Can we have even a bare minimum of respect for realism this time around?


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 129 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

graystone wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
also: I want a swiss army knife in PF
Isn't that a traveler's any tool?

The Romans had them in the third century.


TheAlicornSage wrote:

A group focused on the world milieu however, the gm mentions only what is found "you find a thin taught wire stretched across the hall and it goes into the wall." Not only do the players need to investigate further if they want to actually know what it is, but frankly, they don't need to. In fact, they don't even need to use an anti-trap mechanic at all. They can step over the wire, or get a chair from another room and place it over the wire so clumsy party members don't have accidents...

...

...Come across a 3' square pressure plate? Simply side-stepping it, or even jumping it are mo longer considerations because those solutions, which would be so obvious if it were real, are not solutions to the mechanical problem and thus rarely even thought of.

Okay I'm just gonna say right now... even coming at this from the angle of RP (heck, even if we were doing freeform RP)... most of the members of my group still wouldn't just "step over" the wire or pressure plate, because doing so in a location where you don't know what lies ahead of you is kind of a stupid move. You never know, there could be a dragon right around that next corner. Or something even worse. And if you wind up having to run for your lives... do you really want to step into that trap *then*, when you're potentially on the verge of death, rather than taking a minute now to figure out what the trap is, how it works, and most importantly how you can turn it off?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I demand linguistic descriptivism! Role-players outnumber historians who know the non-Gygaxian names for weapons! We should force them to change their terminology to what we're familiar with!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

And now I want an option to end your opponents rightly.


Neo2151 wrote:

Just stuff like:

•Gambeson (ie: padded) armor was actually really good protection and much better than something like hardened leather. Maybe have the stats reflect that?
•Call an arming sword (currently longsword) an arming sword and a longsword (currently bastard sword) a longsword? Ya know, like they're supposed to be?
•Can a dagger not be completely terrible? It's probably responsible for more battlefield kills than any other weapon, after all.
•Can a falchion be a falchion and not a scimitar?
•Can you explain how tricking the senses (Illusion) is fundamentally different enough from tricking the senses (Enchantment) that they deserve to be entirely separate schools of magic?

Ya know, just some basic common sense type stuff? :)

3. Good for killing? Yes, particularly in coup de grace situations. Good for fighting a determined attacker armed with, well anything? Not so much

4. Entirely different weapons. Also, the illustration in core looked more like a yataghan to me than a falchion (or scimitar)


Shinigami02 wrote:
TheAlicornSage wrote:

A group focused on the world milieu however, the gm mentions only what is found "you find a thin taught wire stretched across the hall and it goes into the wall." Not only do the players need to investigate further if they want to actually know what it is, but frankly, they don't need to. In fact, they don't even need to use an anti-trap mechanic at all. They can step over the wire, or get a chair from another room and place it over the wire so clumsy party members don't have accidents...

...

...Come across a 3' square pressure plate? Simply side-stepping it, or even jumping it are mo longer considerations because those solutions, which would be so obvious if it were real, are not solutions to the mechanical problem and thus rarely even thought of.

Okay I'm just gonna say right now... even coming at this from the angle of RP (heck, even if we were doing freeform RP)... most of the members of my group still wouldn't just "step over" the wire or pressure plate, because doing so in a location where you don't know what lies ahead of you is kind of a stupid move. You never know, there could be a dragon right around that next corner. Or something even worse. And if you wind up having to run for your lives... do you really want to step into that trap *then*, when you're potentially on the verge of death, rather than taking a minute now to figure out what the trap is, how it works, and most importantly how you can turn it off?

It's honestly an approach that's frustrating as hell. It's pretty much okay with simple examples like this, but as things get more complex, it becomes a matter of trying to guess what the GM thinks will work.

"I carefully reach through and cut the string, so it won't pull and trigger the trap."
"Sorry,the trap goes off when the string goes slack. Rocks fall. Everybody dies"
Love the old school. :)

And if you're going to introduce mechanics for the complex stuff, then it makes sense to use them overall.

Plus it's completely player skill. The trapmaster dwarven rogue is no better at figuring these things out than the big dumb fighter is. That's a thing some people value.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
•Can a dagger not be completely terrible? It's probably responsible for more battlefield kills than any other weapon, after all.

