of some perceived imbalance or whacky application of reality to game. I think that amazing things should be allowed to be amazing. :)
I like the idea that adamantine swords can act something like Stonecutter. It's thematic, cool, and has a precedent in the fiction that the people I game with are familiar with. If you still think that people using swords shouldn't be allowed to do amazing things with them, well, there's a thread for that. :)
I hated this level. This was probably made worse by the fact that our GM read the "light doesn't illuminate past 5'" thing as "if you get more than 5' from a light source, you can't see it anymore". This meant that apart from the one half-orc in our party, everyone had to be right next to something in order to see it. This also meant that my squishy 1st-level sorcerer was utterly worthless for the entire session.
This, with the 5' distance, is what my GM implied as well. We never even considered leaving a trail of torches.
What the simulation really shows is that +1 to hit is more powerful than +1 to crit modifier. If the Falcata user had weapon focus as well, (not a poor assumption), it will pull ahead.
QWhat it appears to show is a reasonable answer to the OP. Taking EWP as a feat cost is not worth it. If you have to (or want to) spend a feat, find something other than EWP. If you get or have it for free, it's well acknowledged in this thread that it's not a bad deal.
I'll grant that this is theoretically possible, but I am finding it difficult to imagine it actually happening outside of some odd circumstances.
At 13-ish encounters per day, each utilizing some fraction of daily resources (suggested 25%), you are more or less obligated to take 3 or 4 days per level. You're getting at least a little crafting done in that time if you want. Probably not to your full capacity, but a little.
How much time does one really need? If you CAN craft, and AREN'T crafting, it's generally because you don't know the rule or you don't want to, not because you cannot.
Philo Pharynx wrote:
That's an interesting outlook. In my experience, people feel excluded when there's nothing that they can do to contribute, and/or when the decisions that they have made are marginalized or of limited value.
With the simple rule I proposed, everyone would get to contribute by simply spending a single skill point (a much less expensive investment than a feat and teamwork++). The primary actor gets to do fantastic things for the group he's acting for, and if the tools exist, and are effective, the automatic reliance on 'let the wizard do it' or 'I have a scroll for that' might wane as well (again, teamwork++).
Philo Pharynx wrote:
Average? That's sounds harsh. On the surface, it seems like it would encourage classes with a shortage of skill points to spend them in ways that they might otherwise not to keep the averages from plummeting. The system doesn't reward diluting your resources in any other fashion, so it feels kinda counter intuitive to me.
At level 6, the difference might not be that big, but at level 12 or 15, I'd be looking for ways to not have to ever take part in your group check if I hadn't invested in the skill at all (something a low-skill-point class is likely to face). Ultimately that's contrary to what I'd want to achieve.
Since you continue to use it, I'm going to assume you haven't actually seen that in play. Can you provide a few anecdotes (level, class, situation) where it's come into play at the table, and how have your players responded in regards to spending skill points?
Yeah..exactly. This is exactly the sort of thing you see in media (that may or may not be inspiring for you and your players) that I want a rule like this to emulate.
I didn't have a specific movie scene in mind, but that's exactly what I want people to visualize.
Stopping the 'me-too' gaming is just a happy side effect.
Honestly I don't care how he does it. Rolling carts, whispered advice, or brilliant deduction on guard lines of sight, or any other theatrical trope you can dream up. What matters is that you can't ever have a scene where the skilled rogue gets everyone through a tight spot. The scale of whatever bonus he could provide is unlikely to make a lick of difference to anything more capable than a blind, sleeping octogenarian.
That's a system failing that I think à rule like this one could address
I was thinking something similar, but wanted to reduce rolling overall. I figured to take the worst penalty and apply it, then add +2 for everyone else who was trained in stealth. Simple and hopefully quick.
Then I got to looking at the survival skill and though, oh, yeah...assess a penalty of -1 for each additional person because it makes sense.
It wouldn't, necessarily, be easy for a stealth focused character to get a bunch of people past a guard station (like you've probably seen in any number of action and fantasy movies/books), but it would be doable unlike now.
