DataLoreRPG's page

I just dont see DM fiat as adversarial though. I find it far more adversarial to assume that the DM is somehow bound by some rules. The more detailed and intractible the rules, the more rules-lawyering. With super detailed rules, folks assume that the ultimate arbiter of what happens is some distant designer who put some stuff in a book. That leads to appeals to that authority instead of quick acceptance of a ruling. It also leads to folks gaming rules instead of playing games.

We each play our own way. But don't assume my table is adversarial. Its not. I very much adhere to the XDM notion of using the rules as a guideline and tossing them out when I see fit. I have not had a rules disagreement in years and the players keep coming back.

Edit:

Also, I'll leave this link here since Matt Colville said it best. The map is not the territory.

I'm not playing tabletop games to play in a GM's mental/narrative/Fantasy Heartbreaker™/solo-sandbox. Are there people who enjoy that? Sure, but I would say that the game is an excuse for tabletop improv rather than a game to play directly.

Elements of those things are part of any game run and adjudicated by a human. Unless you are playing a cooperative board game like Mansions of Madness that has an app adjudicating for you, you are playing a game that is run through the lens of another human's perception. I wouldn't use the "heartbreaker" pejorative here but you want to stamp your point, so whatever.

From my perspective, I put in far more work into a campaign as a DM than the players do. All they have to do is show up. If they aren't willing to work with how I decide the game works, they aren't welcome at my table. *shrug*

I'll advocate to get every ambiguity possible removed. DM fiat/table variation might not be an issue for you as you play a home game but it's an issue for those of us that play with strangers

I like Matt Colville's take on it: there are no Dungeons or Dragons. The entire game is what comes out of the DM's mouth and mind. Its all DM fiat. Tracy Hickman in his excellent XDM made much the same point when he boiled down the entire game to target numbers that the DM feels is appropriate for whatever situations he presents.

If you have some kind of adversarial relationship with your DM and you feel the way to fix the gameplay issues that arise is to make super complex and detailed rules to tamp down on "DM fiat", then, frankly, you arent really addressing the core issues you have at your table.

For the record, I DM for strangers in online games as much as I do home games. I run long campaigns. Everyone has fun. Plenty of DM fiat. I make crap up constantly. *shrug*

42 conditions? Good lord. Would've liked to have seen that streamlined. I can easily see ways to get it down to less than 20 by combining existing conditions.

I emphatically agree. This is a real shame. Add in the "levels" of conditions (if thats still a thing) and it gets a bit much, IMO.

I am all for deep character customization and meaningful tactical choices. I just am not crazy about staged afflictions, complicated stacking rules or having a litany of conditions. Its a mistake to assume, I think, that one could not be had without the other.

It may do folks well to divorce themselves of the notion that wanting ease of play is the same thing as wanting a simplistic game. Games can be deep and rewarding without be baroque and confusing.

Well it comes down to do you want a more indepth but complicated combat system that is pf2e or do you want to stick with the simple but easy combat of 5E. i personally find 5Es combat too simple and the conditions are all basically slap disadvantage or advantage on yourself.

Two things:

1. I think you can have PF2's character development, 3 Action Economy, and so on without necessitating color coded condition cards. I have played plenty of games that were crunchier than 5E that did not require nearly as much book keeping as the PF2 Playtest.

2. I did not post this to convince you or anyone else of anything. The game is in the can. Its been done. I came here to ask for information.

My original points are outlined here:

Link

I stepped away from PF2 after running a couple groups through parts of the playtest. I liked alot of what I saw but I had significant misgivings about ease of play.

The leveled, nested conditions were the biggest offenders.Then the sheer number of conditions. Then the multiple AC types, the stacking rules and other overly fiddly bits.

Have folks who have followed Oblivion Oath or interviews noticed what, if anything, has been done reign this in? I like the 3 action economy, the multiclassing, the items, the gated feats and alot more. But the fiddly stuff (the nested, leveled conditions especially) kill me. Theres no way I can handle that at midnight after 4 beers, you know?

