Bounded Accuracy Isn't Bad


Pathfinder Playtest

351 to 376 of 376 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

AnimatedPaper wrote:
Game Master Q wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
thaX wrote:
6th edition, which will happen at some point, will likely abandon Bonded Accuracy and have the return of high magic campaign like the previous editions (including 4th edition). Items will likely not augment stats or give out bonuses beyond +3 to hit/dmg, much like what PF2 is likely doing, but the magical items will be a part of the game once again, not rare artifacts that a character may get about 10 times in his adventuring career.
THAT bugs the crap out of me, and why I can't take 5e seriously. Also the lack of specific item prices. I get people don't like MagicMart. But even if the items are once in a lifetime additions, I want a price tag.
There is one. It's in the DMG and the price is based on rarity.
No, there is not. There is a chart that lists a suggested price range for the DM to pick within. That is, in fact, a lack of a specific item price, and the source of my annoyance.

There are 'suggested' 5e prices, but they're silly.

Example:
A Potion of Flying allows you to fly once. It is listed as 'Very Rare'.
The Broom of Flying is 'Uncommon'. It allows you to fly all the time.
The suggested price of Very Rare items is 50,000gp.
The suggested price of Uncommon items is 500gp.

The only defence that can be made for the system is that there aren't supposed to be any magic item shops so it doesn't really matter because no-one is buying or selling. But if the prices are going to be that nonsensical, they shouldn't have bothered giving any.

More sensible 5e price list.


Tholomyes wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Pan wrote:
The belt of Giant Strength is an artifact and should never be assumed it will be found in any 5E campaign. Making the argument that stat boosting items are good or not, shouldn't include it.
Yes, in 5th Ed you are generally not building characters around an assumed magic item. Though I don't DM PF1 that way, either.
You can certainly run PF1 without assumed magic items, but that's not how the game is designed, as a big chunk of math and adventure writing assumes big six and access to certain types of magic at certain levels.
Absolutely (without variants/houserules), something they seem to be addressing in PF2.
Addressing, but not eliminating unfortunately. The math will be designed not around the big six as we know them, but we do know that +X Armor and Weapons will still be a thing, and even more of a thing in PF2e, given that +X weapons means +XdY to damage. For the Playtest, I don't mind that being the case, but I hope by the CRB full launch they have rules that get rid of the +X (and corresponding WBL for that case). IMO, there's nothing more boring about Pathfinder magic items than the fact that a +X sword not only competes with more interesting and flavorful magic weapons, but is downright just better and assumed by the math.

Maybe they will include an inherent bonus type variant to make up for non-assumptive campaigns.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:

I've never liked 5e's implementation of BA.

I understand the appeal of trying to keep the numbers flatter, but it always seemed to me that you'd get the same effect more easily by simply paring the game down to Levels 1-6 and increasing the amount of XP required to advance.

It's not Bounded Leveling, it's Bounded Accuracy — your HP and damage output goes up. You can fight hordes of enemies

what doesn't change is the ability to interact with them at all. The "chance to hit", hence "accuracy". Same for skills.


2097 wrote:

It's not Bounded Leveling, it's Bounded Accuracy — your HP and damage output goes up. You can fight hordes of enemies

what doesn't change is the ability to interact with them at all. The "chance to hit", hence "accuracy". Same for skills.

Yes, they're different. My point is that I think the latter would've worked better. Apologies for any confusion. Mind, this is based on the assumption that 5e was going for an OSR-type experience. It may be that it's more a mimicking of that as aesthetic choice, however.

As in all things, Form follows Function.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Pan wrote:
The belt of Giant Strength is an artifact and should never be assumed it will be found in any 5E campaign. Making the argument that stat boosting items are good or not, shouldn't include it.
Yes, in 5th Ed you are generally not building characters around an assumed magic item. Though I don't DM PF1 that way, either.
You can certainly run PF1 without assumed magic items, but that's not how the game is designed, as a big chunk of math and adventure writing assumes big six and access to certain types of magic at certain levels.
Absolutely (without variants/houserules), something they seem to be addressing in PF2.
Addressing, but not eliminating unfortunately. The math will be designed not around the big six as we know them, but we do know that +X Armor and Weapons will still be a thing, and even more of a thing in PF2e, given that +X weapons means +XdY to damage. For the Playtest, I don't mind that being the case, but I hope by the CRB full launch they have rules that get rid of the +X (and corresponding WBL for that case). IMO, there's nothing more boring about Pathfinder magic items than the fact that a +X sword not only competes with more interesting and flavorful magic weapons, but is downright just better and assumed by the math.

I'm pretty sure the we learned that potency runes (the new thing for +1 +2 etc) don't compete with more exotic effects anymore. Could be wrong though.

