RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Furthermore, I doubt a typical fighter, barbarian, or brute monster with Power Attack is really thinking about 5% increments in how wild his swing is to add an equal increment to how hard he's hitting, and trying to optimize one over the other.
While I agree with your overall point about what metagaming is, Sean, I would disagree here. the professional fighter or barbarian makes that kind of decision even under the Pathfinder rules, when she decides whether to use Power Attack or not. ("I'm finding it easy to score hits on this creature. I will concentrate less on making sure I land blows, and more on hitting it harder!")
In the same way you compensate for bad throws when you juggle, a professional fighter will adjust the conservative vs. reckless nature of her blows against different opponents.
3.5's version of Power Attack doesn't have to be metagaming, any more than the Pathfinder Words of Power. In either case, the character might make the decision to use a technique with in-game results, while the player would be running the numbers behind the scenes.
While I agree with your overall point about what metagaming is, Sean, I would disagree here. the professional fighter or barbarian makes that kind of decision even under the Pathfinder rules, when she decides whether to use Power Attack or not. ("I'm finding it easy to score hits on this creature. I will concentrate less on making sure I land blows, and more on hitting it harder!")
In the same way you compensate for bad throws when you juggle, a professional fighter will adjust the conservative vs. reckless nature of her blows against different opponents.
3.5's version of Power Attack doesn't have to be metagaming, any more than the Pathfinder Words of Power. In either case, the character might make the decision to use a technique with in-game results, while the player would be running the numbers behind the scenes.
I agree. And I want to point out that I like far more PF Power Attack.
[In the same way you compensate for bad throws when you juggle, a professional fighter will adjust the conservative vs. reckless nature of her blows against different opponents.
Agreed. The sole advantage of the new power attack is in speeding game play, not in "avoiding metagaming" or whatever.
One is not metagaming, the other is.
And this is why I hate the Amulet of Natural Armor.
The sole advantage of the new power attack is in speeding game play
Not exact, IMHO. There is an actual numeriacl gain, barring touch attack or shocktrooper or similar things.
While I agree with your overall point about what metagaming is, Sean, I would disagree here. the professional fighter or barbarian makes that kind of decision even under the Pathfinder rules, when she decides whether to use Power Attack or not. ("I'm finding it easy to score hits on this creature. I will concentrate less on making sure I land blows, and more on hitting it harder!")
But that is not the same as "oh, I'm hitting really easily, I'll focus even less on making sure I land blows, and more on hitting it harder... wow, still hitting it easily, I'll focus even less on hitting and more on force... wow, STILL hitting this guy easily...."
Or even worse: "Ok, last time I fought one of these orcs I was able to concentrate X amount less on making sure I land blows and devoted that attention to hitting it harder, but I've gotten better as a fighter since then, so I'll make it X+1...."
I'm not disputing that a pro fighter or barbarian (or dumb monster with PA) does this trade-off of accuracy for power. I am disputing that they're doing a mathematical evaluation (or its instinctive equivalent) to determine exactly the best loss of accuracy to increase their damage output... which is what the 3.0 PA player was doing.
Which, to be honest, is about as cheesy as a caster knowing exactly where to drop a fireball so it catches only enemies and doesn't hurt the 4 allies standing just 5' outside its burst in several directions.
But that is not the same as "oh, I'm hitting really easily, I'll focus even less on making sure I land blows, and more on hitting it harder... wow, still hitting it easily, I'll focus even less on hitting and more on force... wow, STILL hitting this guy easily...."
A good tennis player does all that, and more, automatically, when returning serves. How hard to hit back, at what angle, with what degree of spin... it's all being adjusted minutely every single time he hits the ball. I don't see that it's less "realistic" for a highly-trained fighter to be doing much the same thing.
I don't think you understand what "metagaming" means.
Believe it or not, I do.
As for 3.X power attack, my old group and I played as "called shots."
Harder to hit areas were more vulnerable to damage.
"I am aiming for his groin, I'll reduce my attack by 4 and if I hit I'll add 4 damage."
"That was too simple, so I'll go for his temple. I'll reduce my attack by 8 and if I hit I'll add 8 damage."
As opposed to:
"We're going to face Thoquas? I'll prep cold spells then."
