Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

What is the worst thing about Pathfinder?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

1,001 to 1,050 of 1,173 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

eilar wrote:
Try taking a wizard though a equal level dungeon (Say he has 20 healing potions) and take a fighter of the same level through the same dungeon (with the same # of healing potions) and see which one last longer. - anyone want to bet on the wizard? I thought not....

The best way to do this bet would be to run at three-four different levels. You can choose the amount of money to be spent on gear, and I'll play the wizard. We can have a neutral third party do the GMing, with published dungeons to have the maximum fairness. How much money are you willing to throw away on this?

Andoran

kyrt-ryder wrote:
eilar wrote:
Try taking a wizard though a equal level dungeon (Say he has 20 healing potions) and take a fighter of the same level through the same dungeon (with the same # of healing potions) and see which one last longer. - anyone want to bet on the wizard? I thought not....
The best way to do this bet would be to run at three-four different levels. You can choose the amount of money to be spent on gear, and I'll play the wizard. We can have a neutral third party do the GMing, with published dungeons to have the maximum fairness. How much money are you willing to throw away on this?

I'll GM. Y'all pick the adventure.


eilar wrote:

To me the worst thing is everyone got a bonus except the Basic Wizard.

Sorcerers are much better spellcasters in 3.5 and yet they GAINED abilities. The only thing wizards had was flexibility and that is useful if you have a god gm that knows how to make their wizards useful. Average Gm's (and poor ones) Wizards are not worth much.( I still see the wizard as what spellcasters are supposed to be but then I began with original D&D and all the old fantasy books.)

The Hate of spellcasters is very evident on this board and not really understood
A fighter vs a wizard:
If the wizard has range and if he gets the first spell off and if the fighter fails its save versus one of the few kill spells the wizard wins otherwise the fighter wins every time. That's alot of ifs to allow the wiz to survive. Everyone says wiz have such power, they can kill 100's of monsters with one spell(sure if the monsters are alot lower level and not a challenge to the party anyway). Try taking a wizard though a equal level dungeon (Say he has 20 healing potions) and take a fighter of the same level through the same dungeon (with the same # of healing potions) and see which one last longer. - anyone want to bet on the wizard? I thought not so why the hatred of Wizards??? Why does everyone want to wimp them out?

4th edition to me was put together to make all the classes EQUAL but to me they all seem the same. Yes they call their abilities different things but they essentially have the same powers - that is why I liked 3.5 and Pathfinder so much better that 4th ed.

Wizard got a bonus, just not that good, but really he didn't need it.

And toward the duel...

Unless the wizard is dumb then the last thing he should be throwing about when a melee character is approaching is a SoD or something like that. His first action should be to teleport somewhere safe (or at least run away with expeditious retreat), put on the defenses, 'you can't reach me' spells and then scry and fry the fighter if he was smart enough to hide at least...

Not that I want to advocate the casters, but at least they shouldn't act dumb. Not that the fighter should consider charging the wizard an ideal option.

Shadow Lodge

eilar wrote:
Power Word Unzip wrote:


In the coming years, I do think a 2nd Edition of Pathfinder that builds upon the original while simplifying play would be a great thing for the hobby. For all the things Wizards of the Coast did wrong with 4th Edition, that focus on making it easier to learn and play is something they've done right.

Please Please please Do Not "Simplify" this game,

D&D was and Pathfinder is a game for Intelligent people, there are plenty of games for people that either are not smart enough to play it or are to lazy to learn ---- please so many other games have become so "simplified" that it makes me cry.

I don't think anyone is saying to make it vastly simple, but 3.X/PFRPG is exceedingly rules heavy, especially compared to Original/Basic/1E/2E. I personally would like to see Pathfinder 2E go more in a direction of the retro editions, and not be SO hard-coded. And personally I think the game is more for people with large imaginations than necessarily those with large intellects.

Andoran

eilar wrote:


Please Please please Do Not "Simplify" this game,

D&D was and Pathfinder is a game for Intelligent people, there are plenty of games for people that either are not smart enough to play it or are to lazy to learn ---- please so many other games have become so "simplified" that it makes me cry.

First off a suggesstion. Implying that gamers who want an easier version are untelligent and lazy not very smart. You just insulted myself and I'm pretty sure some others on this board. Simplfying something does not automatically make it a bad thing.