They've also made +1 weapons more exciting by adding an additional damage die. Admittedly it is still just increasing your damage but it certainly makes it feel like a bigger deal. And really, magic weapons which are better at killing things are too baked in to get rid of IMO.

Personally, I was hoping that potency runes would only add to damage and craftsmanship level would add to accuracy. We might wind up that defacto, if you need higher quality base weapons for additional tunes. But I'd like it if that distinction were more clear cut.


Captain Morgan wrote:

I'm pretty sure the we learned that potency runes (the new thing for +1 +2 etc) don't compete with more exotic effects anymore. Could be wrong though.

They've also made +1 weapons more exciting by adding an additional damage die. Admittedly it is still just increasing your damage but it certainly makes it feel like a bigger deal. And really, magic weapons which are better at killing things are too baked in to get rid of IMO.

Personally, I was hoping that potency runes would only add to damage and craftsmanship level would add to accuracy. We might wind up that defacto, if you need higher quality base weapons for additional tunes. But I'd like it if that distinction were more clear cut.

Huh, I must have missed that, but if it's the case that +2 weapons don't compete with +1 Courageous weapons, for instance, I'm glad. And I get that +1 weapons are more exciting now, it's just that I'm never that excited about "math fix" items. I like magic items that do interesting things, and even things that aren't always useful, the way a +X sword always is.

As for craftsmanship, I think that may be how it works out (at least the defacto) aspect, since I doubt potency and craftsmanship bonuses will stack, since they're going for making each +1 bonus more impactful

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, non-numerical enhancements no longer compete directly with the numerical ones. Both still cost money and thus compete in that way, of course, but you can also move Runes between items, so there's probably a cost break there for just taking what you find more often.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Yeah, non-numerical enhancements no longer compete directly with the numerical ones. Both still cost money and thus compete in that way, of course, but you can also move Runes between items, so there's probably a cost break there for just taking what you find more often.

I wouldn't expect either to not cost money, but hopefully it's more like: A +1 Flaming weapon costs 4000 gp (+base weapon costs), from 2000*(1)^2 for the +1 and 2000*(1)^2 from the flaming, and not 8000 gp for 2000*(1+1)^2

Liberty's Edge

Tholomyes wrote:
I wouldn't expect either to not cost money, but hopefully it's more like: A +1 Flaming weapon costs 4000 gp (+base weapon costs), from 2000*(1)^2 for the +1 and 2000*(1)^2 from the flaming, and not 8000 gp for 2000*(1+1)^2

They're almost certainly flat costs rather than escalating ones, yeah.


Worth also keeping in mind that the weapons themselves sound more interesting. So replacing a +1 greatsword with a +2 great axe is more than just adding another die and +1 to hit. It is also a new set of weapon traits and potentially crit specialization. Swapping weapon types around sounds like it will help keep things fresh.


Crayon wrote:
Mind, this is based on the assumption that 5e was going for an OSR-type experience.

Yeah, bad assumption, AD&D scales wildly, and with pretty big numbers, 5th Ed is nothing like that.


Weather Report wrote:
Crayon wrote:
Mind, this is based on the assumption that 5e was going for an OSR-type experience.
Yeah, bad assumption, AD&D scales wildly, and with pretty big numbers, 5th Ed is nothing like that.

Not always since a lot of characters had their Level capped due to Class, Race, or Ability and Magic was less prevalent, but I was referring more in terms of mortality.

EDIT: Also, AD&D isn't usually considered OSR


Crayon wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Crayon wrote:
Mind, this is based on the assumption that 5e was going for an OSR-type experience.
Yeah, bad assumption, AD&D scales wildly, and with pretty big numbers, 5th Ed is nothing like that.

Not always since a lot of characters had their Level capped due to Class, Race, or Ability and Magic was less prevalent, but I was referring more in terms of mortality.

That's true, ability scores, hit points and AC are all capped, just Attack Matrices/THACO and Saving Throws that scale so much. 5th Ed does not play or work like AD&D/OSR, it's very much 3rd Ed Lite.


To me it felt more like playing 1st edition then it did 3rd edition. Maybe because they were both so rules light and didn't really that many class options. Granted right no THACO (I think at that point It wasn't even true THACO really but the idea was there) and matrices but the simple game play aspect made me think of 1st edition far more so then 3rd.


Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
To me it felt more like playing 1st edition then it did 3rd edition. Maybe because they were both so rules light and didn't really that many class options. Granted right no THACO (I think at that point It wasn't even true THACO really but the idea was there) and matrices but the simple game play aspect made me think of 1st edition far more so then 3rd.

1st Ed AD&D is rules heavy, extremely, if you actually use the rules in the PHB and DMG. They managed to capture an old school feeling with 5th Ed, but it is basically a stripped down 3rd Ed, with some 4th Ed and PF1 bits thrown in. I really like 5th Ed.


