Personally the biggest problem I see is saving throws and upper level game-play. It becomes, I make it so long as I don't roll a 1, or I only make it if I roll a 20.
Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, Great Fortitude. Grab the ones that aren't your good class saves. Grab items that amp whatever attributes that up your weak saves.
Sheesh man, it's not that hard a fix.
[
[5.) There is NO ACTUAL GAME MECHANIC BENEFIT for using stealth. It's absolutely absurd! An iconic skill that RAW doesn't even cause unaware enemies to be denied their DEX? Why has it been 4 years since this game's release and this issue is STILL yet to be resolved? Don't tell me that "it's by design, stealth is meant for out of combat" either, because some time ago Paizo discussed this VERY ISSUE in a blog, planning for a fix, but then the whole thing just got dropped...
Altho it is true that Stealth does not make a foe lose his Dex, it is still not useless as a game mechanic. A PC with HiPS can simply walk up to an enemy wizard, then come un-stealthed and attack. The wizard can't attack the sneak at all, as he can't detect him (until the sneak attacks). And, a PC with HiPS can just casually walk around a monster, ignoring AoO until he gets into a perfect flanking position.
Being 100% un-attackable until you attack? That's not a "GAME MECHANIC BENEFIT"? And then going back into stealth mode if the battle is too tough and having a 100% chance of escaping? Not a GAME MECHANIC BENEFIT?
That being said, video games and TTRPGs both cost a lot of money. Every dollar spent on one, is a dollar not spent on the other. video games go on sale a lot more often than TTRPG books. Video games don't require co-ordinating your friends' busy schedules (mostly). Video games have less up-keep cost (most people I know don't stop at the PCR and Bestiary, they want all the books, plus minis, plus props, plus...).
As a result, dyed in the wool TTRPG players rightly see video games as a potential threat. It doesn't have to be a threat, but for the poor college kid choosing between 30-50 bucks (depending on source) for a hard copy PCR, or 30-60 bucks for Dishonored. I'm in the lucky crowd of working professionals that can maintain the costs of both hobbies...
Nope. Like it or not, you are forgetting something. Video games are inherently antisocial in comparison to tabletop, no faces, lucky if you get voices, no body language. Pile on the programming issues like viruses and updates, along with spending dough on upgrading your PC, and they aren't as fun as you think. Books are more an issue of you can buy them or not, you don't have to update your system like you do with PC games or getting new consoles. Plus books store easier, and you can choose what you want in the game, and the game is a lot more flexible due to humans running the show as opposed to a program.
Me, I would rather have meaningful social contact, so I only play videogames when I have no other option.
Dunno man, I still play it like surprised characters are flat footed, and therefore are denied their Dexterity to AC.
I'll tell you one thing, I've never run into an issue with someone saying "how is this rule supposed to work!?!?!" in a videogame.
And social contact is overrated. =p
I agree on the trait system. I think the system could be streamlined.
What I would like to see is a list of bonuses, like,
+1 to any save
+1 to a class skill.
Make a non-class skill into a class skill.
Profiency with a single martial weaponThen a section detailing how to work the bonuses into your character story.
I think it would be a lot easier to balance as well.
Careful, if you make the game too granular, you turn it into a wholly points based system, ala GURPS. And that is not as popular as the level based system, to my dismay. I prefer points based games, like Dark Ages Vampire, to Pathfinder personally. But then, I don't hose myself over by overspecializing either, unlike many players.
I'll tell you one thing, I've never run into an issue with someone saying "how is this rule supposed to work!?!?!" in a videogame.
And social contact is overrated. =p
If the game continually has rules in which they either confuse or make players argue as to the outcome, like Hackmaster turned out, then don't play them. Try something simpler, which is not always a bad thing.
And second, you can never have too much social contact. Having long lasting friends is not an easy achievement. It becomes a lot harder when you can't see or hear your partners. And you don't get into as utterly ridiculous conversations either, which is less entertaining.
People have met their lifelong mates as a result of tabletop rpgs, and I would venture to guess that happens a lot more often than any video game could induce.
