| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please explain you position more fully, because I feel like you're conflating the concepts 'injury' and 'damage amount' in a confusing fashion, or I have -completely- missed the point.
Please take the "what are hit points" discussion to another thread. Reading debates about abstractions makes my eyes bleed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's kind of funny is that Fireball is notoriously bad at blowing up structures beyond thatched-roof shack tier.Full Attacking being a full round action instead of a scaling standard action attack.
Martial classes being constrained to silly (and often incorrect - see dual shield welding arguments of yonder years) notions of "realism" in a game where casters can create demiplanes or stop time etc. "Extraordinary" shouldn't mean "extra ordinary"
We don't need your weaboo fightin' nonsense here. We like our men to be men, not sissies dancing around waving two shields in the air while they kick people with their stabbing shoes. Move and attack...the nerve of some people.
Now excuse me while my wizard blows up a large structure by hurling bat poop at it.
Funny, in my experience it destroys any and all orphanages that it even grazes, but has great difficulty charring even the most flammable of opponents structures...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's kind of funny is that Fireball is notoriously bad at blowing up structures beyond thatched-roof shack tier.Full Attacking being a full round action instead of a scaling standard action attack.
Martial classes being constrained to silly (and often incorrect - see dual shield welding arguments of yonder years) notions of "realism" in a game where casters can create demiplanes or stop time etc. "Extraordinary" shouldn't mean "extra ordinary"
We don't need your weaboo fightin' nonsense here. We like our men to be men, not sissies dancing around waving two shields in the air while they kick people with their stabbing shoes. Move and attack...the nerve of some people.
Now excuse me while my wizard blows up a large structure by hurling bat poop at it.
You just have to throw enough bat poop at it and it will go down. Eventually.
As far as the HP thing goes, treating HP as meat points is just far more internally consistent than treating it as "luck" and "near misses". In fact, can anyone find any part of the system where treating HP as meat points leads to absurdities (other than the fact that people actually get naturally tougher in various ways when their HP goes up, which is the premise of the meat points=HP concept)? Because I don't know of any, but I can think of many internal inconsistencies in the HP=luck, close shaves etc abstraction. Terminal falls, lava, fairly reliably surviving a shank to the throat(a level 20 character with loads of CON, great fortitude and a high class fort bonus can guarenteed natural 2 a STR 12 dagger coup de grace), getting breathed on by a dragon's breath that can melt steel while chained up in a cage sitting in the dragon's mouth while unconscious and paralyzed...and surviving. When HP=meat points, the response to all of this is "of course it doesn't kill him - He's damn tough with his 400HP".
I included a bit of additional description later in the same post; does that help? If not, let me know.No, instantly fatal to that PC. "Fatal" is just a description of whether or not the damage killed the creature, because that's what "fatal" means. An attack that deals 20 damage might be fatal to one character but not another, all while being an identical amount of damage.It seems to me that you're changing your story now. You started with ' the two injuries are equal by definition', and now you're saying they aren't.
Please explain you position more fully, because I feel like you're conflating the concepts 'injury' and 'damage amount' in a confusing fashion, or I have -completely- missed the point.
Not really.
The primary problem I have proposed is unanswered. From 14 damage onward, using your interpretation, any described injury MUST be one that can instantly kill a 1st level PC. No bleedout. No lingering death. DEAD-in-one-hit-do-not-pass-Go-D.E.A.D. . Because that is, as far as I can determine, the minimum amount of damage that is required to reduce a heroic PC from full hit points to dead in a single strike. Whatever that 14hp injury is, as you've said, is the same (or equivalent, I suppose) for every person, because you have stated that the injuries are equal by definition.
That sounds like nonsense to me, and that's why I'm asking for a more complete explanation.
No problem.
It's a game with magic and dragons.
Heroes survive being stabbed in the throat.
Peasants don't.
Next challenge? :D
|
As far as the HP thing goes, treating HP as meat points is just far more internally consistent than treating it as "luck" and "near misses". In fact, can anyone find any part of the system where treating HP as meat points leads to absurdities (other than the fact that people actually get naturally tougher in various ways when their HP goes up, which is the premise of the meat points=HP concept)?
Coup de grace. While you can survive a coup de grace by a peasant with a dagger at high levels - a STR 14 level 1 trooper with a mundane scythe will still take you out most of the time. Average Fort Save DC 54 anyone?
As to terminal falls etc - I just figured that your character was doing awesome stuff that they didn't bother making rules for. Flinging out your magical cloak as a makeshift parachute to absorb much of the impact. Not actually falling the whole way, but scrabbling at outcroppings etc to slow your fall. etc
As to all of the magical attacks. (I include dragon breath etc) I figure that high level characters become inherently resistant to such things.
