Are You Proficient?

...

Then you're missing the point because the situation you're modelling is not one I object to happening. If a level 20 PF wizard is decked out in tens of thousands of gold worth of magic items, then I'm perfectly fine with him defeating a small group of rookie fighters without casting a spell. I want extremely powerful magic items to be extremely powerful, such that they can compensate for a character's innate weakness. But, and this is the important part, even a high level wizard should not be able to simply wipe the floor with a group of fighters by stabbing them to death with a rusty dagger while being wrapped in only his loincloth. In PF1 he is not. From what we've seen, in PF2 he is. Do you dispute this?

I think you're extrapolating rather far in that point. I would wait to draw any conclusions on that matter until we actually discuss how weapons and armor work, because from what I'm reading of this it will not be similar to what we're familiar with, and degrees of proficiency will matter.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect that not having any weapon or armor proficiencies at all, which is where I imagine our friend the wizard is going to end up, is going to effect a fight with a group of lower level fighters in which he is not equipped and doesn't use any of his abilities in ways that make it easier for the Expert-level fighters to combat him.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Not just in terms of character abilities,

Are you part of the group that would like to see high level magic removed or toned down?

No, I'm proficient enough to handle stuff like teleportation, raise dead and even wishes. But there is a very real issue with spellcasters taking time to find a perfect solution to whatever they face (and taking longer to do that because they have longer lists of spells to get through). I'm not saying PF2e will address that particular concern, we haven't seen a real spellcasting preview yet.

I will be the first to admit that I am lazy about this. I don't build npcs, I give them appropriate numbers and abilities and cut them loose.

One thing that I find is a massive help is to not stress over challenging my players. I would rather let them be amazing and walk all over most encounters with an occasional nailbiter popping up now and then.

Yes, I too have given up on presenting real challenges to high level PC's. This is a bug of the game, not a feature.

It's one thing to throw low-level group of enemies at the players so they can see how far they've grown. It's another thing entirely when CR appropriate challenges, aren't CR appropriate.

Quote:

the sheer length of time each individual turn takes as warriors gain multiple attacks at differing bonuses, and spellcasters have incredibly lengthy spell-lists.

This right here might be an actual disconnect. I don't experience these sluggish turns. My players get one minute to complete their turn and then the next person goes. My combats average 5(recall that I allow many easy encounters) to 30 minutes.

So that's great for super experienced groups of players, who are able to identify and make optimal choices quickly. But some people don't spend hours on the hobby outside of the time they spend at the table. Putting someone on a timer when they have trouble identifying the right choice to make in a dangerous situation is really player unfriendly. And more importantly, not part of the rules of the game.

There's a reason level's 6-10 are known as the "sweet spot".

I'd like those levels better if the game was as fast as it is at 6-10.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

I've played level 18 PF1, things go off the rails

Might this be part of our disconnect?

I don't GM with rails (aside from the rare AP for playtesting purposes.)

There is nothing I value more than player agency and seeing what a player will do through his character in my world.

by off the rails I was not referring to railroading but things "breaking down". This had nothing to do with fighters having magic powers or not having them.

The problem isn't that Pathfinder 1st ed is perfect and doesn't need fixing. It does. The problem is among the playerbase there is such a signficiant disconnect as to what "fixing" Pathfinder really means. It's concerning to see the company that built up the Pathfinder brand from the "3.5 survives thrives!" platform appears to now be moving so drastically away from what makes Pathfinder Pathfinder as opposed to D&D 4th ed.

That's why you're seeing this resistance. Some of us were around when Pathfinder started and actually appreciate the basis from which Pathfinder was built upon.

And this is an evolution of that. There'd be no point in doing a second edition at all with all the glut of material already available for the first edition. They could do an update core with some rules tweaked and errata included and things like that.

If you're going to evolve the system, you have to do enough to make it worth the effort. In this case, the devs have identified the issues with the core engine and game design goals and chosen to make a truly heroic fantasy game with all kinds of epic feats.

Since I can't stand big dice pools and don't want to support the company that made it, for instance I can't go Exalted for big, epic heroics. But PF2 looks poised to give me that kind of stuff, the kind of thing that has been a part of fantasy as long as magic itself has, and I'm excited for it.

This doesn't look like an iteration on the same game, but a knockdown rebuild. I don't want a brand new house. I want the same house renovated. There is value in iterative design (see pre-WotC D&D).

But, and this is the important part, even a high level wizard should not be able to simply wipe the floor with a group of fighters by stabbing them to death with a rusty dagger while being wrapped in only his loincloth. In PF1 he is not.

AFAIK, a P1E Wiz20 can absolutely wipe a group of Ftr1 (or low level) with just loincloth and dagger by dint of HP pool and higher BAB with Power Attack.

Some of us were around when Pathfinder started and actually appreciate the basis from which Pathfinder was built upon.

This doesn't look like an iteration on the same game, but a knockdown rebuild. I don't want a brand new house. I want the same house renovated. There is value in iterative design (see pre-WotC D&D).

There can be. P1E is OGL, so anybody can do with P1E what Paizo did with 3.x. Paizo is ready to design their own game now.

The "some of us were around" comment reeks of arrogance. I'd bet entire Paizo design team "was around" using/developing P1E.
I was involved in it's original playtest, and welcome the developments seen so far from P2E.
P1E was a product from company which never developed own game system before, developed on emergency basis to deal with sudden shift in licence policy by Hasbro. Certainly fine to recognize that accomplishment, as a product and as a company. Paizo doesn't need to restrict itself to those circumstances and approach any more.

I'm actually okay with a Level 20 Wizard being able to tear apart a Level 1 Fighter with nothing but a dagger.

That level 20 Wizard (Bob from hence forward), has seen things. Experienced things. Bob has had to face down Dragons, Demons, Devils, and gods knows what other horrors.
Bob has created entire planes of existence simply because he desired it. He has terra-morphed entire landscapes because he did not feel like teleporting around a mountain this morning.