I dunno about you, but I've met some of my best friends over Xbox Live and Steam, and have kept in touch with many people I used to see on a daily basis using them.
And we get into some utterly ridiculous conversations as well, generally while chatting over shooting people/things.
Video gaming and social interaction are not mutually exclusive, especially on those occasions you get together and play while on the couch next to your buddies.
For example, while Palladium has put out some crap products, they have also put out some good ones but the fact is, they almost went under because of embezzlement, not because their products put them under.
I beg to differ. I have spent months crawling in and out of their game system, and it sucks rocks. There's a good reason why Palladium anything is "the game you read and almost never play". Good fluff for the most part, even though they never bothered with the essentials like WHERE THE HECK DO ALL THE TOYS COME FROM AND HOW LIKELY IS IT YOU CAN FIND AND BUY THEM?
Dammit, I hate that game system. It LOOKS pretty from the outside, but once you check under the hood, it's a lemon, pure and simple. Plus, Siembieda is so damned arrogant that he won't even consider patching the damn thing. It's HIS ego that drives away a lot of the writing talent, because he keeps changing the requirements after the material was written.
Hell, I actually wrote better using a defunct and poorly balanced game system. I did a d20 version of Robotech that according to 50+ gamers, is far better than anything Palladium ever put out for Robotech, old and new. Right now, KS is depending on Robotech to haul them out of their latest disaster.
I dunno about you, but I've met some of my best friends over Xbox Live and Steam, and have kept in touch with many people I used to see on a daily basis using them.
And we get into some utterly ridiculous conversations as well, generally while chatting over shooting people/things.
Video gaming and social interaction are not mutually exclusive, especially on those occasions you get together and play while on the couch next to your buddies.
I agree. I will concede that TTRPGs facilitate social interaction to a much greater extent and that video games may be more often played solo, but thinking in polarities is never good, whether we're talking about social elements in types of games or anything else.
People have met their lifelong mates as a result of tabletop rpgs, and I would venture to guess that happens a lot more often than any video game could induce.
There's no way you could know that other than to assume. I can think of two specific instances of people meeting online and/or bonding over online games and eventually marrying and have heard stories about many more. I've also heard of plenty of people meeting their current spouse over the battlemat (though I have not known any specifically). I met my partner that way, myself.
Something to consider: It's reasonable to guess that the number of people that play online video games is greater than the number of people that play TTRPGs. Woudl it be a leap to guess, statistically speaking, that more people meet and bond over those lines than over the battlemat? One may decide that those relationships aren't as "real" as those made over TTRPGs, but that's a not a valid argument.
actually, I know a few people who DID get married after having built a relationship starting with tabletop rpgs.
Second, the more deep the possible communication, the faster the relationship deepens. That is logic.
Dunno man, I still play it like surprised characters are flat footed, and therefore are denied their Dexterity to AC.
Yes, they are, you make a good point.
I played Runequest for years, and they had armor as DR, and so did Fantasy Hero and T&T. None of those were more playable or better games than D&D, altho they had their charms.
I don;t really see the appeal of armor as DR. It is in lots of other FRPGs, if you really love it so much then play one of them, or bring in the 3.5 optional rules.
|
For example, while Palladium has put out some crap products, they have also put out some good ones but the fact is, they almost went under because of embezzlement, not because their products put them under.
I beg to differ. I have spent months crawling in and out of their game system, and it sucks rocks. There's a good reason why Palladium anything is "the game you read and almost never play". Good fluff for the most part, even though they never bothered with the essentials like WHERE THE HECK DO ALL THE TOYS COME FROM AND HOW LIKELY IS IT YOU CAN FIND AND BUY THEM?
Dammit, I hate that game system. It LOOKS pretty from the outside, but once you check under the hood, it's a lemon, pure and simple. Plus, Siembieda is so damned arrogant that he won't even consider patching the damn thing. It's HIS ego that drives away a lot of the writing talent, because he keeps changing the requirements after the material was written.
Hell, I actually wrote better using a defunct and poorly balanced game system. I did a d20 version of Robotech that according to 50+ gamers, is far better than anything Palladium ever put out for Robotech, old and new. Right now, KS is depending on Robotech to haul them out of their latest disaster.