No one is sayingto make it too simple yet theor is room for improvement to make the game more accessible to newcomers and much easier for a SM to run. I used to be a hardcore 4E fan. I am stilla fan of it just not as much. Yet for all 4E faults it's easier to learn for new players and a dream for a DM to run and setup. Espcially on a short notice. The Pathfinder rules are great yet their are some areas that need improvement. And it would be a mistake on Paizo card to play the backwards compitable card with a 2E of PF. Gamers expect a new version to be different. Why would they buy the same ruleset a second time just repackaged with new art.

Your not going to get new fans to a game system if you start off assuming their dumb and lazy. I can almost guarantee that.

Kthulhu wrote:


And personally I think the game is more for people with large imaginations than necessarily those with large intellects.

+ 1 Trillion

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
eilar wrote:


Please Please please Do Not "Simplify" this game,

D&D was and Pathfinder is a game for Intelligent people, there are plenty of games for people that either are not smart enough to play it or are to lazy to learn ---- please so many other games have become so "simplified" that it makes me cry.

Jesus. It's almost satire.

Also, what Memorax said.

Taldor

Kthulhu wrote:


I don't think anyone is saying to make it vastly simple, but 3.X/PFRPG is exceedingly rules heavy, especially compared to Original/Basic/1E/2E. I personally would like to see Pathfinder 2E go more in a direction of the retro editions, and not be SO hard-coded. And personally I think the game is more for people with large imaginations than necessarily those with large intellects.

2E was much more rules heavy compared to Original (LBB) or OD&D, just ask the Old School players.

I'm happy for PF to continue to standardise sub-systems (trurning, detects), fix broken rules (grapple), and simplify play that way. Also they could remove some obvious duplications like the "+2 to two skills" feats. Re-editing to consolidate different parts of rules into one place would also help, particularly by borrowing the 4e presentation of standard rule followed by exception(s). I'm hoping the proposed introductory rules will go in this direction.
There are existing 3e rules lite (sic) variants that PF could emulate such as True20 but I think you lose the flavour of the game if you go too far in that direction.


memorax wrote:
eilar wrote:


Please Please please Do Not "Simplify" this game,

D&D was and Pathfinder is a game for Intelligent people, there are plenty of games for people that either are not smart enough to play it or are to lazy to learn ---- please so many other games have become so "simplified" that it makes me cry.

First off a suggesstion. Implying that gamers who want an easier version are untelligent and lazy not very smart. You just insulted myself and I'm pretty sure some others on this board. Simplfying something does not automatically make it a bad thing.

No one is sayingto make it too simple yet theor is room for improvement to make the game more accessible to newcomers and much easier for a SM to run. I used to be a hardcore 4E fan. I am stilla fan of it just not as much. Yet for all 4E faults it's easier to learn for new players and a dream for a DM to run and setup. Espcially on a short notice. The Pathfinder rules are great yet their are some areas that need improvement. And it would be a mistake on Paizo card to play the backwards compitable card with a 2E of PF. Gamers expect a new version to be different. Why would they buy the same ruleset a second time just repackaged with new art.

Your not going to get new fans to a game system if you start off assuming their dumb and lazy. I can almost guarantee that.

Kthulhu wrote:


And personally I think the game is more for people with large imaginations than necessarily those with large intellects.
+ 1 Trillion

He does have a point, though.

I'd imagine harry Potter fans feel insulted when someone dismisses them as kid's books. Unfortunately, the truth is, they were written for children.
He may have used a broad brush stroke to paint all 4E players as "simpletons", but it doesn't change the fact that the game was tailored to be easily absorbed by new players. And of a younger average age, I believe, than your normal DnD gamer.
Just my 2 CP.


eilar wrote:
Power Word Unzip wrote:


In the coming years, I do think a 2nd Edition of Pathfinder that builds upon the original while simplifying play would be a great thing for the hobby. For all the things Wizards of the Coast did wrong with 4th Edition, that focus on making it easier to learn and play is something they've done right.

Please Please please Do Not "Simplify" this game,

D&D was and Pathfinder is a game for Intelligent people, there are plenty of games for people that either are not smart enough to play it or are to lazy to learn ---- please so many other games have become so "simplified" that it makes me cry.

Mega dittos. If I wanted simplicity I'd go back to 4th, or heck, I'd start running FUDGE.


eilar wrote:
Power Word Unzip wrote:


In the coming years, I do think a 2nd Edition of Pathfinder that builds upon the original while simplifying play would be a great thing for the hobby. For all the things Wizards of the Coast did wrong with 4th Edition, that focus on making it easier to learn and play is something they've done right.

