|
Some talk at rpg.net about the Bard's Lore Master ability letting them take 10 on knowledge checks where they have ranks, but in the SRD anyone can do that anyhow (and also the Take 10 and Take 20 rules are ommitted altogether in the Beta, which doesn't help matters).
True, but you can't take 10 in combat while identifying monsters. The bards ability allows him to do so.
|
The subsystems are brilliant. It's actually what was needed!
As for domination... If the fighter at high level has not buffed his will saving throw in one way or another, and does not even possess ONE magic item with protection from evil, then the party probably deserves to die.
I am with Estrosiath, the subsystems are beautiful... and players usually only learn one class at a time... if you are gm... well get used to it, its your job :P
and lets get real Power Channeling doesn't even need to be learned... ok how many turn undeadas i have? ok 3+cha mod... i cure around me 30' 1d6 + 1d6/2 levels?
right
no need for books :P
Speaking of Channel Energy, its extremely simple. A far advance over the old Turn Undead. I've been DMing 3.0 and 3.5 since they came out and I still never learned Turn Undead by heart. Channel Energy is much better.
As for streamlining the system to make all the stuff the same? Sorry, IMO that is what 4th edition did and I really don't like it. I like every class to have a unique mechanic, its kinda what makes the classes unique and gives them their own feel. The loss of that is exactly what I don't like about 4th edition amongst other things. I certainly and fervently hope that Paizo never ever goes this direction.
The subsystems are brilliant. It's actually what was needed!
As for domination... If the fighter at high level has not buffed his will saving throw in one way or another, and does not even possess ONE magic item with protection from evil, then the party probably deserves to die.
Of course, if you think focusing everything on attacking power is fine, and then you wonder why you slaughter your party because of your low will save, then you are a bad fighter. As I said - a SIMPLE protection from evil spell (level 1! On most spell lists! Lasts reasonably long!), or a well-placed dispel magic will ensure your party fighter survives and stays loyal to you.
Protection from Evil potions ARE NOT a solution to the Fighter's problem. Dominate, specifically, is not the issue. Prot. from Evil only stops charms and compulsions *that grant ongoing control*. The VAST majority of Will save spells, SLAs, and monster special abilities will still be able to casually take a fighter out. Of course he should be taking Iron Will--but if EVERY FIGHTER MUST TAKE IRON WILL AS A FEAT OR HE'S A BAD FIGHTER why not just make it a class feature? Or boost his Will save to a good progression (which, without WIS, won't make it that hard to overcome anyway)?
Iron Will doesn't save the Fighter, and neither does Protection from Evil. He's got an achilles' heel that's one of the big problems with the class.
The things Pathfinder has added--attack bonus, damage, and AC--to the Fighter were unnecessary, as the Fighter was already fine in that department, and they do not address the very fundamental issues the Fighter has (which are rooted in the system as a whole, and things like save progressions and the Full Attack).
As for the subsystems, they're a terrible idea. They're going to slow down gameplay even more, in a game which already has the problem of extremely slow combat rounds and a long wait time between turns--plus, it's more to track. There's also more for the GM to know, and the more of that you introduce, the more you make the DM focus on the mechanics rather than on, oh, plot, story, NPC design, encounter design, and the other things that the DM should be doing instead of wrapping his head around about whether the barbarian can or can't do X Y times per day and whether that's okay or not. There are other things he should be doing than watching to make sure the Barbarian is tracking rage point expenditure properly. And NOBODY benefits from yet another person having to scribble something down every turn.
As for streamlining the system to make all the stuff the same? Sorry, IMO that is what 4th edition did and I really don't like it. I like every class to have a unique mechanic, its kinda what makes the classes unique and gives them their own feel. The loss of that is exactly what I don't like about 4th edition amongst other things. I certainly and fervently hope that Paizo never ever goes this direction.
First of all, not having the same subsystem doesn't mean that every class needs its own moderately elaborate subsystem (like the Barbarian got).
Also, it's more important to have the classes feel differently in actual play than on the page. 4E really surprised me with Fighters--a sword-and-board Fighter and a spear Fighter play fundamentally differently, in a way they never have before. It'd be great if Pathfinder could, within the context of 3.5, make the melee classes play differently. As is, the only difference between the barbarian and the Fighter is what kind of bonuses you have to what and some feats--they still play the same way.
Contrary to what you say, I found the exact opposite to be true. I've played 4th edition as well and found the fighter far less appealing than it is now.