I am running this for 13th Age and made a Lizardfolk race available to players. I also made a player's guide to Diamond Lake which included info on the Free City's encroachment on Lizardfolk lands. I plan to have a few Lizardfolk in Diamond Lake itself and in the Bronzewood Lodge.

So, they will exist as sentient humanoids with a legitimate gripe. Some may even help the party out in the first couple adventures.

So, when Blackwall Keep happens, the party may think twice about wholesale slaughter. I hope the narrative nature of 13th Age also helps the players come up with more out of the box solutions. We'll see.

I prefer simplified npc stat blocks. I dont need all the detailed nonsense when im trying to dm. Even 5e could be more simplified, imho. I think 13A has the best enemy stat blocks since it even has npc ai built in AND the stat blocks are fairly simple.

I remember an interview that Kevin Crawford, the author of Stars Without Number, did with Adam Koebel. Crawford said it perfectly when he said that his job as a designer was to make the job of the dm as easy as possible since without DMs you dont have players. Thats exactly right. If a game is a pain to gm for, I pass.

Bardarok wrote:

DnD 5e or even a Powered by the Apocolypse game might be better for those folks. Of course as long as everyone is still having fun that is what is important.

Hence the stress. What has been a coalition of DMs under PF1 is now uncertain where it will go. When the primary DM started looking at D&D 5e, I was very surprised. I've not played D&D 5e, so I don't know if it is a good choice. Oddly enough, I was thinking of Original D&D for a couple of sessions to see how it went.

I have a simplified 5E variant I have trotted out a few times when playing with some folks. There is no proficiency bonus just ICRPG style Hard/Easy rolls (+ or -3) and target numbers for areas.

It doesnt even use initiative. I use good ole ODnD Simultaneous Resolution. You win the initiative when you hit and the other guy misses.

Toss hordes of enemies at them with like 1 to 5 HP. Let them cast all they want with spell rolls just depower the spell if they succeed but roll low, always take into account bell curves when sussing out how much damage a spell should do and really lean in on spell misfire.

Link

Call an area a target number 11 (for example). Anything easy is 8. Anything hard is 14. Throw a bunch of 1 to 5 hp mooks at them . As they progress to the boss, the target number climbs to 14 or so. The boss has like 20 hp. He maybe has a tough buddy with 10 hp. There could be some more mooks too. Everyone does one thing. Action is fast.

I have played a few sessions with it on beer and pretzels nights. It requires the dm to juggle alot and basically be the arbiter of everything but for players that dont give a darn about noodly rules, its fun.

Other suggestions:
ICRPG (Probably your best bet, steer clear of the recent magic book though)
Shadow of the Demon Lord (its 5e, but simpler, yet somehow more tactical and grittier)
DCC (uses weird and, therefore, pricey dice, otherwise super gonzo fun)

5e is OK but the above systems are better for your crowd. With DCC, just use the Crawler app on a phone to roll the random tables and even dice.

Another possibility is 13th Age. But its kinda noodly with some rules and you end up using HEAPS of dice.

At first I was moderately negative on Treat Wounds only healing one target, because I'm a big fan of "patch the party up over a 10 minute rest".

But then I realized this is probably an "open the design space" move, and there is a 90% chance there will be a Skill Feat that bumps it back up to multiheal.

So I think it's a good change.

But then, is it really a choice? Or is it the illusion of choice? Sometimes I really think the game hasnt really changed beyond DnD Basic and all these options are just an illusion.

The Critical Role podcast had the proper marketing and the blind dumb luck of being on at the right time in D&Ds life.

None of the other editions had any chance of having that kind of streaming popularity.

The reason?

It’s so easy to learn and play. It’s exactly the reason I’d never play it or enjoy it. It’s just too simple and flat rules wise.

And that is the exact reason PF and SF will never have the same kind of capability for streaming and liveplay audiences.