*shrug* I suppose that the fluff reasons for HP doesn't really matter too much.
As far as the HP thing goes, treating HP as meat points is just far more internally consistent than treating it as "luck" and "near misses". In fact, can anyone find any part of the system where treating HP as meat points leads to absurdities (other than the fact that people actually get naturally tougher in various ways when their HP goes up, which is the premise of the meat points=HP concept)?Coup de grace. While you can survive a coup de grace by a peasant with a dagger at high levels - a STR 14 level 1 trooper with a mundane scythe will still take you out most of the time. Average Fort Save DC 54 anyone?
As to terminal falls etc - I just figured that your character was doing awesome stuff that they didn't bother making rules for. Flinging out your magical cloak as a makeshift parachute to absorb much of the impact. Not actually falling the whole way, but scrabbling at outcroppings etc to slow your fall. etc
As to all of the magical attacks. (I include dragon breath etc) I figure that high level characters become inherently resistant to such things.
*shrug* I suppose that the fluff reasons for HP doesn't really matter too much.
I like to have my orbital swan dives impact headfirst.
Because it IS just fluff, and situations like THAT are the rare occasions where Fighters get to be better than Wizards. :D
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So after 6 years of Pathfinder being around and perhaps up to 15 years of 3.x games I was wondering what peoples opinion here is on sacred cows? How many of the following things do you regard as essential to your enjoyment of Pathfinder in particular or 3.x gaming in general.
None of those things rise to the level of sacred cow. For sacred cows, I'd be looking more at:
1. Vancian casting model
2. 6 stats, ranged 3-18 on a bell curve
3. healing is divine magic, not arcane
4. paladins are primarily designed around their LG model and fight evil
5. humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs are core PC races
6. level based advancement
7. class based abilities
8. fighters fight, rangers track, rogues find traps, wizards use spells, clerics heal, monks use martial arts styles - each of these may do a bit more than those options, but those options are core features to those classes
9. Dragons come in good metallic and evil chromatic varieties
10. Characters have saving throws as last-ditch defenses against things that would normally have no defenseAnd so on...
Got to agree. I don't think any of the things mentioned in the OP are sacred cows, they're just paradigms of the system framework and other relics.
Natural Spell is probably the only factor from the OP I wanted to address; the idea behind Natural Spell was that most druids are going to be either primarily wildshapers, or primarily casters. Choosing Natural Spell was supposed to be a gateway into a "bard" option where you did both, but not as well as anyone who dedicated to one or the other. In 3.5, this was a poor assumption because of the near total replacement of physical stats by the wildshape transformation. Pathfinder comes closer to making this true, though most druids are still going to prefer to do both rather than one one or the other since the druid spell list compliments wildshaping so well, and you get a better power ceiling from comboing over focusing. I think that ultimately, if comboing has evolved to the expected norm, it should be built in. If there's still a design paradigm of one or the other expected, they need to be truly separated and elevated as individual options.
As to what I agree are the actual sacred cows-
Vancian casting model
Hate it. Vancian casting is a major contributing factor in some of the most divisive arguments on the boards, it hinders adventure design, and doesn't really resemble any kind of spellcasting in literature or media, including the works of Jack Vance. I'd love to see it replaced by a more predictable and reliable spellcasting mechanic, with spells more carefully balanced in power and effectiveness then what we have now, where even within a single level of spells there can be a huge variance in power and effectiveness.
6 stats, ranged 3-18 on a bell curve
I actually like this. There's only a few things I'm not a fan of, most prominently the Point Buy system encouraging min/maxing and promoting dump stats. Shifting that to an array or removing/limiting the ability to boost relevant scores by dumping irrelevant ones is all I'd want to see here.
healing is divine magic, not arcane
I don't know if anyone remembers, but healing spells used to come from the necromancy school, something that I thought made vastly more sense than conjuration. I don't mind healing being primarily the purview of divine casters, but I'd like it to be a necromancy effect, with some potential for arcane casters who specialize in necromancy to "dip a toe" into healing. For example, anyone who read the original Dragonlance books may recall Raistlin "inverting" a deadly necromancy spell to instead offer some healing.
paladins are primarily designed around their LG model and fight evil
I don't mind this, but I feel like the fluff and implementation itself needs to be more clear. If it's a paladin's adherence to his code and maintaining a strict alignment are turning him into a direct channel to the forces of good, then there shouldn't be mechanics and setting-oriented fluff tying him to deities. If deities grant his power, then alignment and code restrictions should be directly tied to his deity, similarly to a cleric.
humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs are core PC races
I don't necessarily mind this, though truthfully my favorite campaign/region settings are usually ones that include really interesting and unique races (like Eberron in 3.5).
level based advancement
This is accessible, easy to understand, and I vastly prefer it over point-based type systems like Shadowrun, whose setting I love but which I never play specifically because of the difficulties that I always have getting other players to know, understand, and confidently utilize the system.
class based abilities
I think this ties into the level based advancement to a certain degree (although yes, they can be addressed separately). I prefer class based abilities, primarily for accessibility and ease of inter-character balance reasons.
fighters fight, rangers track, rogues find traps, wizards use spells, clerics heal, monks use martial arts styles - each of these may do a bit more than those options, but those options are core features to those classes
I don't mind classes have a particular schtick they specialize in, but I think that schtick needs to be
a) consistently needed enough that it stays relevant across the whole stretch of the gameb) unique enough that it isn't "I'm slightly better at X than this other class that can also do X well enough that you'll never notice the difference and also still do Y"
Saying "fighters fight" is, to me, stupid, because everybody fights. "Fighters fight 10% better than most other classes assuming you have at least 5 combat encounters a day" is also stupid, because there's nothing iconic in that to hang an actual character on. If it's something like "Rangers track better than anyone else in the world and have a combination of skills, spells, and class abilities to support this, Fighters are incredibly Brave and can shrug off magical effects while being masters of unique combat techniques, etc." then we're getting closer to something I would really like. As it is, I've seen lots of clerics that do all kinds of things other than heal (including clerics who never cast a single healing spell their entire career), but I've never seen a Fighter who does more than fight, and generally he's not even the best one at doing that in a given group. Make sure that if your tagline is going to define the character, it's a tagline that's both true and relevant.
Dragons come in good metallic and evil chromatic varieties
I like this, and it's fun because it's familiar. If you stumble upon a lair and a huge red dragon rears up before you, you expect to get lit up. If a majestic gold rears up, your awe tends to be more touched by reverence than fear, and I think these expectations have been baked into the game and its surrounding lore long enough that they actually contribute to the total experience in a really positive manner. That doesn't mean I don't like (for example) imperial and void dragons though.
Characters have saving throws as last-ditch defenses against things that would normally have no defense
Anyone ever play Star Wars Saga Edition? You didn't make saving throws, and you didn't have an armor class. Instead, you had three static defenses (Reflex, Fortitude, and Will), and different attacks targeted those defenses. Physical attacks and blaster shots targeted your reflex, Force effects might target any of the 3, and different types of armor shored up different defenses to different degrees. I really liked this, and I wouldn't mind it being the norm for Pathfinder.
Orbital swan dive into active volcano for the win!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please explain you position more fully, because I feel like you're conflating the concepts 'injury' and 'damage amount' in a confusing fashion, or I have -completely- missed the point.Please take the "what are hit points" discussion to another thread. Reading debates about abstractions makes my eyes bleed.
What % of your HP would you describe that as?
As far as the HP thing goes, treating HP as meat points is just far more internally consistent than treating it as "luck" and "near misses". In fact, can anyone find any part of the system where treating HP as meat points leads to absurdities (other than the fact that people actually get naturally tougher in various ways when their HP goes up, which is the premise of the meat points=HP concept)? Because I don't know of any, but I can think of many internal inconsistencies in the HP=luck, close shaves etc abstraction. Terminal falls, lava, fairly reliably surviving a shank to the throat(a level 20 character with loads of CON, great fortitude and a high class fort bonus can guarenteed natural 2 a STR 12 dagger coup de grace), getting breathed on by a dragon's breath that can melt steel while chained up in a cage sitting in the dragon's mouth while unconscious and paralyzed...and surviving. When HP=meat points, the response to all of this is "of course it doesn't kill him - He's damn tough with his 400HP".
Bob the 20th level fighter being no better at dodging/parrying than he was as a 0th level farm boy is the single glaring problem with hp = meat points.
But that's easy to remedy.
Characters have saving throws as last-ditch defenses against things that would normally have no defenseAnyone ever play Star Wars Saga Edition? You didn't make saving throws, and you didn't have an armor class. Instead, you had three static defenses (Reflex, Fortitude, and Will), and different attacks targeted those defenses. Physical attacks and blaster shots targeted your reflex, Force effects might target any of the 3, and different types of armor shored up different defenses to different degrees. I really liked this, and I wouldn't mind it being the norm for Pathfinder.
I have played SWSE - playing in a campaign of it now (well, not right now, I'm at work). And while I can understand the mechanical equivalence of using a static defense instead of a roll, I think it's where the game starts to go off rail - particularly when 4e D&D picked it up.