But I digress, my earlier statement was not to start another 'edition war'. It was to illustrate to the OP exactly why I think Pathfinder RPG will not got this way and to express my hopes that it won't as well.
As for adding time and making rounds take longer? I have long found this depends a great deal more on the GM than the system. I am running PFRPG right now and have found it running a good deal smoother than 3.5 with the better rules clarifications, as its stands though, I have run my party in a roughly 20 person battle (7th level characters); 4 PCs. a dozen pawns, a few named NPCs and a Fire Elemental. Each of the named NPCs was doing something totally different, the PCs were split into two groups of two about a hundred yards apart and the combat was complex, fun, dynamic and one of the best I have ever run. Oh, and took about an hour.
I have found the new systems easier to work with than the old.
|
|
Speaking of Channel Energy, its extremely simple. A far advance over the old Turn Undead. I've been DMing 3.0 and 3.5 since they came out and I still never learned Turn Undead by heart. Channel Energy is much better.
I think you can still turn undead... and still will need to check on the table... but i think they did it easier... or it was just for the sun domain?
i will need to check...
for the Fighter having little willpower... well its not the fundamental part of the fighter... if you want a balanced fighter there is a bunch of feats to help him, push wis higher or something similar...
or as the game impliyed... rely on your teammates
right now my cleric is pretty much susceptible to traps, spells and area effects that needs a reflex saving throw... 1st level i have 0... i am pretty much killable (9 hp) with any trap or spell or effect that does 2d6 damage
You can still Turn/repel Undead or Command them with Channel Energy, its a secondary effect and works off of Will Saves.
Its not the odd roll 1d20+level+mod = HD turned off the chart from 3.5
Fighter problem wirh saving throws: it's not a problem only for them!
Pathfinder should simply rewrite saving throws mechanics! It's simply too easy for every caster in the world hitting these poor targets in their poorest saving throw, and even protection from evil and similar stuff will help just a little.
The Star wars Saga edition mechanic is the best, imo. Saving throws equals to half your level and a non stackable flat bonus that depends on the PC's class. The "Fighters" in my party, which I've dmed since 2007, have ALWAYS saved from the best attacks of the party's wizard (not to mention my BEGs) with a 19 or a 20. It's.... unfair?
sigh...
Contrary to what you say, I found the exact opposite to be true. I've played 4th edition as well and found the fighter far less appealing than it is now.
But I digress, my earlier statement was not to start another 'edition war'. It was to illustrate to the OP exactly why I think Pathfinder RPG will not got this way and to express my hopes that it won't as well.
As for adding time and making rounds take longer? I have long found this depends a great deal more on the GM than the system. I am running PFRPG right now and have found it running a good deal smoother than 3.5 with the better rules clarifications, as its stands though, I have run my party in a roughly 20 person battle (7th level characters); 4 PCs. a dozen pawns, a few named NPCs and a Fire Elemental. Each of the named NPCs was doing something totally different, the PCs were split into two groups of two about a hundred yards apart and the combat was complex, fun, dynamic and one of the best I have ever run. Oh, and took about an hour.
I have found the new systems easier to work with than the old.
I don't really care how appealing you found it. Two different fighters in 4th Edition play fundamentally differently in a way that is not the case for 3.5 or Pathfinder. A sword-and-board Fighter taking powers that hit all the enemies around him works around the basic strategy of getting into groups and keeping them on him, freeing up his friends. Meanwhile, the spear-using Fighter is a lightly-armored mobile skirmisher, picking out strong individual enemies and keeping them away from the rest of the party, or positioning them for the party's advantage, while doing damage. And a high-strength, high-constitution dwarven fighter wielding a Maul is tougher and focuses on damage, hammering enemies down one or two at a time, taking them out faster.
Different kinds of Fighter play differently. What's more, any of those Fighters plays differently from other melee classes--the Paladin, a fellow Defender, or the Ranger, a mobile Striker. The skirmishing spear Fighter and the skirmishing Ranger play differently, and this is despite using the same basic powers system. I don't care how you feel about 4E, it's not my Favorite Game Ever, but how can what I'm talking about--when SEPARATED from the system--be a bad thing?
By contrast, the Pathfinder Fighter gets... attack and damage bonuses. Whoop-de-do. My spear-and-shield Fighter will walk up to the enemy and try to full attack him to death, while hoping he doesn't encounter a Will save effect. My sword-and-board Fighter will do the same. My greataxe-wielding Fighter will do, yep, the same.