"Why would you do that?"
"Thoquas are fire creatures, and should be vulnerable to cold."
"When did your character ever hear about Thoquas?"
They are both equally metagaming, or not.
It all depends on how the individual game is played.
But it seems like you feel your way is the best, and/or only way it should be played.
|
I don't think you understand what "metagaming" means.
There's a big difference between
"hold on, this creature is vulnerable to fire, let me use WOP to build a fire spell so we can beat it,"
and
"hold on, I need to optimize my attack roll bonus vs. the target's armor class so I can apply the largest number points of bonus hit point damage against this creature." Plus other stuff.
Wow. . . I gotta say SKR, as much as I respect you, that was both completely out of nowhere and kind of WTF!. Did you misread something maybe?
|
But that is not the same as "oh, I'm hitting really easily, I'll focus even less on making sure I land blows, and more on hitting it harder... wow, still hitting it easily, I'll focus even less on hitting and more on force... wow, STILL hitting this guy easily...."A good tennis player does all that, and more, automatically, when returning serves. How hard to hit back, at what angle, with what degree of spin... it's all being adjusted minutely every single time he hits the ball. I don't see that it's less "realistic" for a highly-trained fighter to be doing much the same thing.
That's kind of how I see it. Now, this is just my experience, but PA usually adjusted after the first round. Something like:
"Wow, my opponent isn't very good at defending himself (rolled low on the d20 and still hit), maybe I can get away with hitting him harder..." and so on. I look at the dice result as something the character would notice. Like the little "tells" an opponent may give to his vulnerabilities, and the experienced melee combatant could read those little tells as indicators as to where his efforts should go the next round.
Dynamic combat, not static.
"Metagaming" is using info there is no way your character would know and acting on it. Smart play is taking info your character does know through play and acting on it.
But that is not the same as "oh, I'm hitting really easily, I'll focus even less on making sure I land blows, and more on hitting it harder... wow, still hitting it easily, I'll focus even less on hitting and more on force... wow, STILL hitting this guy easily...."A good tennis player does all that, and more, automatically, when returning serves. How hard to hit back, at what angle, with what degree of spin... it's all being adjusted minutely every single time he hits the ball. I don't see that it's less "realistic" for a highly-trained fighter to be doing much the same thing.
You have a point.
But I think we can agree that one player taking an extra minute every time his turn comes up to figure out the optimal value to Power Attack is a bad thing?As for 3.X power attack, my old group and I played as "called shots."
Except you're adding flavor to a rule mechanic that isn't there, and using it to justify your position. In fact, your flavor is exactly the opposite of what the feat is about: "You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength." Your called shot explanation isn't sacrificing accuracy for strength. And it's not really incorporating why you need Str 13+ in order to make called shots. And what you're describing isn't metagaming. Metagaming is a character using player knowledge in ways that your character wouldn't be aware of.
Your characters don't know the target's AC, they don't know their exact attack bonus, or their average damage. Let's look at Welby's example formula:
P = X/2 - D/4
X = 20 plus your attack bonus (or lowest attack bonus in a full attack) minus the AC of your opponent.
D = your average damage prior to power attacking.
P = the number of points you should power attack. If you get a decimal when you solve for P, round up.
While a character has a general idea of his accuracy (attack bonus), he doesn't know its specific value, thus he doesn't know part of what determines X.
A character certainly doesn't know the opponent's AC, though he can guess based on what armor the opponent is wearing. Note that the character doesn't know that he missed last round with a 24 and hit this round with a 25, so using that information to determine the opponent's AC is 25 is metagaming--player knowledge the character doesn't have access to. Thus, the character doesn't know the other part of determining X.The character doesn't know his average damage because he doesn't have a force-meter attached to his weapon. The player knows this or can calculate it, but the character doesn't know any more than "a typical longsword hit, plus I am one of the strongest people I know." Thus, he doesn't know D.
So to derive P, the player needs to treat two unknown-by-the-character variables as if the character actually knew those values so he can justify his character acting on the exact *numerical* amount he needs to Power Attack. Metagaming. And really damn slow in real life.
As opposed to:
"We're going to face Thoquas? I'll prep cold spells then."
"Why would you do that?"
