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

Next Playtest


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Andoran

Jeremiziah wrote:


Some of you dudes have simply got to learn that some criticism of WotC is going to occur. Some of it's even justified. Some criticism of Paizo is justified. Some criticism of the pope is justified. There are no friends to be won nor people to be influenced by e-knighting blindly and wholly on behalf of a company you don't directly work for. It's not "groupthink". It's a bunch of people who generally are not WotC roadies discussing WotC's policies/procedures/decisions using critical thinking skills. There's lots to like about the playtest, but everything need not be sunshine and bunnies.

Good heavens.

Here the thing thpugh. I'm not saying everything about the 5E playtest should be all postive. Neither should it be all negative either. What is bothering myself and others is the attempt by some to stir up some sort of anti-5E rhetoric or flamewars. Is the legal document for the playtest slightly annoying yes. Yet nothing that has not be seen already or been done before by another company. Will posters like and not like some of the rules of course. Yet if you hated 4e and want nothing to do with 5E why the helly do you even care let alone post in a forum about 5E. Seems kind of redundant and a waste of time. Nor is anyone being forced to post in a thread. So "its' the internet or himan nature" is not a good excuse either.

When some of us are trying to learn more and enjoy a playest having people rain on our parade all the time is annoying. Disagreeing is one thing. Using anything, everything and nothing as an excuse to stir up some sort of reaction not good on any level. Nor dies it help the hobby either.


Am I the only one that didn't read a word of the 'contract?' I mean, I just checked some boxes, downloaded the stuff, looked it over, and discarded it into the trash bin.

Now I'm left wondering what exactly I agreed to...


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

You have to give WoTC your first born. Tough, huh?

Qadira

Detect Magic wrote:

Am I the only one that didn't read a word of the 'contract?' I mean, I just checked some boxes, downloaded the stuff, looked it over, and discarded it into the trash bin.

Now I'm left wondering what exactly I agreed to...

You pretty much agree not to steal ideas from the game, not to distribute the playtest files to people who haven't signed up for the playtest, not to quote mechanics from the files verbatim and that in the event WotC implements some idea into the game based on your playtesting input you don't sue WotC for implementing that idea.


Okay. Just so long as I'm not being black-bagged in the middle of the night, they can can have my first born.


TheChozyn wrote:

I'm just waiting to see the pathfinder logo crossed out and D&D Next over top of it...

Yes I have read it, and I see some similarities to Pathfinder that should flatter the folks at Paizo for creating such a great product that WOTC wants to adapt it. Needless to say my money is staying here.

Out of curiosity, which innovations unique to Pathfinder do you see popping up in D&D Next?

Cheliax

Bad Request - Invalid URL

HTTP Error 400. The request URL is invalid.

Any idears why I'm still getting this? =( Was hoping to possibly talk to some people before my Shattered Empires game tomorrow to see if there's any interest in taking it for a spin.


I finally sorted it out a little while ago by making an entirely new ID and starting the process over. I don't know if it was some kind of weird cache issue, though I tried to clear the cache and also tried it on several different browsers.

Worked fine first time with the new ID.

Cheliax

Ah I'll give that a go...sorta sad that the email I used was the one I've used for my DDI sub for a couple years...loyalty 4tw


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Tales Subscriber
TheChozyn wrote:

I'm just waiting to see the pathfinder logo crossed out and D&D Next over top of it...

Yes I have read it, and I see some similarities to Pathfinder that should flatter the folks at Paizo for creating such a great product that WOTC wants to adapt it. Needless to say my money is staying here.

With all due respect, Paizo did not in any way create the base of the Pathfinder system. They took DND 3.5 and tweaked it. WotC developed 3e, and created the OGL. I think history is being rewritten by some here. I do like Paizo, but they are not the game system development geniuses some people make them out to be in the case of the core rulebook.

Their later works are more original material, but still mostly builds on the 12 year old WotC developed IP.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"This new D&D game looks like it was based off a game that was based off an old d&d system."

Oh, the horrors.

Hint: It's a stated design goal; they want to take the look, feel, and good parts of previous editions. Hint part duex: Pathfiner is a previous edition to "Next". Hint 3: OGL

Paizo Employee Webstore Gninja Minion

Removed posts. Knock it off with the over-the-top hyperbole.