I will say that I used to sit there for hours reading the various RIFTS and Nightbane books.
Altho it is true that Stealth does not make a foe lose his Dex, it is still not useless as a game mechanic. A PC with HiPS can simply walk up to an enemy wizard, then come un-stealthed and attack. The wizard can't attack the sneak at all, as he can't detect him (until the sneak attacks). And, a PC with HiPS can just casually walk around a monster, ignoring AoO until he gets into a perfect flanking position.
Being 100% un-attackable until you attack? That's not a "GAME MECHANIC BENEFIT"? And then going back into stealth mode if the battle is too tough and having a 100% chance of escaping? Not a GAME MECHANIC BENEFIT?
Okay, I'll reword it. Currently the rules for stealth offer little to no benefit. Yes, it can be used to sneak around the battlefield unnoticed, but alone its usefulness stops there. As you mentioned, you must have HiPS in order to even be able to hide again after you are revealed. That's 2 resources your character has to have just to be able to hide after being revealed. That's it; there's no other practical boon, when there SHOULD be.
And don't take any of this out of context. I think HiPS is a good mechanic, and for the most part it's fine as is. It's stealth I have a beef with - much of it is directly copied and pasted from the 3.5 SRD "Hide" entry. A fact that should have been addressed long ago.
Dunno man, I still play it like surprised characters are flat footed, and therefore are denied their Dexterity to AC.
As you should. But unfortunately this is technically a house rule, and it shouldn't have to be... precisely my point.
Have you ever played fighting games or whatI'll tell you one thing, I've never run into an issue with someone saying "how is this rule supposed to work!?!?!" in a videogame.
Yes, but I'm not sure how that's relevant. You literally can't break the rules of the game if it's coded correctly.
Playing PF for the 1st time in a while on Sunday. I have been wasting time with 2nd ed and the D&DN play test. Also I have been rewriting a few things for the core rules.
The big major problem in PF is offensive options scale to fast. Things players like are bad for the DM and a few I consider to good are magic item rules (to cheap/easy), wands of cure light wounds (each fight has to be rocket tag or PCs auto win), and feats like power attack and rapid shot.
The D&DN play test is kind of interesting to see what they are doing with spell casters. It is kind of raw atm but if they keep it up they will end up with a half decent version of D&D. It may not be be a version I want to play but it won't suck and I'll consider it D&D.
The main problem with Pathfinder is I have to DM the damned thing. 13 years of the same stuff annoying me (keens, PA, rapid shot, various spells, spell DCs, wands of CLW, magic mart).
A succesful Stealth check doesn't deny the opposition their DEX to AC? Wowsers. That's genius.
A succesful Stealth check doesn't deny the opposition their DEX to AC? Wowsers. That's genius.
Doesn't make any sense, though. I suppose I really should go check out the game mechanics as regards this. I'd always played it that if you snuck up on somebody, they were considered surprised and therefore flat footed (no dex to AC, vulnerable to sneak attack). After all, isn't "sneak attack" supposed to be sneaky?
A succesful Stealth check doesn't deny the opposition their DEX to AC? Wowsers. That's genius.Doesn't make any sense, though. I suppose I really should go check out the game mechanics as regards this. I'd always played it that if you snuck up on somebody, they were considered surprised and therefore flat footed (no dex to AC, vulnerable to sneak attack). After all, isn't "sneak attack" supposed to be sneaky?
RAI? Yes. RAW? Nope. No mention anywhere in the Stealth sections about anyone being either Flat-Footed, nor losing DEX bonus to AC.
It's one of those "Oops, we'll get back to it" things they just never really got back to, from my understanding. Pretty much everyone I've played under just lets the Sneak Attacks count, but an overly OCD DM is well within their rights to not allow it, since the rules don't say it.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If you've successfully stealthed, they are blind to you, so they are not flat-footed (that's a specific game term), but they are denied dexterity to AC.