Please Please please Do Not "Simplify" this game,

D&D was and Pathfinder is a game for Intelligent people, there are plenty of games for people that either are not smart enough to play it or are to lazy to learn ---- please so many other games have become so "simplified" that it makes me cry.

Ars Magica 2-3ed, and Rolemaster (the slide rule math game) would like to have a word with you about the accessability of PF's rules and its place as a game for "intelligent people only"

PF is a great middle of the road game its part of the broadness of its appeal. You dont need an advanced degree to play but you can and still have fun.

However redacting parallel redundancies within the rules set, a lack of e-prime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime#Rationale)/ Technical Writing formats within rules sections (including feat/spell descriptions) spell stat blocks that should include any attack rolls needed (including stat used)are things that do simplify the game but only in a streamlining/efficiency mode.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber

Actually, Ars Magica isn't that bad.

Now, RIFTS ...


Gorbacz wrote:

Actually, Ars Magica isn't that bad.

Now, RIFTS ...

see RIFTS (the great uncle of the D20 system) the rules are not that bad. 4+ on a d20 after modifiers i hit you 8+ if you are far away If you dont try and avoid the attack

skills are % based

except for the parrying/dodging energy weapons, that is super poorly written in every version

And it is certainly a system where the axiom

"Balance does not mean equal" that they tout is in effect.

But is also a level based game where you can be as unto Gods at 1st level.

And a 75 year old non combat oriented scholar is the most wanted person in North America


Dragonsong wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

Actually, Ars Magica isn't that bad.

Now, RIFTS ...

see RIFTS (the great uncle of the D20 system) the rules are not that bad. 4+ on a d20 after modifiers i hit you 8+ if you are far away If you dont try and avoid the attack

skills are % based

except for the parrying/dodging energy weapons, that is super poorly written in every version

And it is certainly a system where the axiom

"Balance does not mean equal" that they tout is in effect.

But is also a level based game where you can be as unto Gods at 1st level.

And a 75 year old non combat oriented scholar is the most wanted person in North America

I play RIFTS when I want to powergame and throw sensibility out the window. I love the company, and will support it till I die. Robotech was the first RPG I ever played, and becasme a gateway into RIFTS, then onto DnD 2nd ED.

But those games are DEFINATELY story over ruleset.


juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:
Mega dittos. If I wanted simplicity I'd go back to 4th, or heck, I'd start running FUDGE.

But you have to admit there's a bloat in the number of mechanics we deal with in gameplay. My personal pet peeve is concentration checks. I see no reason why this should have been divided from the Spellcraft skill after Beta; I currently play a caster, and there is a one-point difference between my concentration bonus and my Spellcraft bonus. That's a pretty insignificant difference.

The final version of the defensive casting concentration check is also prohibitively difficult, making it much harder to fulfill your primary purpose as a caster. At times it feels like choosing a touch attack spell is a stupid decision, to the point where I'm building casters with Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack just so that I can be at least as effective with a touch spell as a fighter can with a sword.

I dunno, maybe I'm not thinking clearly on this issue, but this is an instance where simulationist rules seem to constantly get in the way of my fun, and force me to look up a table for a separate mechanic, which is even less fun. I just think we could do with a little less of that in this game down the road.

Andoran

I understand when certain posters are comfortable with the rules. Yet assuming that the person next to you is also is just as comfortable and willing to learn is just imo assuming a little too much. In school I had trouble with math with time I eventually corrected that. Still you will not see going out of my way to learn say Calculus. Sure I could yet I see no need to and I do not want to.

As I have said before posters need to stop thinking on an individual level when it comes to rules. Less how do the rules work for me only and more how would the rules work for me and someone else who might be interested. And really it's a hobby. One for enjoyement and not something of any real vital importance to the world as a whole. Your vast knowledge of D&D rules is not going to cure cancer.

In the end I never and still do not understand the intellectual snobbery for lack of any better words from some of the community. So some consider themselves so much more netter than the rest of us. Why would I care and how exactly does that exactly make you better than the rest of us mor moderate gamers. I play more than one version of D&D and see the merits and flaws of both. Compared to some who play only one "true" version of D&D. I think myself and others like me come out on top.


eilar wrote:

To me the worst thing is everyone got a bonus except the Basic Wizard.