In my opinion Stealth Synergy isn't very good. You're probably better off with Skill Focus (Stealth) in most cases, and expecting everybody to make a feat commitment to Stealth when the problem is that they won't even invest skill ranks in it seems like an odd assumption.
How many skill points do you expect a level 3 armored cleric to be able to devote to stealth? Or fighter? Or any other low skill class for whom stealth isn't a class skill?
I agree with you. Asking players to take a mediocre (IMO) feat at the levels when they're grabbing the 'essential' and 'easily reached' feats for whatever build or vision they hope to play is a hard sell.
Anyhow, while helping your friends move more quietly sounds nice it could be tough to explain how you made the guy in full plate or the woolly mammoth really sneaky. There's also a bit of "something for nothing" which some DMs might not appreciate (players either if stealthy bad guys start sneaking Fire Giants into your camp)
Sooo...because skills are mundane, they shouldn't be allowed to do cool things? Nobody bats an eyelash at a group of ogre magi ambushing a sleeping party, but the sneaky guide showing his (less skillful) group the hidden path around the sentries so they can launch a surprise attack just really isn't doable without, apparently, quite a bit of investment all around.
A mundane option which often gets overlooked is simply having the noisy folks follow the stealthy ones from a good distance back.
Typically only works outside or in wide open areas. Effective, until you flub the stealth roll and are dead before the party gets to respond, because splitting the party sucks. :) (Seriously, you've never had this happen? Some variation of it happens Every Single Time to groups I'm in.)
Jack of Dust wrote:
Stealth synergy is actually pretty good all things considering. In a four person party where everyone has stealth synergy you're essentially getting to roll your stealth four times and take the highest result. That's quite powerful for a feat. You might be falling into the unfortunately common misconception that teamwork feats are not worth bothering with just because they are teamwork feats. There are actually quite a few gems there if you take a good look.
From the first post, having 4 people roll and take the highest result is one of the things I'd actually like to avoid.
I'd also scoff at your notion of 'quite powerful', but that would be the power gamer in me holding it up against feats that are actually consistent game changers (some metamagic, power attack, etc). Extremely situational feats are always going to weigh poorly against that.
Jack of Dust wrote:
If in the unlikely scenario that absolutely no one can afford to spare one feat, have someone in the party with the Tactician ability take it and grant it to their allies.
How many classes grant that ability at a level that's low enough for skills to be an important focus of the game (given your point below)?
Jack of Dust wrote:
As for the other skills, climb, acrobatics and swim are incredibly easy to bypass with magic while survival usually only requires one person to have. Tracking and food providing (assuming you even have to keep track of food) can often be taken care of with just one person. Use Aid Another if you have to, you don't even need to be trained so you might as well.
With the general disdain expressed for skills on these boards, I do admit to being a little bit dismayed at how quickly a harebrained proposal to extend the useful timeline and application of skills (and limit me-too-metagaming) is dismissed as useless-because-of-magic.
As for survival, my experience has been that through level 3 or so, a single person with survival is insufficient to provide for the party plus mounts + companions. Also, survival is already written to support or encourage group-focused usage, with set DC's and effects that expand based on how much you exceed the DC by. In that sense, it's already an excellent prototype for the sort of game mechanic I proposed.
I just looked up Stealth Synergy. Honestly, I'm dumbfounded. Your answer to 'groups avoid tropes because the skill system doesn't encourage avenues of play that are..less direct.' is a lame teamwork feat?
I'm sorry, but in my experience teamwork feats are a waste of ink. They've never seen the light of play because the cost doesn't justify the benefits.
Has your experience been sufficiently different that you could imagine players abandoning personal advancement feats so that they could pick up Stealth Synergy and any other hypothetical similar feats for other skills that could benefit (climb, acrobatics, survival, swim come to mind).