Then this Level 1 Fighter (Phil) want's to raise a blade against him? Who is this Phil anyways? A once upon a time farmer who picked up his grandfather's sword? He's been "training for months" on how to wield it. Like that's supposed to mean something to Bob.

The more you've experienced, the better you are. Bob has experienced ALOT (19 levels worth of crap), Phil may not have even seen a zombie in his life, and is supposed to be a challenge to Bob simply because Bob is only armed with a knife and decided it would be nice to leave the spell book in his tower within the demi-plane "Bobbiton"? I don't think so.

Just my feel on it. If you think a level 1 should be able to compete with a level 20 simply because circumstance is against the level 20, that's okay. I just so happen to disagree with the sentiment.

Who is this Phil anyways?

Down with Phil!

I'm actually okay with a Level 20 Wizard being able to tear apart a Level 1 Fighter with nothing but a dagger.

That level 20 Wizard (Bob from hence forward), has seen things. Experienced things. Bob has had to face down Dragons, Demons, Devils, and gods knows what other horrors.
Bob has created entire planes of existence simply because he desired it. He has terra-morphed entire landscapes because he did not feel like teleporting around a mountain this morning.

Then this Level 1 Fighter (Phil) want's to raise a blade against him? Who is this Phil anyways? A once upon a time farmer who picked up his grandfather's sword? He's been "training for months" on how to wield it. Like that's supposed to mean something to Bob.

The more you've experienced, the better you are. Bob has experienced ALOT (19 levels worth of crap), Phil may not have even seen a zombie in his life, and is supposed to be a challenge to Bob simply because Bob is only armed with a knife and decided it would be nice to leave the spell book in his tower within the demi-plane "Bobbiton"? I don't think so.

Just my feel on it. If you think a level 1 should be able to compete with a level 20 simply because circumstance is against the level 20, that's okay. I just so happen to disagree with the sentiment.

Oh yeah. In a one on one confontation even if the 20th level wizard is completely defenseless he will wipe the floor with a 1st level fighter in a matter of in-game seconds.

I think you're extrapolating rather far in that point. I would wait to draw any conclusions on that matter until we actually discuss how weapons and armor work, because from what I'm reading of this it will not be similar to what we're familiar with, and degrees of proficiency will matter.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect that not having any weapon or armor proficiencies at all, which is where I imagine our friend the wizard is going to end up, is going to effect a fight with a group of lower level fighters in which he is not equipped and doesn't use any of his abilities in ways that make it easier for the Expert-level fighters to combat him.

I admit that I'm extrapolating, but I don't think I make any unwarranted leaps. Mark's post did not assuage my fears because like you, he assumed a decked out wizard whose magical gear almost completely prevented the fighters from hitting him (the suggested hit and run shield block tactic also seems iffy if it still costs an action to raise a shield, in which case it's not possible to attack, double move and block all in one round, but these things might be in flux in internal playtesting).

I may well be mistaken, but to me, this is what it seems like universal proficiency scaling by level gets us: unless wizards have zero even simple weapon proficiencies and there are crippling untrained penalties to weapon use which make it (virtually) impossible to deal damage (unlikely, and difficult to square with improvised weapon rules), a naked level 20 wizard will have +20 (+18 untrained) to hit with a STR of just 10, and an AC of 30 with a DEX of just 10. Against low level foes, his attacks will very often clear by 10 to crit for double damage, while he himself is impossible to hit on anything but a 20. He can demolish group after group of low level fighters without breaking a sweat.

I'm honestly interested in whether people here approve of changing the game in this direction if that's where the developers are going, of alternatively if there are any concrete ideas as to how this will be prevented.

So far, I'm all for the "level" bonus to skills. I hated being a level 16 Cleric who actually just barely knew religion. (+7 total if I recall)

My character went across seas and mountains and faced off against monster after monster, threat after threat, and still could not make swim check naturally to save her life. At least I had spells unlike my Fighter friend. Like, did my character learn nothing except to keep her eyes peeled? (I tossed the other 1 skill rank at anything to give me a bonus)

And more skill ranks doesn't feel like enough. That's still saying that even though I've experienced just about everything, I still suck at most things except for those I work really hard on (what kind of "hero" is that?)

I do think it's weird with perform/profession/craft stuff... Mayhaps you fake it better?

Just my opinion thus far.

...

I'm not talking about a single level 1 fighter.

People already need to stop playing the game less than a third of the way through (E6) to play "gritty" adventures as it is.

It is always, always, always easier to go long and then set handicaps for people that don't want to reach that level than to kneecap what you can do and force people to make up their own rules if they want to go beyond that. Lots of people have been talking about "accommodating both sides", but the way I'm seeing this break down:

Option A: The rules accommodate being able to jump to incredible physics-breaking heights with enough training. People that want to be able to make incredible jumps and play things like the Final Fantasy's dragoon class are able to, and the people who don't feel like that fits the game world they want can soft-block that level of skill mastery or play exclusively at low levels for a grittier feel, much like people already do. Both sides can play the game they want to play.

Option B: The option to make the hundred-foot leap doesn't exist in the first place. The people that didn't want it are happy and the people that wanted to do things that were impossible in 1e are not.

This is the crux of that particular debate, yes. One side, ironically the one doing all the complaining about not having their way exclusively catered to, wants to completely deny the option for the other. It's easy to set a cutoff for skills or levels for martial characters if you don't want them becoming demigods and keeping up with casters. It's very difficult to make up rules wholesale to allow this against what the base game offers.

While I don't imagine the devs are going to give up on this one, I'm still 100% hoping they stick to their guns and give us Option A.

Link2000 wrote:

...

I'm not talking about a single level 1 fighter.

Fine. Phil brought 6 (or even 10) of his buddies from the academy. I still think that Bob should be able to handily take them all down with a dagger.