For one thing, I don't like that they're static. It means in SWSE, I can't use the Force to bump my roll to save by 1d6 - and defensive use of the Force should be one of its primary elements. Having the defenses static means your Jedi are using the Force to improve their offense and that doesn't fit well with the Jedi philosophy. I also tend to use action point systems and those work great if the PCs can throw a point to add 1d6 to their saving throws when they see the die roll that comes up. So, color me skeptical on saves as static defenses. Static AC gets a pass on this for me because - well - it's a sacred cow.
Then when 4e rolled around, too many lists of powers were like checklists. Exploit that targets AC, check. Exploit that targets, Ref, check. Exploit that targets Fort, check. Blah blah blah. While I'm OK with dynamically picking a defense (or save) to go with a particular attack effect and doing things on the fly, 4e's approach was just way to sterile and formulaic. I felt like the game was descending to a "pick the right shaped peg to fit the hole that was key to the monsters vulnerabilities" snoozefest.
Personally, I like the messiness of rolling saves with PCs sometimes doing well and sometimes not but putting that decision point in the hands of the player along with any metagame structures to ameliorate the results (like hero points).
1. Disparity of 6 points between a good and bad save.
My group house ruled this pretty heavily, borrowing from 4E -
All saves are on the bad progression.The good save(s) for your class get a +2 bonus.
You pick the better of two stats to apply to each save - Str or Con for Fort, Dex or Int for Reflex, Wis or Cha for Will.
This both lowered the really high good saves for certain classes (will for clerics, for example), while usually raising the saves for other classes, and occasionally giving a class an effective good save that they didn't have before.
Also, lets people get away with dumping Wis, which I approve of =D
(In Cerberus7's game, I'm playing a male lashunta magus, modeled heavily off of Zhang Fei, with a 5 wisdom. It's glorious.)
2. Sacking spell DCs with the level of the spell and then adding the spellcaster modifier to the DC (when you require XYZ amount of ability score to cast the spell in the 1st place).
I'm fine with the existing mechanics for scaling save DCs, though I'd like there to be options for raising save DCs that are more friendly to the 1 to 4 and 1 to 6 casters.
3. Being able to easily buy magical items.
Fine with it, and completely fine with magical crafting too.
4. Wands of Cure Light Wounds and similar wands existing enabling very cheap healing.
Fine with it. Beats having to stop because everyone's low on HP.
5. Multiple attacks decreasing in accuracy eg. +16/+11/+6/+1
Fine with it. If you get rid of the iterative penalty, you'll need to raise HP to compensate.
6. The natural spell feat existing.
*Shrug* I'd prefer if it was redone to be useful to anyone who's shapeshifted, not just druids.
7. Disparity of +/- 6 skill points between the classes eg 2 for fighters, 8 for rogues.
Noncasters should have 4 or more skill points, but otherwise I'm fine with it.
8. Auto scaling buff spells you can stack together eg divine power, divine favor, righteous might etc.
No issue with the concept, but too many buff spells slows down play. My group houseruled a limit on the number of buffs you can run with, that slowly scales by level. (spells with a default duration of 24 hours or longer or which have been permanancy'd don't count for the limit.)
Just how that limit works depends on whose GMing. Cerberus7 enforces a lower limit than I do =P
9. Feats existing full stop. Would you play a 3.x/d20 game with no feats?
No. I like being able to customize my character, thank you very much.
10. Ability scores scaling up as you level and uncapped limits on ability scores.
Houseruled in my group's games so that people get one point to two different stats every time a point would be gained from leveling. (Another thing borrowed from 4E.)
I'm fine with no stat cap.
Though in the next campaign I run we're going to try out having ability score caps in our next game; either we'll like it and keep the rule or we won't and we'll revert back to no cap.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one."
Them's the rules. Move on.
|
Design Manager
|
Characters have saving throws as last-ditch defenses against things that would normally have no defenseAnyone ever play Star Wars Saga Edition? You didn't make saving throws, and you didn't have an armor class. Instead, you had three static defenses (Reflex, Fortitude, and Will), and different attacks targeted those defenses. Physical attacks and blaster shots targeted your reflex, Force effects might target any of the 3, and different types of armor shored up different defenses to different degrees. I really liked this, and I wouldn't mind it being the norm for Pathfinder.I have played SWSE - playing in a campaign of it now (well, not right now, I'm at work). And while I can understand the mechanical equivalence of using a static defense instead of a roll, I think it's where the game starts to go off rail - particularly when 4e D&D picked it up.