"Thoquas are fire creatures, and should be vulnerable to cold."
"When did your character ever hear about Thoquas?"
My example was unclear. Add to the beginning of my example: "We're facing an ice monster..." (i.e., the characters are aware of what they are facing and can make a reasonable expectation of its strengths and vulnerabilities... no different than knowing that you can't use nonmagical weapons against an incorporeal foe or that you can't use melee attacks against a creature flying 100 feet above you). Perfectly justifiable to use fire attacks in that context, and not at all metagaming.
My example was unclear. Add to the beginning of my example: "We're facing an ice monster..." (i.e., the characters are aware of what they are facing and can make a reasonable expectation of its strengths and vulnerabilities... no different than knowing that you can't use nonmagical weapons against an incorporeal foe or that you can't use melee attacks against a creature flying 100 feet above you). Perfectly justifiable to use fire attacks in that context, and not at all metagaming.
That's why I love running for new players, they tend to think a lot more in character. Like believing that a dragon will breathe fire, despite that its scales are green - it means little to them past storybook tales. Or when they are genuinely surprised that not only did their fireball not melt the Ice Devil, but didn't even phase it.
I find that when I run for more experienced players (which is the greater majority of the time), despite my best efforts, I can't get them to turn off their metagame thinking. It is frustrating to have an Int 8 Fighter with no knowledge skills run his mouth about some random outsider's weakness. Even after reigning him in the damage was still done and the knowledge is still out there and it is only a matter of time before the players search for any in game excuse to come to that conclusion, no matter how obscure.
Of course most of my players don't care to write backgrounds and roleplay, they'd rather minmax out characters and fight monsters quick in the door style, with little regard to a coherent plot or developement. Several of them have been very vocal that they'd prefer combat focused episodic adventures to anything resembling a story.
This saddens me because I prefer to build more social and mystery adventures where combat takes a backseat in the game, but have had to adapt to the general playstyle of the group.
Back on topic though - I'm a fan of the change to Power Attack. It makes more sense, to me at least, that you are just throwing away accuracy to swing wildly as opposed to guagingEXACTLY how much you are ignoring your practical training in weaponry to hack at ________. The numbers feel to be nicely balanced, and giving a power attack bonus with a light weapon is very cool. I hear a lot of compaints about it, mostly from the 3.X Leap Attack crowd (including a few of my players), but for my style it is a much better, and quicker, version than 3.5's.
|
|
Which, to be honest, is about as cheesy as a caster knowing exactly where to drop a fireball so it catches only enemies and doesn't hurt the 4 allies standing just 5' outside its burst in several directions.
Ok, now, presumably, the arguably most intelligent person in the party isn't going to know exactly what his spells do?
Wow.
Plus, why is the wizard casting fireball? If you want to get "meta-game-y", he'd know that this isn't 1e. Evocation area of effects are pointless in 3x.
Which, to be honest, is about as cheesy as a caster knowing exactly where to drop a fireball so it catches only enemies and doesn't hurt the 4 allies standing just 5' outside its burst in several directions.Ok, now, presumably, the arguably most intelligent person in the party isn't going to know exactly what his spells do?
Wow.
Well, while Fireball does have a very specific area of effect for a caster to place it so that it barely misses several allies in several different portions of the battlefield while catching numerous enemies he'd have to pinpoint the exact location to center the spell while perfectly gauging the distance in feet between each object on the battlefield as well as casting the intricate spell, handling bat feces (terrible material component...), and possibly moving 30ish feet himself, all in under 6 seconds, while ignoring any distress or panic or distractions of the battle itself. While the battlemat (if one is used) is laid out in nice 5X5 squares thus giving a ball of fire an odd shape which is very friendly to missing allie, if it were represented as a sphere the edges of it defining what is a hit and a miss would be much less precise, making it even more difficult. Even with an exceedingly high intellect I find it hard to believe that a wizard's aim is that precise with what is essentially a bomb. I still let my players center their spells where they like, but I can see how where the line of thought comes from.
Ok, now, presumably, the arguably most intelligent person in the party isn't going to know exactly what his spells do?