Just my opinion though, not attempting to sway yours. We all have our rights to feel how we want to feel about such a subject.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

The problem isn't that Pathfinder 1st ed is perfect and doesn't need fixing. It does. The problem is among the playerbase there is such a signficiant disconnect as to what "fixing" Pathfinder really means. It's concerning to see the company that built up the Pathfinder brand from the "3.5 survives thrives!" platform appears to now be moving so drastically away from what makes Pathfinder Pathfinder as opposed to D&D 4th ed.

That's why you're seeing this resistance. Some of us were around when Pathfinder started and actually appreciate the basis from which Pathfinder was built upon.

And this is an evolution of that. There'd be no point in doing a second edition at all with all the glut of material already available for the first edition. They could do an update core with some rules tweaked and errata included and things like that.

If you're going to evolve the system, you have to do enough to make it worth the effort. In this case, the devs have identified the issues with the core engine and game design goals and chosen to make a truly heroic fantasy game with all kinds of epic feats.

Since I can't stand big dice pools and don't want to support the company that made it, for instance I can't go Exalted for big, epic heroics. But PF2 looks poised to give me that kind of stuff, the kind of thing that has been a part of fantasy as long as magic itself has, and I'm excited for it.

I got my copy of Mythic Adventures signed when I picked up my copy at GenCon, so I'm all for Exalted style play in my Pathfinder at high levels. I'm really excited for the direction it appears Paizo is going with this new edition.

I got my copy of Mythic Adventures signed when I picked up my copy at GenCon, so I'm all for Exalted style play in my Pathfinder at high levels. I'm really excited for the direction it appears Paizo is going with this new edition.

Yes, so am I. If the game shapes up like they're presenting it now, it's going to be my mainstay fantasy game, and may even take up the bulk of my gaming in general. I've long awaited a good fantasy game; 4E doesn't do it for me, 5E seems okay but a little too low-powered for me, and 3.x/PF have a lot of core issues that simply make them untenable for me. But all of this? It sounds amazing. I couldn't ask for more in a new edition of Pathfinder.

Another thing worth considering with the strength of high level martials is what the setting demonstrates as high level. What is a suitable foe for a level 20 character?

Well, I cracked open my bestiary 1 and noted the Shoggoth, CR 19. A massive, amorphous creature covered in mouths and eyes which can drive you mad with its speech.

This is the world of a 20th level adventurer. If these foes are what these characters should be fighting, martials should absolutely be superheroic. This is clearly not the realm of a mere master swordsman. This is where Legends tread.

Shogoth is actually part of the world of a 15th level adventurer that he is expected to be able to defeat (with difficulty) with three allies of the same level.

Allies which may not include a single primary caster

Shogoth is actually part of the world of a 15th level adventurer that he is expected to be able to defeat (with difficulty) with three allies of the same level.

Allies which may not include a single primary caster

I was talking more one-on-one, but this is also true. A group of 20th level adventurers could instead fight the Tarrasque, a walking apocalypse.

The point is that all adventurers in these levels should be spectacular.

I mean, Pathfinder at high levels does exist in that genre where "Let's go beat up Cthulhu" may be a valid solution to somebody's problems.

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

I think you're extrapolating rather far in that point. I would wait to draw any conclusions on that matter until we actually discuss how weapons and armor work, because from what I'm reading of this it will not be similar to what we're familiar with, and degrees of proficiency will matter.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect that not having any weapon or armor proficiencies at all, which is where I imagine our friend the wizard is going to end up, is going to effect a fight with a group of lower level fighters in which he is not equipped and doesn't use any of his abilities in ways that make it easier for the Expert-level fighters to combat him.

I admit that I'm extrapolating, but I don't think I make any unwarranted leaps. Mark's post did not assuage my fears because like you, he assumed a decked out wizard whose magical gear almost completely prevented the fighters from hitting him (the suggested hit and run shield block tactic also seems iffy if it still costs an action to raise a shield, in which case it's not possible to attack, double move and block all in one round, but these things might be in flux in internal playtesting).

I may well be mistaken, but to me, this is what it seems like universal proficiency scaling by level gets us: unless wizards have zero even simple weapon proficiencies and there are crippling untrained penalties to weapon use which make it (virtually) impossible to deal damage (unlikely, and difficult to square with improvised weapon rules), a naked level 20 wizard will have +20 (+18 untrained) to hit with a STR of just 10, and an AC of 30 with a DEX of just 10. Against low level foes, his attacks will very often clear by 10 to crit for double damage, while he himself is impossible to hit on anything but a 20. He can demolish group after group of low level fighters without breaking a sweat.

I'm honestly interested in whether people here approve of changing the game in this direction if that's where the developers are...

I understand your concerns, but I am of the opinion this probably occurred to Mark and the others while they were designing weapon and armor proficiencies. If I can share a thought that might put your mind at ease as it does mine...

From what we know of the system, your degree of proficiency will be of considerable importance to completing tasks rather than going purely by raw modifiers as 1e does. With how Mark has laid things out on the earlier subject of climbing...yes, a 20th level wizard untrained in climbing still has a formidable bonus to simple climb checks, but as he also pointed out, an expert climber less than half his level has features such as a climb speed due to his superior training; it is literally impossible for the untrained climber to defeat an expert climber in a race to the top, because the climb speed lets the expert ascend at least twice as fast, and probably more like three or four times as fast on the easy climbs the untrained climber is competing with him at.

I extrapolate from that that an untrained weapon-wielder will be at a significant disadvantage against someone who is an expert with their armor, and similarly someone untrained in armor will be at a significant disadvantage against an expert or master weapon-wielder. These disadvantages would stack to form a twofold edge a fighter who is a master of weapons and an expert in armor (likely achievable even at very low levels) can use to threaten a much higher level wizard who is wholly untrained in weapons an armor (fairly plausible, D&D/PF has never been friendly to the idea of armored wizards and even most simple weapons are too much for wizards to handle).