People for the majority want easy and simple. Only those of us that want a deeper game ever even consider playing the more rules heavy rpgs.

Thats nonsense. Some of the best and most enjoyable campaigns I have been in are with light rulesets. Playing the hell out of ICRPG at the moment. Savage Worlds (Deadlands) was an absolute blast. Loved Shadow of the Demon Lord. High numbers and rules cruft do not a good ruleset make. But streaming? Ya, poor ease of use is the death knell of streaming.

I recommend something bog standard done super well. This is what made the 5E starter set so successful.

Folks here are claiming that casters need a total redesign to make them demi gods and that even melee characters should be redone so they play similar to Tome of Battle characters. Thats just silly. Completely silly.

A set of small, measured changes can address most issues casters are experiencing at the table.

The main issue I see with casters in my game has little to do around the power of their spells. Its more around how reliably they can land their spells to full effect. This is doubly important early on when the amount of slots are so few. It will be interesting to see what this feels like at higher levels with more spell slots.

I still feel part of this is lack of system mastery. However, a few small tweaks to allow casters to land spells more reliably may be in order. This may come down to NPC design (lowering saves) - especially early on when spell slots are less numerous. Once thats addressed, casters won't feel "lorded over" or whatever.

This is not a low magic game. Thats hyperbole. A low magic game is like Conan d20 (or 2d20), Beasts and Barbarians (Savage Worlds), and the like.

This is a fantasy game. It has the trappings of assorted fantasy sub genres but "low magic" is not something I get from reading the rulebook or playing the game.

I actually think PF2s cantrips are a fair middle ground. Not strong but an ok option in a pinch.

Like I said, PF2 is fairly close to my ideal in alot of ways.

We all know what opinions are like

Huh?

The current power balance and power set is fairly close to my ideal.

Maybe healing clerics could be optional (see stamina thread). That would let them cast more stuff.

Maybe spells should be slightly easier to land. Maybe not though since I am sure once players get more system mastery over conditions and buffs, it wont be as much of an issue in play. One of the things I hate about 5e is what a snoozefest combat is since spells land so easily.

Maybe the game needs a wider array of class feats but those will come one way or the other. There is already more build variety than base 5e. Martials already have tons of options when you factor in weapons too.

I dunno. The sky isnt falling. The game is solid but just needs to be tweaked slightly. This is what playtests are for. There is no need to turn the game into a supers game. Let them come up with an epic level supplement for that nonsense. That way the rest of us can ignore it.

Gaterie:

Naw, I meant MAP will affect successive attacks on the javelin, so you should work that into your calculus.

Frankly, cantrips should be worse. One of the things I dislike about 5e is over reliance on cantrips by casters (especially by cheap Warlock multiclassers).

Acid Splash is subject to MAP since you make an attack. Its probably an error that the tag isnt there. Similarly, electric arc has no attack so it shouldnt have the attack tag. Bow shot + electric arc seems pretty sweet.

As an aside, I think its hilarious you guys are hung up on javelin reloading.

Anywho, this thread is getting funny. First some dude asks for casters to be OP again (then to make martials a different kind of OP - so the game becomes Exalted or something). Then another dude ups the ante and says casters should be even more op by having at will cantrips be as good as magical weapons. Sigh.

If its in their hand, they don't need an action to put it in their hand. There is no more loading to be done. RAW/RAI arguments are silly here.

Whats wrong with returning javelins anyways? Who cares if cantrips are worse generally. Cantrips should be worse than attacks from magical weapons.

The benefit of the cantrip is it uses the spell casting modifier for damage and spellcasting TEML prof bonuses +dex for attack. A javelin uses strength for damage and weapon TEML prof bonuses +dex for attack. So, unless the caster is a muscle wizard who somehow has good weapon TEML bonuses, that cantrip will be better for him generally speaking (especially when you factor in MAP and all that).

