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!

5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?)


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

51 to 100 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Nobody really ripped into basic (or AD&D) the way people rip into the modern editions. They just didn't buy whichever, and kept to themselves.

Of course, there wasn't an internet back then. When people argued, they had to pretty much do it face-to-face. And people are a lot more civil when they're denied the anonymity of the internet. :)

And when you tell the kids today what it was like using stone internet... Without funny fat cats of questionable grammar, even without bases that are belong to us... They don't believe you.

Qadira

Kthulhu wrote:
It became an edition war. 1E vs Basic.

I don't think that was ever a result of Arneson vs. Gygax. Both games were produced and supported by the same company, at the same time.

Also, I don't think there ever was a flaming edition war between 1e and B/X players.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.

*shrug* Like I've said elsewhere, I've no interest in a new system called 5e from a gaming point of view.

From an industry PoV... I hope the brand remains happy and healthy (but not as healthy as Pathfinder :P)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Prior to 3E, all editions of D&D were pretty much compatible (the monsters if not the player characters). I remember running a game that combined 2E, BECMI, and a couple of other game systems into a hybrid system that worked pretty well -- in fact, the main elements that did not work well actually came from BECMI supplements.

When 3E came along, it was not especially compatible with prior editions -- but people put a lot of effort into converting stuff from prior editions to 3E.

When 4E came along, Wizards went out of their way to make a clean break from 3E. The lack of an OGL for 4E discouraged conversions (certainly no one could be paid for making them). The problem, of course, was that the OGL prevented Wizards from actually killing off 3E -- all they could do was keep anyone from marketing it as D&D.

Thua, when Pathfinder was developed, there were two incompatible D&D-like game systems on the market, and very little of the material published for one could be used with the other. Gamers with limited budgets thus had to pick one or the other -- and the edition wars started when people felt the need to prove to others that the made the "right" choice on forums shared by fans of both systems.

I think it is the incompatibility combined with the common origins of D&D and Pathfinder that led to the quarrels -- after all, how many people have ever gotten into heated arguments over the relative merits of D&D, Runequest, and GURPS? The lack of forums shared by fans of those systems has made such arguments all but non-existent.

Qadira

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Runequest and GURPS players generally don't hang out with D&D players on forums. Even on RPG.net there is a separate forum for D&D players.

I think it's got at least something to do with the mentality that D&D, being the most popular RPG, is baby's first RPG. It's often not stated as such, but I assume there is a bit of elitism on the part of players of non-D&D systems towards D&D players, stemming from the idea that "At least we don't play D&D."

I can actually attest to this phenomena: I started role-playing with MERP and Rolemaster, and even though I'd never played D&D it was somehow ingrained in my mind as a less refined RPG than the obviously superior Rolemaster system that we used. I mean, D&D didn't even have critical hit charts and task resolution tables!


I have always had the opposite attitude. During the RPG boom in the early 80s, we never felt D&D was remotely threatened

I remember laughing over the years at the Johnny-come-latelys. GURPS was just another Steve Jackson assembly-line churnout when it first came out; Car Wars, fanatsy-style. Rolemaster wasn't a system; it was a set of tables that we could use for D&D. Fantasy Hero was Champions in a fantasy settting. Runequest was D&D Lite. The BRP system was a joke. And Tunnels and Trolls was just, well, Tunnels and Trolls.

Others may have had the attitude that D&D was for kids, but I never met any of them. And these days, even 4E seems to be an elite game.

Those who prefer other systems may put their noses up, but they won't manage to get even the tips of them up to D&D's level. :)

Andoran

I'm still boycotting HASBRO/WoTC and i urge all my close gaming friends to do the same. Pathfinder has met my expectations as not only a fine and growing gaming system with great adventures, a diverse yet cohesive setting, Pathfinder Society play and player support; but Paizo is also an honorable company with a genuine interest in player feedback. I do not expect that Paizo will change its gaming system every five years or so, and I am happy to continue to support Paizo/Pathfinder.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

David knott 242 wrote:

When 4E came along, Wizards went out of their way to make a clean break from 3E. The lack of an OGL for 4E discouraged conversions (certainly no one could be paid for making them). The problem, of course, was that the OGL prevented Wizards from actually killing off 3E -- all they could do was keep anyone from marketing it as D&D.

Thua, when Pathfinder was developed, there were two incompatible D&D-like game systems on the market, and very little of the material published for one could be used with the other. Gamers with limited budgets thus had to pick one or the other -- and the edition wars started when people felt the need to prove to others that the made the "right" choice on forums shared by fans of both systems.

I'll disagree (and yes I know Anecdote != data).

When 4x came along, and it was radically different than 3.x, I was done. My 3.x books were all fine, I could spend the rest of my life converting my older adventures to 3.x (I disagree it was too different. My two favourite adventures, Castle Amber and Ghost Tower of Inverness converted pretty easily.)

I started with Pathfinder not as an RPG, but as adventure paths (buried under the Superstar stuff is a Charter superscriber). I still had credit from my Dragon and Dungeon subscriptions* so I figured "What the heck, it's money already spent." I was impressed with the quality and hard work, and openness of the product, produced on (relatively) short notice. I knew that I'd have a source of adventures and 'fluff' to keep me warm since My Realms** had been destroyed and I wasn't spending money on rule books.