There is a difference between "knowing exactly what his spells do" and "having a perfect 3D spatial sense and awareness of all allies and enemies in the area, positioning a burst effect so it lands exactly right, harming only my enemies and none of my allies, even though all of them are moving, and get this perfect positioning every single time I cast." Personally, I didn't realize "being incredibly intelligent" meant "exactly able to determine relative distances at close, medium, and long range." It's not like a video game where casting brings up a targeting reticle (or Steel Squire burst template) and the player has all the time in the world to position it just right.
Plus, why is the wizard casting fireball? If you want to get "meta-game-y", he'd know that this isn't 1e. Evocation area of effects are pointless in 3x.
I didn't say "fireball," I said "a fire spell." ;)
But I think we can agree that one player taking an extra minute every time his turn comes up to figure out the optimal value to Power Attack is a bad thing?
The sole advantage of the new power attack is in speeding game play, not in "avoiding metagaming" or whatever.
So, yes, from a game play standpoint it's an improvement. Much as abstract hit points are a vast improvement over the complex "hit location" tables from Bruce Galloway's Fantasy Wargaming, which made resolving a single attack take half an hour.
Plus, why is the wizard casting fireball? If you want to get "meta-game-y", he'd know that this isn't 1e. Evocation area of effects are pointless in 3x.
Bah. Deals with swarms quick enough, and can make short work of a horde of enemies at lower levels. Besides, they let you roll a ton of dice, which is just downright FUN (I love me some Chain Lightning: "Guys, I need to borrow ALL of your D6's real quick!")!
|
|
Ok, now, presumably, the arguably most intelligent person in the party isn't going to know exactly what his spells do?There is a difference between "knowing exactly what his spells do" and "having a perfect 3D spatial sense and awareness of all allies and enemies in the area, positioning a burst effect so it lands exactly right, harming only my enemies and none of my allies, even though all of them are moving, and get this perfect positioning every single time I cast." Personally, I didn't realize "being incredibly intelligent" meant "exactly able to determine relative distances at close, medium, and long range." It's not like a video game where casting brings up a targeting reticle (or Steel Squire burst template) and the player has all the time in the world to position it just right.
Plus, why is the wizard casting fireball? If you want to get "meta-game-y", he'd know that this isn't 1e. Evocation area of effects are pointless in 3x.I didn't say "fireball," I said "a fire spell." ;)
Spatial intelligence is the type I would expect a wizard to have, actually.
But, to be honest, I prefer (and houseruled back in) the volume ball from 1e, so it's a tad more interesting at my table. And, in the heat of combat, I do expect even the most experienced fireball thrower to miss a few (critical) feet in that calculation.
But, with 3x's static ball, nah. I play golf. If I can drop a two inch diameter ball a few feet from a cup from 100 yards regularly, I'd expect a wizard with a 20 intelligence to be able to place that 20' sphere wherever he likes.
And:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Which, to be honest, is about as cheesy as a caster knowing exactly where to drop a fireball so it catches only enemies and doesn't hurt the 4 allies standing just 5' outside its burst in several directions.
;-)
for SKR
I play golf. If I can drop a two inch diameter ball a few feet from a cup from 100 yards regularly, I'd expect a wizard with a 20 intelligence to be able to place that 20' sphere wherever he likes.
Wasn't there a variant printed somewhere in which you rolled a ranged touch attack against AC 10 to hit the right point, and treated it as a grenade-like missile if you missed?
|
I play golf. If I can drop a two inch diameter ball a few feet from a cup from 100 yards regularly, I'd expect a wizard with a 20 intelligence to be able to place that 20' sphere wherever he likes.Wasn't there a variant printed somewhere in which you rolled a ranged touch attack against AC 10 to hit the right point, and treated it as a grenade-like missile if you missed?
Dex? Wait! I thought we wanted everyone to invest more in Charisma! You have to make the fireball want to go where you want it to go!
|
|
I play golf. If I can drop a two inch diameter ball a few feet from a cup from 100 yards regularly, I'd expect a wizard with a 20 intelligence to be able to place that 20' sphere wherever he likes.Wasn't there a variant printed somewhere in which you rolled a ranged touch attack against AC 10 to hit the right point, and treated it as a grenade-like missile if you missed?