The big major problem in PF is offensive options scale to fast. Things players like are bad for the DM and a few I consider to good are magic item rules (to cheap/easy), wands of cure light wounds (each fight has to be rocket tag or PCs auto win), and feats like power attack and rapid shot.
But keep in mind that enemies and monsters also scale quickly in power. Some enemies the PCs will face also have power attack, rapid shot, etc. As a GM, PCs may seem overpowered when you look at their character sheets, but also look at the enemies they're going up against. Keep in mind that you can just increase the CR of your encounters if the PCs are just blowing though everything. In my experience, regardless of how powerful the PCs are, I don't need to bump up the CR more than 2 or 3 to present a challenge. Let the PCs enjoy their power. You are the GM, and as long as you can match it with what they encounter, it's not a problem.
Also, you shouldn't worry too much about wands of cure light wounds. They cost money, and they're really only good for out of combat healing. Any character with fast healing has FREE out of combat healing anyway. As long as your encounters are challenging, it's okay for the PCs to have easy out of combat healing.
I would argue that it should be difficult to hide when your enemy is watching you.
Funny thing you should mention that... earlier in this thread I linked to a thread where I suggest some re-writes, and in my Stealth rewrite I included a section exactly for this. You should check it out.
I suppose I really should go check out the game mechanics as regards this. I'd always played it that if you snuck up on somebody, they were considered surprised and therefore flat footed (no dex to AC, vulnerable to sneak attack). After all, isn't "sneak attack" supposed to be sneaky?
Indeed sir. You should also check out my proposed rewrite and tell me what you think - it clarifies this exact issue by giving Stealthers a "hidden" condition, which renders unaware foes flat-footed. In the thread I linked check out "Stealth" and "Conditions" (if you're interested).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you've successfully stealthed, they are blind to you, so they are not flat-footed (that's a specific game term), but they are denied dexterity to AC.
I wholeheartedly agree that this is how Stealth SHOULD work. But please, show me here in the rules for stealth where it mentions that they are blind to you? (HINT: it's not there)
The unfortunate truth is that technically this is a house rule. Again I say, it's absurd that it has to be.
If you've successfully stealthed, they are blind to you, so they are not flat-footed (that's a specific game term), but they are denied dexterity to AC.I wholeheartedly agree that this is how Stealth SHOULD work. But please, show me here in the rules for stealth where it mentions that they are blind to you? (HINT: it's not there)
The unfortunate truth is that technically this is a house rule. Again I say, it's absurd that it has to be.
It doesn't need to say that in the stealth section. It says that in the section about enemies being unable to see you (blind).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't need to say that in the stealth section. It says that in the section about enemies being unable to see you (blind).
Oh, you mean the rules for being blinded? Yes, the rules specify that a blinded creature is denied its DEX to AC. But where in the rules is the blinded condition linked to enemies who cannot see a stealthed crature? I'm not trying to be difficult. If you say that it just does because that makes sense to you, then wonderful! I am not bashing any house ruling. I too house rule that enemies who don't notice a stealther are denied their DEX bonus against them. My point is that nowhere in the core do the rules mention this. However, I have missed things before. If you can find anywhere where it says that unaware enemies are denied their DEX or are blind to stealthers, I would be happy to see it!
It doesn't need to say that in the stealth section. It says that in the section about enemies being unable to see you (blind).Oh, you mean the rules for being blinded? Yes, the rules specify that a blinded creature is denied its DEX to AC. But where in the rules is the blinded condition linked to enemies who cannot see a stealthed crature? I'm not trying to be difficult. If you say that it just does because that makes sense to you, then wonderful! I am not bashing any house ruling. I too house rule that enemies who don't notice a stealther are denied their DEX bonus against them. My point is that nowhere in the core do the rules mention this. However, I have missed things before. If you can find anywhere where it says that unaware enemies are denied their DEX or are blind to stealthers, I would be happy to see it!
Ok, I see. You want it all spelled out explicitly. I think the rules are pretty clear, but if you don't, I guess I can't refute you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1)Magic needs to be nerfed or at the very least a lot of spells need to be removed. wish/miracle/time stop/ creating demiiplanes and $#!t.