When Paizo took the unprecidented (to my knowlege) open playtest to make a rulebook that would support their adventure paths, I signed on. I didn't agree with all their decisions, and vocally fought for what I thought was 'right'. But they listened to the feedback.

So the 'split' started long before the Pathfinder RPG was released.

*

Spoiler:
Side note, Paizo honoured the lifetime subscriptions to Dragon. When WotC took the magazines back, how did that work out for you?

**
Spoiler:
Yes, my realms books (that weren't stolen) are still intact, and didn't burst into flame. I'm rereading WotSQ now in fact. But it stopped 'living' with official support. The tactical nuked, plauged, retconned Realms isn't 'my' world anymore.


Matthew Morris wrote:
When 4x came along, and it was radically different than 3.x, I was done. My 3.x books were all fine, I could spend the rest of my life converting my older adventures to 3.x (I disagree it was too different. My two favourite adventures, Castle Amber and Ghost Tower of Inverness converted pretty easily.

I've heard the "I'm done" thing before, from an avid 3.5 collector. He said he had all the 3.5 books he needed, actually before 4E came out.

As soon as Pathfinder came out, he groaned and said, "Great! Now I have more 3.5 to collect." He saw, and still sees, negligible difference between 3.5 and PF.

I pretty much agree with him. The two systems are so compatible I can run Pathfinder materials in my 3.5 game without conversion.

I cannot say that about 4E, however. I see too much difference between the systems.

I have to agree with David Knott. 4E and PF are non-compatible systems, and this difference existed with 3.5 before Pathfinder came out. (Although I will amend the statement to translate non-compatible to "not readily compatible".)

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
I'm still boycotting HASBRO/WoTC and i urge all my close gaming friends to do the same.

By all means inform your friends of your feelings, but I urge you to then let them make up their own minds. The people within WotC change, policies change, the WotC now isn't the same as that 4 years ago!

WotC has done some great things and some bad, unfortunately it seems for many people any bad stuff immediately makes them forget the great stuff, but no matter how much new good stuff they do the bad will never be forgiven.

Whilst I am not a huge WotC fan and don't agree with all they have done, I like to keep an open mind and assess each thing they do on its own merits.

Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Paizo is also an honorable company with a genuine interest in player feedback.

From the looks of things WotC are also genuinely interested in feedback with this playtest, from blogs, to chats, to forums, and the forthcoming surveys.

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looking at the playtest rules, I think Next has a simple enough framework to at least make converting adventures into it simple, with monsters mainly requiring some eyeballing. Feats and classes, however, I'm not certain of. While the Cleric and Wizard look very much like their 3.5 versions, the Fighter and Rogue are quite dramatically different.

Also, as far as feats go, the feats that the pregen characters get are quite different from standard 3e and 4e feats. Most 3e and 4e feats are numerical bonuses to certain things, while Next feats, based on the pregens, seem to be "Completely new stuff for you to do!"

Which is actually an approach that I vastly prefer to both 3e and 4e. I think character customization should be about gaining more options, not about shifting the math around.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ratpick wrote:

Runequest and GURPS players generally don't hang out with D&D players on forums. Even on RPG.net there is a separate forum for D&D players.

I think it's got at least something to do with the mentality that D&D, being the most popular RPG, is baby's first RPG. It's often not stated as such, but I assume there is a bit of elitism on the part of players of non-D&D systems towards D&D players, stemming from the idea that "At least we don't play D&D."

There actually is some merit to that attitude. D&D as a game is very much rooted in it's wargame origins. The heavy emphasis on crunch especially in the later editions has a definite shape in how the game is played even on the roleplaying itself. I took a ten year break from D&D just before 2nd editition took hold and did not come back until late into third. And I've sampled a lot of games from White Wolf, to MERPS, to Amber. And my general observation is that the systems that devote less emphasis to crunch attract a profile of players that tend to be more story oriented. I've never seen an Amber discussion devoted to CharOp. We don't bring up "Stormwind Fallacy" rants in discussions on Storyteller.

The other major difference in non-crunch oriented systems is that players don't have as great a tendency to view RAW as a way of beating their GMs into submission.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll be happy if some of the customizations for characters involve non-combat aspects, as well as combat. A problem I have with 3.5/PF feats is that almost all of them are directly combat-related.

I run an RPG, not a tactical wargame.

Qadira

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I'll be happy if some of the customizations for characters involve non-combat aspects, as well as combat. A problem I have with 3.5/PF feats is that almost all of them are directly combat-related.

I run an RPG, not a tactical wargame.

I think this is pretty much a given. As they seem to have abandoned the 4e concept of strict combat roles, it's easy to assume that there may be ways for you to customize your character towards non-combat activities.

Also, the backgrounds are quite novel (at least for D&D) in how they hand out story-based benefits in addition to serving as a skill-delivery system. That already goes to show that the social and story aspects of the game are being considered hand-in-hand with the crunch.

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
We don't bring up "Stormwind Fallacy" rants in discussions on Storyteller.

Clearly you haven't heard of Lupus Stargazer Ahroun.