I mean, Pathfinder at high levels does exist in that genre where "Let's go beat up Cthulhu" may be a valid solution to somebody's problems.

We should probably keep in mind that the reason gods don't have stats is because a high-level party would figure out how to kill them otherwise, yeah.

Turmoil wrote:

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

...

A PF1 level 20 wizard with a dagger will lose against a regular ogre, a level 3 or 4 fighter in mundane gear, or even a couple of level 1 fighters. The new rules seem to imply that a level 20 wizard will demolish such foes without even taking damage.

Not exactly. A PF1 level 20 wizard who chooses to attack those threats with just a normal dagger is probably in for a boring and lengthy combat, but the wizard is strongly expected to win, just because those opponents only hit the wizard on a natural 20 and the wizard has more than enough HP to soak a few unlucky 20s. In PF2, a level 20 wizard low-Strength wizard using a non-magic dagger against a low-level fighter might have an additional problem to contend with: The fighter's shield. If the fighter makes two attacks and then moves back, the wizard moves up and makes two attacks, one of which the fighter can entirely block. Now, the fighter still needs a 20, just like in PF1, so the wizard will eventually win on the 2nd attacks. But if the fighter attacks once and moves back twice (assuming this wizard doesn't have enhanced mobility options because this is a weird example where the wizard is just not using magic for some reason), the wizard is in trouble.

Of course, this is a weird example that we wouldn't see turn up in play in any but the most unusual circumstances.

Antimagic field could simulate this pretty well. Maybe to stop a high powered spellcaster, the wizard anti-magic fields, and lets his fighters hack up the enemy wizard but does his best with his dagger against the enemy guards (who are probably more than 1st level, but well below the PC wizard's level).

I was talking more one-on-one, but this is also true. A group of 20th level adventurers could instead fight the Tarrasque, a walking apocalypse.

The point is that all adventurers in these levels should be spectacular.

CR is "meant" to mean that a PC of equal level has a 50% chance of winning against it in a one-on-one.

It makes me really happy to see all the push back on this everyone is good at everything system that paizo is trying to make standard. I hope in play test we can hopefully get some of this backed off. I don't want every character to be samey. Noone should want that.

It is my strong suspicion that once we get the finished document and start the playtest that the difference between "someone who has a good modifier for climbing a rope" and "a good athlete" will become abundantly clear.

Albatoonoe wrote:

I was talking more one-on-one, but this is also true. A group of 20th level adventurers could instead fight the Tarrasque, a walking apocalypse.

The point is that all adventurers in these levels should be spectacular.

CR is "meant" to mean that a PC of equal level has a 50% chance of winning against it in a one-on-one.

That's odd. I always thought CR was based on a balanced party of 4, not individuals.

Milo v3 wrote:

Albatoonoe wrote:

I was talking more one-on-one, but this is also true. A group of 20th level adventurers could instead fight the Tarrasque, a walking apocalypse.

The point is that all adventurers in these levels should be spectacular.

CR is "meant" to mean that a PC of equal level has a 50% chance of winning against it in a one-on-one.

That's odd. I always thought CR was based on a balanced party of 4, not individuals.

It is. There are plenty of monsters that would wipe the floor pitted against a single character of equal CR.

That's odd. I always thought CR was based on a balanced party of 4, not individuals.

Each fight that is equal to your party of 4's Average Party Level is meant to lower 1/4 of your parties resources as a result of each CR meant to be about as powerful as an equal leveled PC.

Drakhan Valane wrote:

That's odd. I always thought CR was based on a balanced party of 4, not individuals.

Each fight that is equal to your party of 4's Average Party Level is meant to lower 1/4 of your parties resources as a result of each CR meant to be about as powerful as an equal leveled PC.

That's your interpretation, not what is explicitly stated by the rules.

I get that "my Fighter should be able to kill every equal CR monster 50% of the time" mantra is the centrepiece for many caster/martial arguments, but it's based upon interpretation of guidelines. Which themselves are hardly "this is always so" rules.

Drakhan Valane wrote:

That's odd. I always thought CR was based on a balanced party of 4, not individuals.

Each fight that is equal to your party of 4's Average Party Level is meant to lower 1/4 of your parties resources as a result of each CR meant to be about as powerful as an equal leveled PC.

By that logic, a single character should lose 100% of their resources in the fight. Id est, death.

You guys realize that the CR of a PC is literally their level according to the NPC CR rules (assuming they are around the standard wealth for their level)? x CR is meant to a "Fair" fight for a single PC of x level, because they literally share the same CR.

Milo v3 wrote:

Drakhan Valane wrote:

That's odd. I always thought CR was based on a balanced party of 4, not individuals.

Each fight that is equal to your party of 4's Average Party Level is meant to lower 1/4 of your parties resources as a result of each CR meant to be about as powerful as an equal leveled PC.

By that logic, a single character should lose 100% of their resources in the fight. Id est, death.

Yes, it's a knock down drag out fight that is about as likely to result in death as in a depleted victory.

The problem isn't that Pathfinder 1st ed is perfect and doesn't need fixing. It does. The problem is among the playerbase there is such a signficiant disconnect as to what "fixing" Pathfinder really means. It's concerning to see the company that built up the Pathfinder brand from the "3.5 survives thrives!" platform appears to now be moving so drastically away from what makes Pathfinder Pathfinder as opposed to D&D 4th ed.

That's why you're seeing this resistance. Some of us were around when Pathfinder started and actually appreciate the basis from which Pathfinder was built upon.

I too was around when Pathfinder started and I do appreciate how it started but I also think it's bogged down in old mindsets that need changed.