Yeah, but that variant is for players with a heavy handicap. My BAB on the links is pretty high, and I use a Hero point if I roll a one ;)
|
|
Dex? Wait! I thought we wanted everyone to invest more in Charisma! You have to make the fireball want to go where you want it to go!I play golf. If I can drop a two inch diameter ball a few feet from a cup from 100 yards regularly, I'd expect a wizard with a 20 intelligence to be able to place that 20' sphere wherever he likes.Wasn't there a variant printed somewhere in which you rolled a ranged touch attack against AC 10 to hit the right point, and treated it as a grenade-like missile if you missed?
That's what fade is for ;)
I play golf. If I can drop a two inch diameter ball a few feet from a cup from 100 yards regularly, I'd expect a wizard with a 20 intelligence to be able to place that 20' sphere wherever he likes.Wasn't there a variant printed somewhere in which you rolled a ranged touch attack against AC 10 to hit the right point, and treated it as a grenade-like missile if you missed?
Never seen that variant, but hitting AC 10 isn't all that hard for even a wizard (but makes fumbles cute).
An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
Why is it Fireball needs an attack roll to hit a small opening but not to get it to the center of a crowded battlefield? Certainly at level 5 there might be a few guys providing cover and making the shot fairly difficult without pegging somebody in the back.
|
|
I play golf. If I can drop a two inch diameter ball a few feet from a cup from 100 yards regularly, I'd expect a wizard with a 20 intelligence to be able to place that 20' sphere wherever he likes.Wasn't there a variant printed somewhere in which you rolled a ranged touch attack against AC 10 to hit the right point, and treated it as a grenade-like missile if you missed?Never seen that variant, but hitting AC 10 isn't all that hard for even a wizard (but makes fumbles cute).
Why is it Fireball needs an attack roll to hit a small opening but not to get it to the center of a crowded battlefield? Certainly at level 5 there might be a few guys providing cover and making the shot fairly difficult without pegging somebody in the back.An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
Just burst in ten feet above the fray?
Just burst in ten feet above the fray?
If PF sees a version 2, I demand 3D sphere templates for AOE.
Has anyone ever enforced the needing an attack roll to hit a narrow space? Shouldn't the AC be so low it wouldn't matter anyway anyway (no distance mod on the shot, target is immobile; even with size its like an AC of what? 6 to 8?)?
I guess Fireball isn't too common these days anyway, though.
Dex? Wait! I thought we wanted everyone to invest more in Charisma! You have to make the fireball want to go where you want it to go!
Both! Make that mad wizard into a MAD wizard!
Actually, I believe Sense Motive allows you to determine a character's rough TH, AC and dmg from its strongest attack, so those are not metagame skills. While a fighter isn't going to put a number on it, they are going to be EXTREMELY aware of their damage potential and ability to hit things, because that's what they do.
And anyways, past level 6 is beyond Human ability. I expect any character past level 6 can do all the things described with casual ease, because they are operating on a completely different level then we are. They probably see the world through slow-motion lenses at will, have inbuilt targeting reticules inside their optic nerves, and the like.
Wouldn't be suprised if range finding was a minor effect included in every cast spell, superimposing onto your sight just to make sure you put it somewhere you could.
===Aelryinth
Actually, I believe Sense Motive allows you to determine a character's rough TH, AC and dmg from its strongest attack, so those are not metagame skills.
I think in some 3.5 supplement there was a feat that let you use Sense Motive to determine an opponents power relative to you, but even that was vague, and in the Epic Handbook, I think you could get an alignment axis, but I've never heard of any of the above uses for Sense Motive, especially not getting their AC number.
Can I, as one of those filthy horrible hateful optimizers, state that I hated 3.5 power attack? It was THAC0 levels of unneccesary math (BOOSH)
That said, the biggest issue with it is that it was a requirement to "keep playing" as you went up in levels. That's why people dislike the PF version; because it doesn't allow for as much potential damage, which meleers sorta needed when the game degenerated into rocket tag. Nobody wants to play rocket tag as the only one holding the pistol.
Except you're adding flavor to a rule mechanic that isn't there, and using it to justify your position. In fact, your flavor is exactly the opposite of what the feat is about: "You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength."