Just kidding. I mostly agree with your points, except for the fact that D&D is, by far, not the most crunch-heavy system on the market. I think that D&D gets weird looks both from players of crunchy, rules-heavy systems (like Rolemaster, HERO and others) and more story and interaction-based systems (like Storyteller and Amber) simply due to its position as the most popular game. The logic being that if it's popular it's because it caters to dumb people, therefore it's dumb.

I don't agree with this assessment myself, but I think there's some truth to the fact that D&D is by far the most by-the-numbers traditional RPG property on the market. It doesn't help that D&D is quite slow to pick-up on modern game design. (D&D got a unified task resolution system in, what, 2000? And only now, with Next, are we seeing some manner of mechanic for story-based benefits for characters beyond "make something up based on your background story." Neither of which are examples of novel game design, except in D&D.)


Ratpick wrote:
Also, the backgrounds are quite novel in how they hand out story-based benefits in addition to serving as a skill-delivery system. That already goes to show that the social and story aspects of the game are being considered hand-in-hand with the crunch.

This approach however, leads to one of the problems with PF's traits and regional feats: Where you want the crunch but not the fluff or vice versa.

All the Dex-based melee types are from Qadira so they can learn Dervish Dance.

Half the time when I'm making up PF character I read through the traits, thinking "That fits my concept, but the crunch is useless to me."


I really like the backgrounds, and the idea that they give you skills. I hope there will be rules to create your own backgrounds, and therefore skill packages. I'll do it anyway, but having rules for it will help that a lot.

Qadira

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I really like the backgrounds, and the idea that they give you skills. I hope there will be rules to create your own backgrounds, and therefore skill packages. I'll do it anyway, but having rules for it will help that a lot.

The way things stand, background features seem to be 3-4 skills and one background feature. Making them should be pretty straightforward.

Also, since they've said that backgrounds are optional and there will be the possibility of building your character from scratch, I'm sure there will be some type of background creation system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Ratpick wrote:

Runequest and GURPS players generally don't hang out with D&D players on forums. Even on RPG.net there is a separate forum for D&D players.

I think it's got at least something to do with the mentality that D&D, being the most popular RPG, is baby's first RPG. It's often not stated as such, but I assume there is a bit of elitism on the part of players of non-D&D systems towards D&D players, stemming from the idea that "At least we don't play D&D."

I can actually attest to this phenomena: I started role-playing with MERP and Rolemaster, and even though I'd never played D&D it was somehow ingrained in my mind as a less refined RPG than the obviously superior Rolemaster system that we used. I mean, D&D didn't even have critical hit charts and task resolution tables!

Our group definitely has the implicit bias that D&D is the kids' version of RPGs. (rolemaster was our main system for years, too).

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Ratpick wrote:

Runequest and GURPS players generally don't hang out with D&D players on forums. Even on RPG.net there is a separate forum for D&D players.

I think it's got at least something to do with the mentality that D&D, being the most popular RPG, is baby's first RPG. It's often not stated as such, but I assume there is a bit of elitism on the part of players of non-D&D systems towards D&D players, stemming from the idea that "At least we don't play D&D."

I can actually attest to this phenomena: I started role-playing with MERP and Rolemaster, and even though I'd never played D&D it was somehow ingrained in my mind as a less refined RPG than the obviously superior Rolemaster system that we used. I mean, D&D didn't even have critical hit charts and task resolution tables!

Our group definitely has the implicit bias that D&D is the kids' version of RPGs. (rolemaster was our main system for years, too).

We saw BECMI as the 'kids' game. The fact is it was written as such and was all sorts of goodness and was where I started. Then we progressed, at a worldly 14 years old, to AD&D. Now AD&D was NEVER penned with kids as the target market - aging, beer-bellied men and zit-faced uni students (again more likely male) was by the nature of the author the target market. I still play 1e and find MANY, MANY things as a kid I didn't understand and we never applied. But that seemed not to interfere with the awesomeness of characters or the joy of DMing a game.

Example of looking back stuff:
If you read the weapon vs armour table in 1e and then look at the damage from weapons it makes great sense. Drop the weapons vs armour table (as 2e & later did) and the 'reason' for the weapons do XdY damage gets a little murky - so the 1d8 of a longsword vs 1d6 of a mace are just numbers now. Ok they tried to add in critical ranges and multipliers, but these are pale compared with the years of wargaming experience that lead to the weapon vs armour tables in 1 AD&D.

Not that I expect 5e to go that much into D&D rule-history as ultimately it will be written for 'da kidz'. But as with BECMI of old, that doesn't mean it won't be decades of play worth of fun.

S.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Ratpick wrote:

Runequest and GURPS players generally don't hang out with D&D players on forums. Even on RPG.net there is a separate forum for D&D players.

I think it's got at least something to do with the mentality that D&D, being the most popular RPG, is baby's first RPG. It's often not stated as such, but I assume there is a bit of elitism on the part of players of non-D&D systems towards D&D players, stemming from the idea that "At least we don't play D&D."

I can actually attest to this phenomena: I started role-playing with MERP and Rolemaster, and even though I'd never played D&D it was somehow ingrained in my mind as a less refined RPG than the obviously superior Rolemaster system that we used. I mean, D&D didn't even have critical hit charts and task resolution tables!