2)Leadership is pure cheese. Worst thing I have ever seen in actual play. Guy shows up with 2 characters because of "Leadership", rest of the group gets jealous...2 sessions later we have a party of 10 (5*2). Then it got banned and have never seen it again....Summoner and his eidolon too
3)Rogue needs full BAB
That's about it for me
Altho it is true that Stealth does not make a foe lose his Dex, it is still not useless as a game mechanic. A PC with HiPS can simply walk up to an enemy wizard, then come un-stealthed and attack. The wizard can't attack the sneak at all, as he can't detect him (until the sneak attacks). And, a PC with HiPS can just casually walk around a monster, ignoring AoO until he gets into a perfect flanking position.
Being 100% un-attackable until you attack? That's not a "GAME MECHANIC BENEFIT"? And then going back into stealth mode if the battle is too tough and having a 100% chance of escaping? Not a GAME MECHANIC BENEFIT?
Okay, I'll reword it. Currently the rules for stealth offer little to no benefit. Yes, it can be used to sneak around the battlefield unnoticed, but alone its usefulness stops there. As you mentioned, you must have HiPS in order to even be able to hide again after you are revealed. That's 2 resources your character has to have just to be able to hide after being revealed. That's it; there's no other practical boon, when there SHOULD be.
.
Umm, no, you can also go behind cover or anything else that blocks line of sight, and become concealed again. And there’s all sort of “practical benefits” the ONLY “practical benefit” you DON’T get is no auto sneak attack ..which you’d only get for one hit anyway. The loss is small, and JJ sez it’s fine to houserule it.
But yes, of course you need HiPS or it’s equivalent to go back into being hidden after revealed, do you think a sneaky guy can really just Hide in Plain Sight without some sort of special ability?
Read the Stealth blogs. They are well aware of the issue. It is an issue that can NOT be solved without a great deal of rules re-writing which will have to wait until another edition. They have said that. So, what’s the problem? The devs know about it, acknowledge it, suggested a houserule, and will fix it next Ed.
I played Runequest for years, and they had armor as DR, and so did Fantasy Hero and T&T. None of those were more playable or better games than D&D, altho they had their charms.What they did have were better armor as DR rules. Runequest had none of the weird crap Pathfinder's armor as DR rules have. No critical defense rolls. No big creatures ignoring armor. No commonplace magic weapons ignoring nonmagical armor. None of the stuff that makes Pathfinder's armor as DR rules a hopeless mess.
.
Ha. No they had weird crits and “impales”, along with Dodge and blocks. "Murphy's Rules" said it best:
“Cutting Mistakes -
In a 30-minute RuneQuest battle (Chaosium) involving 6000 armored,
experienced warriors using Great Axes, more than 150 men will decapitate themselves and another 600 will chop off their own arms or legs”
actually, I know a few people who DID get married after having built a relationship starting with tabletop rpgs.
Second, the more deep the possible communication, the faster the relationship deepens. That is logic.
I am by no means claiming that TTRPGs don't facilitate relationships, but assuming general statistics (that more relationships and friendship develop over TTRPGs than video games) based on your personal is not evidence.
It would be logical to assume that an activity with a "deeper possible depth" of relationships (and I outright disagree that TTRPGs have a "greater possible depth" of relationships given that either activity is known to have the end result of marriage) only if it took a set amount of time for a relationship to reach it's maximum point universally. For instance, if it it always took one year of knowing someone to have your relationship reach it's "deepest possible value", relationships with a greater possible "depth" would progress faster in the course of that year.
As it is, I could play a TTRPG with someone for years before I decided to hang out with them away from the table, or I could meet someone in a fighting game tournament, bond with them over video games, and then marry them by the end of the year.
You can't statistically quantify relationship depth or "progression speed".
More on-topic:
Magic needs to be nerfed or at the very least a lot of spells need to be removed. wish/miracle/time stop/ creating demiiplanes and $#!t.
I don't run games at levels that high for this very reason. Past 10th level, things quickly get into god-like territory. If a player wanted to create his own demiplane or gain wishes, he can go on a quest and work hard to make that happen.