Weather Report wrote:
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
To me it felt more like playing 1st edition then it did 3rd edition. Maybe because they were both so rules light and didn't really that many class options. Granted right no THACO (I think at that point It wasn't even true THACO really but the idea was there) and matrices but the simple game play aspect made me think of 1st edition far more so then 3rd.
1st Ed AD&D is rules heavy, extremely, if you actually use the rules in the PHB and DMG. They managed to capture an old school feeling with 5th Ed, but it is basically a stripped down 3rd Ed, with some 4th Ed and PF1 bits thrown in. I really like 5th Ed.

In a way I suppose but there was quite a bit that was left up to the DM to decide in 1st. You had to make things up quite often for unusual circumstances. I'll admit the actual rules are very similar but the feel of playing the game reminded me a lot more of 1st then 3rd. Which I suppose is that rules light part mostly. It had class and spells rules but very little on the environment and achieving tasks and knowledge stuff rules. I know a lot of time we ended up just saying make a stat check.


Crayon wrote:

Yes, they're different. My point is that I think the latter would've worked better. Apologies for any confusion. Mind, this is based on the assumption that 5e was going for an OSR-type experience. It may be that it's more a mimicking of that as aesthetic choice, however.

As in all things, Form follows Function.

Oh, I see. I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. But, in OSR hp/hd also goes up.


Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
To me it felt more like playing 1st edition then it did 3rd edition. Maybe because they were both so rules light and didn't really that many class options. Granted right no THACO (I think at that point It wasn't even true THACO really but the idea was there) and matrices but the simple game play aspect made me think of 1st edition far more so then 3rd.
1st Ed AD&D is rules heavy, extremely, if you actually use the rules in the PHB and DMG. They managed to capture an old school feeling with 5th Ed, but it is basically a stripped down 3rd Ed, with some 4th Ed and PF1 bits thrown in. I really like 5th Ed.
In a way I suppose but there was quite a bit that was left up to the DM to decide in 1st. You had to make things up quite often for unusual circumstances. I'll admit the actual rules are very similar but the feel of playing the game reminded me a lot more of 1st then 3rd. Which I suppose is that rules light part mostly. It had class and spells rules but very little on the environment and achieving tasks and knowledge stuff rules. I know a lot of time we ended up just saying make a stat check.

I generally agree, but 5th Ed is probably more like Basic (BECMI), as I said, 1st Ed AD&D is heavy stuff. Most people simply do not use most of the rules, hence the fast and loose feeling and reputation.


There is good reason not to use some of those rules. Are you familiar with the chart that modifies different weapon attack bonuses based on the armor class of the person your attacking? for example a pick axe would get a high bonus against higher ac's while say a whip would get bonuses vrs lower ac's however the chart was kind of all over the place.


Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
There is good reason not to use some of those rules. Are you familiar with the chart that modifies different weapon attack bonuses based on the armor class of the person your attacking?

Of course, classic, Weapon vs. AC modifiers, those can be great (and 2nd Ed streamlines it a bit) in certain campaigns, helps weapons stand out (picks are better than swords against plate). That is one of the least byzantine 1st Ed rules.


Crayon wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Crayon wrote:
Mind, this is based on the assumption that 5e was going for an OSR-type experience.
Yeah, bad assumption, AD&D scales wildly, and with pretty big numbers, 5th Ed is nothing like that.

Not always since a lot of characters had their Level capped due to Class, Race, or Ability and Magic was less prevalent, but I was referring more in terms of mortality.

EDIT: Also, AD&D isn't usually considered OSR

Tell that to OSRIC :-) It's the very game that practically launched the OSR, and it's based on AD&D.

I disagree about the "AD&D wild scaling," though -- by contrast to Original D&D (OD&D), perhaps, but not by comparison to 3nd edition D&D and Pathfinder (or even 4th edition D&D for that matter). By comparison, at levels 15 or so, AD&D characters would have an average of 70 to 90 hit points, tops (not counting fighters running around with 18 constitutions as 'average'), an AC of -2 to -5 (about an AC 22 to 25 equivalent), and a THACO of 5 to 10 (that would be, what, an equivalent to a +15 to hit?)

By contrast, saves were pretty crazy for AD&D; by those levels, people with magic rings of protection were failing on a 1 or 2.

But compare to 15th level 3E or Pathfinder characters, who are in the low to mid-30s for AC, a +20 to +25 to hit, and 120 to 170 hit points or more. It's a matter of degrees, really -- OD&D was smaller number totals than AD&D, which had smaller numbers than 2nd edition, which had smaller numbers than 3rd edition, etc. etc. with 5e (and now PF2) walking it back a bit compared to their predecessors.