Our group definitely has the implicit bias that D&D is the kids' version of RPGs. (rolemaster was our main system for years, too).

I remember having a conversation with some of my cousins about a decade or so ago about role-playing and got a very strong "D&D? Eww - Heck no, we play GURPS" vibe from them. Of course...they now play in my Pathfinder group.

Qadira

Stefan Hill wrote:
We saw BECMI as the 'kids' game. The fact is it was written as such and was all sorts of goodness and was where I started. Then we progressed, at a worldly 14 years old, to AD&D. Now AD&D was NEVER penned with kids as the target market - aging, beer-bellied men and zit-faced uni students (again more likely male) was by the nature of the author the target market. I still play 1e and find MANY, MANY things as a kid I didn't understand and we never applied. But that seemed not to interfere with the awesomeness of characters or the joy of DMing a game.

I actually think that the full BECMI (or is it BEMCI? I've seen both used.) is quite a complex game, but with a really simple base engine. AD&D is a completely different beast, with lots of complexity.

Personally, my preference for running AD&D-like games is Goblinoid Games' Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition Companion. With Labyrinth Lord you get the 1981 Basic/Expert rules and with the Advanced Edition Companion you get the options from AD&D 1e presented in the style of B/X. The best thing about the AEG is that it doesn't change a damn thing about the base engine, it only adds more options, and you can run a game with Labyrinth Lord race-as-class Dwarfs and Advanced Edition race-and-class Dwarf Fighters in the same group without there being any compatibility issues.

I personally think that BECMI is still pretty much the industry standard for modular design: the Basic/Expert rules provided a simple yet robust rules framework and the later sets didn't change the rules in any way, only added options. The same can't be said for 3.5: I recall somewhere at the end of the line they had hit upon the idea of swift and immediate actions, and upon that realization they went and retroactively changed certain spells (including feather fall) to fit into those new concepts. 4e had a similar issue with backgrounds, presented in PHB2: while the background rules were presented as optional, characters created with using the PHB2 background rules were using explicitly different rules for character creation (although the difference only amounted to "You get one more skill based on your background if you pick one").

I think WotC would do well to take a look at BECMI and, while they're at it, Labyrinth Lord and the Advanced Edition Companion, for examples on how to do modular design properly.

So, um... looking at the thread title there, I seem to have gone on a tangent about something completely unrelated. Carry on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

BECMI is correct -- the progression is Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortal. Basic alone is a fairly simplistic form of D&D, but once you have added material from the next 3 boxed sets (or from the Rules Cyclopedia, which is basically equivalent to the first four boxed sets) along with options from other material published for that game, it is questionable whether that system or AD&D 1E/2E is more complex.

And both systems had systems that were seriously unbalanced, and I must admit that I was not very good at spotting such material. The AC as damage reduction system in Dawn of the Emperors is one system that I seriously regret using. Combine that with the weapon mastery rules, and you actually have a game that is dominated by fighters -- a drastic contrast from currently common complaints.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The D&D Rule Cyclopedia for me IS the most awesome D&D ever made. Speak about setting the gold standard for one book ever needed. I'm still amazed that so many RPG these days pack so little content into so many pages...

Qadira

Stefan Hill wrote:
The D&D Rule Cyclopedia for me IS the most awesome D&D ever made. Speak about setting the gold standard for one book ever needed. I'm still amazed that so many RPG these days pack so little content into so many pages...

It is an amazing book and a true testament to how much awesome stuff you can fit into a single book.

Actually, were it up to me, and I don't really see this happening, I'd have the D&D Next released as a single tome with all the necessary rules, including a bestiary.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ratpick wrote:

It is an amazing book and a true testament to how much awesome stuff you can fit into a single book.

Actually, were it up to me, and I don't really see this happening, I'd have the D&D Next released as a single tome with all the necessary rules, including a bestiary.

That would be awesome, as long as the rules were reasonably comprehensive.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Ratpick wrote:

It is an amazing book and a true testament to how much awesome stuff you can fit into a single book.

Actually, were it up to me, and I don't really see this happening, I'd have the D&D Next released as a single tome with all the necessary rules, including a bestiary.

That would be awesome, as long as the rules were reasonably comprehensive.

Which could be done by just reprinting the D&D Rule Cyclopedia... Save a lot of playtest and game design time. I'll bet the D&DN still won't met the standard set by this book. I could be wrong, but nothing to date has (sorry PF, but that includes you).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:
...it sure felt that if I wasn't playing a Tripping-Spiked Chain fighter with AoO's being my big "Go-To" then I wasn't doing it right....

first: my apology for picking your post out specifically, but it is such a gold example of the impression I get after lurking and discussing on a few D&D fora:

One thing no edition of D&D (by whichever company) is ever going to be able to fix is the unhealthy urge of so many players to squeze the last HP "damage dealt" out of a class, rather than building something which is just interesting and fun to play.