This is an edition change not a 7th printing of the CRB with errata. Many of the changes deal with issues this community has discussed for more than 10 years and many require more than a patch or a fluffing of language. We have effectively (even the Devs) playtested this game since 2009. I'd like to get the details on what they've heard.

Finally it's not moving away from what makes Pathfinder Pathfinder, it's extending Pathfinder a bit further out from 3.5.

When this game was first announced it was called D&D 3.75, now we need to call it what it is; just Pathfinder. It may always have its roots in 3.5, in 3.0, in AD&D, and in D&D... but it needs to grow beyond those forebears. I want to see where PF takes it's story and rules when it isn't concerned overly much by backwards compatibility.

So far these blogs leave me eager to read the full playtest.

You guys realize that the CR of a PC is literally their level according to the NPC CR rules (assuming they are around the standard wealth for their level)? x CR is meant to a "Fair" fight for a single PC of x level, because they literally share the same CR.

It depends. Is it a Fighter or a Wizard?

Memo: Me

--Stop playing at 12th level. 'Legendary' proficiency just looks absurd.

Memo: Me

--Stop playing at 12th level. 'Legendary' proficiency just looks absurd.

Good News, this exact thing was among the most popular ways to play PF1, and it works great!

But barring that, you can just eliminate legendary proficiencies, but I would observe that if you're playing at the levels where the PCs can beat up demigods, it is better if they look and act like people who can beat up demigods rather than just getting there by massaging the math.

It depends. Is it a Fighter or a Wizard?

The fact that the classes are unbalanced doesn't change the intent of the system. It definitely wasn't the aim of Pathfinder to have Wizards lording it over Fighters.

Drakhan Valane wrote:

It depends. Is it a Fighter or a Wizard?

The fact that the classes are unbalanced doesn't change the intent of the system. It definitely wasn't the aim of Pathfinder to have Wizards lording it over Fighters.

The point of my comment is that this is why CR is based on a party of 4, not an individual. You can't perfectly balance a system, but being able to rely on a party that averages out their strengths and weaknesses makes it a lot easier.

This doesn't look like an iteration on the same game, but a knockdown rebuild. I don't want a brand new house. I want the same house renovated. There is value in iterative design (see pre-WotC D&D).

As a guy who has played through those old iterations let me assure you that many people screamed then what you scream now. OD&D, Basic D&D, AD&D all had what were called massive game breaking changes. Pointing to the halcyon days of yore and thinking the edition changes went down easy is just wrong. People stopped playing with us.

Changes people complained about at our table when variations in iteration came up: Races having classes. Females not being able to have as high a strength as males. The inclusion of classes beyond fighter, cleric, magic user.

A Fighter nearly pulled his hair out because Magic User spells went from 6th as the highest level to 9th. Same fighter screamed about having to remember the different damage dice when they switched away from all weapons doing a d6.

Screaming happened when exceptional Str. happened but not exceptional other stats. Comeliness and Charisma. Psionics, Multi-classing, Non Weapon Proficiencies.

The list goes on and on. If you look at 3.0 and beyond it just keeps going.

Iteration changes are big things. Trying to say previous iteration changes were small things is just wrong.

This is just stuff I remember about the old iteration changes, it is by no stretch complete. My brain is old. I'm sure others remember more. Change usually isn't easy. Try playing a Dwarf for a while then finding out you need to pick a class. LOL... here's to good times... and the hopefully good times to come.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

This doesn't look like an iteration on the same game, but a knockdown rebuild. I don't want a brand new house. I want the same house renovated. There is value in iterative design (see pre-WotC D&D).

As a guy who has played through those old iterations let me assure you that many people screamed then what you scream now. OD&D, Basic D&D, AD&D all had what were called massive game breaking changes. Pointing to the halcyon days of yore and thinking the edition changes went down easy is just wrong. People stopped playing with us.

Changes people complained about at our table when variations in iteration came up: Races having classes. Females not being able to have as high a strength as males. The inclusion of classes beyond fighter, cleric, magic user.

A Fighter nearly pulled his hair out because Magic User spells went from 6th as the highest level to 9th. Same fighter screamed about having to remember the different damage dice when they switched away from all weapons doing a d6.

Screaming happened when exceptional Str. happened but not exceptional other stats. Comeliness and Charisma. Psionics, Multi-classing, Non Weapon Proficiencies.

The list goes on and on. If you look at 3.0 and beyond it just keeps going.

Iteration changes are big things. Trying to say previous iteration changes were small things is just wrong.

This is just stuff I remember about the old iteration changes, it is by no stretch complete. My brain is old. I'm sure others remember more. Change usually isn't easy. Try playing a Dwarf for a while then finding out you need to pick a class. LOL... here's to good times... and the hopefully good times to come.

Agreed.

I almost want to put in a rule like the pyramid from FATE. Where you can't have a rank at one level unless you have one more rank of a level below it, but I don't think there will be enough skills for that to make it as useful as it is in FATE. You'd get well rounded characters, but the skill ranks might not line up well enough to make a spread like that feasible.

I almost want to put in a rule like the pyramid from FATE. Where you can't have a rank at one level unless you have one more rank of a level below it, but I don't think there will be enough skills for that to make it as useful as it is in FATE. You'd get well rounded characters, but the skill ranks might not line up well enough to make a spread like that feasible.

I think the big issue is figuring out how you handle people who get bumped up the proficiency ladder at an advanced rate by their class. Like Fighters start out as experts in perception and get mastery in a weapon group at level 3 for free.

As a guy who has played through those old iterations let me assure you that many people screamed then what you scream now. OD&D, Basic D&D, AD&D all had what were called massive game breaking changes.

Great post, and reminds me how pre-3.x concepts can be equally valid inspiration, even if we expect slicker implementation in modern system. There is reason why 3.0->3.5->Pathfinder "3.75" were all expressed in decimals, "game breaking" is what to expect from a real new edition of the game. The idea of structural change in editions is not new.