3. Good for killing? Yes, particularly in coup de grace situations. Good for fighting a determined attacker armed with, well anything? Not so much

Daggers slipped into weak spots in armor much better than other, larger, weapons.

Heck, half-swording is basically just turning your longsword into a dagger to fight opponents in plate. :P

But I'm not saying daggers need to be uber amazing or anything. I'm just saying they need to be better (and more creative, IMO) than just "longswords with lower die values."
They aren't wielded the same way swords are, so they should be different than swords, ya know?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

you will like the fact that weapons have properties now, tho. Rumors say that a dagger is agile, which means it's better for repeatedly stab someone, as it has a lower penalty for itterative attacks. It's also Deadly, which means it adds +1d10 in a crit. A scimitar has bonuses to attack more than one people in a row (I think it's called sweeping or something like that).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, all this fussing about calling blades different things, so how about:
Simple Small Blade 1d4 19-20/x2
Martial Small Blade 1d6 19-20/x2
High-Crit Small Blade 1d4 18-20/x2
One-Handed Blade 1d8 19-20/x2
High-Crit One-Handed Blade 1d6 18-20/x2
Hand-and-a-Half Blade 1d10 19-20/x2
Two-Handed Blade 2d6 19-20/x2
High-Crit Two-Handed Blade 2d4 18-20/x2

That way we don't have to worry about real-world names for weapons and such?

...or we can just continue to use what the game has used for decades, with its internal consistency (verisimilitude), without worrying about real-world names and the changing thereof over time?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
None of these are basic, common or sense to me. They're more of "a history buff is mad because they want a simulation of medieval Europe and what they get is some Gygax guy throwing names at things at random" frankly.

Yeah ignorance is cool. My mammoth in my game has the stats of a squirrel, if you dont like it dont buy/play/dance this product.

The mimic fishing for under-bridge dwelling denizens aside, I do like a semblance of function to application in a system. After all we model a sword as a sword and not a mace because a sword cuts, so many of the decisions of D&D past now could be made with better information and keeping the elegance and vibe of the system.

I wouldnt mind if all weapons followed a simple categorisation system (for example KahnyaGnorc's list) and then give individual weapons a special trait tailored to what they are meant to do. I think this would keep weapon choice interesting and varied.
What a generic list can result is in "if all weapons are the same whats the point" argument letting down a good portion of players, and a system like the current one is that there is always a better weapon because the statistics make it obvious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:


3. Good for killing? Yes, particularly in coup de grace situations. Good for fighting a determined attacker armed with, well anything? Not so much)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrying_dagger


If I wanted five pages of different kinds of swords, I'd play Tunnels & Trolls...

Oh, wait, I do. hehe


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Errant Mercenary wrote:
Crayon wrote:


3. Good for killing? Yes, particularly in coup de grace situations. Good for fighting a determined attacker armed with, well anything? Not so much)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrying_dagger

If we're going to talk about correct names for weapons, can we talk about realism in fighting styles as well?

As the "parrying dagger" suggests two-weapon fighting was often more about defending with the off hand weapon than about getting more attacks because you have a weapon in each hand. Not a thing reflected at all in the combat system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Indeed thejeff, it would be nice to see Pathfinder accommodate different fighting techniques.

Silver Crusade

gustavo iglesias wrote:
you will like the fact that weapons have properties now, tho. Rumors say that a dagger is agile, which means it's better for repeatedly stab someone, as it has a lower penalty for itterative attacks. It's also Deadly, which means it adds +1d10 in a crit. A scimitar has bonuses to attack more than one people in a row (I think it's called sweeping or something like that).

Ooooo I missed that about daggers. That'll be fun with some Barbarians :3


Shinigami02 wrote:
TheAlicornSage wrote:

A group focused on the world milieu however, the gm mentions only what is found "you find a thin taught wire stretched across the hall and it goes into the wall." Not only do the players need to investigate further if they want to actually know what it is, but frankly, they don't need to. In fact, they don't even need to use an anti-trap mechanic at all. They can step over the wire, or get a chair from another room and place it over the wire so clumsy party members don't have accidents...

...

...Come across a 3' square pressure plate? Simply side-stepping it, or even jumping it are mo longer considerations because those solutions, which would be so obvious if it were real, are not solutions to the mechanical problem and thus rarely even thought of.

