I refuse to read any more of Joel A.'s posts: he's gone through so many avatar editions in a short period of time that he is no longer the poster he once was. Someone please let me know if the retro-clone Joel A. of my choice becomes available.
Thanks,
M.
|
OMFG OP I f*#%ING LOVE YOU!!!! YOU ARE BEST TROLL EVAAAAAARRRRR!!!!!
We could learn some things from this wondrous man. The prose, the style, the exquisite verbage...I think my pants are sticky now, for some reason.
Share your secrets with me, o' great OP! I will be your greatest pupil!
I think the game the OP is really looking for is FATE.
Creative Director
|
Okay, folks... let's tone it down. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the thread, please don't post. I'm not interested in theories about the OP's reasons for posting; if he's legitimately interested in hearing about Pathifnder, let's keep the thread to that. If you think he's trolling, be a grown-up about it and ignore it. Go post to other threads.
Otherwise I'll just lock this one down and be disappointed that some folks who have long lists of subscriber tags on their names made me sad.
|
If I am playing game where the PCs are inquisitives in the city of sharn, the skill, magic and chase system of Pathfinder [...] between nation building, mass combat and ageing, pathfinder covers these elements...
Just curious, in which PF book is there a chase system, its not in the core book is it? Ditto for Mass combat (is it in the Kingmaker AP?)
Cheers!
|
If I am playing game where the PCs are inquisitives in the city of sharn, the skill, magic and chase system of Pathfinder [...] between nation building, mass combat and ageing, pathfinder covers these elements...Just curious, in which PF book is there a chase system, its not in the core book is it? Ditto for Mass combat (is it in the Kingmaker AP?)
Cheers!
GMG has the chase rules, which debuted in 1st adventure of CotCT.
|
Instead there is a well hidden thing on the p. 42 of the DMG letting you make custom maneuvers and stunts.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
That's a useful link.
Could either of you confirm how these base values (in either edition) compare to the typical results of feats/class abilities/powers?
The reason I ask, is that I have always allowed 'stunts' in my games (Basic to 3.5), but find that either;
1) some players are reluctant to try anything different, for fear it may not be as good as their meat and potatoes abilities, or
2) some players go absolutely mad, and are constantly angling for some outrageous bonus, in exchange for some mildly difficult skill DC (or even no DC at all, just a cooler description).
It's a fine line, because if you make them not good enough, what's the point? Just do basic action. If you make them too good, why NOT do it all the time? They cease to be special.
An example of 1) was in early AoW; the PCs in a fighting pit, with a statue in the middle. I thought I'd made it perfectly clear that the statue had a large crack running across the ankles, and was taller than the pit was wide; to me, and half my players, that was a glowing neon flag. I fully expected the PCs to be up and out and away from the large monster in 6 rounds or so, but the PC next to it didn't go for it at all. I had to drop bigger and bigger hints, until they went for it, while I wondered how I was going to avoid a TPK.
An example of 2) would be Brad Pitt as Achilles in Troy. I only saw the trailer, but that's a PC whose player got told by his GM that 'Yes, do a DC 10 Jump check, and you can have +100d6 damage', so does it over and over and over, and over.....
In conclusion, most of my group seems to be for this, but I'm kind of against it. Can you guys help me out and tell me what the big deal about Pathfinder is because I don't get it. I'll acknowledge it has some good points...the minion rules are amazing and some of the prestige classes are cool, but why not just make them base classes as to add more options to players.
First off all games have good points and bad points. Its a balancing act because no game can be everything to everyone. There are always trade offs.
I've played both games and the major difference between them lies in one area. Game vs story. Keep in mind neither lacks either of these, its a matter of emphasis. Pathfinder focuses on creating a cohesive set of rules for creating a world and telling a story in it. The rules are meant to make you feel like whatever it is you are doing. The monk is meant to feel like you are a monk. The paladin's rules/powers make you FEEL like a holy knight of righteous fury.
4E focuses on game first. The races, classes and all the options are extremely well balanced, and the game itself plays very smoothly. But a certain cohesiveness in world is lost as a result of that balance and ease of play. For instance, with the change to the way effects and saves work, it is literally impossible for a succubus to enthral anyone for any real length of time. From a balance perspective this is a positive change because gamechanging abilities like dominate person can really screw up an encounter, but at the same time, it doesnt feel as much like this is a 'real' world and not a game.
Ok so with that in mind lets looks at some of your specific concerns.
In fourth edition every class has its own set of unique powers, but the only classes with really cool powers in Pathfinder was the magical classes. Also, it looks like every build would be exactly the same in Pathfinder whereas in DnD 4e there are nearly unlimited options for character builds and the game doesn't stop at level 20 like Pathfinder does. For example, the rogue in DnD has so many options available to it and literally pages of powers to choose from, but with the Pathfinder rogue the options are much more limited, plus to be really powerful you have to pick up a prestige class, it's like...the base classes are not good enough on their own, you have to get this class to be really good. I mean, how do you define a character without these powers? With the exception of spellcasters, none of the other classes are really anything--they are just kinda there and adrift with no real purpose.
The differences between 'builds' are mores subtle in pathfinder that is for certain, but you can end up with very different characters. You have to remember that pathfinder is far more open in it's means of character creation then 4E. Where 4E is a set list of powers to create variation, or pathfinder it is more about how you choose those options avaiable and combine them together. Feats have much more impact on how a character operates then in 4E.
Lets look at the classic. The fighter. Looking at the chart it seems really bland right? A couple bonuses to a few weapon types and a host of bonus feats. Not as flashy as 5 pages of powers right? This is only kind of true. Where as the in 4E a character would take a power to allow him to say, attack an enemy and then move to block another from getting to his allies, a pathfinder fighter does this by combining features. Specifically taking several feats [most of a fighters abilities come from feats] So instead of taking a power that does it, he takes dodge, mobility and spring attack feats so he can do something very similar to what the 4E power does.
He might also want to attack and move an enemy back. That is a fairly common power in 4E right? Mix in feats like improved bull rush and thats exactly what you are doing. Like i said before things in pathfinder are less obvious, but a little more flexible then the 4E powers. Because of how easy it is to mix and match things where as 4E powers are all self contained. Its more work to put the abilities together for sure, but in the end you get [in my opinion] a little more bang for your buck.
Also, with DnD 4e we have minis to represent everything, but there are no concrete rules in Pathfinder that I could find for using the minis in the game, so on that front it feels like Pathfinder is only half complete, what is gaming without having to use the minis--I can't imagine doing combat without the map and minis. Also, I love the skill challenge mechanic, it makes using skills feel like you are acomplishing something, but with Pathfinder I really can't find the point of ever using skills.
This is kind of a mine field. You will find many people on these boards dont like using minis because it takes people focus and moves it to the board instead of in their heads. I disagree with that assesment and thankfully so does pathfinder. You will find a full ruleset on how to use miniatures in the combat section. In fact the default assumption in pathfinder is that you are using miniatures. They just still use feet as the default measurement instead of squares, but 5ft = 1 square is still the base assumption. Have another look at the combat section of the rules for movement, and attacks of opportunity and such and you will see minis is very much a part of pathfinder.
As for skill challenges, there is no direct mechanic for it in pathfinder, but I can tell you that the point of using skills is normally to progress the story, and generally (but not always) you get xp for this or some other reward. So you might not have a skill challenge to use diplomacy or intimidate on the nobleman, but you are still doing it to move the story forward and get those rewards.
That said, I use a modified versions of skill challenges in my pathfinder games, and there is no reason you or your dm cant as well. You just have to determine what level appropriate dcs are for your party. The point (for pathfinder) is just to make sure the focus is more on what you are doing with the skills (climbing a wall, talking your way into the ball, or sneaking past the guards)rather then the rolls and results themselves. [Part of that difference in focus I spoke about earlier]
Also, I usually play a tiefling or half dragon characters, but none of these are in Pathfinder...it just feels so limited, like the creators of the game are saying, you can only use the traditional fantasy races.
2 things. Remember that Pathfinder is relatively new. When 4E first came out you were just as limited in races (have a look at JUST the options in the PHBI to see what I mean). So there isnt as much built up for playing certain kinds of options, and it looks like more will eventually be on the way (there is a strong request for monsters as PC options, and if paizo doesnt do it, a 3rd party publisher will soon enough). That said, there are options for playing these alternate races already. There are rules in the bestiary for playing a half dragon or tiefling. There are trade offs, but you can definately do it. So if you want to, talk to your dm and have a look at the rules in the bestiary (and ofcourse come back here with any questions)
Plus, the game doesn't spell out the roles for each character. DnD tells me simply that the fighter's whole point is to soak up damage and keep the monsters from hitting the damage dealers, like the rogue and the wizards. With Pathfinder it looks like the Clerics, who are supposed to be healers, could run up and get into melee and slug it out with the bad guys. My point here is the characters lack any real definition as to their roles.
This is deliberate. The roles are less clearly defined in pathfinder no question. But they are still there. In pathfinder it's about flexibility not clear definition. A cleric can be a great healer or a combat monster. But he cannot excel at both at the same time. So the cleric has to choose, focus in one or the other and be really good at it, or spit his focus and reduce his effectiveness. In pathfinder it isnt the class, but the party that defines roles. Most classes can fill more then one role, which means you can have say an all cleric party, you dont HAVE to have any particular class or combination of options. So classes wont have defined roles, but after you've built them, CHARACTERS will. Joe the cleric COULD be a combat guy or a healer, untill he has picked his feats, domains, and spells. Then most of the time he is one or the other (or more of one then the other).
In addition, why are there multi-classing rules. Doesn't that further dilute the characters down because if you're a fighter/wizard you're not really able to totally fulfill your role as a tank or a dps-er.
They are there so you can fufill more character concepts. Yes you dilute your powers, but here the point is you want to. You dont have to, but you can if thats the kind of character you want to play. It goes back to the cohesive world vs game focus. In a world where there are fighters and wizards, some people will do both. Just like in a world where there are track starts and mathmeticians, some people do both. But when you split your time between hitting the track and doing calculus you wont be as good at either as someone who focuses on one or the other.
In conclusion, most of my group seems to be for this, but I'm kind of against it. Can you guys help me out and tell me what the big deal about Pathfinder is because I don't get it. I'll acknowledge it has some good points...the minion rules are amazing and some of the prestige classes are cool, but why not just make them base classes as to add more options to players.
I actually agree with you about prestige classes, and you might want to have a look at the 3rd party products here on this site if you like more base classes instead of prestige classes and alternate class features. Super Genius Games for instance has a host of base classes that let you have a ton of new options without needing to wait for a prestige class.
I hope this is useful to you and I think it may be worth it to at least give it a session or two like others have said. I definately think no player has to be mutually exclusive to either 4E or pathfinder as long as you accept the differences and go forward from there. Good luck and happy gaming!
GMG has the chase rules, which debuted in 1st adventure of CotCT.Thanks! I might have to look into this to see if the GMG is worth looking at for a 3.5 game.
I recommend the GMG to anyone DMing any version of the game.
I came here with a questions. In pathfinder Im playing a combat cleric...I was really enthralled by the idea because normally I avoid clerics like the plague because some how my group always makes them out to be the generic band-aid station with a few offensive abilities but primarily their only purpose is to heal and buff. My question, good posters, is what is the most viable way to play an offensive sword-swinging cleric? I like the idea of going straight cleric and being the guy who swings a sword then calls the wrath of god down on my enemies, but looking at it, fighter is much better suited towards the combat aspect and pick up a few cross classes into cleric...or vice versa depending on how you want to look at it.Yeah, I actually hate the dragonborn...I've hated them ever since they were in dragonlance...I never played DnD or anything before 4e, but I was a big fan of the forgotten realms fiction so I gave DragonLance a try...and while there were some really interesting elements, I loved the high magic setting with almost no real healing abilities at first, I really hated most of the enemies becuase it seemed to be ZOMG look at the half-dragons. Tieflings on the other hand are fun so eh.
Anyway, if someone could give me some tips for playing a more melee combat oriented character that would be awsome.
Oh, Aardvark Barbarian, +1 for the link.
I haven't read the whole thread (trying to avoid the edition wars) so I apologize in advance if I repeat anything.
As for Melee-Oriented Cleric: First, clerics are pretty well-disposed to that on their own as they have decent (though not max) base attack and medium armor and shield proficiency. Some of their spells are great for buffing and then going into melee (at earlier levels, divine favor, at higher levels, divine power and righteous might, plus general all purpose spells like bull's strength, etc.). You might look at domains if you haven't to see if there are domains that fit the flavor you like. For example, if you see him as battlefield mobile, the travel domain is great for the speed boost. Etc.
I would otherwise just build your feats to reflect the fighting style you want your character to have. If he's very strong, go for Power Attack and Cleave. Since he's a cleric, add Channel Smite so you can do your channel energy damage on an attack (combine that with alignment channel to make it more versatile). There's a lot of ways you can go, really, and that's the blessing and curse of Pathfinder that you can carve your own path more easily, but it can be easy to be distracted and make your character too spread out (or far too specialized), and each character class gets built in a slightly different way.
If you are thinking about taking fighter levels--many people here will tell you not to, because it lowers your cleric caster level. Having played a very effective Fighter-Cleric (she's Fighter 4 Cleric 11 I think), it DOES work IF you are focusing your spellcasting on healing and buffing yourself and your party. The lower caster level can lower duration and you'll have fewer spells to cast, but it should still be more than adequate to support yourself and your allies as much as you need if you're otherwise wading heavily into combat. The concern I personally had in practical experience is casting spells that affect monsters with spell resistance (which can be mitigated somewhat by the Spell Penetration feats). But if that's not your character's focus, it's not a problem.
An aside about tieflings: I'm sure you know this but just for kicks--Pathfinder (and its D&D predecessors) has a "tiefling" race in the Bestiary but it is not the "ancestors who made infernal pact" race of 4E. Rather they are just humans with distant demonic ancestry.
To do the "infernal pact thing" in terms of FLAVOR, I would probably just play a human or tiefling race sorcerer with the Infernal Bloodline. I realize that mixes up race with class, but as far as exploring that theme of ancestry, that's the direction I'd personally take.