You have to be kidding me. Extra HP? More extra HP? Juiced up specializations? Less restricting barred schools? Bonded item?


Devil's advocate made my week with that one.


Devil's Advocate wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Nerf the messageboard. It's unbalanced.

Nerf the messageboard? Why? Compared to the wizard, the messageboard is just dead weight in the party.

Say you have a mid-level encounter where it becomes necessary to respond to a post. Your messageboard probably can't even reach the post, because all mid-level posts you're going to meet are flying. Even the ones that aren't. But let's say your messageboard can somehow reach the post. Then what? All it's going to do is truncate the quote. So you're going to have to spend three rounds cut-and-pasting. And that's all your messageboard can ever do. Run up, cut-and-paste, rinse, and repeat. Same thing every encounter.

Meanwhile, my wizard has an Intelligence score of whatever score you account for in your counterexample +2. And SoD spells. Lots of SoD. More sod than a freshly landscaped lawn. More SoD than his spell slots would indicate possible. Kneel before SoD! The wizard doesn't have to rely on cut-and-paste like your mere messageboard. The wizard has infinite options when replying to a post. (Hint: 90% of them are glitterdust.)

All of that is so self evident, I don't even have to post a build for my wizard. Where's your messageboard build that can compete with that?

Now, this is actually funny at first. It quickly became overplayed, but this post is amusing. I'll grant you that much.


CoDzilla wrote:
Devil's Advocate wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Nerf the messageboard. It's unbalanced.

Nerf the messageboard? Why? Compared to the wizard, the messageboard is just dead weight in the party.

Say you have a mid-level encounter where it becomes necessary to respond to a post. Your messageboard probably can't even reach the post, because all mid-level posts you're going to meet are flying. Even the ones that aren't. But let's say your messageboard can somehow reach the post. Then what? All it's going to do is truncate the quote. So you're going to have to spend three rounds cut-and-pasting. And that's all your messageboard can ever do. Run up, cut-and-paste, rinse, and repeat. Same thing every encounter.

Meanwhile, my wizard has an Intelligence score of whatever score you account for in your counterexample +2. And SoD spells. Lots of SoD. More sod than a freshly landscaped lawn. More SoD than his spell slots would indicate possible. Kneel before SoD! The wizard doesn't have to rely on cut-and-paste like your mere messageboard. The wizard has infinite options when replying to a post. (Hint: 90% of them are glitterdust.)

All of that is so self evident, I don't even have to post a build for my wizard. Where's your messageboard build that can compete with that?

Now, this is actually funny at first. It quickly became overplayed, but this post is amusing. I'll grant you that much.

Just a little fun at your expense, I reckon :)


memorax wrote:
eilar wrote:


Please Please please Do Not "Simplify" this game,

D&D was and Pathfinder is a game for Intelligent people, there are plenty of games for people that either are not smart enough to play it or are to lazy to learn ---- please so many other games have become so "simplified" that it makes me cry.

First off a suggesstion. Implying that gamers who want an easier version are untelligent and lazy not very smart. You just insulted myself and I'm pretty sure some others on this board. Simplfying something does not automatically make it a bad thing.

No one is sayingto make it too simple yet theor is room for improvement to make the game more accessible to newcomers and much easier for a SM to run. I used to be a hardcore 4E fan. I am stilla fan of it just not as much. Yet for all 4E faults it's easier to learn for new players and a dream for a DM to run and setup. Espcially on a short notice. The Pathfinder rules are great yet their are some areas that need improvement. And it would be a mistake on Paizo card to play the backwards compitable card with a 2E of PF. Gamers expect a new version to be different. Why would they buy the same ruleset a second time just repackaged with new art.

Your not going to get new fans to a game system if you start off assuming their dumb and lazy. I can almost guarantee that.

Kthulhu wrote:


And personally I think the game is more for people with large imaginations than necessarily those with large intellects.
+ 1 Trillion

I wouldn't be so sure. According to every source I found, the reason why Power Attack was nerfed in PF was because people complained that the math was too hard. And when you complain about simple arithmetic, it is fair to call you unintelligent.

Now I'm not saying all PF players fit this bill, but clearly enough did to get the game dumbed down, to the detriment of people who like playing martial characters, such as myself.


CoDzilla wrote:

According to every source I found, the reason why Power Attack was nerfed in PF was because people complained that the math was too hard. And when you complain about simple arithmetic, it is fair to call you unintelligent.