Ok, I see. You want it all spelled out explicitly. I think the rules are pretty clear, but if you don't, I guess I can't refute you.It doesn't need to say that in the stealth section. It says that in the section about enemies being unable to see you (blind).Oh, you mean the rules for being blinded? Yes, the rules specify that a blinded creature is denied its DEX to AC. But where in the rules is the blinded condition linked to enemies who cannot see a stealthed crature? I'm not trying to be difficult. If you say that it just does because that makes sense to you, then wonderful! I am not bashing any house ruling. I too house rule that enemies who don't notice a stealther are denied their DEX bonus against them. My point is that nowhere in the core do the rules mention this. However, I have missed things before. If you can find anywhere where it says that unaware enemies are denied their DEX or are blind to stealthers, I would be happy to see it!
The rules are pretty clear, despite not actually saying it anywhere in the rules. They were pretty clear in 3,5, which is what you might be mentally recalling, but as for PF? Nope.
If we're allowed to make things up that aren't actually stated, then I want my fire-breathing half-dragon unicorn mount for my Fighter at 1st level. It doesn't actually say that I don't get one, so obviously I should.
They dropped the ball, and decided to just shrug their shoulders and move on instead of fixing it. Woohoo progress.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Umm, no, you can also go behind cover or anything else that blocks line of sight, and become concealed again. And there’s all sort of “practical benefits” the ONLY “practical benefit” you DON’T get is no auto sneak attack ..which you’d only get for one hit anyway. The loss is small, and JJ sez it’s fine to houserule it.
But yes, of course you need HiPS or it’s equivalent to go back into being hidden after revealed, do you think a sneaky guy can really just Hide in Plain Sight without some sort of special ability?
Read the Stealth blogs. They are well aware of the issue. It is an issue that can NOT be solved without a great deal of rules re-writing which will have to wait until another edition. They have said that. So, what’s the problem? The devs know about it, acknowledge it, suggested a houserule, and will fix it next Ed.
NORMAL cover should not completely block line of sight and line of effect, but TOTAL Cover should. This is yet ANOTHER confusion in the rules because of 3.5 SRD text copied directly into Pathfinder. It's a confusing mechanic that causes a ripple effect for the whole game. It affects Stealth and Perception, as well as ANYTHING that has to do with line of effect (or line of sight). Normal cover should provide +4 AC, +2 Reflex, prevent AoOs from those you have cover against, allow you to use stealth, but NOT block line of sight/effect (unless you are hidden from stealth). If cover completely blocks line of effect, what's the point of the bonus to AC? Only total cover should block line of effect. These mechanics need clearing up, and this is how you do it.
You don't need anyone, game designer or not, to tell you what's "fine" to house rule. My suggested changes come DIRECTLY from the Stealth blogs you are referring to. Check them out.
It's things like this why I gave up on DM'ing Pathfinder, even aside from edition preference. I ran at least 3 PF campaigns since the CRB was release(and 2 during Beta testing), and each time I spent almost as much time cleaning up PF's "fixes" as I did trying to get used to all the changes.
If it all boils down to just rummaging through the book and houseruling everything, instead of getting all the glorious fixes everyone around here drones on about, why bother changing up from 3.5 to begin with? Just houserule 3.5 and add in the PF bits you like. That's what I'm doing from now on.
The rules are pretty clear, despite not actually saying it anywhere in the rules. They were pretty clear in 3,5, which is what you might be mentally recalling, but as for PF? Nope.
If we're allowed to make things up that aren't actually stated, then I want my fire-breathing half-dragon unicorn mount for my Fighter at 1st level. It doesn't actually say that I don't get one, so obviously I should.
They dropped the ball, and decided to just shrug their shoulders and move on instead of fixing it. Woohoo progress.
Interesting fact... Pathfinder Stealth is partially copied from the 3.5 SRD entry for "Hide", and that entry neglects to mention unaware foes being denied their DEX against those who are hidden. However...
In the 3.5 Rules Compendium, they added a convenient little sentence to the Hide rule that DOES specify that unaware enemies are denied their DEX. Unfortunately, Paizo copied the entry from the 3.5 SRD instead of the Rules Compendium. Pity.