Stompy Rex wrote:
Depending on the target numbers and situations, everyone making separate rolls is better for the metagame, especially with a commonly trained skill like perception (2 rolls with similar modifiers have twice the chance of reaching the target, for example) I think that would just change the metagame, and I'm thinking that assuming AA within a set radius is similar to the group roll idea I was suggesting, except that it requires people roll (or be good enough to make the 10 target). I was trying to streamline a little bit.
Dunno what Stealth Synergy is. That's not ringing a bell.
I think this is close to the expert leads idea, but just consolidates down to the expert rolls instead.
Part of the thought process is to increase options by allowing a single, skilled, roll to stand for the party, but also to reduce metagame thinking by forcing a single, skilled, roll to stand for the party in the cases where that would be appropriate.
I do think that my simple version is probably too simple, but I was more interested in conveying the idea for input without proposing a lot of excessive calculation to bog the idea down. :)
I had a thought today while deliriously bicycling in the heat. There are a number of times when, in my experience, groups avoid tropes because the skill system doesn't encourage avenues of play that are..less direct.
Concrete example, a party with a fighter or cleric or other armored character will often (IME) avoid stealth-based resolutions to problems because there's realistically no chance that all of the characters can pull it off and common logic is that splitting a 4-man party is tantamount to suicide.
But what if your skilled character could make a single check for the entire group? What would be the ramifications in play of something like (and this is probably the simplest workable version) a rogue making a stealth check at -2 for each additional untrained person and letting that count as the group's roll?
That's basically what happens now when the bard steps up and charms the pants off the princess, or the wizard teleports the party across the world. Heck, it's basically what happens when the rogue climbs a wall and drops a knotted rope down so that Anemic Wizard can climb or be pulled up safely.
You could do the same thing for perception rolls too, to cut down on the 'Jack, roll perception'...and then having every pounce over to where Jack was standing so they get a chance to roll too. One check for the group. Less metagaming maybe :)
Does it sound workable?
That could be difficult to balance. If you base the gain of whoopass on time spent in combat, you end up with insufficient WA points in short or less important fights (which there are typically more of). If you base it on damage taken, you end up with someone who rides the line of 'kill me so I can kill you better' and 'I'm dead/I'm a healing sponge'. If you base it on damage done, you encourage one-dimensional character advancement.
I wonder...maybe something like a swift-action ability that gives a whoopass point and increases the WA counter so that the next use gives an additional point (up to a cap of, oh, 1/4 level). Activation of most skills is a single point, but can scale up in effectiveness with more points spent.
The primary problem I have proposed is unanswered. From 14 damage onward, using your interpretation, any described injury MUST be one that can instantly kill a 1st level PC. No bleedout. No lingering death. DEAD-in-one-hit-do-not-pass-Go-D.E.A.D. . Because that is, as far as I can determine, the minimum amount of damage that is required to reduce a heroic PC from full hit points to dead in a single strike. Whatever that 14hp injury is, as you've said, is the same (or equivalent, I suppose) for every person, because you have stated that the injuries are equal by definition.
That sounds like nonsense to me, and that's why I'm asking for a more complete explanation.
No, instantly fatal to that PC. "Fatal" is just a description of whether or not the damage killed the creature, because that's what "fatal" means. An attack that deals 20 damage might be fatal to one character but not another, all while being an identical amount of damage.
It seems to me that you're changing your story now. You started with ' the two injuries are equal by definition', and now you're saying they aren't.
Please explain you position more fully, because I feel like you're conflating the concepts 'injury' and 'damage amount' in a confusing fashion, or I have -completely- missed the point.
Any conversation about what hitpoints are and how damage is represented (when described other than as '5 points') is of great interest to me.
I remember thinking, when looking over the rules in the pathfinder player's handbook, that the rules for hit points had been shortchanged a bit in the interest of making things either different enough from 3.5 to not get into trouble, or generic enough that people could do whatever they wanted to with them.