Don't make me point out all the places in Pathfinder Rules where the description doesn't accurately describe what the mechanics are representing.
Just don't.
And before anyone suggest "errata those areas," Power Attack could be errata-ed too.
And it's not really incorporating why you need Str 13+ in order to make called shots.
Sure it does.
- Power Attack is a melee feat.
- d20 melee combat is strength based. (Yes, there is an exception with Weapon Finesse. But it is an exception. It takes the character outside of the assumed in-game physics.)
- Strength is used for accuracy, as well as damage.
- A character needs to have a talent for accuracy (represented by stats, BAB is skill/training) before they can hit smaller - more vital areas.
All neatly tied in using d20 based rules and explanations.
*Note: I am not claiming it is necessarily correct. Just pointing out it easy to do with the material at hand.
I was going to write a counter to your post using the most reasonable situation for 3.X power attack, and the most unreasonable situation for WOP spellcasting to offset your most unreasonable situation for 3.X power attack and most reasonable situation for WOP spellcasting...
But there. I just did. You can fill in the blanks as you like.
In short, if I am reading your posts correctly:
- 3.X Power Attack was bad because some players meta-gamed the heck out of it.
Hell, I'll grant you every player meta-gamed the heck out of it.
- WOP is good because...
Because what?
Only some players will meta-game the heck out of it?
It is impossible for every player to meta-game the heck out of it?
What is the real distinction here. Will there ever be enough WOP meta-gamers for you to accept that it is no better than 3.X power attack? And that it might just be worse?
You need Str 13 to have the neccessary control of your weapon to be able to use Power Attack. Wa tah.
==Aelryinth
So I guess my gripe is that characters are sometimes too tied into magical gear... but the thing I LIKE the most is that it's a living, breathing rules system and that we get to really get inside of it and figure things out. Open playtests are really cool and having designer input like we get here is great.
There are two major ways to break gear-dependency on the character level, and they're inter-related:
1) Scaling defenses (e.g., +1 AC / XX levels, +1 to all saves / XX levels)
2) More frequent ability score raises (e.g, +1 to two ability scores / XX levels)
The first one simply gets rid of the need for defensive items that are number-boosters only. Why wear a cloak of resistance +1 when simply getting +1 to all saves at 3rd level has the same effect?
The second one has the same benefits as above as well as reducing the need for +1 weapons -and- belt of STR (or whatever).
This was something Star Wars Saga Edition did very well; 4E attempted to do the same thing, but got so bogged down in other stuff that I personally think they blew it, but that's a debate for some other thread.
The problem with doing something like that with Pathfinder is that it's completely contrary to the desired goal of backwards compatibility, because it would require a major refactoring of everything from feats to monsters to wealth levels.
On top of which, well, most players just love collecting their blingy junk. And think about it ... when you're at the table, which would make you take notice more, "a golden cup with inlaid jewels" or "a ring that would have enabled you to dodge the breath weapon of the dragon you snagged the cup from"?
Mind you, I'm firmly in the "less gear, more character" camp myself, but I can see why the designers generally keep gear-dependency in the game.
-The Gneech
So I guess my gripe is that characters are sometimes too tied into magical gear... but the thing I LIKE the most is that it's a living, breathing rules system and that we get to really get inside of it and figure things out. Open playtests are really cool and having designer input like we get here is great.There are two major ways to break gear-dependency on the character level, and they're inter-related:
1) Scaling defenses (e.g., +1 AC / XX levels, +1 to all saves / XX levels)
2) More frequent ability score raises (e.g, +1 to two ability scores / XX levels)The first one simply gets rid of the need for defensive items that are number-boosters only. Why wear a cloak of resistance +1 when simply getting +1 to all saves at 3rd level has the same effect?
The second one has the same benefits as above as well as reducing the need for +1 weapons -and- belt of STR (or whatever).
This was something Star Wars Saga Edition did very well; 4E attempted to do the same thing, but got so bogged down in other stuff that I personally think they blew it, but that's a debate for some other thread.
The problem with doing something like that with Pathfinder is that it's completely contrary to the desired goal of backwards compatibility, because it would require a major refactoring of everything from feats to monsters to wealth levels.