Or better yet, toss a returning javelin and follow that up with an electric arc - Zeus Style.

For me, its an issue of degrees.

Needing some healing on occasion isn't a terrible thing (whether it be through mundane or magical means). Needing a specific, hyper focused healbot is a bad thing, IMO.

Something like Stamina would certainly lessen the degree to which a healer is needed but I don't think it would make the role unwelcome or unappreciated.

The lack of enthusiasm for the martial classes...

I think the martial classes in PF2 look great. We do need more feats to cover more character concepts but what is there looks very promising.

If they were to buff up casters again, then the current implementation of martials may not be sufficient and they will have to mess with it. Frankly, I prefer they not do that as I like whats there for martials at present.

My sense is that they are trying to fill the niche of a complex, option rich game that is also fairly easy to play/learn, in order to cater to 5E folks who maybe have grown bored with the system/release schedule, as well as maintain a certain segment of the current PF player base.

also to make a game that will be easy to use with adventure paths as well.

Speaking as a 3.X player who moved to 5E but is now considering PF2, you just described me.

If martials were brought up to a closer level to casters in PF2E, we still would not have something even near mythic levels (which I've GM'ed for, the entire Wrath of the Righteous AP. It... was not a pleasant experience.), it would just make them more equal to their caster colleagues. The Tome of Battle from 3.5 would be a good goal in terms of design. You just have to compensate with the monster design a bit.

I played a goliath swordsage (spiked chain tripper), gnome swordsage (shadow line, if I remember right) and a human crusader (my fave was the Divine Bard/Crusader modeled after the singing knights from Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail). I liked Tome of Battle but, ultimately, it was real gamey. I felt it kinda took me out of the fiction and it felt very much "not martial." Alot of the criticism folks level at 4E (mmo design, overly gamist, etc) could pretty easily be leveled against ToB (though, it wasnt nearly as bad).

Frankly, I like Paizo's approach. Toning down casters a bit, giving them some solid cantrips and then boosting martials slightly. Its a good approach. This is especially true with all the neat weapon abilities they have right now. Martials feel good right now. Adding a bunch of ToB funkiness and wacky special powas would foul that up, IMO.

If Paizo implements something like Stamina, the Sword and Sorcery/Dark Fantasy vibe will be even stronger. I will absolutely get to go full Black Company with this game.

I have never enjoyed play above level 8 as much as I enjoy the journey going 1-8.

Personally, I would trust Paizo to implement this however they wish (should they choose to do so). You have to figure they must be swimming in data on how Starfinder plays at all sorts of tables and there are plenty of lets plays online they may well have looked at. They would likely know best if Resolve is a good idea or not, how big the HP pool should be, etc.

I cant speak from experience since I have not played SF. I was put off by the level of crunch though I loved the aesthetics. But I was very intrigued by how it did stamina.

I think something for Paizo to consider is that, from a purely business minded standpoint, you want to differentiate yourself from the market leader if you want to gain market share.

The 3 action economy absolutely does that. I think something like stamina would do that too. It would be a great way to market the game too since you can trumpet how you get rid of the 15 minute work day and all that.

Seriously, this is a brilliant idea. Kudos to the OP for putting it out there. Literally, healing is my only major concern with the game. Everything else is tiny class balance stuff which usually works itself out.

If I were to merge ranger with anything, it would be rogue.

I said this in another thread (more or less) but I will say this again here: Paizo, please feel free to innovate and take chances. Please slay those sacred cows and make big moves. Playing it safe won't inspire anyone. GO BIG.

This is a prime example of where yo can really make PF distinct. This meets a need. This solves a problem. This works well with your system. DO IT!

I like this Stamina idea. Clerics are too darn required now and its the thing I like the least about the current system.

As an aside, there is plenty of fantasy fiction that doesnt have clerics.