Okay I'm just gonna say right now... even coming at this from the angle of RP (heck, even if we were doing freeform RP)... most of the members of my group still wouldn't just "step over" the wire or pressure plate, because doing so in a location where you don't know what lies ahead of you is kind of a stupid move. You never know, there could be a dragon right around that next corner. Or something even worse. And if you wind up having to run for your lives... do you really want to step into that trap *then*, when you're potentially on the verge of death, rather than taking a minute now to figure out what the trap is, how it works, and most importantly how you can turn it off?

First, one might consider it a good idea as when running out of the dungeon with monsters chasing behind, the trap can be used against the monsters.

That aside, the point is showing the difference in thinking and how that thknking turns a boring dice roll into point of enjoyable rp as well as seriously broadening your options.


thejeff wrote:
Shinigami02 wrote:
TheAlicornSage wrote:

A group focused on the world milieu however, the gm mentions only what is found "you find a thin taught wire stretched across the hall and it goes into the wall." Not only do the players need to investigate further if they want to actually know what it is, but frankly, they don't need to. In fact, they don't even need to use an anti-trap mechanic at all. They can step over the wire, or get a chair from another room and place it over the wire so clumsy party members don't have accidents...

...

...Come across a 3' square pressure plate? Simply side-stepping it, or even jumping it are mo longer considerations because those solutions, which would be so obvious if it were real, are not solutions to the mechanical problem and thus rarely even thought of.

Okay I'm just gonna say right now... even coming at this from the angle of RP (heck, even if we were doing freeform RP)... most of the members of my group still wouldn't just "step over" the wire or pressure plate, because doing so in a location where you don't know what lies ahead of you is kind of a stupid move. You never know, there could be a dragon right around that next corner. Or something even worse. And if you wind up having to run for your lives... do you really want to step into that trap *then*, when you're potentially on the verge of death, rather than taking a minute now to figure out what the trap is, how it works, and most importantly how you can turn it off?

It's honestly an approach that's frustrating as hell. It's pretty much okay with simple examples like this, but as things get more complex, it becomes a matter of trying to guess what the GM thinks will work.

"I carefully reach through and cut the string, so it won't pull and trigger the trap."
"Sorry,the trap goes off when the string goes slack. Rocks fall. Everybody dies"
Love the old school. :)

And if you're going to introduce mechanics for the complex stuff, then it makes sense to use them overall.

Plus it's...

Balance is important, but turning into a bland, thoughtless dice roll is worse than pointless as it removes the entire point of playing.

Finding that balance is part of the difference between great gms and bad gms. And only the gns can do it because the balance point is different for different people.

Also, who actually thinks cutting the wire is a smart idea, no matter where you cut it?

This is where you use a small stick, hold the wire taught, cut from the anchor, and tie the wire around the stick at the hole in the wall. Simple. You can use that in real life even.

Although, only the more advanced versions trigger when the line goes slack and when pulled tighter. The simpler versions either the anchor is solid and pulling the wire tighter pulls the trigger, or the anchor is loose, and pulling the wire frees ig from the anchor and goes slack releasing the trigger.

Trying reading The American Boys Handybook. All kinds of great stuff to learn in there.


Rysky wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
you will like the fact that weapons have properties now, tho. Rumors say that a dagger is agile, which means it's better for repeatedly stab someone, as it has a lower penalty for itterative attacks. It's also Deadly, which means it adds +1d10 in a crit. A scimitar has bonuses to attack more than one people in a row (I think it's called sweeping or something like that).
Ooooo I missed that about daggers. That'll be fun with some Barbarians :3

I re-checked the source. I think it was Rapiers who were deadly. Rapiers and bows. Haven't read about daggers, which does not mean they cannot be, just that it was not mentioned and I misremembered

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TheAlicornSage wrote:


Balance is important, but turning into a bland, thoughtless dice roll is worse than pointless as it removes the entire point of playing.

Alicorn, you have to understand that for some of us, the dice roll isn't the bland, thoughless, uninteresting part. The story where we don't get to use the fun mechanics would be the bland, thoughtless part. The mechanics, and the puzzle how to use them properly, _is_ the point of playing, and the function of the story is to give a context to the mechanics. What you are here (and many other places) suggesting feels like putting frosting on top of a plastic shape, and telling us that it's a better cake than putting a little less frosting on a home-baked cake. Good frosting (story) is important to a good cake, but it's not as important as the actual cake part (the mechanics).