Arssanguinus wrote:

So it enhances the feeling of participation to have a roll which you are good at merely because you are breathing and a certain level rather than any choices at all you made? I don’t see it.

It isn't merely because you are breathing, but rather because you managed to keep breathing while spending years fighting a Necromacer and his army of skeletons, survived 100 traps... 30 of which got set off, because you've watched Rodgar climb that rope 10 times, and even though you've never seen a pool of water larger than a bucket you managed to reason out, through the wits you've used for 18 levels that kicking your feet helps keep your head above water. You may not figure out the breaststroke but you can tread water.

Not "merely" anything.

BtB: I learned to swim when I was 5 I saw no one else do it... the pool was empty... I was tossed in by family and told stay above water. Cruel, perhaps, but it served until I learned the breaststroke at the Y 7 years later. So, to whomever keeps mentioning the guy from the desert figuring out swimming though he's never seen a large body of water I did it and I must have been at best a fifth level kid. My cousin who was 17 and visiting and had never learned to swim figured it out way faster than I did in part because she was older and not as panicked as a 5 year old.

I also figured out how to use a computer the first time I saw one and was given 30 minutes of free time with it by my teacher. I was in 4th grade at the time. Yes I am that old.

I figured out my first cell phone last week in a quick bit because I am a man in my late 40s who had enough experience to reason it out after having avoided cell phones like the plague.

Experience matters. I will probably never type on my cell phone like the teenage son of my friend (how do they do that so quickly... itty bitty buttons big fat thumbs) but I managed to send a text in my first few minutes of getting the phone.

Experience matters, wits matter, age matters, intelligence matters, luck matters, Gods given talent matters.

If you were 15th level (known otherwise as 15 years old (and had never really lied to, or deceived your parents) do you think you could reason out how to sneak out of the house past your parents, do you think you'd have a chance of convincingly lying about it the next day? Shouldn't my 15th level fighter have a reasonable ability to sneak past a guard? Shouldn't I be able to realize the chain mail makes a noise when I move and take it off. Even though I never put points in the skill.

At almost 50 I don't pretend to know half the the Things in this world but give me a bit and I'll be able to reason some nugget out. I may not know how to Jack up the car but I can give you the number to Triple A (I memorized it though I've never had to use them or been a member) and since I have seen others Jack up the car twice (IIRC)... I'm willing to bet in a tough situation I could even change my tire in one go. I after all managed to change the battery after watching it be jumped once.

I've never bought pot in my whole life nor do I consort with people who use it, but give me 30 minutes and I bet I could figure out how to get some. In large part because I haven't lived in a bubble. My 20th level fighter should be able to reason out with a fair degree of accuracy how to get the people in a bar talking about the latest rumours even though he has never gossiped in his life.

I have Chosen to remain willfully ignorant about many things in my life. Country music, old cinema, anime... to name a few. However, I can rattle off a bit on the topics because I don't live in a void. Though I detest anime I can rattle off a bit about Full Metal Alchemist, and the one where the guy screams Akira and the crap hits the fan... even though I've never seen either because I lived in a dorm once and I on a few occasions nteracted with people who do like it.

You want to talk about Casa Blanca, I've never seen it and have no desire to but I can quote some of the more famous lines and sum up the story because I have levels in human person... 47 or so of them.

So yes, for me it does enhance my feeling of participation. It may help me remember or imagine the Things that came before, the challenges my character overcame and the fights he lost and won. All of which to me is part of the essence of good storytelling.

TL;DR Experience matters. It all matters. This adds verisimilitude IMO. Your experience may vary. There is no "merely" to life.

Absolutely all of this. There's plenty of things I can just intuitively do better in real life right now than I was able to 15 years ago, things I never explicitly trained in. Just because of being better at figuring out the way things work, unconsciously learning my weaknesses and automatically compensating for them by doing things differently, the osmosis of seeing other people do things, having more "common sense" and so on.

And re the hundreds of posts of people complaining specifically about climbing, yeah, I wouldn't be able to free-climb a rope hanging from the ceiling in the middle of a big room. But I sure can climb a rope hanging against a wall, and I'm not even fit. I don't see why a wizard couldn't. The former is a trained task, and the latter is an untrained task.

Yrtalien wrote:

As a guy who has played through those old iterations let me assure you that many people screamed then what you scream now. OD&D, Basic D&D, AD&D all had what were called massive game breaking changes.

Great post, and reminds me how pre-3.x concepts can be equally valid inspiration, even if we expect slicker implementation in modern system. There is reason why 3.0->3.5->Pathfinder "3.75" were all expressed in decimals, "game breaking" is what to expect from a real new edition of the game. The idea of structural change in editions is not new.

When you really think about it, it's pretty amazing that Paizo was able to extend the life of 3.X by another 10 years, more than doubling the time its creator company gave it.

There can be. P1E is OGL, so anybody can do with P1E what Paizo did with 3.x.

Do you really anticipate this happening? What happened with Pathfinder was a perfect storm. I suspect what will happen with 3.x is it will go off into the sunset with the other old editions (I think everyone except possibly the current PF2 design team* have given up completely on 4th ed)

The "some of us were around" comment reeks of arrogance.

It wasn't meant to be. It's true that Pathfinder's base has grown considerably since it started. So it's a simple fact that Paizo's playerbase has changed in makeup.

It's great that you and Paizo are ready to abadnon the game that is Pathfinder and make a new one with the Pathfinder brand (I don't take it as fact that this is actually true for the Paizo developers. But for this post I'm treating everything you say as fact because it's not actually important). Not all of us are and some of us were excited to hear of a new Pathfinder edition hoping it would bring in a new Pathfinder edition and not a new game with the same name. Expect more disappointment from me and others as/if it becomes more apparent that's what we're getting.

* This was meant as a a light-hearted comment and not a serious one.