To bring it back to the relevant discussion, there's nothing wrong with either, as long as they're balanced within the respective systems. It's things like the caster/martial disparity, and divergence of threat between different classes of equivalent level, that have to be addressed if they should occur, and it looks to me like they are addressing it.


Matthew Downie wrote:

Example:

A Potion of Flying allows you to fly once. It is listed as 'Very Rare'.
The Broom of Flying is 'Uncommon'. It allows you to fly all the time.
The suggested price of Very Rare items is 50,000gp.
The suggested price of Uncommon items is 500gp.

We use the rules from ACKS to brew potions and each attempt to make a fly potion is a six week process that costs 3000 GP and also costs monster parts worth 3000 xp. The monsters have to have a flight speed.

To succeed with the brewing attempt they need to do an ACKS style "magical research throw" and for rando alchemists you can find in the city, that means rolling a 12 or higher on unmodified d20.

Finding an item, that can survive being used by several people, seems to me to be more likely than finding an undrunk potion.

Attempting to create a broom of flying with ACKS' rules costs 75000 GP, 300 days, and monster parts from flying monsters worth 75000 xp.

This isn't meant as an argument for 5e I guess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
2097 wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

Example:

A Potion of Flying allows you to fly once. It is listed as 'Very Rare'.
The Broom of Flying is 'Uncommon'. It allows you to fly all the time.
The suggested price of Very Rare items is 50,000gp.
The suggested price of Uncommon items is 500gp.

We use the rules from ACKS to brew potions and each attempt to make a fly potion is a six week process that costs 3000 GP and also costs monster parts worth 3000 xp. The monsters have to have a flight speed.

To succeed with the brewing attempt they need to do an ACKS style "magical research throw" and for rando alchemists you can find in the city, that means rolling a 12 or higher on unmodified d20.

Finding an item, that can survive being used by several people, seems to me to be more likely than finding an undrunk potion.

Attempting to create a broom of flying with ACKS' rules costs 75000 GP, 300 days, and monster parts from flying monsters worth 75000 xp.

This isn't meant as an argument for 5e I guess.

Of all the things to borrow from MMO's, grinding specific mobs for crafting materials would definitely not have been high on my list...


Arachnofiend wrote:
2097 wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

Example:

A Potion of Flying allows you to fly once. It is listed as 'Very Rare'.
The Broom of Flying is 'Uncommon'. It allows you to fly all the time.
The suggested price of Very Rare items is 50,000gp.
The suggested price of Uncommon items is 500gp.

We use the rules from ACKS to brew potions and each attempt to make a fly potion is a six week process that costs 3000 GP and also costs monster parts worth 3000 xp. The monsters have to have a flight speed.

To succeed with the brewing attempt they need to do an ACKS style "magical research throw" and for rando alchemists you can find in the city, that means rolling a 12 or higher on unmodified d20.

Finding an item, that can survive being used by several people, seems to me to be more likely than finding an undrunk potion.

Attempting to create a broom of flying with ACKS' rules costs 75000 GP, 300 days, and monster parts from flying monsters worth 75000 xp.

This isn't meant as an argument for 5e I guess.

Of all the things to borrow from MMO's, grinding specific mobs for crafting materials would definitely not have been high on my list...

I think the better way of thinking about it would be in the Monster Hunter sense. Murdering particular creatures to make tangible items out of their giblets is generally speaking fun to lots of people.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
2097 wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

Example:

A Potion of Flying allows you to fly once. It is listed as 'Very Rare'.
The Broom of Flying is 'Uncommon'. It allows you to fly all the time.
The suggested price of Very Rare items is 50,000gp.
The suggested price of Uncommon items is 500gp.

We use the rules from ACKS to brew potions and each attempt to make a fly potion is a six week process that costs 3000 GP and also costs monster parts worth 3000 xp. The monsters have to have a flight speed.

To succeed with the brewing attempt they need to do an ACKS style "magical research throw" and for rando alchemists you can find in the city, that means rolling a 12 or higher on unmodified d20.

Finding an item, that can survive being used by several people, seems to me to be more likely than finding an undrunk potion.

Attempting to create a broom of flying with ACKS' rules costs 75000 GP, 300 days, and monster parts from flying monsters worth 75000 xp.

This isn't meant as an argument for 5e I guess.

Of all the things to borrow from MMO's, grinding specific mobs for crafting materials would definitely not have been high on my list...
I think the better way of thinking about it would be in the Monster Hunter sense. Murdering particular creatures to make tangible items out of their giblets is generally speaking fun to lots of people.

Yup, I do this for my players (although not the required part, its an option for them) and they loved it. They even once used it as a decider between two different routes ("are there drakes up in those mountains, I could use their flame glands for some interesting stuff!")


The idea in ACKS is that you build a dungeon to lure monsters in and then harvest them for parts

351 to 376 of 376 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Bounded Accuracy Isn't Bad All Messageboards