adembroski's page

Organized Play Member. 11 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


Not sure why I should really even bother posting anymore. Jester David has done a fine job of articulating my viewpoints far more effectively than I ever could.

I do think, however, that a lot of people are assuming far too much about what Bounded Accuracy is and isn't and what it could or couldn't be in Pathfinder.

As Jester David pointed out in a very early post in this thread, the number progression of BAB/AC/To Hit numbers is not much more than number porn. The ONLY thing it accomplishes is locking you in with a limited number of monsters you can fight because their numbers are close enough to yours.

With bounded accuracy, a +1 to hit actually means a 5% better chance to hit.

That's not even really the purpose of my posting though... love or hate bounded accuracy, at least understand what it represents.

All it means is that certain numerical parameters are set and the game is kept within them.

**** It doesn't mean PF2E has to copy 5Es BAB progressions.****

It means PF comes up with a range that works in PF, and adjusts around that. Fighters might still end up with faster BAB progression than other classes, unlike 5e. But when BAB and AC just keep going up-up-up, it becomes diluted to the point that the die roll is borderline meaningless at some point.

As for the argument I keep seeing, "Well, if you want to play 5E, play 5E," clearly I want to play PF, but I found a mechanic in 5E I believe would benefit PF. I believe that Wizards found an elegant solution to a problem that has plagued D&D since OD&D, and that solution would be just as elegant in PF without sacrificing PFs depth and customization.

Yes, I'm going to admit it... I'm a Role Playing over Roll Playing purist, but I prefer PFs crunchiness. There, I said it, sue me.

But that doesn't mean 5E didn't come up with some good ideas, and one of them in particular is something they should have done in 3.0, instead of slavishly sticking to the number porn.

One more quick thing of note... I've noticed quite a few people in this thread say they (as one poster put it) "ran screaming from the playtest when I saw Bounded Accuracy."

So did I. I hated the playtest. I ran a campaign, adjusting to the playtest as it went, and I couldn't stand it. The game they tested and the game they released are not the same. I highly recommend you give it another shot.

A lot of people are taking the form of bounded accuracy 5e decided to run with and explaining AS bounded accuracy as if it couldn't be done differently.

First off, to address a fallacy that's been thrown out regarding 5e specifically; no, a wizard is NOT just as good at hitting his target with a weapon as a fighter in 5e. Yes, they both have a +x proficiency bonus assuming they're both of the same level. But a 5th level fighter, typically, is going to have two attacks per round at +9, while a wizard at 5th level will have 1 attack at +3, and likely at less damage.

Next, a PF version of bounded accuracy would not necessarily look like 5Es bounded accuracy. Bounded accuracy is the idea that you keep all bonus within a specified range so they don't fall victim to long term bloat. That is to say, DCs don't keep growing and growing just to give the player a challenge.

I certainly agree with the bounded accuracy critics who'll say that it's a GM's job to understand the power levels and tailor the experience to them, but the more the system can help with this the better. Bounded accuracy has done a lot to keep 5e from power bloating the way all of its predecessors did. There's a lot I don't like about 5e, but that's definitely one thing I think Pathfinder would benefit from.

Doomgrinder said, "5E is for a "simpler" crowd that doesn't want the crunchiness of PF."

Yeah, pretty much, but bounded accuracy does the game wonders.

The simplicity of 5E is frustrating. I can't seem to do with the game what I want without a crowbar. Pathfinder bends to my will in terms of setting, but the crunch needs work. Clearly a game with as many moving parts at PF is going to have those issues, but the ones that really throw me are cleaned up by (as I've mentioned before) eliminating feat tax and implementing bounded accuracy.

I could do this at home, as others have suggested, but I feel like I'd end up with a totally new game, and I don't really have that kinda time:D So, yeah, I want a new edition that cleans up these issues and addresses a few more.

I do use a home brewed ability score generation method... But working in bounded accuracy and flattening the feat trees are total reworks that effect other systems. The feats themselves would have to be rewritten, and who knows how magic is effected by all this. If I had a team of playtesters and a couple more designers just hanging around, sure.

I do think Paizo is dipping their toe in the new edition waters... That's one of the reasons I posted this. Throw my voice behind the idea.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jason S: Yes, I could sit down and rewrite the entire system to suit my needs. I could. But then I'd be a game designer.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I used to be the cranky guy that'd get mad whenever a new edition came out. I'd say the only one I welcomed was 3.0 because 2nd edition was so utterly broken.

But frankly, I'm ready.

You see, 5th Edition has done two things for me, and these two things are why I want a new Pathfinder.

First, it has made me appreciate just how flexible, complete, and internally consistent Pathfinder is. D&D 5E simply cannot match PF for options and the ability to create infinite character and world concepts. Pathfinder can be overly crunchy, sure, but it's as complete a fantasy RPG system as one is ever going to find.