Unless of cause: Your idea of fun is to do just that.

just a few killers of balance:

DMs who think it's their job to kill the players
Schrödingers Wizards
15 minute dungeon days (till the spell slots are used up - time to rest)
Math geniusses who calculate the optimal path of Maximum Average Damage for the fighter (any class really) and everyone along with them who think "werl there just ain't no otha way ta play dis"
DMs who allow all the splatbook unconditionally
Players who own (a copy of) all the splatbooks and combine the worst example of feats across different splatbooks (breaking the game)


DropBearHunter wrote:

just a few killers of balance:

DMs who think it's their job to kill the players
Schrödingers Wizards
15 minute dungeon days (till the spell slots are used up - time to rest)
Math geniusses who calculate the optimal path of Maximum Average Damage for the fighter (any class really) and everyone along with them who think "werl there just ain't no otha way ta play dis"
DMs who allow all the splatbook unconditionally
Players who own (a copy of) all the splatbooks and combine the worst example of feats across different splatbooks (breaking the game)

Wait - do you really think it's a player's fault for using the options in the books he bought?

Weird. Shouldn't you rather blame WotC/Paizo/whoever for selling broken stuff in the first place?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Malaclypse wrote:
DropBearHunter wrote:

just a few killers of balance:

DMs who think it's their job to kill the players
Schrödingers Wizards
15 minute dungeon days (till the spell slots are used up - time to rest)
Math geniusses who calculate the optimal path of Maximum Average Damage for the fighter (any class really) and everyone along with them who think "werl there just ain't no otha way ta play dis"
DMs who allow all the splatbook unconditionally
Players who own (a copy of) all the splatbooks and combine the worst example of feats across different splatbooks (breaking the game)

Wait - do you really think it's a player's fault for using the options in the books he bought?

Weird. Shouldn't you rather blame WotC/Paizo/whoever for selling broken stuff in the first place?

Of course it's reasonable. Player's need to accept responsibility for their actions. If you build a character and continue to play it all-out even though you know that is spoiling the enjoyment of everybody else at the table, that's your fault. Trying to say "Don't blame me - it's Paizo's fault for writing rules that can be abused this way!" is just selfishness when you know very well that you're deliberately ruining everybody else's day by playing that way.

Qadira

Well, it all really depends. If a certain class and the abilities thereof are written in a way to make them ripe for abuse, unless the DM is given specific tools for intervening with that abuse, and another class is written in such a way as to make it difficult for the character to able to contribute meaningfully in many situations without proper optimization, there is something fundamentally wrong with the game.

The thing is, within the context of 3e and 3.5, optimizing Fighters and similar characters doesn't ruin everybody else's fun, it just makes those characters more tolerable within a context where some characters have abilities that can potentially end encounters in the space of a turn.

Personally, I'm alright with the idea of classes being balanced based on the assumption that some of them are only able to make use of their (stronger) abilities only a certain number of times a day while other classes are able to have an impact upon the game on a more reliable basis, provided that the DM is given the proper tools for dealing with abuse within the system (wandering monsters/random encounters in dungeons spring to mind, as they really disincentivise resting within dungeons) and options which allow the PCs to easily bypass the limitations of daily spellcasting (i.e. rope trick) are eliminated.

EDIT: Not saying that there's anything wrong with 3e or 3.5, just that my experience shows that most DMs are more than willing to let PCs rest in dungeons without any repercussions on account of the fact that only a small number of them have truly taken in the advice given in the 3e DMG about wandering monsters and random encounters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malaclypse wrote:

do you really think it's a player's fault for using the options in the books he bought?

Weird. Shouldn't you rather blame WotC/Paizo/whoever for selling broken stuff in the first place?

apart what JohnF said:

I'm wondering if all the splatbooks are actually designed to be used together on a single character.

I've only bought and read one splatbook (complete rogue), but the names of the books (complete X) suggests that they are designed specifically with one type of character in mind. So if there are a few half broken feats in each book it's not going to kill the game untill some smartass comes along and combines all the half broken feats in to one broken character.

You can't expect the authors to read every single splatbook on the market (including third party) before they start designing.
They'd never get anything done and so we just have to live with endless diskussions about things like "Locate City Bomb" and the occasional über optimized fighter who deals more damage than an under optimised wizard.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I must admit my group(s) have avoided much of the power-gaming combos by having a 'core only' approach. I don't mind buying/reading splat books but would not use them in play. I still don't see the need for anything other than PF core + bestiaries for YEARS of play. Likewise we did this with 1e, 2e, 3/3.5e, and under 4e we played Essentials only.


JohnF wrote:
Of course it's reasonable. Player's need to accept responsibility for their actions. If you build a character and continue to play it all-out even though you know that is spoiling the enjoyment of everybody else at the table, that's your fault. Trying to say "Don't blame me - it's Paizo's fault for writing rules that can be abused this way!" is just selfishness when you know very well that you're deliberately ruining everybody else's day by playing that way.

What?

First off, spoiling the enjoyment of everybody else at the table has nothing to do with this. I don't even know why you mention this. We were talking about options, and players using those from the books they own for their character. Please stay on topic.

I say it's the fault of the creators if they publish broken material. You seem to say it's not, that people should not be able to use the material they paid for, and that they are at fault if they do. Why?


DropBearHunter wrote:

I'm wondering if all the splatbooks are actually designed to be used together on a single character.