Channel to me, is not really working. It smells like a bandaid fix. It functions nothing like any other class ability. Every other class that wants to do special stuff keys that off their Spell Points or Spell Slots. Clerics get this extra third thing that triples their highest level slots for healing basically. All I hear from folks that think this is good is that "It works! We live with it!" Well, ya, but it doesnt work at making parties varied or gameplay better.

Unless they are going to start hacking in a bunch of random bandaids like this onto the Druid, Bard, and Divine Sorc, then we are stuck with the DM likely running a DMPC Cleric just to keep a party alive and that is just not good design. If they do put in a bunch of such hacks, survivability may go up but the design would likely be clunky (like channel) and be harder to balance.

PF2 would be a far better game if there were no channel and parties could survive with a variety of healing options. Suggestions that fail to address that fail to fix a large problem (the only major one I have with this edition) and just kick the can down the road.

If you increase the power of healing options (curative magic, items, etc) then just get rid of channel and give clerics spontaneous conversion, you will still keep clerics as good healers but you simultaneously improve the healing ability of everyone else.

Tripling one class's highest level slots does not address the underlying issue that the heal spell is not up to the task at present.

Again, just jack up the healing value. Make is 2d6+spell mod (or 1d6 + spell mod in an area). Do similar stuff to LoH and other curative magic. Make some downtime mundane healing feats (see 5e). Remove resonance costs for curative items.

Then, bam, channel isn't needed. Non-clerics can heal. Clerics are still the best healers (especially with the healing domain power) thanks to spontaneous conversion.

Incorrect. The class surfaces a problem. If it has to spam the core healing spell more times that it has core spell casts for it to be able to heal effectively, then the heal spell itself needs to be improved.

By doing that, you can have the cleric effectively work within the bounds of the game while simultaneously improving every other healer.

Basically, buff Heal by having it restore way more hp and nerf Channel Energy so it uses Spell Points to do something other than give additional spell casts.

Tangent101: 10 channel energies...LOL.

Zeon:

I think you are wrong. The need is higher because enemies have three attacks at early levels and they tend to have higher attack bonuses than pcs. Its a deadlier game and the +10 crit thing and the lack of a need to confirm adds to that.

I hate all the page flipping of this edition.

I wasn't speaking for you. You said...

Thus, Clerics with their specialized healing ability seem more powerful than other casters because the effectiveness of spells is down, but the need for healing is higher.

So, the need of healing is higher. The heal spell isnt meeting the need. Why not improve that to make all casters better at healing instead of give the cleric a crazy number of heal casts?

Again, so rather than have the cleric break rules and core design of the game by tripling his castings of his highest level spells, why not improve the heal spell itself and make channeling a sensible thing based on spell points (again like 3.X heal conversion)?

That makes all casters better and maintains a clerics healing ability.

Clearly, you feel the root cause is the heal spell isnt good enough. So, the answer should be to address the root cause.

I like rolling for saves. It adds more drama.

Do Paladins get Spell Slots? Did I miss that? Also, they base their use of LoH (which heals for d4s or d6 with a feat) on spell points if Im not mistaken.

Clerics get Spell Slots, spell points (for other randomness) and a special channel pool. What? OP. Must nerf.

Until we're to the point where most clerics aren't using their channels or their spell points and every encounter is a walk in the park - you know, actually causing problems - they don't really need a nerf. Let them function as really good healers if they want to and off healers if they have to. Just let all the other classes with healing abilities do the same.

You should be able to play this game without having to have a specific class in a party.

Also, I would argue that if you need to break the rules of a game by tripling a casters highest level spell slots in order to help a party survive, then that suggests a different issue that may need to be addressed.

Again, get some decent mundane healing in there, buff up the healing other casters can do and consider some form of short rest mechanic. Other potential fixes could include removing resonance costs from consumables (cure light wounds wands, etc).

2-8 additional spell casts of your highest level when you can normally cast at most 3 spells at a given level is silly. That needs a swift and hard thwap with the nerf bat.

But, ya, other folks need a boost to thier healing joojoo as well.