TheAlicornSage wrote:

Balance is important, but turning into a bland, thoughtless dice roll is worse than pointless as it removes the entire point of playing.

Finding that balance is part of the difference between great gms and bad gms. And only the gns can do it because the balance point is different for different people.

Also, who actually thinks cutting the wire is a smart idea, no matter where you cut it?

This is where you use a small stick, hold the wire taught, cut from the anchor, and tie the wire around the stick at the hole in the wall. Simple. You can use that in real life even.

Although, only the more advanced versions trigger when the line goes slack and when pulled tighter. The simpler versions either the anchor is solid and pulling the wire tighter pulls the trigger, or the anchor is loose, and pulling the wire frees ig from the anchor and goes slack releasing the trigger.

Trying reading The American Boys Handybook. All kinds of great stuff to learn in there.

Different trap - I was remembering an example I ran into not of the wire across the hall, but a string behind a door, that I thought would pull a trigger when the door was opened, but instead needed to be held. Or something - it was a long time ago. :)

The point being I'm not trained in finding and disarming traps. My character might be. A GM isn't likely to an expert trapmaker either, so even if I was, I'd have to figure out not how it would really work, but how he thinks it would work.

And it all breaks down completely when we get to magical traps.

I kind of agree that the current roll to detect, roll to disarm, move on paradigm isn't great, but it's nowhere near as frustrating as the bad old days. At least for me.
Mostly we just deemphasize traps and avoid all the bother. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally... I am bad at the RP side. Especially when it comes to social stuff (yay for being shy, awkward... and prone to anxiety) so sometimes when I've been agonizing over being social it's nice to have the "I'd like to roll Diplomacy" to fall back, but then, when I am in the right frame of mind for some good RP it can be a powerful and fun thing, and gimping either of them would be depriving a lot of fun from the hobby.

Silver Crusade

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Rysky wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
you will like the fact that weapons have properties now, tho. Rumors say that a dagger is agile, which means it's better for repeatedly stab someone, as it has a lower penalty for itterative attacks. It's also Deadly, which means it adds +1d10 in a crit. A scimitar has bonuses to attack more than one people in a row (I think it's called sweeping or something like that).
Ooooo I missed that about daggers. That'll be fun with some Barbarians :3
I re-checked the source. I think it was Rapiers who were deadly. Rapiers and bows. Haven't read about daggers, which does not mean they cannot be, just that it was not mentioned and I misremembered

Ah, rapier Barbarian. Fancy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If every weapon has one or two of those small "tags", it could be very nice. Scimitar for example has both "sweep" and "forceful", while Rapier I think has "agile" and "deadly".

Add a bunch more of those tags, let them combine in groups of two or three, and every weapon can feel unique, giving us more reasons to choose between fighting styles. Maybe Axes favor more agressive builds, while longswords let you parry, with hammers being better for knocking people down and so on. That's cool.

Silver Crusade

I hope so!

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Mhoram wrote:
I thought realism was what caused the LF/QW "Oh you can't do magic, then you are limited to what people in the real world can do, mostly" ;)

True. But ignoring realism (Which I am inclined to do) leads to the Chainmail Bikini.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
True. But ignoring realism (Which I am inclined to do) leads to the Chainmail Bikini.

Barbarians of Lemuria makes this a character option. The Boon Battle Harness makes being scantily clad with some token attempt at protective covering into Medium Armor.

Like Red Sonja's chainmail bikini or He-Man's battle harness.

My brother's character in my Shroompunk game is a Kong Ape who uses this Boon in conjunction with a coconut-- half of the coconut is his helmet, and the other half is his codpiece.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FaerieGodfather wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
True. But ignoring realism (Which I am inclined to do) leads to the Chainmail Bikini.

Barbarians of Lemuria makes this a character option. The Boon Battle Harness makes being scantily clad with some token attempt at protective covering into Medium Armor.

Like Red Sonja's chainmail bikini or He-Man's battle harness.

My brother's character in my Shroompunk game is a Kong Ape who uses this Boon in conjunction with a coconut-- half of the coconut is his helmet, and the other half is his codpiece.

When you drop something like that, you should link it.