For one thing, I don't like that they're static. It means in SWSE, I can't use the Force to bump my roll to save by 1d6 - and defensive use of the Force should be one of its primary elements. Having the defenses static means your Jedi are using the Force to improve their offense and that doesn't fit well with the Jedi philosophy.
Or they actually put together a suite of defensive light side powers, which more accurately represents "using the Force defensively".
I also tend to use action point systems and those work great if the PCs can throw a point to add 1d6 to their saving throws when they see the die roll that comes up. So, color me skeptical on saves as static defenses.
So let them spend an action point to boost their save. Just because the save values are static doesn't mean the character is.
Static AC gets a pass on this for me because - well - it's a sacred cow.Then when 4e rolled around, too many lists of powers were like checklists. Exploit that targets AC, check. Exploit that targets, Ref, check. Exploit that targets Fort, check. Blah blah blah. While I'm OK with dynamically picking a defense (or save) to go with a particular attack effect and doing things on the fly, 4e's approach was just way to sterile and formulaic. I felt like the game was descending to a "pick the right shaped peg to fit the hole that was key to the monsters vulnerabilities"...
Absolutely the only difference between Pathfinder and 4E in that regard is who is rolling the dice. This is really a false equivalency thing. Pathfinder already has spells and abilities that target every save, and yet somehow they're not "generic and formulaic". Having those exact same spells target a static defense instead of a rolled defense doesn't do anything except streamline play (although you'd need to tweak Evasion and Stalwart a bit). Static defenses also help make"meta" components more palatable, like those bard spells that trigger on an allies failed save. How do I know he failed his save? Something that triggers on a hit is easier. I pop the ability when I see that wave of necromantic energy hit him, not when I think he maybe kind of looks a little glassy eye right afterwards. Doing static saves and armors that boost certain save types also benefits low save characters more, helping to ameliorate the scaling issues that impact saves at high levels.
Or they actually put together a suite of defensive light side powers, which more accurately represents "using the Force defensively".
I have played SWSE - playing in a campaign of it now (well, not right now, I'm at work). And while I can understand the mechanical equivalence of using a static defense instead of a roll, I think it's where the game starts to go off rail - particularly when 4e D&D picked it up.
For one thing, I don't like that they're static. It means in SWSE, I can't use the Force to bump my roll to save by 1d6 - and defensive use of the Force should be one of its primary elements. Having the defenses static means your Jedi are using the Force to improve their offense and that doesn't fit well with the Jedi philosophy.
That might make sense for some characters or situations, but it doesn't for others like a force-sensitive character who doesn't have force training, and thus no formal powers, but still has an unconsciously manipulated "luck" at avoiding getting hurt.
In addition, everyone gets to use it, not just force sensitive characters and better modeling the force interacting with everybody (as it should).
So let them spend an action point to boost their save. Just because the save values are static doesn't mean the character is.
The problem with that is they're not making the decision off their own roll - which they would be able to see - but mine - which they can't. And that makes it a more inefficient metagame mechanic than when it's used offensively or when trying to beat a DC with a skill and that kind of offends my design sensibilities.
FOr me Pathfinder kept the seat warm due to a certain edition WoTC released a few years ago. I was an early adopter of 3.0 more or less as soon as I could get my hands on the books in 2000.By 2012 3.x was not looking that appealing and after 10 years of supporting Paizo I more or less stopped getting stuff. After trying out 2E agian after a 10 year hiatus (2002-2012) I found I enjoyed certain things from AD&D the main appeal of 3.x over 2E at the time was things like ascending ACs, no level limits or racial restrictions.
Now I will quite happily play OD&D,BECMI, 1E,2E, 3.0/3.5/PF or 5E and I own all 7 editions of D&D, Pathfinder, Castles and Crusades, ACKs, DCC, Basic Fantasy and a few other clones I forget the name of.
Suffice to say I have my preferences but very few sacred cows as such. I prefer no racial restrictions of level limits but if I am playing AD&D 1E or 2E I can live with them.
So after 6 years of Pathfinder being around and perhaps up to 15 years of 3.x games I was wondering what peoples opinion here is on sacred cows? How many of the following things do you regard as essential to your enjoyment of Pathfinder in particular or 3.x gaming in general.
1. Disparity of 6 points between a good and bad save.
2. Sacking spell DCs with the level of the spell and then adding the spellcaster modifier to the DC (when you require XYZ amount of ability score to cast the spell in the 1st place).