Second, it has made me more greatly appreciate how much Pathfinder begins to breakdown at high levels.

Now, I'm not a balance fetishist and I don't believe wizards are the "win button" by any means. Bounded accuracy, however, is one of the best features in the history of the D&D game (I include its off-shoots when I say that). It does wonders to keep the game interesting well into the teens, and unlike PF, given monsters never really become obsolete.

I have enjoyed running 5th Edition. I like how quickly I can prepare and I really like how easy it is to teach to new players, and I positively love how it fixed many of the issues with the d20 system... but I hate how it tried to fix a lot that wasn't broken about the d20 system. I would love to see PF pick up the baton and fix only what needs fixing, not the entire system.

What would that 2nd edition look like to me?

* A form of bounded accuracy. Not as extreme as 5E. Better melee fighters should have better to-hit numbers, but limiting them to +10 at 20th level vs. +6 for non-warrior types would be better. Fewer attacks per round as well.

* Bounded accuracy should apply to the skills system, but PF is built on customization, and skill points should still apply. The number should just be kept lower.

* Feats should remain an integral part of PF, it's one of the things that makes it the system it is. However, shallower feat trees with more room for customization and fewer restrictions would be helpful. I'm not saying eliminate prerequisites, just don't charge feat taxes.

* Retain the great innovations of 3rd Edition... all creatures working under the same generation system, prestige classes, etc.

* This is just a throw in of my own... it may be time to reign in the power creep. Each edition of D&D has made ability score generation slightly easier and easier, pushing things further into the realm of PCs as Superheroes at 1st level. 5E humans get a +1 to ALL ability scores at 1st level. Rebalance the game around 3d6, arrange to taste, and give every race (except humans, who get no adjustment) a bonus and a penalty. We've been constricting the ability score continuum upward against 18 for too long, and there's little difference between two PCs of the same class anymore. I think it's time to open that up a bit. There's nothing wrong with a fighter having a 7 in Wisdom, and it makes for more interesting role playing.

That's just a few suggestions, I'm sure I'll come up with 25 more between hitting Submit Post and being redirected, but hey, I'm kinda just throwing this out there as a stream of consciousness to see what people say.

It seems to me that a Pathfinder specific platform would be the most logical. There are already plenty of VTTs out there that are perfectly functional as system-agnostic, but I think having something that does one thing really well would be most helpful to the PF community.

I would love a VTT that would highlight the spaces a given character can move to on his turn, click on an enemy to automatically attack/apply damage, a leveling and creation wizard, tool-tipped rules, etc.. If I wanna play 5E or anything else, I have Roll20, which already has a massive community and I'm accustom to its layout... from Paizo, I want something that expressly caters to my preferred system.

At any rate... is this thing even still happening?

Thoughts on alignment... I kinda feel, regardless of your core moral alignment, you should drift toward neutral if you do not act specifically toward good or evil. Being good should require good acts, not necessarily just not acting contrary to good.

Not acting contrary to good is neutral, not good. Specifically good acts should be consider good alone.

On the other hand, the ethical scale should work its way toward lawful so long as chaotic actions are not taken.

Gary Teter wrote:

A virtual tabletop is more than just a list of features you can check off in a comparison chart.

+1; and thank you for saying so. You guys could teach video game studios a thing or two. Feature parity is overrated; polish and utility is critical.

magnuskn wrote:

I'll quote Gary from the 2nd of this month:

Gary Teter wrote:

Quick update: We are a week or so away from beginning the Paizo Game Space external alpha test.

Expected sequence of events:

External alpha test. A very limited test for Paizo employees and a handful of outside testers. This test shouldn't last more than a week or two. Its major purpose is to find and fix obvious flaws before the beta test so we don't get hundreds of duplicate bug reports. Please don't contact us asking for access to this test, all the slots are full.

Public beta test. Open to anybody with a badge for PaizoCon 2012. This test will last for at least several weeks. During this period we will be focused on fixing bugs and smoothing the rough edges on the user interface. We may add some features during this test if they're ready.

During the first part of this public beta, PaizoCon 2012 attendees will only be able to invite other PaizoCon 2012 attendees to join games. Later in the beta, we'll allow PaizoCon 2012 attendees to invite anyone with a account to join their games.

Public launch. At this point anybody with a account will be able to try out Paizo Game Space.

I saw that the first time. I don't know if it was meant to be a response to my question, but it wasn't what I was asking.

I was asking if they'd switch to an "opt" (optimized) build for the public beta, as opposed to the debug build that Gary mentioned in a different post.

Gary Teter wrote:

This version doesn't have all the features we plan to include, and it's got a bunch of debugging code in it so it's not as snappy as it will be later, but I'm pretty excited about the progress we're making.

I'm surprised you're giving any externals access to a debug build. Will you have an opt ready for the public beta?