I noticed something that should have been done differently in Pathfinder.
Conditional bonuses
Shouldn't conditional bonuses be as few as possible? Those kind of rules adds to the complexity of the game which, in my humble opinion, should be avoided.
For example, compare the rules for the BAT familiar:
Bat: Master gains a +3 bonus on Listen checks
Bat: Master gains a +3 bonus on hearing-based and opposed Perception checks
As you can see, Pathfinder added complexity by making the bonus conditional.
WHY? Is this really necessary? Why not just give a +3 to perception, and that's it !??!
As a designer of an automated Character Sheet for the last 6 years, let me tell you that it is much simpler to implement a direct bonus, then a conditional bonus: A direct bonus can simply be added (as per the stacking rules) while a Conditional Bonus must be 'separated' out for the user to decide WHEN this bonus can be applied to his character (meaning an automated Character Sheet HAS to display this in a phrase - mind you, TOS+ does this quite well, but that's not the point)
It is very easy for a person to overlook such conditional bonuses, specially when many of them are present on the character (which can happen pretty quickly when many effects are applied to the Character)
M. Bulmahn, I would suggest you review conditional bonuses and reduce them as much as possible. This would help to make Pathfinder even more elegant as a rule set!
Richard "RiTz21" Taillon
Creator of The Only Sheet Plus for D&D3.5 (and soon to support Pathfinder!)
|
I think the problem then is that he has three animals that give a +3 to perception which is why he made them conditional, personally I agree, and think he should look at each animal and see if they can give some other benefit, but I just wanted to point out why he might not want to have done it as a flat +3 bonus.
The Bat is only one example of what I am trying to convey... In Résumé, I am saying that conditional bonuses should be as few as possible (for reasons already stated initially).
There are more example where conditional bonuses have been added. The Listen & Spot skills have been simplified by the use of the Perception skill, YET conditional bonuses added to 'get back' specific uses of perception:
Keen Senses: Dwarves receive a +2 bonus on taste- and touch-based Perception skill checks.
Keen Senses: Elves receive a +2 bonus on sight- and sound-based Perception checks.
Keen Senses: Gnomes receive a +2 bonus on smell- and touch-based Perception checks.
Keen Senses: Half-elves receive a +2 bonus on sight- and sound-based Perception checks.
Keen Senses: Halflings receive a +2 racial bonus on sound-based Perception skill checks.
I have already posted about the use of an ability name that has 'different' definitions, so the point of the above example is the added complexity, which I do not believe is worth it.
Again, I re-iterate: my point is NOT how the Perception skill works, nor its use within a Race, but rather the USE of conditional bonuses within the Pathfinder rules, which serves to add unnecessary complexity to the Game. So please, you do not have to tell me what you think of the Perception skill!!! That's not the point, nor the proper sub-forum.
RiTz21
That's not the point, nor the proper sub-forum.
I agree -- this certainly doesn't belong in the Playtest Feedback forum in the first place!
I understand what the OP is saying. As a matter of fact, I quite agree with him.
But I wonder if PFRPG's design goal is elegance or simplicity? I understand that capturing these elements to some degree or another is an concern regardless, but it would seem that PFRPG's aim is to pursue players experienced in the ways of RPGS and perhaps looking for a more in-depth and varied system.
The argument goes that 4e is more focused on streamlining because it hopes to gather a new generation into gaming. The opposite would hold true for PFRPG, right? They would not want to overtly streamline a system because many of their players are 3.5 holdovers.
Just thinking out loud here, but does anyone else agree? Or for that matter am I making any sense? Or for that matter are any of us even here . . .
|
I understand what the OP is saying. As a matter of fact, I quite agree with him.
It makes good sense.
I can understand thematically what Paizo is attempting in the skills elegance ergo its complexity;
but it does seem a bit counter-productive to combine skills for simplicity sake, and then divide it back out with bonuse only affecting it circumstantially.
Either combine it for simplicity sake, or keep it seperate for the thematics. It certainly makes sense.
Regardless, the circumstantial bonuses are not a deal-breaker and I'll live with em, but I'm willing to susbend disbelief and allow the bat's bonus (and others) to affect the skill across the board if it reduces the level of complexity that comes with it as written.
Robert
I completely agree here; the skills seem to have been combined to streamline their use and that's being undermined by circumstantial bonuses.
These circumstantial bonuses also ad to the complexity of higher level play. These little things keep creeping in and adding yet more little nuances and circumstantial things that need to be remembered to even use and then kept track of during play when used.
I don't know how many times players, or myself as a DM, have forgotten some circumstantial trigger or bonus. Sometimes I outright ignore them just to keep combat rolling along smoothly and not get bogged down.