Now I'm not saying all PF players fit this bill, but clearly enough did to get the game dumbed down, to the detriment of people who like playing martial characters, such as myself.

Sure, Power Attack as written in 3.5 wasn't overly difficult to calculate. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't slow down play to do it on the fly with different numbers every time.

The issue isn't just difficulty - it's how much time these mechanics eat up at the table. Every time you have to look something up or go, "Uh, wait a minute, let me check the math on that..." (tapping numbers into cell phone calculator), you are interrupting the flow of play and breaking immersion. That, to me, is the best reason for streamlining and simplifying play.


Power Word Unzip wrote:
juanpsantiagoXIV wrote:
Mega dittos. If I wanted simplicity I'd go back to 4th, or heck, I'd start running FUDGE.
But you have to admit there's a bloat in the number of mechanics we deal with in gameplay.

No, I don't, because I don't think there is a bloat.


eilar wrote:
D&D was and Pathfinder is a game for Intelligent people, there are plenty of games for people that either are not smart enough to play it or are to lazy to learn...

Reporting as ordered!

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Devil's advocate made my week with that one.

You 'n' me both brother.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CoDzilla wrote:

According to every source I found, the reason why Power Attack was nerfed in PF was because people complained that the math was too hard. And when you complain about simple arithmetic, it is fair to call you unintelligent.

Now I'm not saying all PF players fit this bill, but clearly enough did to get the game dumbed down, to the detriment of people who like playing martial characters, such as myself.

Listen, I have played VERY many times with players who are exceptionally bright or talented in ways other than mathematics and logic. These players routinely have trouble whenever they are forced to do a calculation at the table. Their turn takes longer as they struggle through things. Then another player steps up and assists with the calculation. Or, the player simply gets it wrong. Sometimes understating the effect of his attack, sometimes overstating. Other times he decides to skip it because its a pain to deal with. He just wishes there was something he could do that didn't require on the spot math calculations. He just frigging wants to play. If some people want to feel all super smart and elite because they can whip out what they consider to be idiotically simple math at a seconds notice, go to town, but those players would not be welcome in the groups I run or play in. We want players who want to roleplay and we don't care if they're particularly knowledgeable of the rules or if they are math geniuses. If they can roleplay well, they're in.

Those of you who want to keep the game complicated to keep out the simpletons irritate the shizzle out of me.

Shadow Lodge

I have a BS degree in mathematics, with a minor in physics. And I would far prefer a simplified system. It's not because I'm stupid, or because I can't do the math. It's because if someone sees a character's stat block and thinks that some value seems too high or too low, you shouldn't have to sit down for an hour or so and rebuild the character from scratch starting at 1st level to verify if someone has overlooked some little -1 or +2 bonus along the way. The math is 3.X/PFRPG isn't especially hard, but it's often far more trouble than it's worth.


Kthulhu wrote:
The math in 3.X/PFRPG isn't especially hard, but it's often far more trouble than it's worth.

Amen to that. You need to use math to resolve things in the game, but it shouldn't be standing front and center as often as it does. I will seriously not play the highest levels of the game again because we were actually doing more math than playing. In my last campaign (AoW), just to keep things moving I had players taking their turn, while the previous player was calculating his damage and trying to remember all the buffs to involve. You know the game is a little nuts when you have to write 13 modifiers on an index card and then know which ones to apply to which event when resolving outcomes.


jreyst wrote:


Those of you who want to keep the game complicated to keep out the simpletons irritate the shizzle out of me.

I hear you on this. I play with intelligent people, who are also educated or in college.

We can very well understand the math and the rules in this game, but when it comes time to roleplay we don't enjoy looking up spells and obscure rules, or keeping track of layers upon layers of mods. Without the decade of experience that some around here have with playing 3e, us newer gamers could never hope to memorize the bazillion spells and rules oddities contained within.

I love Pathfinder, and I loved 3.5., but this unwieldy tangle of rules is just too much sometimes. Love the depth, but not the murk. Rules can and will get in the way of good roleplay sometimes, and arguments will happen in a system with so much legalese. As a GM, I've had to kick out players who liked to argue rules with me. I do not enjoy looking-up a rule in this GIANT book, only to find a reference to another page, which in turn doesn't answer my question, so I must look elsewhere.