Andoran

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Garden Tool wrote:
The very few playtesters who have been able to get their hands on the playtest are already reporting errors (a greataxe listing 1d12 in one place and 2d6 in another, etc.).

I think the playtest document could have done with a bit more explanation for some things, but what are being perceived as errors may not actually be so; the latest Legends and Lore article states: " For the races, we decided to use a mechanic that improves a weapon's die to indicate a racial affinity for a weapon."

The Hit Die for a Fighter is also apparently d10, the d12 Hit Die the Dwarf Fighter has it due to a racial benefit (probably increase Hit Die by one step).

Qadira

DigitalMage wrote:
Garden Tool wrote:
The very few playtesters who have been able to get their hands on the playtest are already reporting errors (a greataxe listing 1d12 in one place and 2d6 in another, etc.).

I think the playtest document could have done with a bit more explanation for some things, but what are being perceived as errors may not actually be so; the latest Legends and Lore article states: " For the races, we decided to use a mechanic that improves a weapon's die to indicate a racial affinity for a weapon."

The Hit Die for a Fighter is also apparently d10, the d12 Hit Die the Dwarf Fighter has it due to a racial benefit (probably increase Hit Die by one step).

I don't know... both of the Clerics have a d8 Hit Die, even when the other is a Dwarf.

Maybe it's a racial feature that only Hill Dwarves have? I don't consider that likely, though, because I don't think they'd go so far as to make the different sub-races mechanically distinct.


Since they raised the hit dice of the wizard to d6, I can see how the fighter's hit die would be a d12.

And it goes along with the general trend of more hit points at low level.

Qadira

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Since they raised the hit dice of the wizard to d6, I can see how the fighter's hit die would be a d12.

And it goes along with the general trend of more hit points at low level.

Actually, having now read the first playtest notes on the Wizards site, you were right: the dwarf Fighter has a d12 for his hit die by virtue of his race.

So, apparently there's some favored class mechanic, one benefit of which is potentially gaining an increase in hit die type if the class is favored? Curious, I don't really know what to think of it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Ratpick wrote:
So, apparently there's some favored class mechanic, one benefit of which is potentially gaining an increase in hit die type if the class is favored? Curious, I don't really know what to think of it.

One average it is 1 extra hit point per level (5.5 vs. 6.5)


Thraxus wrote:
Ratpick wrote:
So, apparently there's some favored class mechanic, one benefit of which is potentially gaining an increase in hit die type if the class is favored? Curious, I don't really know what to think of it.
One average it is 1 extra hit point per level (5.5 vs. 6.5)

Not all that different from PF's favored class mechanic, at least on average and assuming you choose the hp version.

Of course, without full creation mechanics, we don't know who it's available to or what other options there are.

Qadira

Thraxus wrote:
Ratpick wrote:
So, apparently there's some favored class mechanic, one benefit of which is potentially gaining an increase in hit die type if the class is favored? Curious, I don't really know what to think of it.
One average it is 1 extra hit point per level (5.5 vs. 6.5)

Yeah, I could calculate as much. The reason why I don't know what to think of it is that I'm not really partial to favored class mechanics. I think if the races and their racial abilities support a certain class of character strongly, players of that race will generally gravitate towards those classes. Favored class mechanics are to me another layer of reward for playing according to type, which makes more left-field character concepts less rewarding.

Also, having looked at the pregens again, the Dwarf Cleric apparently deals 1d10 damage with his warhammer instead of 1d8, as stated on the weapon table in the rules. So, maybe dwarfs get to increase their damage dice with hammers and axes? That would also explain the Dwarf Fighter's 2d6 damage with his greataxe, when it says 1d12 in the weapon table.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Yeah, Dwarves apparently get a damage increase with axes and hammers. I am wondering how different Hill Dwarves and Mountain Dwarves are going to be. They seem to get a different attribute bump (based on speculation on the WOTC boards).


So you think the 2d6 isn't a mistake, Ratpick?

If that's the case, we definitely need more info. I'll be glad when we have the creation package, so these kinds of questions will be answered.

Qadira

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

So you think the 2d6 isn't a mistake, Ratpick?

If that's the case, we definitely need more info. I'll be glad when we have the creation package, so these kinds of questions will be answered.

I'm starting to think that it's not a mistake.