3. Being able to easily buy magical items.
4. Wands of Cure Ligth Wounds and similar wands existing enabling very cheap healing.
5. Multiple attacks decreasing in accuracy eg. +16/+11/+6/+1
6. The natural spell feat existing.
7. Disparity of +/- 6 skill points between the classes eg 2 for fighters, 8 for rogues.
8. Auto scaling buff spells you can stack together eg divine power, divine favor, righteous might etc.
9. Feats existing full stop. Would you play a 3.x/d20 game with no feats?
10. Ability scores scaling up as you level and uncapped limits on ability scores.
Aside from Feats, there's nothing on this list I'd consider "sacred" and quite a few I'd list as negative contributors to the system overall. The reliance on magical gear, healing being tied almost exclusively to magic, penalizing iterative attacks, auto-stacking of buff spells to nearly outshine non-spellcasting classes, and poor saves for classes who really need them are all (IMO) design flaws better left in the dust and really don't contribute anything positive to the game overall.
That's not actually what HP represents in d20.
A level 10 fighter can't be stabbed a dozen times through the neck and walk away smiling. HP is your heroic awesomeness allowing you to dodge at the last second getting merely scratched/bruised etc.
But then they fall in lava and wade out.... 9_6
Other sacred cows:
High-level Wizard Omnipotence.
Feat design - I'm ok with the IDEA of feats, but it seems like entirely too many of them exist to give PCs permission to do something they should be able to do already. (Weapon Finesse, Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Grapple/Dirty Trick/etc...) And a lot of the rest are ridiculously overspecialized. (Kick Up, I'm looking at you.)
I agree with you totally.
That being said, the system being how it is, it is the feats that allow for 'outside the norm' actions.
I luvs me my feats. :D
But then they fall in lava and wade out.... 9_6That's not actually what HP represents in d20.
A level 10 fighter can't be stabbed a dozen times through the neck and walk away smiling. HP is your heroic awesomeness allowing you to dodge at the last second getting merely scratched/bruised etc.
I think this came from 4e but maybe I'm misremembering. Anyways, the best rules for lava have always been.
"If you touch lava, and are not completely immune to fire. You die."
But then they fall in lava and wade out.... 9_6That's not actually what HP represents in d20.
A level 10 fighter can't be stabbed a dozen times through the neck and walk away smiling. HP is your heroic awesomeness allowing you to dodge at the last second getting merely scratched/bruised etc.
I think this came from 4e but maybe I'm misremembering. Anyways, the best rules for lava have always been.
"If you touch lava, and are not completely immune to fire. You die."
Yeah I'm pretty sure in reality that the human body would essentially vaporize...
With molten steel, you vaporize several feet before hitting it, if my vaguely remembered, internet based searches were accurate.
But if we wanted reality, we would live at work.
I think this came from 4e but maybe I'm misremembering. Anyways, the best rules for lava have always been.
"If you touch lava, and are not completely immune to fire. You die."
Eh, too gamey. To be completely honest, lava should just also have rules that being near it deals damage... I mean, it is That Hot, but it should not be a stupid videogame style thing of auto-death.
Lava is not nearly that bad. Being engulfed in a fireball is about as bad as walking on lava. It should kill you but doesn't if you are some sort of mythical badass
|
Design Manager
|
The problem with that is they're not making the decision off their own roll - which they would be able to see - but mine - which they can't. And that makes it a more inefficient metagame mechanic than when it's used offensively or when trying to beat a DC with a skill and that kind of offends my design sensibilities.
That's probably where a lot of our differences of opinion are coming from. I detest meta game mechanics since they operate based on the player's knowledge instead of the character's, and I roll openly at the table just like my players. To each their own!
Lava is not nearly that bad. Being engulfed in a fireball is about as bad as walking on lava. It should kill you but doesn't if you are some sort of mythical badass
Okay, no. You are wrong. Lava is molten rock and not only is the vapor off of it poison and sometimes hot enough to melt your lungs if you inhale, but having lava on you means your body is going to be destroyed in a matter of moments.
Just as the default combat rules don't cover having a single limb cut off I'm not gonna bother thinking up something for if you someone get just your arm caught in lava (you would at least lose the arm).
But yeah, walking on lava would be a death sentence. Heat, poison vapor, molten rock.
An aurochs with the celestial template
FOr me Pathfinder kept the seat warm due to a certain edition WoTC released a few years ago. I was an early adopter of 3.0 more or less as soon as I could get my hands on the books in 2000.By 2012 3.x was not looking that appealing and after 10 years of supporting Paizo I more or less stopped getting stuff. After trying out 2E agian after a 10 year hiatus (2002-2012) I found I enjoyed certain things from AD&D the main appeal of 3.x over 2E at the time was things like ascending ACs, no level limits or racial restrictions.
Now I will quite happily play OD&D,BECMI, 1E,2E, 3.0/3.5/PF or 5E and I own all 7 editions of D&D, Pathfinder, Castles and Crusades, ACKs, DCC, Basic Fantasy and a few other clones I forget the name of.