I do think that Pathfinder should strive to lighten the rules load in future editions. This whole system could use an overhaul, a good trimming, and some streamlining. I just wish that it was less restrictive, yet just as in-depth and flavorful. I do not think this too difficult, this is the way modern games are heading and their is no excuse for PF to stick to the old 3e model. I am not implying that PF be dulled-down, or "rules-light", just that a little streamlining would go a long way.

That said, I have moved on for these very reasons, and now only use the Savage Worlds rules system, but with Pathfinder adventure paths and content. Paizo's writing is the best in the industry and I wouldn't give that up so easily. If I can emulate Pathfinder with another rules system that fits my style better then I will keep buying their products, hoping that some day a version of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game will be made to suit my needs.

Plus:
SW is Awesome Fun!

Shadow Lodge

Miranda wrote:
2E was much more rules heavy compared to Original (LBB) or OD&D, just ask the Old School players.

Oh, I know that. The game steadily moved towards being more and more rules heavy since it's inception.

OD&D was simpler than Basic D&D. Basic D&D was simpler than 1E. And 1E was simpler than 2E.

But the jump to 3.X was a far greater jump than the game had taken before. Suddenly it seemed like EVERYTHING had at least a three or four modifiers applied to it. None of the math is complicated, but as I said before, it's also often barely worth the effort (and sometimes isn't).


Kthulhu wrote:
I have a BS degree in mathematics, with a minor in physics. And I would far prefer a simplified system. It's not because I'm stupid, or because I can't do the math. It's because if someone sees a character's stat block and thinks that some value seems too high or too low, you shouldn't have to sit down for an hour or so and rebuild the character from scratch starting at 1st level to verify if someone has overlooked some little -1 or +2 bonus along the way. The math is 3.X/PFRPG isn't especially hard, but it's often far more trouble than it's worth.

I'm slow with on-my-turn math, or at least I feel like it because I played a playtest-inquisitor. :)

I can tell you one place where the math really adds up though... add up all the wasted seconds that unnecessary complexity adds to a turn.

Shadow Lodge

I read the occasional post on here complaining about minor bugs in Hero Lab (which I use) that cause some value to be off by +1 or -1, etc. My first thought is "How the hell did someone notice that?" My second thought is "HL saves so much damn time that I don't give a damn if one or two bugs make it slightly off of RAW, I'll trust the sheet and not care." Of course, it's also cool that the authors of that program seem to be fairly prompt in taking care of those bugs, from what I have read.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

CoDzilla wrote:
According to every source I found, the reason why Power Attack was nerfed in PF was because people complained that the math was too hard.

No, it was because the 3.0 version of the feat encouraged players to minmax the exact numerical value of PA that minimally impacted their attack bonus and maximized their damage output, based on the AC of the target and the attack bonus of the character. That's metagaming. And it slows down the *play* of the game.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
And it slows down the *play* of the game.

That was my gripe with it. Nothing worse than having to put players on an egg timer for their turn, because they're too busy recaclulating to play.

That said, massive PA damage was needed because monsters have sixteen times as many hp as they did in 1e, but martial characters don't do a whole lot more damage, out of the box. A flat weapon damage bonus equal to 1/2 BAB would be nice.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
According to every source I found, the reason why Power Attack was nerfed in PF was because people complained that the math was too hard.
No, it was because the 3.0 version of the feat encouraged players to minmax the exact numerical value of PA that minimally impacted their attack bonus and maximized their damage output, based on the AC of the target and the attack bonus of the character. That's metagaming. And it slows down the *play* of the game.

3.x PA is a perfect example of bringing the math of the game front and center for all to see.

That's why I prefer PF PA.

Call it what you want, but PF PA overall a better concept for the d20 version of the world's greatest role-playing game.

On the other hand, 3.x PA is a nice concept for 1E & 2E style combat rulesets because in those, as you get to higher levels, the attack roll became less and less meaningful, to the point that at the highest levels, you basically rolled not to roll a 1. 3.x PA starts to make high level attacks more meaningful again.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
And it slows down the *play* of the game.
That was my gripe with it. Nothing worse than having to put players on an egg timer for their turn, because they're too busy recaclulating to play.

Not to mention many of those people were terribad at math to begin with, and so were working off incorrect assumptions like "+1 means I hit 5% more often."


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
According to every source I found, the reason why Power Attack was nerfed in PF was because people complained that the math was too hard.
No, it was because the 3.0 version of the feat encouraged players to minmax the exact numerical value of PA that minimally impacted their attack bonus and maximized their damage output, based on the AC of the target and the attack bonus of the character. That's metagaming. And it slows down the *play* of the game.