You don't need anyone, game designer or not, to tell you what's "fine" to house rule. My suggested changes come DIRECTLY from the Stealth blogs you are referring to. Check them out.
Indeed they do, for the most part. But again: They are well aware of the issue. It is an issue that can NOT be solved without a great deal of rules re-writing which will have to wait until another edition. They have said that. So, what’s the problem? The devs know about it, acknowledge it, suggested a houserule, and will fix it next Ed.
SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
Do you honestly want them to come out with a 2nd Edition NOW, to fix this tiny issue?
Yeah, I pulled my rule reference for Hide from the 3.5 Rules Compendium.
But in all seriousness, snark aside, it's really intended to work like that. It's like this weird subliminal houserule that everyone used. I just figured for all the pomp and grandeur of PF being this miraculous fix to all of 3.5's woes, they would've done a better job on this detail.
SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
Do you honestly want them to come out with a 2nd Edition NOW, to fix this tiny issue?
I'm not impatiently demanding anything NOW, but I WOULD like some acknowledgement that Paizo intends on doing something about it at some point. I have seen nothing from Paizo saying that they are working on revisions, rewrites, or even anymore errata to the core rules. You say that they are working on it, do you have a link to a source? I'm simply trying to raise awareness and make some helpful suggestions. If I could see any mention of this from Paizo somewhere, I would certainly be satisfied.
EDIT: And no, I'm not worried over one "tiny issue". There are MANY core mechanics that need to be rewritten.
You need to read James Jacobs Off Topic thread, and postings by SKR etc. They have made it clear this wil be fixed, but no 2nd Ed is currently planned.
Trust me.
You need to read James Jacobs Off Topic thread, and postings by SKR etc. They have made it clear this wil be fixed, but no 2nd Ed is currently planned.
Trust me.
See, this is part of my problem with the way things get handled. If you happen to be constantly connected to the forum community, you might catch when one of Paizo's top brass says something in passing in an off-topic thread that happens to be the answer(or at least promise of one) to a rules question.
What about players who don't frequent the forum? Does an email go out? What about forum goers who happen to not be on the off-topic subforum? I'm on these forums daily, and I had no idea there was an answer for the Stealth problem(albeit a bad one. "houserule it" is pretty lame when your company supposedly took on the task of fixing an entire edition).
Bethesda has a forum for glitches and bugs in their games, with an updated list of every bug they are aware of, so that gamers know the problem is being looked at. Heck, Paizo might already have a forum like this, lost in the list of umpteenthousand other subforums as is.
It appears to be lame, but honestly they wrote up no less than TWO suggested Errata’s in the Blogs. Both opened up so many cans of worms that it was clear to all that it just isn’t something that can be ‘quick fixed”.
Paizo does have the FAQ section, right up these to the top right.
That is both pretty funny and totally unrelated to someone not understanding a rule in a fighting game.
But I don't see how you can't understand a rule in a video game. If you do something correctly, it will happen the same way every time in the same context.
Unlike this game where the rules are entirely based on the devs (sometimes poor) wording of rules, which leads to confusion.
It is pretty funny because ha ha coded correctly, literally zero fighting games ever made have been coded correctly according to that logic
I've never played a fighting game that was so broken somebody could actually cheat, unless they found cheat codes (which are coded into the game by the devs...) or used an AR Max/Game Genie/Whatever.
|
[
[5.) There is NO ACTUAL GAME MECHANIC BENEFIT for using stealth. It's absolutely absurd! An iconic skill that RAW doesn't even cause unaware enemies to be denied their DEX? Why has it been 4 years since this game's release and this issue is STILL yet to be resolved? Don't tell me that "it's by design, stealth is meant for out of combat" either, because some time ago Paizo discussed this VERY ISSUE in a blog, planning for a fix, but then the whole thing just got dropped...
Altho it is true that Stealth does not make a foe lose his Dex, it is still not useless as a game mechanic. A PC with HiPS can simply walk up to an enemy wizard, then come un-stealthed and attack. The wizard can't attack the sneak at all, as he can't detect him (until the sneak attacks). And, a PC with HiPS can just casually walk around a monster, ignoring AoO until he gets into a perfect flanking position.