Suffice to say I have my preferences but very few sacred cows as such. I prefer no racial restrictions of level limits but if I am playing AD&D 1E or 2E I can live with them.
So after 6 years of Pathfinder being around and perhaps up to 15 years of 3.x games I was wondering what peoples opinion here is on sacred cows? How many of the following things do you regard as essential to your enjoyment of Pathfinder in particular or 3.x gaming in general.
1. Disparity of 6 points between a good and bad save.
2. Sacking spell DCs with the level of the spell and then adding the spellcaster modifier to the DC (when you require XYZ amount of ability score to cast the spell in the 1st place).
3. Being able to easily buy magical items.
4. Wands of Cure Ligth Wounds and similar wands existing enabling very cheap healing.
5. Multiple attacks decreasing in accuracy eg. +16/+11/+6/+1
6. The natural spell feat existing.
7. Disparity of +/- 6 skill points between the classes eg 2 for fighters, 8 for rogues.
8. Auto scaling buff spells you can stack together eg divine power, divine favor, righteous might etc.
9. Feats existing full stop. Would you play a 3.x/d20 game with no feats?
10. Ability scores scaling up as you level and uncapped limits on ability scores.
I personally would never play an edition of D&D that didn't have feats, which is my biggest beef with 5E. My favorite class is the Fighter for exactly that reason: they get lots of feats. I hate most class abilities in D&D, the vast majority are situational or outright worthless so for me, customization via feats and archetypes is critical. I'm playing a Ranger right now because the ppl in my group wanted me to, and WOW, those class abilities are obnoxiously bad. Archetypes have been my saving grace playing that class. My personal preference for a next edition of PF would be for each class to have a menu of class abilities to choose from at creation and at suitable levels, so that you could do away with mandatory class abilities and everyone can have their own unique take on the character class.
I like the skill system in PF but would prefer not to have classes that only get 2 skill points/lvl. I think 4/lvl should be the minimum.
1. Disparity of 6 points between a good and bad save.
2. Sacking spell DCs with the level of the spell and then adding the spellcaster modifier to the DC (when you require XYZ amount of ability score to cast the spell in the 1st place).
3. Being able to easily buy magical items.
4. Wands of Cure Ligth Wounds and similar wands existing enabling very cheap healing.
5. Multiple attacks decreasing in accuracy eg. +16/+11/+6/+1
6. The natural spell feat existing.
7. Disparity of +/- 6 skill points between the classes eg 2 for fighters, 8 for rogues.
8. Auto scaling buff spells you can stack together eg divine power, divine favor, righteous might etc.
9. Feats existing full stop. Would you play a 3.x/d20 game with no feats?
10. Ability scores scaling up as you level and uncapped limits on ability scores.
Largely, this is a list of 'non-sacred', with a side of 'profane, get it out, kill it with fire' for (3). (9) and (10) share between them the option of ongoing customisation, which I like, but aren't a sacred way of producing them.
1. Vancian casting model
2. 6 stats, ranged 3-18 on a bell curve
3. healing is divine magic, not arcane
4. paladins are primarily designed around their LG model and fight evil
5. humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs are core PC races
6. level based advancement
7. class based abilities
8. fighters fight, rangers track, rogues find traps, wizards use spells, clerics heal, monks use martial arts styles - each of these may do a bit more than those options, but those options are core features to those classes
9. Dragons come in good metallic and evil chromatic varieties
10. Characters have saving throws as last-ditch defenses against things that would normally have no defense
1)Not sacred, even in the current game design.
2)Also not sacred.3)Same again.
4)Sacred in the game design, to an extent, but not a sacred cow for me.
5)Setting stuff, and not sacred.
6)I'd prefer a scaling skill tree to levels, but I'll happily use a level system.
7)As above, but I'll happily use a class system.
8)Not sacred even in the current game design.
9)I love the mischievous/dangerous yet good metallic and the honourable yet cruel chromatic - and the game keeps on bringing in new kinds of dragons that lack shared moral compasses.
10)...that's not what a saving throw is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Classless and level-less systems are fine.
For other games.
But at the end of the day, "D&D" is my favorite system (that the current edition is named "Pathfinder" and published by Paizo doesn't mean anything, since I've also played when it was named "Dungeons and Dragons" and published by Wizards of the Coast and when it was "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" and published by TSR).
The sacred core that needs to be intact for me to play are--
1. Vancian Magic for, at a minimum WIZARDS.
2. Powerful magic
3. roll d20s for most things, and other dice for damage
4. levels
5. Strength/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Charisma
Pretty much everything else could be negotiated.