I've only bought and read one splatbook (complete rogue), but the names of the books (complete X) suggests that they are designed specifically with one type of character in mind. So if there are a few half broken feats in each book it's not going to kill the game untill some smartass comes along and combines all the half broken feats in to one broken character.

I would assume if someone buys a book with the name of Ultimate Magic, they would like to use the options for their magical characters. Same with Ultimate Combat and melee combatants.

Of course, we know that in practice most DMs will not allow the broken material from those books, or at least not all of it. Still, until the moment a DM explicitly disallows it (or mentions a Core-Only-Policy), it's reasonable for a player to assume he can use the additional options in such a book.

DropBearHunter wrote:

You can't expect the authors to read every single splatbook on the market (including third party) before they start designing.

They'd never get anything done and so we just have to live with endless diskussions about things like "Locate City Bomb" and the occasional über optimized fighter who deals more damage than an under optimised wizard.

Of course, third party material is usually of lesser quality, and many DMs do not allow third-party material. But splatbooks produced by the original publisher should have a higher standard. But I agree, some splatbooks produced by WotC already contained very questionable material, and with Pathfinder, the situation is even worse.

Despite this, I think it's wrong to blame a player for wanting to build a character with options that reflect his backstory and the idea of the character, even if those options come from splatbooks.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a silly argument to be having, I think.

It is the fault of the game's authors (or the authors of the rules elements) if those rules elements can be legally abused in such a way that the game becomes less enjoyable as a result.

It is also the fault of the player if the player recognizes that those options will make the game less enjoyable, but still selects them for his character anyway.

And if those options don't have the effect of making the game less enjoyable, then who cares?

Game developers should strive for a coherent and balanced system, and should publish errata or updates to fix/clarify problems.

Players should strive to make the game experience enjoyable for everyone involved, and should make that a priority even during character creation.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

I joked, "Mixing rules supliments may have unforseen side effects. Please consult your GM before attempting mixing."

As to "[U]nless the DM is given specific tools for intervening with that abuse." That tool is the word 'no' used politely and firmly.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Cards, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Malaclypse wrote:
JohnF wrote:
Of course it's reasonable. Player's need to accept responsibility for their actions. If you build a character and continue to play it all-out even though you know that is spoiling the enjoyment of everybody else at the table, that's your fault. Trying to say "Don't blame me - it's Paizo's fault for writing rules that can be abused this way!" is just selfishness when you know very well that you're deliberately ruining everybody else's day by playing that way.

What?

First off, spoiling the enjoyment of everybody else at the table has nothing to do with this. I don't even know why you mention this. We were talking about options, and players using those from the books they own for their character. Please stay on topic.

That is on topic. The context is "breaking the game". If nobody is complaining about it, it's hard to justify a complaint that the game is broken.

Qadira

Matthew Morris wrote:

I joked, "Mixing rules supliments may have unforseen side effects. Please consult your GM before attempting mixing."

As to "[U]nless the DM is given specific tools for intervening with that abuse." That tool is the word 'no' used politely and firmly.

I understand where you're coming from, but it'd require the use of "no" for a number of things that are considered core.

Personally, I think that a lot of the complaints about 3e's lack of balance have to do with the fact that the published material shied away from using wandering monsters and random encounters, leading to the widespread abandonment of those elements by DMs. I think that those mechanics, if properly implemented, fix the parity between characters who gain exponential power reliant on them taking an eight-hour nap once in a while and those who have their abilities on all day every day.

That's what I was referring to when I said tools: when the assumptions of adventure-writing make it too easy to circumvent the limitations of daily casting, there is something wrong. Wandering monsters and random encounters are a tried and true way of dealing with that particular area of abuse.


Ratpick wrote:

Personally, I think that a lot of the complaints about 3e's lack of balance have to do with the fact that the published material shied away from using wandering monsters and random encounters, leading to the widespread abandonment of those elements by DMs. I think that those mechanics, if properly implemented, fix the parity between characters who gain exponential power reliant on them taking an eight-hour nap once in a while and those who have their abilities on all day every day.

That's what I was referring to when I said tools: when the assumptions of adventure-writing make it too easy to circumvent the limitations of daily casting, there is something wrong. Wandering monsters and random encounters are a tried and true way of dealing with that particular area of abuse.

I've seen this argument a lot recently and I don't quite see how it works.

How do wandering monsters and random encounters restrict resting?

The only case I can easily see it working in is one where the entire
dungeon* can be and is expected to be cleared in one days work without resting. Otherwise you're not just limiting resting too often, but resting at all. If characters know they won't be able to rest safely, they'll need to rest sooner to be able to handle the expected random encounters, rather than pushing on until they're too low on spells and healing.

*:
Here used for any set of encounters without significant travel time between them. Could be island wilderness, castle, ruined city, whatever.

Since this is a 5E thread, how do you think resting should be handled in the playtest module?
1) Safe resting only after returning to the keep (In the original module more than a day's journey away, so you'd have to rest somewhere in between anyway.)
2) Safe resting in any area (a whole tribe's cave, essentially) you've cleared? At least unless you've waited long enough for something else to move in.
3) Safe resting in any empty room.