On top of which, well, most players just love collecting their blingy junk. And think about it ... when you're at the table, which would make you take notice more, "a golden cup with inlaid jewels" or "a ring that would have enabled you to dodge the breath weapon of the dragon you snagged the cup from"?
Mind you, I'm firmly in the "less gear, more character" camp myself, but I can see why the designers generally keep gear-dependency in the game.
-The Gneech
I'm actually using one of those in a long-term campaign I'm running currently, I'm using +1 to two different stats every even level to get rid of the stat boosting items and have a more organic feel to the growth of the players. I'd be a little more concerned with the eventual AC boost for some of my fighter types (this is very specific to my game, but I and one of my players did some digging and I'm thinking he'll have a 45-55 AC at level 15...Pal/holy vindicator/stalwart defender).
As to the fireball discussion, it's inane to think that they can just place their burst perfectly every time. A lot goes on in combat, and no matter how smart you are 6 seconds is NOT alot of time, especially when you factor in spell casting time (I'm not sure but I'd think they'd have to be pretty intent on forming the spell, not running equations on volume and distance). In the end it's more of a flavor thing.
I really disliked the old power attack because of the impact it had on the game, I'm 100% with Sean here... Words of Power and Power Attack are NOT inter-related, and that line of argument would imply that a mage throwing a memorized burning hands at a ice monster is the same as a player figuring out a monsters ac and optimizing his PA? Sounds like to dissimilar things to me.
I'm gonna swing at this thing just as HARD AS I FRAKKIN CA....wait wait maybe not that hard..... just a sec maybe....ok HALF AS HARD AS I FRAKKIN.....no no no, that's not right...
|
|
Actually, I believe Sense Motive allows you to determine a character's rough TH, AC and dmg from its strongest attack, so those are not metagame skills.I think in some 3.5 supplement there was a feat that let you use Sense Motive to determine an opponents power relative to you
Complete Adventurer - skills additional uses.
Also has the rules around sneaking between cover, haggling with diplomacy and other stuff. Well worth considering some of it for houserules. I was hoping APG would do something similar - but it didn't.
According to every source I found, the reason why Power Attack was nerfed in PF was because people complained that the math was too hard.No, it was because the 3.0 version of the feat encouraged players to minmax the exact numerical value of PA that minimally impacted their attack bonus and maximized their damage output, based on the AC of the target and the attack bonus of the character. That's metagaming. And it slows down the *play* of the game.1: I've heard many people complain of spreadsheet power attack. I have yet to actually see it. Even once. Maybe these guys are doing it all mentally - we're all smart enough to make that a possibility. Somehow I doubt it though. It, like this mythical 15 minute workday are just straw man arguments against nonexistent or exaggerated points.
2: Martial characters have to metagame to do anything, really. Most writeups of them even assume they do. So while I normally look down on such things, in this instance it is par for the course.
3: It's one of the few choices they actually get. Why take that away? Even assuming the worst case scenario of scrapping for every little advantage they can possibly get... They are playing a non spellcaster in D&D. THEY NEED IT.
+1
Another thing to note is that the arguement of PA scaling is moot when compared to the time to manage wizards, clerics and druids summons.
I'm using +1 to two different stats every even level to get rid of the stat boosting items
OK, I'm a 12th level fighter, and you've given me +6 Str for leveling. I've got 16K of loot. Do I buy:
OR
Guess what: 99% of in-game fighters would still want the belt.
If you want to get rid of items, you have to provide bonuses that don't stack with those from items. That means enhancement bonuses to attributes, deflection bonuses to AC, resistance bonuses to saves. Otherwise the items are still demonstratively BETTER than any other options, and hence will still be assumed.
I thought he meant stat boosters don't exist in that game Kirth.
That might work, then... except that he'd also have to get rid of spells like shield of faith and bull's strength, because otherwise everyone in the world will be looking to craft items with those abilities, and/or Persistent Spell them, etc., etc. (unless it's massively metagamed so that every in-game character has a mysterious mental block against that sort of thing). It's easier and simpler to just provide like-named bonuses right off the bat.
Actually, I believe Sense Motive allows you to determine a character's rough TH, AC and dmg from its strongest attack, so those are not metagame skills.I think in some 3.5 supplement there was a feat that let you use Sense Motive to determine an opponents power relative to youComplete Adventurer - skills additional uses.