And what is the Barbarian going to be doing? Well, he's got this nifty and completely unnecessary thing where he has to track rage point expenditure now (because what D&D needed was more classes with an Awesome Until You Run Out Of X mechanic, amirite?), but fundamentally, the Barbarian will be doing the same thing as my Fighter: that is, walking up and trying to full-attack the guy to death.
Do you really not see why people might consider this dull? Why it could be considered a problem with the system? The biggest difference is the character creation process. After that, you don't have much in the way of choices or tactics or playstyles--you're just charging or full attacking. The reason Tome of Battle was so popular in 3.5 is because for a lot of people (most people?), this just isn't fun.
Until Pathfinder creates real differences in how the Fighter and Barbarian play--which I suppose the "rage points" mechanic is trying to do, but not really doing a good job of; the barbarian will just be spending either one point or several points for a couple of abilities every round--they'll play in the same, dull way. And what's the pointof having two different systems with the same end result?
"I have long found this depends a great deal more on the GM than the system."
This is fundamentally wrong. For comparison, run a combat in D&D 3.5, then run one in a rules-light system like FATE! Or, hell, look at World of Darkness. It's not like WoD is that much rules-lighter than 3.5, but each player's combat turn still takes a lot less time. Anybody who knows a damn thing about game design will tell you that system matters.
For chrissakes, even EXALTED combat isn't as slow as 3.5 most of the time!
Yes, a good GM and good, on-the-ball players can do things that will help speed it up, to a limited extent, but they are doing work the system should be doing.
3.5 combat--and, by extension, Pathfinder combat--has a ton of things slowing it down.
-Multiple attack rolls and damage rolls. A full attack means rolling the dice for, eventually, four attacks. More if you're TWFing. And the damage. Ooh, did you forget a +1? Hope not.
--Now let's add in concealment/miss chance. That's another roll on each attack. Which there might be eight of.
---Oh, god, he's got Improved Trip. He's tripping on each attack. That's an attack roll, an extra concealment roll, an opposed strength check (so two guys have to roll), and then possibly the free attack.
----Now give this guy Combat Reflexes and Enlarge him. He's not just slowing his turn to a crawl, he's slowing down everyone else's, too!
-Effect tracking. Is that dragonfire adept's two-round Slow over yet? Is the Haste spell down yet? Has the breath weapon recharged? Wait, you're still Entangled. But I made my save! Yeah, but you're still entangled as long as you're in the spell's area.
-Character decision-making and resource tracking. The spellcasters almost always tend to take the longest, because they have to pick a spell. The Psion has to mark down how many power points he's using. Now, some subsystems are fast and easy, like Tome of Battle (which also helps by often replacing full attacks with single maneuvers), but most of the time, these add "maintenance" time. Every single time that player's turn comes around. If every character has its own subsystem,
-Speaking of subsystems: stuff you have to look up! I haven't looked over the Grapple rules yet, but I hear that Pathfinder simplified them a lot, which is great--almost every single time grapples were intitiated in most of my games, we had to flip to the Grapple rules. Often, there was arguing, or trying to figure out what they actually said (wait, monsters do UNARMED STRIKE damage, not NATURAL WEAPON damage? The monster biting you is doing unarmed strike not bite damage?). If each class has its own subsystem, you're likely to be looking more stuff up. This is bad. Already, groups have to look up whatever spell the wizard or cleric is casting, part of the time ("Foundation of Stone stops working if you move, guys!" "What? Well, crap"); exacerbating this issue can't possibly help gameplay.
-Movement. The whole "two squares for every other diagonal" thing means that, at least at my tables, people have consistently had to recount their movement, often twice. Not everybody every round, but at least one person a round, I'd say.
-I mentioned modifier tracking briefly, but it really deserves its own point, especially since new modifiers pop up from round to round but the old ones don't disappear.
-You get a real dilemma about describing the action. On the one hand, it slows down the game even more. On the other hand, without it, it's just "does a 21 hit? 13 damage."
(-I'm excluding immediate-action abilities here. While they do indeed add things to do, this is more than balanced out by the fact that having and using them makes things tactically interesting and keeps players attentive.)
I've played a lot of 3.5. I've played it with many different groups. Combat is slow, and with no particular gameplay benefit *from* that slowness. It's not just how long each fight takes (although that's an issue), it's wait time between each player's turns. This is the sort of thing that gets players distracted and has them making Monty Python jokes or talking about WoW or Guitar Hero rather than playing.