^For those who want something close to D&D 3.875, Kirthfinder(*) exists, and looks pretty well-developed except for an unfortunate lack of 6/9 casters other than Bard (although it even claims to have a way to approximate a Magus, I haven't yet checked that out).

(*)This is the latest version I know of, and a lot more recent than the set linked in the beginning of the Kirthfinder discussion thread, but I can't be sure it is the most recent (a link to the most recent set is probably buried somewhere in that massive thread).

John Lynch 106 wrote:

This doesn't look like an iteration on the same game, but a knockdown rebuild. I don't want a brand new house. I want the same house renovated. There is value in iterative design (see pre-WotC D&D).

As a guy who has played through those old iterations let me assure you that many people screamed then what you scream now. OD&D, Basic D&D, AD&D all had what were called massive game breaking changes. Pointing to the halcyon days of yore and thinking the edition changes went down easy is just wrong. People stopped playing with us.

Changes people complained about at our table when variations in iteration came up: Races having classes. Females not being able to have as high a strength as males. The inclusion of classes beyond fighter, cleric, magic user.

A Fighter nearly pulled his hair out because Magic User spells went from 6th as the highest level to 9th. Same fighter screamed about having to remember the different damage dice when they switched away from all weapons doing a d6.

Screaming happened when exceptional Str. happened but not exceptional other stats. Comeliness and Charisma. Psionics, Multi-classing, Non Weapon Proficiencies.

The list goes on and on. If you look at 3.0 and beyond it just keeps going.

Iteration changes are big things. Trying to say previous iteration changes were small things is just wrong.

This is just stuff I remember about the old iteration changes, it is by no stretch complete. My brain is old. I'm sure others remember more. Change usually isn't easy. Try playing a Dwarf for a while then finding out you need to pick a class. LOL... here's to good times... and the hopefully good times to come.

What version of game did you play?

Your statements do not back up what are even in the Games themselves (and I have the games themselves if people want to have a reference to them).

For starters OD&D had 9th level spells. NO ONE pulled their hair out when AD&D had 9th level spells. It simply continued what OD&D had already.

The number of players were so small (and most of them are dead now) when 9th level spells were finally included in the pamphlets for OD&D in GreyHawk, but NO ONE tore their hair out or screamed about it. In fact, Greyhawk was so popular that it became the default of what we understand D&D to be today.

It was a supplement, and one that got pretty universally accepted.

The Original Basic did NOT have race as class and actually stuck pretty closely to what was in OD&D. It is now known as Holmes Basic, but at the time it only went to level 3. If anything, people were confused at the rules differences between AD&D and that version of Basic, but as AD&D was the continuation of OD&D...most settled happily on playing AD&D.

And anyone who played back then KNEW that and that the original Basic (by Holmes) was based on OD&D (though some hoped it was going to include ideas of AD&D, which it did in a back around way...it was a weird grouping ideas) and that AD&D was the continuation of THAT version of OD&D...NOT BX or BECMI. We all knew those were different versions made later. If anything, some of the players of AD&D put up their noses at those who started with BX because it said Basic and was a simpler type of game. BX and BECMI were published at the SAME time as AD&D and were not NEW versions of AD&D (or even Holmes, which was seen as connected to AD&D while BX and BECMI were not). They were made and brought in a LOT of new players...but were DIFFERENT than AD&D, which was what came from OD&D (and in theory some would say if it HAD a basic, that would have been Holmes Basic).

No ONE tore out their hair because those who would have were playing AD&D already...and AD&D kept on being published and supported even while BX came out and then eventually was replaced with BECMI.

Most of the iterations were considered pretty small and overall progressing naturally on what had come before.

It wasn't until AD&D 2e that we first start seeing a rift, and even then, it wasn't as big as some think it was. AD&D 2e was HUGELY compatible with AD&D 1e, to the point that there was even a grandfather clause. The clause that was stated was that you could basically bring anything you felt you needed over to AD&D 2e in your games or ongoing campaigns and it was perfectly legal.

IT wasn't until D&D 3e that we see anything that people today would consider an "edition war" and that was probably FAR harsher than anything I've seen since in regards to people upset about an edition change (far more than from 3e to 4e, or from what we see with P1E to PF2e).

Your statement does not reflect what anyone really saw back then, which raises a LOT of other questions regarding what you stated in regards to the OD&D, BASIC and AD&D changes.

OD&D, BASIC, and AD&D were ALL more compatible with each other than what has come later in Hasbro's/WotC's years of D&D.

I'm not sure WHAT OD&D, BASIC and AD&D (as well as BX and BECMI and the RC) even have to do with our editions changes today, as those were absolutely done differently and seen differently. It's more of an offtopic thing for this than what I see as relevant. It was a different time, and even with AD&D 1e to AD&D 2e, though there were some that were unhappy, their voices were mostly muted because society was not by and large on the internet and had instant communication between them.

If we want to discuss relevant, then we should discuss the change between AD&D 2e and D&D 3e, OR D&D 3e to D&D 4e, OR D&D 4e To D&D 5e.. The situation is far more similar (at least we had a LOT more on the internet and the discussions and anger or happiness could be seen) and far more can understand what happened.

What version of game did you play?

Your statements do not back up what are even in the Games themselves (and I have the games themselves if people want to have a reference to them).

I'm sorry if I mis remembered something. Many of these things happened over 30-40 years ago when a friend brought the Old D&D pamphlets to a church retreat. I don't have the old books so I'm going by an admittedly faulty memory.

For starters OD&D had 9th level spells. NO ONE pulled their hair out when AD&D had 9th level spells. It simply continued what OD&D had already.

I'm sorry I would have sworn Magic User spells topped out at 6th at one point. Sorry to have messed up. I thought I recalled a player being upset that Wizard spells had gone up to 9th.