Cleric healing is redonkulous at present. Nothing else comes close. They get 2 to 8 heals heightened to their level in addition to their regular spell slots.

Its just nuts.

I love this playtest but this is one of the elements I am critical of.

It should instead be some kind of Spell Point spend like everyone else gets. I would suggest something that lets you convert an available Spell Slot into a maximized heal or something (similar to the 3.X healing conversion). That would be somewhere in the vicinity of balanced.

Once they figure how to make channeling not crazy overpowered, then they can work on putting in some healing feats for everyone else. I would suggest something to allow mundane characters some downtime healing using the Medicine skill and healing kits in addition to some decent healing magic specs for other casters.

I would still play the current sorcerer over a druid or, especially, a wizard due to spontaneous casting alone.

Strict Vancian casting is so unfun that I am more than willing to play a class that is slightly mechanically worse for that level of flexibility. How crappy it is to prep individual spells cannot be overstated.

If any specific lines need love it would be occult spell using lines to make it line up better against the bard (who is also spontaneous).

I will say again, if they give him something like Light Armor prof and some of the stuff the OP mentioned, he will be mostly fine.

The Dedication feat should be OK but not great since it serves to deincentivize PCs from loading up on them (in addition to the Ded. + 2 Feat Requirement). The ones current slate mostly hit the mark. The fighter one seems very good for some and useless for others though. So, some work is needed on that one.

Anywho, the more I see players use the system, the more I think Paizo has hit a homerun here. There are a few wonky imbalances here and there that have surfaced but nothing to the level of the epic clusterf*** that was 3.X multiclassing.

I am so glad that 3.X M/C is gone. God, the horrible, twisted of class dips being used for prc re-reqs or general munchkinism and the M/C XP penalties and the need to balance that with capstones and..ugh..it was such garbage. Such horrible, terrible garbage. This is a literal breath of fresh air in comparison.

The only system that I think does multiclassing better than PF2 is Shadow of the Demon Lord. That has a fun little M/C system too. PF2 M/C is solid though and it plays well with the feat focused nature of the system.

If you care about how the system handles a character that changes mid campaign, talk to your DM. At a good break point and by expending some downtime, I would just let you redo the character to fit your new outlook or whatever (within reason). I would basically treat that as rolling up a new character (which I would let a player do when dissatisfied with a currently played character). I dunno, people pick out these small things and make them seem like these insurmountable obstacles. They assume the mechanics of the system must resolve each and every thing that comes up.

Also, I have almost never seen that "class switching due to rp" issue as a thing. 99% of the time, 3.X players made their character plan 1-20 before the start of the campaign and they just stick with that.

Cleric absolutely needs a nerf to channel (they are otherwise fine). Making everyone as good as the current cleric would make the game a cakewalk.

If the cleric channel were toned down and, instead, Paizo made mundane healing a thing (some sort of downtime healing you can do with healing kits and the medicine skill), then they wouldn't need to uptune every other class to have decent healing without a cleric. It would live in the medicine skill and with healing kits. Use per day may need to be tied to the patient (like similar abilities in 5E) and effectiveness can have its own General Feats tied to it.

And the Divine Sorcerer would then seem more attractive just by virtue of their spontaneous casting. No crazy design gymnastics needed.

I would absolutely play an arcane sorcerer right now. Primal looks good to me too, but I played a spirit shaman way back when. I hate strict Vancian casting though - so anything to avoid that is good by me.

Occult does seem fairly "meh" since the Bard is already spontaneous. Not bad just "meh."

Its just divine which seems not to nearly measure up. I think thats less because the sorcerer needs work and more because the cleric is OP thanks to their channeling. As soon as that channeling gets less ludicrous, the divine sorcerer will seem more attractive.

I agree with everything except the last point. They aren't sposed to be as skilled since all their joojoo comes from within.

I would also advocate giving them something minor like Light Armor proficiency (like a Warlock or whatever) to deal with that mage armor issue.