I think I can grok it. Since the basic rules for weapons are probably going to remain as is and be simple, if they want to get across the idea that dwarves are good at using axes and hammers, increasing their damage dice by one step is a really simple and straightforward solution. It makes a dwarf fighter with an axe a viable character mechanically: it doesn't just tell you that most dwarfs favour axes and hammers, it shows you that they will kill you dead with axes and hammers.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I like it as a way to make fringe weapons viable parts of the game. One could extend the idea to particular cultures using odd weapons without being mechanically disadvantaged.

Qadira

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I like it as a way to make fringe weapons viable parts of the game. One could extend the idea to particular cultures using odd weapons without being mechanically disadvantaged.

Absolutely. It's a simple way to make certain weapons more advantageous to certain races without having to resort to 3.5's and 4e's exotic weapons, which I saw rarely used beyond the dwarves always wielding dwarven waraxes for greater damage if they were proficient in martial weapons.

I hope this is an indication that exotic weapons in general are history. Good riddance, spiked chains and double swords. You won't be missed.


Actually, if you look at each pregen they are all bumped one die category on their weapons.

Also, their attack bonuses all appear to be 2 or 3 higer than the numbers from stats would imply. This makes me think there is the prof bonus on weapons like in 4e.

EDIT: For what it's worth though, that may have been for the sake of the playtest, as the adventure module states to see if the game allows for various playstyles. They may have just bumped the PC's so the focus can be more on technique instead of a balanced adventure.


In Mike Mearls column yesterday he verified that your race can bump the damage die of your weapon.

Taldor

Having some enjoyment out of reading the playtest. Yet to use it as I can only play every other Friday now due to work.


True, but he only mentioned the Dwarf's warhammer. ALL the pregens had the die bump.

Does that mean:
Hill dwarves get axes
Humans get quarterstaffs
Halflings get slings and daggers
Mountain dwarves get warhammers
High elves get.. also quarterstaffs

I can see the Dwarf and Halfling bumps, those have some history to them, but why do both Human and High Elves get Quarterstaff (especially since High Elf mentions sword and bow)? They may have intended it for a certain weapon for each racial affinity, but the quarterstaff doesn't seem to fit that reasoning. The article even mentions "remember how the dwarf cleric did more damage with a warhammer?" implying that it was alone in this benefit.

To append my other point, looking back over the attacks
The fighter gets +3 over his ability to his weapon attack
both clerics, the wizard, and the halfling get +2 to their weapon attacks
the wizard gets an extra +1 over his Magical attack benefit.

Some of these may reflect the proficiency bonus of weapons like in 4E (though I wish they had them in the equipment list, so any weapon they pick up will be less than what they have in hand). Some may be oversight, some may be intentional, I just noticed they didn't work out

Other issues we had come up:
Magic missle uses the term "unobstructed path", but not what that means. I see the interpretation arguments that the statement could bring up. Does it mean that if ANYTHING is in the way it doesn't auto hit, or just as long as nothing stands completely in the way it hits? It could be read either way.

The removal of AoO's cleans up some of the bog of combat, but it makes all enemies going at the same initiative much deadlier as many can move in attack move out, make room for more, as they all cycle through. Now that they get to move, attack, move without penalty or risk.

The sleep spell worked wonders for the first two fights, but when do they get unslowed? The unconscious part says damage or slap/shake, but the slowed part only damage. It can be assumed that the slap or shake may work as well, but the leaving the intentions up to assumption is how so many RAI/RAW arguments came up at our tables in 3.X

Regardless of all this, it did play well, we had fun, and it looks like it could work out well. These were just things that didn't sit quite right with our group.

Qadira

Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
True, but he only mentioned the Dwarf's warhammer. ALL the pregens had the die bump.

Nope! Quarterstaff deals 1d8 damage according to the weapon table, so the 1d8 for the elf and cleric are correct.

The halfling's 1d6 damage with the dagger may either be a halfling feature, as you suspect, or a feature of the Rogue we are not being shown, which would be a direct lift from 4e.


Here's some issued I had with the Playtest (and DDN's rules) so far.