Thank you for coming out and saying that, took the post right out from under me.

Also, as was shown in another thread, Power Attack wasn't nerfed. It just can't be used with some of the other feats that made it over-effective.

Kthulhu, I think youve got it right. There are a lot of times when there are too many rules involved (IMHO) and I've gotten really, REALLY used to letting hero lab do my math for me... if they occasionally drop a +1 I think it can be forgiven, too. It's a herculean task to code in everything like they do... pretty cool.

The only gripes I have with the system are carry-overs from 3.X on. I don't like that characters are so tied to magic items, but I can't really put forth an effective fix for that without making the game more complicated then it is.

However, and this seems strange to me, the game (while becoming more complex) has actually gotten much easier for new players since 3.X on.

So I guess my gripe is that characters are sometimes too tied into magical gear... but the thing I LIKE the most is that it's a living, breathing rules system and that we get to really get inside of it and figure things out. Open playtests are really cool and having designer input like we get here is great.


nathan blackmer wrote:

Also, as was shown in another thread, Power Attack wasn't nerfed. It just can't be used with some of the other feats that made it over-effective.

Eh. There are/were lots of ways to compensate for a penalty to hit, and not all of them were crazy like Shock Trooper or Wraithstrike. Sometimes it's as simple as a lot of little bits of teamwork adding up.

If Power Attacking for your full BAB seemed like a good idea to you (and not because you just didn't know better), then yeah, the PF version of PA is a nerf.

I think it's still a good change; it's just a change that needed to go along with a bunch of other things to compensate and I don't feel like they're all in place yet.

Andoran

Dire Mongoose wrote:
eilar wrote:

To me the worst thing is everyone got a bonus except the Basic Wizard.

You have to be kidding me. Extra HP? More extra HP? Juiced up specializations? Less restricting barred schools? Bonded item?

Seriously. People think this.

Andoran

Kthulhu wrote:
Miranda wrote:
2E was much more rules heavy compared to Original (LBB) or OD&D, just ask the Old School players.

Oh, I know that. The game steadily moved towards being more and more rules heavy since it's inception.

OD&D was simpler than Basic D&D. Basic D&D was simpler than 1E. And 1E was simpler than 2E.

But the jump to 3.X was a far greater jump than the game had taken before. Suddenly it seemed like EVERYTHING had at least a three or four modifiers applied to it. None of the math is complicated, but as I said before, it's also often barely worth the effort (and sometimes isn't).

It's funny someone up thread mentioned Rolemaster, considering one of the three lead guys in the 2/3 edition change came from the company that made rolemaster, and basically made 3.0 a hybrid between D&D and Rolemaster (which was the original intent of the Arms Law/Spell Law/ Claw Law books that became Rolemaster, i.e. they were houserules intended as variant combat.magic rules for D&D)...


houstonderek wrote:
Dire Mongoose wrote:
eilar wrote:

To me the worst thing is everyone got a bonus except the Basic Wizard.

You have to be kidding me. Extra HP? More extra HP? Juiced up specializations? Less restricting barred schools? Bonded item?

Seriously. People think this.

No need of being so dismissive. Right or wrong, one could say that the HP and specialization don't compensate to the nerf to sevral spells.

This could deserve another 45 page thread by himslef maybe, but no need to facepalm.

Shadow Lodge

Kaiyanwang wrote:
This could deserve another 45 page thread by himslef maybe, but no need to facepalm.

Please god no. Not another one. Just pick one of the dozen or so other troll-ridden threads where martial characters are being decried as utterly worthless to go throw the gasoline on the fire in. I'm going to try once again to quit them.


Kaiyanwang wrote:

No need of being so dismissive. Right or wrong, one could say that the HP and specialization don't compensate to the nerf to sevral spells.

Sure, you could argue it out if you wanted, but that's not what he's saying. He's saying the Wizard didn't get anything, when it not only got mechanical goodies, it also got flavor goodies.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:

No need of being so dismissive. Right or wrong, one could say that the HP and specialization don't compensate to the nerf to sevral spells.

Sure, you could argue it out if you wanted, but that's not what he's saying. He's saying the Wizard didn't get anything, when it not only got mechanical goodies, it also got flavor goodies.

Hell, no. Wizard got things indeed.