It seems like you're arguing for 1, which seems unworkable to me.

I'd probably do 2, with some exceptions. The areas are small enough to be handled most of the time. Self-contained enough that outside monsters wouldn't be wandering in too often. One exception would be if some tribe members weren't home when you slaughtered the rest. Or if they had particularly friendly relations with another group.

3 seems like what you're arguing against and I agree, though I wouldn't use random monsters, but patrols or groups of the local inhabitants coming to see what happened to their buddies. The next shift of guards, for example.

In other words, not random encounters to disrupt your rest, but the dungeon's inhabitants reacting to your presence.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I think the argument is that, if random encounters are a risk during rests, the magicusers and clerics will save their spells - thus encroaching less on the melee types' turf. Uninterrupted rest isn't such a big deal to fighters and thieves, so balance issues are addressed via making such rests harder to come by.


Steve Geddes wrote:
I think the argument is that, if random encounters are a risk during rests, the magicusers and clerics will save their spells - thus encroaching less on the melee types' turf. Uninterrupted rest isn't such a big deal to fighters and thieves, so balance issues are addressed via making such rests harder to come by.

Save their spells for what? The random encounters? That means they'll need to stop earlier and rest more often.

Or you can try to rest less and hope to get through the dungeon and to a safe place before you're out of spells/hp. If you get too far down then you'll have to rest and stand a good chance of being killed by the random encounter.

I just don't how you can make it too risky to rest often without making it too risky to rest at all. Unless you metagame it and only use the random encounters when the party is resting too often. Or use small enough dungeons that there should be no need to rest. Or build in safe places in larger dungeons, that they can't get back to later.

I guess I understand the theory. It's supposed to be a mechanism to keep the party moving so casters can't nova, then recover for the next fight. I just don't see how it would work in practice.

Qadira

I'm okay with characters resting in dungeons as long as the players know the possible repercursions: there won't always be wandering monsters when the PCs rest, but there is always a chance. The players know that when they decide to rest in a dungeon (or similar area) all the bets are off and they leave their fate in the hands of the vengeful dice gods.

However, at the same time I'm okay with players using their ingenuity and character abilities to overcome some, but not all, of the risks of resting in a hostile environment. Mage locking doors, jamming doors, it's all good. Rope trick? That's just cheating.

tl;dr: You might be eaten by a grue, operative word "might."

EDIT: I realize that this isn't the perfect solution to everything, and it mostly relates to my personal preference.


I don't see rope trick as cheating. It's just annoying. :)

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well with all of this talk going back and forth about "D&D New", I guess I will have to break down and have look at the playtest rules. If I find that I don't like it, then I am not out of any money! If I end up liking it, then I have another game to add to my repitiore of games! Win-Win for me!


Let me preface this with the hope and desire I have to see DDN succeed as a game that helps brings players from each editino and publisher together for some good gaming!

With that said, my group and I have discussed the playtest and came to the decision to not continue playing it for the time being. While I think they made some good design changes (or kept over from 4E), some of the core prinicpals inherent within the game so-far aren't elements we're enjoying. I won't say this is a bad system, because it seems to have a LOT of people really like it and it seems to have great D&D-aspects that are found throughout the years of the game. But two basic contributors to our dislike are the Improvisation rules. Basically, if you think you want to do something, you dont need codified rules but a grasp of Ability scores and a willing DM. We, as players in our group, want more than that.

The lack of 'stuff' to do outside of swing, swing, swing that seems inherant within the playtest characters. Sure, you could cast some spells and when your out of them you'll either forage on and die, or rest and regain them. The lack of healing (or, really the low output for healing) just burns the candle at both ends. It becomes "who's gonna need to rest first? The Fighter with 3 hp going into this 2nd battle or the Wizard who's down to his Magic Missile cantrip?"

The lack of coheisive team-based play. In 4E, as a Fighter I could keep enemies at bay and punish them severly for not addressing me on the battlefield. I didn't expect to deal TONS of damage, I didn't expect to drop 5 foes in 1 shot. I didn't expect to wade through lava or fly or persuade an enraged noble not to slaughter the slave quarters of his town. These are aspects better left to other classes. What I DO expect is to hold monsters in their place. To be able to throw a guy to the groun with one hand and punch him repeatedly in the face, to stop a Dragon in his tracks as he charges on to the Rogue who stole his stuff. To knock down a Frost Giant on his butt that dares challenge my might.

And one might be able to say these are aspects I can do in DDN, but I just don't see it. Espically with the rules as is.

One other thing that I think our group doesn't really like is the role of the DM has now shifted. In our normal campaigns, he's the guy who's telling the story, running the monsters, awarding the players for clever play, and occasionally ruling on a specific feat, spell, power that works in the system. This last part is by far and large the smallest aspect they have to worry about. Yet with DDN it's now the largest. They now set ALL the DCs, mitigate any and all attemps of Improv. Becomes the ultimate Rules-Lawyer. And of course judge how/when/IF a player can do something. And you can be sure that such judgements will be used against said DM in further game play.