Thusly, I defer to the 3.5 (3.0? don't remember which book) commentary which essentially described hit points in one or two paragraphs. It said that hit points were a measure of physical toughness, luck, divine grace, and all of the other things that keep you alive. It also went on to describe the proportional damage explanation that I mentioned a few posts ago. I don't have the exact line handy, but I vaguely recall that it described a fighter and wizard at two different levels (1st and 10th?) as being equally hurt after losing different amounts of hit points. I don't think that the world proportional is ever used, but the intent seemed clear enough to me.
We also know, because corner cases are still valid, that every single hit point is, at least in part, representative of real damage, because a character with 1, 10, or 10000000000000 of them is forced to make a saving throw every time they get bit by something that does 1 point of damage + save vs poison.
Aaron Whitley wrote:
That feels like a huge buff to the spells. Why not just have 'cure light' be a day of natural healing and scale up from there?
The idea that damage has a static value or representation is pretty thinly supported by any form of rules. For that to work, any damage value of..what, 14 or more (8 CON, d6 hd, level 1) has to automatically describe a wound that is instantly fatal. Not potentially fatal. Not 'might die in a few seconds to bleed out', but instantly fatal to any PC. And now you've got to make up stories about how your uber hero shrugged off having a sword stuck through his heart or had his head removed, because that's what the same means, isn't it?
I don't think that the game works in the fashion in which you are describing, but Pathfinder itself is pretty vague on the subject, isn't it?
The proportional damage model is lifted pretty much straight out of the 3.0 (3.5?) players handbook which included a paragraph describing how a wizard who had lost half his hit points was about as hurt as a fighter who had lost half of his. 'Damage', for 3.x-based games, has pretty much always been defined as proportional to
1. Disparity of 6 points between a good and bad save.
Unessential to the enjoyment of pathfinder or any similar game.
2. Sacking spell DCs with the level of the spell and then adding the spellcaster modifier to the DC (when you require XYZ amount of ability score to cast the spell in the 1st place).
Meh. Take it or leave it. Tying the power of a spell to the power of the caster is essential for the trope, but tying it into the primary casting stat (the one that determines if you can cast, and the one that determines how often you can cast) overloads a single stat.
3. Being able to easily buy magical items.
Essential for the game as it is designed, but so far removed from any fantasy trope that isn't directly related to 3.x as to be laughable.
Fantasy heroes don't adventure for the money to buy Excaliber. They find Excaliber. Money is just a way to keep score. The reliance on custom purchased or designed magic items and the (oft-perceived) requirement to spend all of your money on upgrades actively pushes the average player away from common fantasy story tropes of growing into power, taking on students, becoming NAMES and LEGENDS outside of the question of 'What Did I Kill Today?' Someone's going to argue that it's the GM's job to write those stories, and maybe it is for a lot of people, but I want a game where my players are encouraged to exercise the narrative and change the world in meaningful ways.
4. Wands of Cure Ligth Wounds and similar wands existing enabling very cheap healing.
Don't like it as wands, but I want cheap, out-of-combat healing to be available. I don't want to be the guy that has to play a healing battery (even though the discussions I've been having with my current GM about whether my Soulthief Vitalist is evil for draining hit points from enemies the sap adept rogue has knocked unconscious and healing his party with that energy have been amusing).
5. Multiple attacks decreasing in accuracy eg. +16/+11/+6/+1
Meh. Multiple attacks are so attractive from a player's perspective that people jump through amazing hoops to find ways to throw buckets of dice and scream 'Yeah Baby!'. I am not a huge fan. I want to roll a few meaningful dice and streamline fights.
6. The natural spell feat existing.
Honestly don't even understand why you included this. I don't think anything else you listed was purely class specific. You must have had some bad experiences with druids, and that's a shame.
7. Disparity of +/- 6 skill points between the classes eg 2 for fighters, 8 for rogues.
Not a fan. I wasn't really a fan of 4E's skills either, but I liked that every character could be expected to be at least minimally awesome in every skill (obviously, in practice, that didn't work. But I don't like players to feel useless at a table)
8. Auto scaling buff spells you can stack together eg divine power, divine favor, righteous might etc.
More things should be scalable. Too many things stack.