Andoran

Dire Mongoose wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:

No need of being so dismissive. Right or wrong, one could say that the HP and specialization don't compensate to the nerf to sevral spells.

Sure, you could argue it out if you wanted, but that's not what he's saying. He's saying the Wizard didn't get anything, when it not only got mechanical goodies, it also got flavor goodies.

Actually, I was agreeing with you, and saying that people actually believe that the wizard didn't get anything in Pathifinder. In my opinion, what wizards got pretty much makes up for the spell nerfs and is a net positive.

Which is the last thing a full caster needed. An upgrade.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
No, it was because the 3.0 version of the feat encouraged players to minmax the exact numerical value of PA that minimally impacted their attack bonus and maximized their damage output, based on the AC of the target and the attack bonus of the character.

But it's so easy! It's just:

P = X/2 - D/4

X = 20 plus your attack bonus (or lowest attack bonus in a full attack) minus the AC of your opponent.

D = your average damage prior to power attacking.

P = the number of points you should power attack. If you get a decimal when you solve for P, round up.

Although this simple formula needs tweaking to account for crit ranges, DR, etc., etc., etc.

Oh, I miss those days of applying "The Formula" before power attacking!


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
CoDzilla wrote:
According to every source I found, the reason why Power Attack was nerfed in PF was because people complained that the math was too hard.
No, it was because the 3.0 version of the feat encouraged players to minmax the exact numerical value of PA that minimally impacted their attack bonus and maximized their damage output, based on the AC of the target and the attack bonus of the character. That's metagaming. And it slows down the *play* of the game.

I wonder how many rounds of combat, most people got to have this really be an issue. "Too much I missed." "Too little, I hit but didn't do much" "Dang, fights over and I didn't even get to attack again."

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

WelbyBumpus wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
No, it was because the 3.0 version of the feat encouraged players to minmax the exact numerical value of PA that minimally impacted their attack bonus and maximized their damage output, based on the AC of the target and the attack bonus of the character.
But it's so easy! It's just:

Yes, and having to do some algebra at the start of your turn adds so much to the experience of playing a tactical miniatures game... ahem, I mean a roleplaying game.

;)


houstonderek wrote:
Dire Mongoose wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:

No need of being so dismissive. Right or wrong, one could say that the HP and specialization don't compensate to the nerf to sevral spells.

Sure, you could argue it out if you wanted, but that's not what he's saying. He's saying the Wizard didn't get anything, when it not only got mechanical goodies, it also got flavor goodies.

Actually, I was agreeing with you, and saying that people actually believe that the wizard didn't get anything in Pathifinder. In my opinion, what wizards got pretty much makes up for the spell nerfs and is a net positive.

Which is the last thing a full caster needed. An upgrade.

IMO is a net slight negative (what I said above, and why I think one should not be dismissive)...


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
WelbyBumpus wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
No, it was because the 3.0 version of the feat encouraged players to minmax the exact numerical value of PA that minimally impacted their attack bonus and maximized their damage output, based on the AC of the target and the attack bonus of the character.
But it's so easy! It's just:

Yes, and having to do some algebra at the start of your turn adds so much to the experience of playing a tactical miniatures game... ahem, I mean a roleplaying game.

;)

Just like the ability to formulate spells on the fly with Words of Power doesn't involve metagaming and "adds so much to the experience of playing a, ahem, roleplaying game."

It is very odd that the Paizo staff in general defend taking the possibility of formulaic combat out of the hands of martial characters, and yet go out of their way to give it to spellcaster characters (arguably the slowest playing classes).

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

I don't think you understand what "metagaming" means.

There's a big difference between

"hold on, this creature is vulnerable to fire, let me use WOP to build a fire spell so we can beat it,"

and

"hold on, I need to optimize my attack roll bonus vs. the target's armor class so I can apply the largest number points of bonus hit point damage against this creature."

"It is vulnerable to fire," "make a new fire spell," and "beat the monster" are all things a character might say.

"Attack roll," "armor class," and "points of bonus hit point damage" are not things a character might say. They are things a player might say. Furthermore, I doubt a typical fighter, barbarian, or brute monster with Power Attack is really thinking about 5% increments in how wild his swing is to add an equal increment to how hard he's hitting, and trying to optimize one over the other.

One example does not require the player to think about the game world as if it were a *game*, the other example does.

One is not metagaming, the other is.

1,001 to 1,050 of 1,173 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / What is the worst thing about Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.