  • De-codifying & Ambiguous Rules: The first thing I noticed was the lack of a full Skill List (or any list, what so ever). We got some benefits to Skills via the Background, but that's sorta un-helpful if you don't know really what their application is. And then it hit me, a purposeful ambiguous skill list to players go back to "ROLE-Playing" *facepalm*. Ok, call me a 3E/4E fanboi but I really liked a lot of the codified rules for Players. I never saw them as limitations for what I could do, but instead saw it as a way to keep things on the level. That meant the DM too. If I saw a 10-ft. pit , I knew (judging from my modifiers) that I had a pretty good chance of jumping or not. With DDN, I can guesstimate and roll 1d20 + Strength and possibly another modifier (if I'm trained in that). And the DM arbitrates if I made it or not (or even if I could attempt to do it in the first place). This doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. There's literally no transparency with the rules. And to make matters worse, with out the PCs knowing a gist of what the DC's look like, it's completely under the DM's discretion to keep the DCs as written, or make them up as they go. At least in 3E/4E when a DM did this, it was noticable by the whole group.

    Additonally, the Improvisation rules are a mess. With no idea of what you can or can't do, skies the limit. And for some, this might be a great boon to play. No more sticking to specific rolls, die, penalties, and such and such. They just describe what they do, the DM decides if it's possible, assigns specific checks they have to make, and hope for the best. OR the DM could decide that it's not possible and your idea is squashed. And here we start with the PC vs. DM mentality. At least with a codified system, it keeps the DM honest. And I see other problems arise like a DM saying ok to one form of Improvisation and No to another that will cause strive within a group. Meaning, the rules change as the DM's mood does. Gee, what great fun.

    Thirdly, this heavily rewards a Player's "out of the box" thinking or player's who have natural talent to be persuasive or has a natural knack to get people to see their Point of View. IF you don't have these natural characteristics and don't really feel being specifically cleaver all the time, Improv-style games are NOT for you. This doesn't mean that I think smart players should be penalized, but codified rules help mitigate how far they could strech their improvisation.

  • Healing: Coming from 4E, to see healing reduced to what we currently have it is, well bad. It's not necessarily the fact that I get to roll a whopping 1d8 for my Cure Light Wounds spell, it's the fact that it's my whole action to possibly cure 1 HP of damage. Now, the Cleric of Pelor has a feat that allows him to heal Max on healing, which is good, but for any other cleric......not happenin. They need some sort of ability to heal "on the fly". It doesn't have to heal a LOT and it doesn't have to be at-will (I'll take 1 per battle).
  • Monsters: Their stat blocks are bad, and their implementation into adventures is even worse. Since all saves are directly related to Ability scors, those need to be in the small stat blocks. Since they can use specific PC spells, THEY need to be in the stat blocks. I don't (repeat, DON'T) want to cross reference 3 different books just so I know how to play and deploy monsters.
  • Qadira

    Diffan wrote:
    Thirdly, this heavily rewards a Player's "out of the box" thinking or player's who have natural talent to be persuasive or has a natural knack to get people to see their Point of View. IF you don't have these natural characteristics and don't really feel being specifically cleaver all the time, Improv-style games are NOT for you. This doesn't mean that I think smart players should be penalized, but codified rules help mitigate how far they could strech their improvisation.

    I personally take no issue with this. I much prefer the idea of challenging the players over challenging their characters.

    However, there's no need for a system not to support both: it is much easier to build complexity upon a simple and loose rules set than it is to strip complexity from a complex base system. I'm sure that they will be providing more crunchy and detailed rules for dealing with, say, social encounters and skill use, but as modules, because building those assumptions into the core rules would alienate people who prefer to play it fast and loose.

    In the end, it's all about DMs and players being on the same page about these things. I also feel that if the DM only gives the players fast and loose rules, players will be more likely to think outside of the box, while a DM who gives the players more detailed rules will encourage players to look for solutions within the rules. (And I've seen this happen: I've had the pleasure of running both 4e and Labyrinth Lord for one of my friends. In 4e, he stayed within the rules and looked for creative solutions and tricks within the rules, while in Labyrinth Lord he employed a lot of outside-the-box thinking and tried to come up with tricks that were not codified directly into the rules. I think the complexity and assumptions of the system feed into how players act in the game.) Neither philosophy is bad in my opinion, I just happen to prefer the former.


    Diffan wrote:

    Here's some issued I had with the Playtest (and DDN's rules) so far.