My point is, that RPGs are always a choice between realism vs fantasy.

Because Pathfinder can do that right now. All the group has to do is decide that a chainmail bikini has the stats of a chainshirt (or full chainmail for that matter). No special rules or equpment needed.

Counterwise, other groups would never accept a "chainmail bikini" reguardless of the special rules anyone (even Paizo) creates.


Redelia wrote:
TheAlicornSage wrote:


Balance is important, but turning into a bland, thoughtless dice roll is worse than pointless as it removes the entire point of playing.
Alicorn, you have to understand that for some of us, the dice roll isn't the bland, thoughless, uninteresting part. The story where we don't get to use the fun mechanics would be the bland, thoughtless part. The mechanics, and the puzzle how to use them properly, _is_ the point of playing, and the function of the story is to give a context to the mechanics. What you are here (and many other places) suggesting feels like putting frosting on top of a plastic shape, and telling us that it's a better cake than putting a little less frosting on a home-baked cake. Good frosting (story) is important to a good cake, but it's not as important as the actual cake part (the mechanics).

Perhaps, but far too many people think that d20 should never be used as I describe, like it's heresy.

I'd rather the rules be good enough that either of us could be happy. Too much seperation of mechanics from story makes it hard or even pointless for playing as I describe.

D20 originally, was a hybrid, it was good for either style, which means both of us could be happy in the same group. And as our reasons for playing vary, is it not good to maintain a flexible system.

I'd rather not have all the big systems go for just mechanics or light and dissociated.

D20 fills a very particular niche, it is the single best system for the style I describe, most "mechanics loving" players I've got to actually play the described style actually end up loving it, and even for those who don't, d20 allows these different styles to play together.

If pf2 goes too far into pure mechanics centered play like dnd 5 or 4, (yes 5 is mechanics centered), then ig limits the system to only that style. And if new players only ever experience that style, and the style I described remains unacknowledged, how many get deprived of the greater enjoyment they could have by playing other styles?

To me, the ability tl handle both sides is d20's single greatest strength, and I feel it goes largely ignored, unacknowledged, and often unknown.


thejeff wrote:
TheAlicornSage wrote:

Balance is important, but turning into a bland, thoughtless dice roll is worse than pointless as it removes the entire point of playing.

Finding that balance is part of the difference between great gms and bad gms. And only the gns can do it because the balance point is different for different people.

Also, who actually thinks cutting the wire is a smart idea, no matter where you cut it?

This is where you use a small stick, hold the wire taught, cut from the anchor, and tie the wire around the stick at the hole in the wall. Simple. You can use that in real life even.

Although, only the more advanced versions trigger when the line goes slack and when pulled tighter. The simpler versions either the anchor is solid and pulling the wire tighter pulls the trigger, or the anchor is loose, and pulling the wire frees ig from the anchor and goes slack releasing the trigger.

Trying reading The American Boys Handybook. All kinds of great stuff to learn in there.

Different trap - I was remembering an example I ran into not of the wire across the hall, but a string behind a door, that I thought would pull a trigger when the door was opened, but instead needed to be held. Or something - it was a long time ago. :)

The point being I'm not trained in finding and disarming traps. My character might be. A GM isn't likely to an expert trapmaker either, so even if I was, I'd have to figure out not how it would really work, but how he thinks it would work.

And it all breaks down completely when we get to magical traps.

I kind of agree that the current roll to detect, roll to disarm, move on paradigm isn't great, but it's nowhere near as frustrating as the bad old days. At least for me.
Mostly we just deemphasize traps and avoid all the bother. :)

As I said, balance.

You can come across a pressure plate and think beyond a simple die roll without needing to get into the details.

Stepping over a wire isn't requiring players to know how to disable traps.

If you do decide to disable the trap, it is easy enough to say "my character tries to secure the wire without triggering the trap" and then roll disable device for it. The problem here comes when stop interacting with the scenerio, when you stop thinking of it as a trap for the characters to handle think of it as nothing more than just another skill check.

What does the skill check represent? If you lose sight of that, then why are you bothering, cause it obviously stopped being about playjng a character in a fictional world? (Redelia's answer is obviously about gaming, interacting and immersing in the mechanics rather than interacting and immersing jn the story)

101 to 129 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Can we have even a bare minimum of respect for realism this time around? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion