I have noticed a heavy tendancy towards "static combat" in 3.5 and Pathfinder, though as Kyrt points out, they do seem to be tryign to rectify that. I would love to see more dynamic battles. :)Really if you think about it all it does is allow you to move and attack. What is so broken about moving??? you still provoke AOO's for illegal moves and such, its like having a double standard, the game mechanics literally encourage you to find a spot and stand still, which is very unrealistic.
Has paizo taken a stance on this?
Spellcaster or martial adept. Everyone else might as well be rooted in place. I stopped making interesting maps entirely, because it didn't matter if you got some small to hit bonus by standing here. You couldn't full attack if you moved to here, so it wasn't worth it. A short while after the second attack thing, everyone was flying. Which means every fight is a flat featureless plain, regardless of what it was originally.
Rock em sock em...
Being able to move and still full attack would also directly address the problems with martial characters.
That is an interesting point to bring about,
I hate the fact that flying is common yet air combat is SO difficult to make interesting.
Also a place where movement could come into play nicely, just a thought.
I know a three dimensional grid would be a nightmare paizo guys just expressing my views.
Actually, here's a concern I've had: What can be done about excessive magic AC stacking?
One of my friends plays a multiclass character, and she can use mage armor, shield, barkskin, haste, protection from evil, cat's grace, shield of faith, and...well, you get the idea. With a couple minutes of prep time, she's untouchable to anything but a natural 20.
Is this just an inherent 3.5/Pathfinder mechanical problem?
Have an intelligent enemy delay combat for 20 minutes, then attack with greater dispel magic in round 1, and use a cohort with a high attack roll.
That's not being cheesy. High level enemies use high level tactics.
Tier 1 Standard Fantasy (realistic, down to earth): levels 1-4
Tier 2 Heroic Fantasy (Expands to the next level, think Aragorn and the abilities Gandolf displayed): levels 5-8
Tier 3 High Fantasy (Wuxia/Mythology, like Beowulf or Odyseus): Levels 9-12
Tier 4 Epic Fantasy: levels 13-16
Tier 5 Divine (semi-divine if you prefer): Levels 17-20It actually fits the corresponding spell levels perfectly.
Spell levels 1 and 2
Spell levels 3 and 4
Spell levels 5 and 6
Spell levels 7 and 8
Spell level 9If we're going to promote/push the "tier" system, which I also fully endorse, I'd want to second the breakdown presented by kyrt-ryder. I like the tier idea and strongly like the idea of tying some things more closely to the tier being played with.
However, isn't this entire conversation unfortunately somewhat pointless? Paizo has made clear they have no interest or intention of releasing anything remotely like a "2nd edition" for like at least 10 years. The kinds of changes many of us discuss or mention in this thread can not really be addressed with "patches" on top of the 3.x engine. They really sort of need an entirely freshly built engine or else the patches will fall off after a short time.
Unless of course the idea is that we all sort of just rattle off what we don't like in the hopes that 10 years from now 1) this board will still exist and 2) Paizo will have some level of interest and capacity to do some sort of data mining out of it. OR, is the theory that Paizo might release a PrC here and a feat there and a maneuver here and a splat book there that patches these concerns? Just wondering what is the practical goal of this? I suppose the more likely idea is that this is just more a therapeutic place for some of us to vent about our disappointments with PF, which I get and appreciate, but I don't know what the real chances are that there is likely to be any real addressing of those concerns.
Lastly, I'll reiterate that while I am dissatisfied with many of the...
It wouldnt be too hard to make a book that says "Tier System" "Skills Revised" that could do all of that.
However unlikely that is, if it appears that people want a Tier system that functions properly with mundane abilities at all those tiers that include the use of skills to do cool things then it is probably our duty to point it out.
Whether or not Paizo will do anything about it isnt important, Im sure they are thinking "Maybe the next version we could try this" after all it takes time to playtest and that is something Paizo is awesome at.
Letting them know about something people like or want to see now that could enhance gameplay and roleplaying capability is definitely something we should do, however outlandish it can become. They might take small bits and work with it, or they might say "psh", who knows.
mass combat/ trials/ performances /chase scenes etc need a more articulated, explicit system that works for all of them.
YES YES DEAR GOD YES PLEASE!
I had seen the mass combat book you guys made... just not sure if I want to spend 10 or so bucks to have a war... haha
peace and love i suppose.
very much on the chase system, how many times I have wanted to run a race, hunt, or city street theif catching.
"Dear Santa,
For Christmas I would like..."
No Paizo Tier System will be complete without Tier Fishy.
Tier Fishy?
call me an idiot but I dont know the reference :S
It doesn't really fall into the category of things I hate about Pathfinder, but one thing I'd like to see is epic spells.
By this, I -don't- mean spells above 20th level.I mean spells like the kinds you read about in fantasy stories where hundreds of people are gyrating in drug-enduced ecstasy in front of a giant pyramid where a sorcerer is getting ready to commit human sacrifice to
either
a.) Cause a nation-wide eclipse of the sun which will cause undead to come out all over the place
b.) keep the celestial dragon from swallowing the sun.
c.) summon up the Tarasque
d.) something else suitably sword and sorcery-esque
I always thought stuff like that was much cooler as Incantations from Unearthed Arcana than from the Epic Level Rules. Especially since then you can throw limitations like "when the stars are right" onto them.
However, isn't this entire conversation unfortunately somewhat pointless? Paizo has made clear they have no interest or intention of releasing anything remotely like a "2nd edition" for like at least 10 years. The kinds of changes many of us discuss or mention in this thread can not really be addressed with "patches" on top of the 3.x engine. They really sort of need an entirely freshly built engine or else the patches will fall off after a short time.Two words my friend.
Unearthed Arcana (or some equivalent book)
When Paizo finishes their run of 'complete equivalents' (Books that focus on a specific facet of the game, such as Magic or Combat or Skill Monkeys, etc etc) I suspect and hope they will produce an Unearthed Arcana type book, with plenty of variant rules, guidelines to different types of campaigns, yet more class archtypes, etc. This would also be an excellent place to put the promised 'codified monsters as players rules' that have been promised sometime in the vague future.
I would even go further as to say when Paizo has fleshed out all character concepts with the "complete" books or the equivalent, they will move into the direction of including a majority of game concepts.
Pathfinder is an ever changing game, probably why it kicks ass. It stays the same enough to be recognizeable but has so much variety you could take it anywhere.
Eventually it will make all other RPGS obsolete... just kidding... sortof...
PS
Designers we are not trying to overwhelm you! just throwing out what we like and things wed like to see. Hope you arent ripping your hair out saying "They want that!!! What are they crazy?? that would take years!!!"
I always thought stuff like that was much cooler as Incantations from Unearthed Arcana than from the Epic Level Rules. Especially since then you can throw limitations like "when the stars are right" onto them.It doesn't really fall into the category of things I hate about Pathfinder, but one thing I'd like to see is epic spells.
By this, I -don't- mean spells above 20th level.I mean spells like the kinds you read about in fantasy stories where hundreds of people are gyrating in drug-enduced ecstasy in front of a giant pyramid where a sorcerer is getting ready to commit human sacrifice to
either
a.) Cause a nation-wide eclipse of the sun which will cause undead to come out all over the place
b.) keep the celestial dragon from swallowing the sun.
c.) summon up the Tarasque
d.) something else suitably sword and sorcery-esque
Most of those things require time... now we are talking the ritual magic varient.
it has been done before... but its just way to damn cool... AP playtest of it might be liked, even if it was just the start of the story line
"You all stop. The sound of a very loud TIK TOK TIK TOK fills your ears" -- DM
as the clock for the unravelling of time moves backwards in the mechanus plane due to several Withces implimenting the "Ritual of Chaos"
Basically my point is your not wrong, but doing math isnt necessarily a bad thing, and it doesnt prevent roleplaying, atleast in my POI shall tighten my POV succinctly then... Math is good for the game, but there is currently way too much sugar in the ingredients ;)
As an example, I've come to the conclusion that PF's concept of power attack is better than 3.5's concept of power attack in that it involves less math to use. Sure there is more versatility in the 3.5 version, but it isn't versatility that enhances the role-playing experience of a gaming session. In practice, when you're manipulating the benefit 3.5 PA, your just doing math.
Ah so you want to modify grandmas recipe!
I follow.
What would you propose to trim? they already made BAB off HD and Skill Ranks off level.
Seems to me other than abilities they are trimming where they can, although I have to admit the whol abiltiy score system thing is weird...
Why not instead of oh say 18 strength you just give someone +4 strenth.... take all the plus twos and ones and make them ones and halves.
suggestions?
I don't think there are any good solutions that would not overhaul the system. The concept of boosting stats is so ingrained in the game, that changing it even in a small way throws so many other parts off.
I don't much care one way or the other. Frankly, I don't even know what Incantations from Unearthed Arcana are. I would not want them to be Epic Spells in the game sense of the word as it would keep a bunch of low level PCs from getting into the fun of stopping them.
Yes, this thing was a good idea... rituals are not 4E's invention, ya know :) (not that I'm telling that they were 3E's).
I don't think there are any good solutions that would not overhaul the system. The concept of boosting stats is so ingrained in the game, that changing it even in a small way throws so many other parts off.Basically my point is your not wrong, but doing math isnt necessarily a bad thing, and it doesnt prevent roleplaying, atleast in my POI shall tighten my POV succinctly then... Math is good for the game, but there is currently way too much sugar in the ingredients ;)
As an example, I've come to the conclusion that PF's concept of power attack is better than 3.5's concept of power attack in that it involves less math to use. Sure there is more versatility in the 3.5 version, but it isn't versatility that enhances the role-playing experience of a gaming session. In practice, when you're manipulating the benefit 3.5 PA, your just doing math.
Ah so you want to modify grandmas recipe!
I follow.
What would you propose to trim? they already made BAB off HD and Skill Ranks off level.
Seems to me other than abilities they are trimming where they can, although I have to admit the whol abiltiy score system thing is weird...
Why not instead of oh say 18 strength you just give someone +4 strenth.... take all the plus twos and ones and make them ones and halves.
suggestions?
fair enough.
just reduce the buff systems would be awesome actually...
I dont really care for magic items that only give bonuses to stats, giving you an ability to do something instead of general bonus is always awesome.
my personal opinion obviously
Ugh, now I can't get Ke$ha's crap lyrics out of my head
it has been done before... but its just way to damn cool... AP playtest of it might be liked, even if it was just the start of the story line"You all stop. The sound of a very loud TIK TOK fills your ears" -- DM
damn it.
didnt even think of that.
those witches really are a##+%#!s...
Tier 1 Standard Fantasy (realistic, down to earth): levels 1-4
Tier 2 Heroic Fantasy (Expands to the next level, think Aragorn and the abilities Gandolf displayed): levels 5-8
Tier 3 High Fantasy (Wuxia/Mythology, like Beowulf or Odyseus): Levels 9-12
Tier 4 Epic Fantasy: levels 13-16
Tier 5 Divine (semi-divine if you prefer): Levels 17-20It actually fits the corresponding spell levels perfectly.
Spell levels 1 and 2
Spell levels 3 and 4
Spell levels 5 and 6
Spell levels 7 and 8
Spell level 9If we're going to promote/push the "tier" system, which I also fully endorse, I'd want to second the breakdown presented by kyrt-ryder. I like the tier idea and strongly like the idea of tying some things more closely to the tier being played with.
I can't completely get behind this and here's the reason why. If the game gets categorized into tiers that also have expected play styles tied to them, it should be as equal as possible for as many styles as possible. The two most common play-styles I hear at least on these boards is high fantasy & low fantasy. With the breakdown above, low fantasy only gets 8 levels of play and high fantasy gets 12 (IMO anyway). I'd rather see each get a full 10 levels of play out of 20 possible levels. And for those who like a game that falls somewhere in between high and low... they get 10 levels too (6th-15th). Of course, those who like to run the whole range of play in a campaign get 20 levels... it pays to be open-minded :)
4E had a good breakdown IMO. 10 levels for for 3 different different categories. But 30 levels?! That was a real turn off for me. I was just finishing up a campaign that went from 1st and ended at 19th and it took 2 1/2 years for our group to reach that with dedicated play. Play speed is different for all groups, but 30 levels is just too much in a core ruleset.
Anyway, such fights go like this: Ancient Red Dragon casts Antimagic Field. He walks up to the Mystic Theurge who has somehow got his AC to, say, 45 and he tears him a new one.Ah, but antimagic field, which nulls all magic (including supernatural powers like breath weapons), leaves the dragon open to their fighter, who is a ridiculously powerful cuisinart machine if you take magic out of the picture. This guy can do nearly-fireball damage with every hit, and he can do it just with feats, stats and class abilities.
No breath + no magic defense = choppy-choppy. A group in Pathfinder that can solidly work together and are all veterans of gaming (and know how to tweak the game) can be an extremely daunting challenge for even an experienced DM.
Of course, the unbalancing of the game at higher levels has already been discussed by others.
This doesn't make any sense.
In an AMF, the dragon's AC doesn't go down, unless he's casting ac buffs (mage armor, cat's grace, shield).
The Fighter's AC probably goes down by 10+, his sword loses magic, his stat boosters loose magic...he's probably -8 to hit the Dragon, whose AC hasn't budged.
Why would the dragon be at a disadvantage? Heck, it's in the dragon's interests to 'defensive fight', take the -4 to hit, and give another -4 to the fighter, because the fighter's AC could be anywhere from -10 to -20 in the hole.
===Aelryinth
|
Yeah, someone has to explain to me how a 19th level fighter takes on an ancient red dragon in an antimagic field. I'm not seeing it. He has to beat a 38 AC and avoid a +35 claw/claw/bite with no magical boosts to his AC and attack. And if the dragons DR 15/magic is extraordinary, that's 15 points off the fighters damage rolls.
Not to mention the Vital Strike feat chain...
I quite like the introduction of the concept of Vital Strike in the rules. But it does have problems in its implementation. Namely that it takes 3 feats (already mentioned and discussed multiple times I know :).
What are the primary results of implementation when put into actual play?
1) pigeonholing. Three feats do essentially the same thing, just one more effectively than the other. Players who take the entire chain are less diverse overall.
2) resource heavy. In the best scenario, it takes up almost 15% of a 20th level fighter's most valuable commodity; feats.
I think in hindsight, eventually this feat will be viewed in a similar light to Dodge in 3.5 in that it becomes a commonly house-ruled feat and that house-rule happens to be the same for a majority of gaming groups that do so.
Actually you all are missing the big picture!
Dragons are magical beings, so in the field he doesnt exist.
FTW!
Only applies to Outsiders and Incorporeal Undead lolActually you all are missing the big picture!
Dragons are magical beings, so in the field he doesnt exist.
FTW!
hmmm are you implying souls are magical?
in that case if you die in an antimagic field... you are soul-less!
Not at all lol. However the rules say that Outsiders and Incorporeal Undead 'wink out' if they are in the space of an anti-magic field. Don't ask me to explain the philosophy behing it xDOnly applies to Outsiders and Incorporeal Undead lolActually you all are missing the big picture!
Dragons are magical beings, so in the field he doesnt exist.
FTW!
hmmm are you implying souls are magical?
in that case if you die in an antimagic field... you are soul-less!
Fun fact, I didnt know that. I dont think anyone on this whole website should debate why that is... will lead to religious arguements... and thats a can of ravaging death worms that I will NOT open. haha.
Ryder have you thought of any interesting ways to get a decent flying combat system?
I just cant get anything exciting happening in the air so I usually have the PCs encounter stuff in closed rooms and caves and open ground.
I think an aerial battle with a dragon or a flock of rocs would be AWESOME...
Ryder have you thought of any interesting ways to get a decent flying combat system?
I just cant get anything exciting happening in the air so I usually have the PCs encounter stuff in closed rooms and caves and open ground.
I think an aerial battle with a dragon or a flock of rocs would be AWESOME...
Multipliers, and healthy bonuses.
Make it more than worth their time to make wide sweeping charges and dive bombs, or simply maintaining the high ground.
Examples: +3 to attack for being higher, -3 to attack if you're lower.
Dive Bombs do X multiple of damage (x2, x3, whatever you feel appropriate)
Strafing rules (allowing a dragon to use it's breath weapon over the course of a move action, etc)
There's a lot of things you can do to motivate players to jockey for position in the skies if you're not afraid to shake the system up a bunch.
nice, i like alot of that.
still doesnt solve the problem of being a 2d grid haha... youd think they would make a 3d one for roleplaying by now, for christ sakes its 2010, shouldnt we have flying cars? I digress.
Reminds me of that chess game with the big 3D thing on a certain magazine a long time ago.. nineteen eighties I think?
..sweetness..
amen sir, I agree whole heartedly. Mind visuals are far better, thanks for the healthy reminder :)
Some people would want a grid though....
Hey Paizo... you want a fast seller make the first 3D grid and watch it 'fly' off the shelves...
budumch
Yeah, people think AMF is a great argument, ignoring that the only way characters can target it is personal.
Technically, the PF Arcane Archer can get around that, but I still generally agree with what you said.
..sweetness..amen sir, I agree whole heartedly. Mind visuals are far better, thanks for the healthy reminder :)
Some people would want a grid though....
Hey Paizo... you want a fast seller make the first 3D grid and watch it 'fly' off the shelves...
budumch
Honestly? I vastly prefer playing without a grid. It has a tendency to distract players from the game at large and make combat feel like a board-game. It doesn't have to, and experienced players can ignore that tendency, but I've seen it happen many times.
HOWEVER, if you absolutely, positively insist on using a grid, the best advice I could give you, is to make cardboard/folding paper minatures for this purpose, buy a giant box of K'Nex and dedicate a good three hours or so building your aerial grid in three dimensions.
I agree, I might look into that building.
i personally could do without... just some players of mine think its 'impossible' so you can see my position.
here is a topic I was boggling around:
What about the concept of creating more party togetherness?
Yes pathfinder guys I saw the cooperative feats, very nice. They are a little taxing in the aspect that more than one person has to take them though.
The cavalier kind of adds some flavor in that area but I feel the same about that as I do for the rogue being the only one with trapfinding (*Rangers arent the only ones that can track now so how is that fair to let rogues get it only instead of the class levels thing?)
In the DMG2 for 3.5 there was a concept called Teamwork abilities or something, i fairly liked it and a few to my group for free after they accomplished said task required.
thumbs up to the ranger bonding to his companions instead of animal companion.
Then again I could be wrong, party cohesion is kind of already there. Thoughts?
*for another day
I agree, I might look into that building.i personally could do without... just some players of mine think its 'impossible' so you can see my position.
/threadjack on
Midnight might I suggest a session or two of Blood of Heroes, Rifts or similar where weapons/powers have ranges in the mile range. blood of heroes ranges can get much farther much faster than even the mile threshold so as to break them from the mini/grid mindset?
/threadjack off
No Paizo Tier System will be complete without Tier Fishy.Tier Fishy is the only Tier that makes any sense to me.
DAMN! EXPLAIN YOURSELVES I AM STILL CLUELESS!
here is a topic I was boggling around:
What about the concept of creating more party togetherness?
Yes pathfinder guys I saw the cooperative feats, very nice. They are a little taxing in the aspect that more than one person has to take them though.
The cavalier kind of adds some flavor in that area but I feel the same about that as I do for the rogue being the only one with trapfinding (*Rangers arent the only ones that can track now so how is that fair to let rogues get it only instead of the class levels thing?)
In the DMG2 for 3.5 there was a concept called Teamwork abilities or something, i fairly liked it and a few to my group for free after they accomplished said task required.
thumbs up to the ranger bonding to his companions instead of animal companion.
Then again I could be wrong, party cohesion is kind of already there. Thoughts?
*for another day
I'm not sure how many of those teamwork feats are worth buying even if only one character needed to take them (I'm hesitant to expect feats are going to be effective, 3.5 got me gun-shy, and PF still has plenty of feats I would never take) however, changing them to only require one person to take them and working with any allies said person is working with could be a notable improvement step.
Another thing that could help with this sort of thing, would be allowing characters to 'aid another' in combat as an immediate action. It's still a limited per turn resource, but it allows parties to cooperate on some big moves, like when the barbarian suddenly gets the brilliant idea to bullrush the non-flying baddy into the lava pit, and the rogue and cleric want to help. I'd say as long as all parties are wtihin reach of either the one doing the action, or the target of the action they can do so. I'd even allow them to take a 5' adjustment to get into position to help.
+1
Oh i like the immediate action idea, makes the actions more valuable.. but I am sucker for those actions anyways.
The heroic dive infront of the arrow, the pull them back to miss the sword swing, the catch them as they fall... all seem pretty immediate to the action being performed to me.