The number of players were so small (and most of them are dead now) when 9th level spells were finally included in the pamphlets for OD&D in GreyHawk, but NO ONE tore their hair out or screamed about it. In fact, Greyhawk was so popular that it became the default of what we understand D&D to be today.

It was a supplement, and one that got pretty universally accepted.

So I wasn't wrong about the spell levels increasing?

As to the number of players being small, well, I never had problems finding any. The family of the girl that introduced me to the game when I was a hair older than 6. The kids who played in the library at my school throughout Junior High, New friends when I went to High School. My 3 cousins when they moved back. I didn't even start AD&D till I was a Sophomore at my University. Lack of money meant we often played with old editions and as I joined different groups I found some had different versions of the game.

As far as most of them being dead I assure you Melissa and her two sisters are very much alive, I haven't asked about their parents. I lost track of the library kids so I can't say. My friends from High Shool are still alive. My cousins are still alive and they began back when I did. My current table has another guy who played through many of those iterations and he's just a bit older than me. When do you think these games came out? I mean, I know I'm old but I would hardly call my gaming group methuselahs.

Tearing his hair out was hyperbole, he complained mightily. He was older than me and ahhh I can't even remember his name anymore.

The Original Basic did NOT have race as class and actually stuck pretty closely to what was in OD&D. It is now known as Holmes Basic, but at the time it only went to level 3. If anything, people were confused at the rules differences between AD&D and that version of Basic, but as AD&D was the continuation of OD&D...most settled happily on playing AD&D.

We just called everything D&D for the longest time. If messed up the order or got confused about what I played before what. I'm sorry. Holmes Basic... never heard it called that. Now I know.

And anyone who played back then KNEW that and that the original Basic (by Holmes) was based on OD&D (though some hoped it was going to include ideas of AD&D, which it did in a back around way...it was a weird grouping ideas) and that AD&D was the continuation of THAT version of OD&D...NOT BX or BECMI. We all knew those were different versions made later. If anything, some of the players of AD&D put up their noses at those who started with BX because it said Basic and was a simpler type of game. BX and BECMI were published at the SAME time as AD&D and were not NEW versions of AD&D (or even Holmes, which was seen as connected to AD&D while BX and BECMI were not). They were made and brought in a LOT of new players...but were DIFFERENT than AD&D, which was what came from OD&D (and in theory some would say if it HAD a basic, that would have been Holmes Basic).

Ok, now I have to admit I don't recall the people running the games ever saying things like Basic, BX, or BECMI... it was all just D&D and later it got called OD&D and later they introduced AD&D... If I got names wrong I'm sorry.

No ONE tore out their hair because those who would have were playing AD&D already...and AD&D kept on being published and supported even while BX came out and then eventually was replaced with BECMI.

Still not certain what BX and BECMI are... So not sure what to say to that.

Most of the iterations were considered pretty small and overall progressing naturally on what had come before.

And yet I remember complaints and some reticence to buy the new stuff. I'm sorry Dude, my experience seems to have been different than your own. We're your groups so easy going about all this?

It wasn't until AD&D 2e that we first start seeing a rift, and even then, it wasn't as big as some think it was. AD&D 2e was HUGELY compatible with AD&D 1e, to the point that there was even a grandfather clause. The clause that was stated was that you could basically bring anything you felt you needed over to AD&D 2e in your games or ongoing campaigns and it was perfectly legal.

I'm sorry if my hyperbolic tearing of hair lead you to think that I was speaking of a rift or divide, most people I know made the switch, not all but most. I was only trying to say that even then there were people who were unhappy with changes.

As far as AD&D 1e played in 2e, my cousin would have none of that. New rules were law. Though he fell in love with 2e, still has his books and just last year tried to get me to play a game of AD&D 2e with him. I may take him up on it someday his games were great!

IT wasn't until D&D 3e that we see anything that people today would consider an "edition war" and that was probably FAR harsher than anything I've seen since in regards to people upset about an edition change (far more than from 3e to 4e, or from what we see with P1E to PF2e).

Egads man I was not trying to say there was a war. We didn't even have the internet back then... the back and forth would've had to have been carried out through the mail. I was just trying to say some people I played with didn't like the changes. I need to re-read my post did I put things so poorly. I'm sorry my intent was to say with change can come upset but we see the game survived. My cousin still thinks THAC0 was the best thing since sliced bread and laments it's loss; he prefers it to 5e's system to hit (he skipped the 3.Xs and 4e).

Your statement does not reflect what anyone really saw back then, which raises a LOT of other questions regarding what you stated in regards to the OD&D, BASIC and AD&D changes.

It reflects what I really saw. I think you are calling me a liar and I try very hard not to be. I'm not certain how to take this or how to prove my veracity it was over 40 years ago.

OD&D, BASIC, and AD&D were ALL more compatible with each other than what has come later in Hasbro's/WotC's years of D&D.

I didn't try to say they weren't. I'm sorry if that was what you took away from what I wrote... again I regret any misunderstandings.

I'm not sure WHAT OD&D, BASIC and AD&D (as well as BX and BECMI and the RC) even have to do with our editions changes today, as those were absolutely done differently and seen differently. It's more of an offtopic thing for this than what I see as relevant. It was a different time, and even with AD&D 1e to AD&D 2e, though there were some that were unhappy, their voices were mostly muted because society was not by and large on the internet and had instant communication between them.

I thought what I wrote was relatively on-topic... I will go back and read it... Since I'm worried now I somehow said everything wrong.

If we want to discuss relevant, then we should discuss the change between AD&D 2e and D&D 3e, OR D&D 3e to D&D 4e, OR D&D 4e To D&D 5e.. The situation is far more similar (at least we had a LOT more on the internet and the discussions and anger or happiness could be seen) and far more can understand what happened.

I saw the discussions and anger and happiness face to face, that's what I was trying to write about, no internet needed, just talking at the gaming table and a couple of people walking away from it.

I'm sorry I distracted from the conversation. I will try to do better.