  • De-codifying & Ambiguous Rules: The first thing I noticed was the lack of a full Skill List (or any list, what so ever). We got some benefits to Skills via the Background, but that's sorta un-helpful if you don't know really what their application is. And then it hit me, a purposeful ambiguous skill list to players go back to "ROLE-Playing" *facepalm*. Ok, call me a 3E/4E fanboi but I really liked a lot of the codified rules for Players. I never saw them as limitations for what I could do, but instead saw it as a way to keep things on the level. That meant the DM too. If I saw a 10-ft. pit , I knew (judging from my modifiers) that I had a pretty good chance of jumping or not. With DDN, I can guesstimate and roll 1d20 + Strength and possibly another modifier (if I'm trained in that). And the DM arbitrates if I made it or not (or even if I could attempt to do it in the first place). This doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. There's literally no transparency with the rules. And to make matters worse, with out the PCs knowing a gist of what the DC's look like, it's completely under the DM's discretion to keep the DCs as written, or make them up as they go. At least in 3E/4E when a DM did this, it was noticable by the whole group.
  • I wouldn't be too sure at this point that the ambiguous skill list is a design feature. It may just be that the skill details were left out of the initial playtest. Since Backgrounds are part of an optional module, skills may be too, but that module will probably include more details on the skills.

    Diffan wrote:
    Healing: Coming from 4E, to see healing reduced to what we currently have it is, well bad. It's not necessarily the fact that I get to roll a whopping 1d8 for my Cure Light Wounds spell, it's the fact that it's my whole action to possibly cure 1 HP of damage. Now, the Cleric of Pelor has a feat that allows him to heal Max on healing, which is good, but for any other cleric......not happenin. They need some sort of ability to heal "on the fly". It doesn't have to heal a LOT and it doesn't have to be at-will (I'll take 1 per battle).

    The other Cleric has a Healing Word spell he can use in combat and still act.

    Diffan wrote:
    Monsters: Their stat blocks are bad, and their implementation into adventures is even worse. Since all saves are directly related to Ability scors, those need to be in the small stat blocks. Since they can use specific PC spells, THEY need to be in the stat blocks. I don't (repeat, DON'T) want to cross reference 3 different books just so I know how to play and deploy monsters.

    Since the adventure is an only slightly modified lift of the old Keep, I'm not sure if this is intended to be the new official adventure style or just something hacked together for the playtest. Definitely worth commenting on. On the one hand, I agree it would be nice to have more info on the monsters at hand, on the other, I'm not sure how much space really needs to be taken up with stats and abilities reprinted from other books, especially for higher levels where you get more abilities. Do we really need the complete text for a couple dozen spells if there's a caster monster?


    thejeff wrote:
    Diffan wrote:

    Here's some issued I had with the Playtest (and DDN's rules) so far.

  • De-codifying & Ambiguous Rules: The first thing I noticed was the lack of a full Skill List (or any list, what so ever). We got some benefits to Skills via the Background, but that's sorta un-helpful if you don't know really what their application is. And then it hit me, a purposeful ambiguous skill list to players go back to "ROLE-Playing" *facepalm*. Ok, call me a 3E/4E fanboi but I really liked a lot of the codified rules for Players. I never saw them as limitations for what I could do, but instead saw it as a way to keep things on the level. That meant the DM too. If I saw a 10-ft. pit , I knew (judging from my modifiers) that I had a pretty good chance of jumping or not. With DDN, I can guesstimate and roll 1d20 + Strength and possibly another modifier (if I'm trained in that). And the DM arbitrates if I made it or not (or even if I could attempt to do it in the first place). This doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. There's literally no transparency with the rules. And to make matters worse, with out the PCs knowing a gist of what the DC's look like, it's completely under the DM's discretion to keep the DCs as written, or make them up as they go. At least in 3E/4E when a DM did this, it was noticable by the whole group.
  • I wouldn't be too sure at this point that the ambiguous skill list is a design feature. It may just be that the skill details were left out of the initial playtest. Since Backgrounds are part of an optional module, skills may be too, but that module will probably include more details on the skills.

    We'll have to see. Most of the skill usage was in the DM Guide, which I think should've been in the How To book. Players should know how to use these things, not guess.

    thejeff wrote:
    Diffan wrote:
    Healing: Coming from 4E, to see healing reduced to what we currently have it is, well bad. It's not necessarily the fact that I get to roll a whopping 1d8 for my Cure Light Wounds spell, it's the fact that it's my whole action to possibly cure 1 HP of damage. Now, the Cleric of Pelor has a feat that allows him to heal Max on healing, which is good, but for any other cleric......not happenin. They need some sort of ability to heal "on the fly". It doesn't have to heal a LOT and it doesn't have to be at-will (I'll take 1 per battle).