You'll notice that 4th edition does not meet those criteria (non-Vancian wizards, and super weak pathetic magic).
|
|
...The complaints you have are the reason people have issues with levels in games. 4E was the edition with completely custom abilities and feats, but it is hated.
Actually - it was the game with the ILLUSION of customization. Sure - you had a lot of choices. But all of those choices were very similar to not only YOUR class's choices, but also EVERYONE ELSE'S class's choices.
The lack of difference was probably my main issue.
Classless/level-less systems are almost impossible to balance across the table if there IS significant customization. I enjoy it for one-shots such as Call of Chthulu. It's fun - but I'd never play a full campaign of. (Last time I did we rolled stats - my stats were such that we decided as a group that I was a huge man who wore a creepy black leather mask over half my face due to injuries from WWI. Another player's stats had us decide he was an academic who'd had polio as a kid so he needed crutches. Fun for a 1-shot. Horrible for a campaign. [plus - the two of us both went insane as we completed an outsider summoning to save Earth from aliens] :P)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Disparity of 6 points between a good and bad save.2. Sacking spell DCs with the level of the spell and then adding the spellcaster modifier to the DC (when you require XYZ amount of ability score to cast the spell in the 1st place).
3. Being able to easily buy magical items.
4. Wands of Cure Ligth Wounds and similar wands existing enabling very cheap healing.
5. Multiple attacks decreasing in accuracy eg. +16/+11/+6/+1
6. The natural spell feat existing.
7. Disparity of +/- 6 skill points between the classes eg 2 for fighters, 8 for rogues.
8. Auto scaling buff spells you can stack together eg divine power, divine favor, righteous might etc.
9. Feats existing full stop. Would you play a 3.x/d20 game with no feats?
10. Ability scores scaling up as you level and uncapped limits on ability scores.
To be quick, if it didn't exist before 2000, I can't consider it a sacred cow. As such, none of these really count for me.
Okay, no. You are wrong. Lava is molten rock and not only is the vapor off of it poison and sometimes hot enough to melt your lungs if you inhale, but having lava on you means your body is going to be destroyed in a matter of moments.
Just as the default combat rules don't cover having a single limb cut off I'm not gonna bother thinking up something for if you someone get just your arm caught in lava (you would at least lose the arm).
But yeah, walking on lava would be a death sentence. Heat, poison vapor, molten rock.
So... if a mythic god-like warrior type character gestalted with pyrokineticist stepped into lava you'd rule that they should auto-die?
I mean, not everyone plays as puny realistic level characters.
...The complaints you have are the reason people have issues with levels in games. 4E was the edition with completely custom abilities and feats, but it is hated. I always felt this was because of sticking to levels at all; games like FATE or GURPS allow you to invest in abilities over time, all the BRP games (RuneQuest being the fantasy game) have incremental improvements based on the character's investment in skills and role playing. Like in RuneQuest 6 you gain XP rolls that are either used to improve a skill, learn new skills, or learn new spells; but you can also get unique abilities by forming allegences with schools, cults, or religious groups. You can also have a trainer spend time with your character teaching them new things without needing XP roll investments.
Have you tried a classless system?
I have played classless systems, but not for the fantasy genre, that would be interesting though. Honestly, I do love Pathfinder. It certainly isn't perfect but I do quite enjoy it. I just think the game would be improved if every Paladin, Ranger etc wasn't so "samey".
I like the feats, archetypes and other customization bits in the system. I've actually never played a "base class" character, every character I've played had at least one if not two archetypes.
|
|
Please explain you position more fully, because I feel like you're conflating the concepts 'injury' and 'damage amount' in a confusing fashion, or I have -completely- missed the point.Please take the "what are hit points" discussion to another thread. Reading debates about abstractions makes my eyes bleed.
How many hit points worth of bleed?
To be quick, if it didn't exist before 2000, I can't consider it a sacred cow. As such, none of these really count for me.
But... wouldn't that means that sacred cows are not necessary for your enjoyment of the game?
Things like experience level progression varying by class, original flavour mult-classing (Half-elf Cleric/Ranger style), THAC0, the dreaded bouncing lightning bolt - absolutely integral to AD&D and 2nd Ed. But playing Pathfinder either means setting those 'sacred cows' aside, or using a welter of houserules and gentlemen's agreements to bring them back.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be quick, if it didn't exist before 2000, I can't consider it a sacred cow. As such, none of these really count for me.But... wouldn't that means that sacred cows are not necessary for your enjoyment of the game?
1. I never said they were.
2. I happen to enjoy all the pre-2000 editions MORE than Pathfinder. And 5th edition as well.