9. Feats existing full stop. Would you play a 3.x/d20 game with no feats?
No I wouldn't. But I'm not a fan of a lot of the low-hanging fruit.
10. Ability scores scaling up as you level and uncapped limits on ability scores.
Ability scores scaling is a plus if they're going to exist. I like several of the systems that have been posted on these forums to remove enhancement bonus items and bake those bonuses in.
In the end, I think your list of things you consider sacred cows is a bit strange.
I start asking the questions with:
There might be others, but I've been distracted by life and my thoughts are utterly and completely scattered. :)
There's a lot of interesting ideas being tossed around in here. Some of them I can get behind, and some I might state as differently.
1) I agree that spells need to be toned back. In practice they're not all that limited a resource unless you're in a surprise encounter marathon. The design decisions to make individual spells be weighed heavily based on the expected number of encounters and number of uses per day seems to yield questionable results in practice.
2) Not a fan of stat scaling and the hunt for static bonuses. Scale back all of the maths such that it is never assumed that you will need bonuses of +X to +Y in order to succeed or be meaningful. The end result appears to yield situations where what you roll is largely meaningless. If rolling is part of the fun (and I think it is) then the effects of rolling should matter.
3) More meaningful feats. +1 and +2 feats to a specialized activity, feat taxes, and other such things are not as FUN as feats that alter or grant new abilities (such as metamagic feats).
4) Currently the system rewards specialization by requiring (sometimes extensive) investment in feats, spells, class abilities, stats, and/or magic items in order to be able to perform a given task reliably. If a person feels like there is a good chance that they will waste their turn because they're trying to do something Cool or Flashy, they probably won't.
5) I'd like to see the Cure line of spells changed to actually reflect the severity of the wound healed. Cure Light Wounds heads 1d8+X. Even at minimum, it can bring an average commoner from 0 to 2 hit points. Half his hit points isn't a light wound. CLW might barely touch the hit point total of a high level barbarian. Again, not a light wound. I realize this is a nomenclature thing, but the Cure line of spells is one of only two places in the rules that really screw with hit points as a coherent cinematic system.
6) Environmental hazard damage is stat damage (not falling though, because heroes standing up from long falls is cinematic).
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
My teenage me responds, 'Alias...hubbahubba...' :)
My initial exposure to the Forgotten Realms was via Neverwinter Nights. I spent 2 months staying with my best friend over the summer and I got to play his Neverwrinter game and I had a blast. Then, I went home and later that year, I found a book in my collection that mentioned Menzoberanzzen and Drow and I thought, "This is totally stealing from Neverwrinter Nights!"
That's funny. At least you got a good introduction to the world with NWN. My first experience with FR was Darkwalker on Moonshae, and I was pretty convinced after reading that that the Forgotten Realms was going to be another Ravenloft grimdark POS setting. :)
It wasn't until Azure Bonds (and the gold box D&D games) that I changed my mind, but that book still colors my perceptions of the world.
pH unbalanced wrote:
By all rights you should. I'll maintain a grid-based movement scheme because it's natural for me and descriptively works.
Open and Pit
As I described before, after having my faculties rebooted by a boot to the head moment, movement is spent on entering a square. If you start on the left and get your 10' running start, jump the first pit, your first move into the open blocks in between is 5' of normal movement. Another 5' is spent moving into the second square (and now you've satisfied the requirement), and you jump again to cross the obstacle.
Makes sense to me at least.
Can I try a third camp of explanation? Totally abstract, just looking at the movement.
aahh I failed my will save!
You know, I was pretty solidly with Nefreet until you posited this explanation, and it reminded me that we 'pay' for each square of movement when we enter that square, not when we leave it. We pay with whatever currency the square requires.
In your example, you pay 5' of movement to enter the clear squares. You pay to enter the pit with a DC ## acrobatics check (and 5' of movement each) and move through both squares, then you pay 5' of movement to move into the clear space at the end of the pit.
With that thought process in mind, I am now convinced that the ## above should be 10.