So, for the time being, I'll be watching the game develop over the course of the next year with the hopes that it'll somehow snare my group for some fun times, but I'm just not seeing it right now.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diffan wrote:
They now set ALL the DCs, mitigate any and all attemps of Improv. Becomes the ultimate Rules-Lawyer. And of course judge how/when/IF a player can do something. And you can be sure that such judgements will be used against said DM in further game play.

Funny you should see that as a downside. Coming from DMing 1e AD&D that was the job description of the DM and I found at the codfied nature of 3e/3.5e made DMing nothing more than being a human computer to the 'rules'. 4e did reverse this slightly but then they put the albatross of the rules around you neck or battle-mat or nothing. Oh we tried 4e without a mat, but it sort of failed due to the need to know how many 'squares' you were away all of the time. I think had 4e taken the tact 5e has of battle-mat if like or no battle-mat if like then I would have been very happy with 4e for the reason you give - and some of the DM shackles that 3/3.5e forced on us. Coming from 1e, D&D is NOT a board game where players and DM's have to play by the same exact rules - rules yes, but they don't have to be universally true for both sides of the screen for the game to be fun.

S.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Stefan Hill wrote:

Funny you should see that as a downside. Coming from DMing 1e AD&D that was the job description of the DM and I found at the codfied nature of 3e/3.5e made DMing nothing more than being a human computer to the 'rules'. 4e did reverse this slightly but then they put the albatross of the rules around you neck or battle-mat or nothing. Oh we tried 4e without a mat, but it sort of failed due to the need to know how many 'squares' you were away all of the time. I think had 4e taken the tact 5e has of battle-mat if like or no battle-mat if like then I would have been very happy with 4e for the reason you give - and some of the DM shackles that 3/3.5e forced on us. Coming from 1e, D&D is NOT a board game where players and DM's have to play by the same exact rules - rules yes, but they don't have to be universally true for both sides of the screen for the game to be fun.

S.

I have a similar view. The reason I preferred 4E to PF was basically the increased amount of DM fiat. It didnt seem a common position, but I found it closer to AD&D than 3.5 was. I'm encouraged by the focus of expanding this role for the DM in the latest iteration.

.
That said, D&D:Next may have arrived a little late for our group. I've recently discovered Swords and Wizardry and I think that's going to end up being my system of choice for the next few years, at least.

Qadira

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
That said, D&D:Next may have arrived a little late for our group. I've recently discovered Swords and Wizardry and I think that's going to end up being my system of choice for the next few years, at least.

I have a similar sentiment, except with Labyrinth Lord in place of Swords & Wizardry. While I like a lot of what I'm seeing in D&D Next, I'm not sure if it's novel enough to pry me away from Labyrinth Lord.

Still, if I ever get it in my head to try playing a "modern" iteration of D&D, I will strongly gravitate towards D&D Next over Pathfinder, for many of the reasons others have expressed: the game's insistence on greater DM empowerment coupled with no need for a battle-mat really speaks to the old-school nut in me.


Stefan Hill wrote:
Diffan wrote:
They now set ALL the DCs, mitigate any and all attemps of Improv. Becomes the ultimate Rules-Lawyer. And of course judge how/when/IF a player can do something. And you can be sure that such judgements will be used against said DM in further game play.

Funny you should see that as a downside. Coming from DMing 1e AD&D that was the job description of the DM and I found at the codfied nature of 3e/3.5e made DMing nothing more than being a human computer to the 'rules'. 4e did reverse this slightly but then they put the albatross of the rules around you neck or battle-mat or nothing. Oh we tried 4e without a mat, but it sort of failed due to the need to know how many 'squares' you were away all of the time. I think had 4e taken the tact 5e has of battle-mat if like or no battle-mat if like then I would have been very happy with 4e for the reason you give - and some of the DM shackles that 3/3.5e forced on us. Coming from 1e, D&D is NOT a board game where players and DM's have to play by the same exact rules - rules yes, but they don't have to be universally true for both sides of the screen for the game to be fun.

S.

4E definitly needs a mat, and frankly I wouldn't play D&D (regardless of Edition) without one. As for the DM's job, I'd rather work on other aspects of the game that interest my players, not being rules arbiter for setting DCs for each and every single attempt at Improv. That, to me, is why I pay a designer to make the game. He does that so I can work on important aspects of my game.

You mention rules for both sides, but I don't agree with it. I think specific rules need to be used by both. For example, I could be required by the DM to make an attack against an Kobold and then make a Str vs. Str Contest to try to push him over the edge of a cliff. Failure by 10 or more means I go over the cliff instead. So I accomplish my goal by these set parameters. In the next round, an Ogre rushs me and, just because the DM can, explain that becaus the Ogre's Strength score is twice what mine is, I automatically get pushed over the side. It doesn't matter if my Strength score was twice that of the Kobolds as the DM had his mind set of what the mechanics would be for that situation. And that can change at the drop of a hat.

At least with 3E and 4E, we had an understanding of how it works. A bull rush is a bull rush that's a bull rush. There's no two ways about it and we abide by that. Now, there can be external elements in play such as Charging, Spells, Powers/Abilities, Magic items, and such and it's to be expected. But just because the DM says so......? No thanks.

51 to 100 of 139 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / 5e and PF - actually fantastic to have both existing (an end to edition wars?) 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.