    The other Cleric has a Healing Word spell he can use in combat and still act.

    Yet it draws directly from their spell resources. I'd like something that doesn't draw from that, which is why I think the best option is to have an ability that uses their Channel Divinity feature or another feature all together. It's definitly a 4E aspect that I like.

    thejeff wrote:
    Diffan wrote:


    •Monsters: Their stat blocks are bad, and their implementation into adventures is even worse. Since all saves are directly related to Ability scors, those need to be in the small stat blocks. Since they can use specific PC spells, THEY need to be in the stat blocks. I don't (repeat, DON'T) want to cross reference 3 different books just so I know how to play and deploy monsters.
    Since the adventure is an only slightly modified lift of the old Keep, I'm not sure if this is intended to be the new official adventure style or just something hacked together for the playtest. Definitely worth commenting on. On the one hand, I agree it would be nice to have more info on the monsters at hand, on the other, I'm not sure how much space really needs to be taken up with stats and abilities reprinted from other books, especially for higher levels where you get more abilities. Do we really need the complete text for a couple dozen spells if there's a caster monster?

    Agree with you about the adventure, it was my guess that they fit as much into the document as they could, meaning that Monsters were done quickly with little info given. I hope it's not the case with future products.

    As for their stat block, i don't think we need a dozen spell descriptions for it. If it's a BBEG Necromancer, give him 2 or 3 spells as his "Go-To's" and put on a little footnote of other spells they might have to swap for. But this also plays on Monsters NOT being forced under the same rules as PC creation. I hope they remain different. I like 're-charge' mechanics of 4E. I don't think my monster (who's probably not going to live past 4 rounds) is going to need a full spell list of Detect Magic, Light, Locate Object, etc. Just some attack, defense, and utilty spells that's good for battle.

    Qadira

    I think one of the reasons why skill use is not in the How to Play section (beyond saying that you might get to add your skill bonus to your ability checks according to DM discretion) is that they're moving away from having rules for everything and towards a style of game where the DM makes informed rulings based on a set of guidelines.

    To use the terms of the Old-School Primer, 3e and 4e are on the rules side, while Next is heavily leaning towards the rulings side.


    Ratpick wrote:

    I think one of the reasons why skill use is not in the How to Play section (beyond saying that you might get to add your skill bonus to your ability checks according to DM discretion) is that they're moving away from having rules for everything and towards a style of game where the DM makes informed rulings based on a set of guidelines.

    To use the terms of the Old-School Primer, 3e and 4e are on the rules side, while Next is heavily leaning towards the rulings side.

    I definitly see that, but I can't say I'm happy with it. As I DM the most in my group, I really don't want that sort of power. I'm perfectly fine with using the rules to help adjust my rulings or let the rules take over completely in some instances. Without codified rules, you have more DM arbitration, which means more work for the DM. And when that DM is in a bad mood (for whatever reason), good luck getting the Arbiter to say "Yes" to any suggestions of your character.

    Qadira

    Diffan wrote:
    Ratpick wrote:

    I think one of the reasons why skill use is not in the How to Play section (beyond saying that you might get to add your skill bonus to your ability checks according to DM discretion) is that they're moving away from having rules for everything and towards a style of game where the DM makes informed rulings based on a set of guidelines.

    To use the terms of the Old-School Primer, 3e and 4e are on the rules side, while Next is heavily leaning towards the rulings side.

    I definitly see that, but I can't say I'm happy with it. As I DM the most in my group, I really don't want that sort of power. I'm perfectly fine with using the rules to help adjust my rulings or let the rules take over completely in some instances. Without codified rules, you have more DM arbitration, which means more work for the DM. And when that DM is in a bad mood (for whatever reason), good luck getting the Arbiter to say "Yes" to any suggestions of your character.

    True, but as I pointed out in my earlier post, the two don't need to be mutually exclusive. It's just easier to build a basic system with lots of room for DM-made rulings and to build more task resolution systems on top of that than it is the other way around. I'm sure there will be rules modules to appease the needs of people who like more crunch with their rules, but a simple task resolution system with lots of freedom for DM arbitration pleases the old-school nuts like me, and as I said, it's easier to start with that as a baseline.

    51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / Next Playtest All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

    ©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.