Being 100% un-attackable until you attack? That's not a "GAME MECHANIC BENEFIT"? And then going back into stealth mode if the battle is too tough and having a 100% chance of escaping? Not a GAME MECHANIC BENEFIT?
Maybe I'm "doing it wrong" but 95% of the time I use stealth or a similar ability in an RPG, I'm doing it to completely AVOID a fight, not just to get into better position to start one. I realize that this goes against the grain of the d20 system's "only combat counts for XP" assumption, but it's generally the smarter way to play a stealth-based character. Why have the party as a whole waste resources on a fight that cm simply be side-stepped?
For example, while Palladium has put out some crap products, they have also put out some good ones but the fact is, they almost went under because of embezzlement, not because their products put them under.
I beg to differ. I have spent months crawling in and out of their game system, and it sucks rocks. There's a good reason why Palladium anything is "the game you read and almost never play". Good fluff for the most part, even though they never bothered with the essentials like WHERE THE HECK DO ALL THE TOYS COME FROM AND HOW LIKELY IS IT YOU CAN FIND AND BUY THEM?
Dammit, I hate that game system. It LOOKS pretty from the outside, but once you check under the hood, it's a lemon, pure and simple. Plus, Siembieda is so damned arrogant that he won't even consider patching the damn thing. It's HIS ego that drives away a lot of the writing talent, because he keeps changing the requirements after the material was written.
Hell, I actually wrote better using a defunct and poorly balanced game system. I did a d20 version of Robotech that according to 50+ gamers, is far better than anything Palladium ever put out for Robotech, old and new. Right now, KS is depending on Robotech to haul them out of their latest disaster.
The funny part is that the biggest problem I have with the Megaversal system is exactly the same problem I have with almost all iterations of the d20 system...it's far too overly complex, with way too many interlocking fiddly-bits. Yet for some reason Paladium gets continually abused for it, while the same people generally turn a blind eye to the fact that the d20 system suffers lost as much from this problem.
|
|
[
[5.) There is NO ACTUAL GAME MECHANIC BENEFIT for using stealth. It's absolutely absurd! An iconic skill that RAW doesn't even cause unaware enemies to be denied their DEX? Why has it been 4 years since this game's release and this issue is STILL yet to be resolved? Don't tell me that "it's by design, stealth is meant for out of combat" either, because some time ago Paizo discussed this VERY ISSUE in a blog, planning for a fix, but then the whole thing just got dropped...
Altho it is true that Stealth does not make a foe lose his Dex, it is still not useless as a game mechanic. A PC with HiPS can simply walk up to an enemy wizard, then come un-stealthed and attack. The wizard can't attack the sneak at all, as he can't detect him (until the sneak attacks). And, a PC with HiPS can just casually walk around a monster, ignoring AoO until he gets into a perfect flanking position.
Being 100% un-attackable until you attack? That's not a "GAME MECHANIC BENEFIT"? And then going back into stealth mode if the battle is too tough and having a 100% chance of escaping? Not a GAME MECHANIC BENEFIT?
Maybe I'm "doing it wrong" but 95% of the time I use stealth or a similar ability in an RPG, I'm doing it to completely AVOID a fight, not just to get into better position to start one. I realize that this goes against the grain of the d20 system's "only combat counts for XP" assumption, but it's generally the smarter way to play a stealth-based character. Why have the party as a whole waste resources on a fight that cm simply be side-stepped?
...I beg to differ. I have spent months crawling in and out of their game system, and it sucks rocks. There's a good reason why Palladium anything isFor example, while Palladium has put out some crap products, they have also put out some good ones but the fact is, they almost went under because of embezzlement, not because their products put them under.
But I still love RIFTS. I really don't know why to be honest because the rules are all over the shop when trying to make a character or just to learn the damn thing. I had a friend who could run RIFTS like Carl Lewis could run the fifty yard dash. He could keep the whole game together and keep it very very entertaining.