Also has the rules around sneaking between cover, haggling with diplomacy and other stuff. Well worth considering some of it for houserules. I was hoping APG would do something similar - but it didn't.
My group has used the haggling rules for diplomacy before, but ended up cutting them when they had their diplomat get 20% in their favor on every purchase and sale they made. They became upset when I was altering treasure slightly (in pre-built adventure paths) to compensate. Not a lot mind you, just a bit - that 10 here and 20 there really can add up to a significant sum.
I loved the complete series for the flavor and ideas, but overall hated the power creep all around. It wasn't long before wizards started always pulling 4 levels of Fatespinner, a few in Master Specialist, and a dip into Geometer, every single time. Likewise every melee martial character started to pull Shock Trooper and Leap Attack. Clerics bemoaned the loss of Law Devotion and Divine Metamagic if I took them away, and there was always an Abjurant Champion floating around somewhere abusing the Book of Exalted Deeds, and so on. In the end I sold most of them and kept a handful of the books, but as an aid for flavorful story elements, and disallow the feats and classes except for special cases in my 3.X games. Overall, things are much nicer for us when we run Core.
Quicker, simpler; everyone is an effective member of a team, rather than pimping their own classes and ignoring team tactics, with a statistic block that is in tune with their level.
Now Unearthed Arcana had a lot of variants that I liked; many I didn't, but a lot that I did...
I thought he meant stat boosters don't exist in that game Kirth.That might work, then... except that he'd also have to get rid of spells like shield of faith and bull's strength, because otherwise everyone in the world will be looking to craft items with those abilities, and/or Persistent Spell them, etc., etc. (unless it's massively metagamed so that every in-game character has a mysterious mental block against that sort of thing). It's easier and simpler to just provide like-named bonuses right off the bat.
Stat boosting items are just off the table as a whole because of the inherent leveling bonuses. I still allow spells that give enhancement bonuses, I just don't allow items that do. Persistent spell is also non pathfinder and we only allow Pathfinder rules in my game. It's actually been working out rather nicely so far, and its not necessarily about getting "kewl" items, I'd just rather not see the +stat items.
Edit - Kyrt hit the nail on the head.
Second Edit - DM can't metagame. It is my game we're discussing here, after all.
DM can't metagame.
I disagree, from a personal DM philosophy standpoint; all my NPCs follow the all the same rules as the PCs do. YMMV.
I thought he meant stat boosters don't exist in that game Kirth.That might work, then... except that he'd also have to get rid of spells like shield of faith and bull's strength, because otherwise everyone in the world will be looking to craft items with those abilities, and/or Persistent Spell them, etc., etc. (unless it's massively metagamed so that every in-game character has a mysterious mental block against that sort of thing). It's easier and simpler to just provide like-named bonuses right off the bat.Stat boosting items are just off the table as a whole because of the inherent leveling bonuses. I still allow spells that give enhancement bonuses, I just don't allow items that do. Persistent spell is also non pathfinder and we only allow Pathfinder rules in my game. It's actually been working out rather nicely so far, and its not necessarily about getting "kewl" items, I'd just rather not see the +stat items.
...
I'm ridding my campaigns of stat boosting spells as well as the items. Basically stat boosting into the stratosphere is pretty much out in my games going forward. The only readily available access to boosting a stat is a modified version of what you get by leveling. (and maybe the classic gauntlets of ogre power and giant strength belts; but even those will only provide a bonus to strength checks and damage only, not attack rolls). I know it'll be problematic at high levels because monsters in the Bestiary have attacks that assume stat boosters, but a) I don't plan on playing past 12th level and b) I'll adjust the numbers when I get there.
I don't know if this is the right answer, and I'd kinda like ya'lls opinion on it, but I'm about ready to just flat out deny access to crafting feats, period.
Fluff would be, those that can learn to harness mana and infuse it into their creations, but this takes time and effort and they do not adventure, instead increasing in skill as they craft. Whether this be jewel crafting or magic weapons and armor. Wondrous items I think I may just have randomly drop and not buyable in a store because, if you can make em all willy nilly, what about that is wondrous?
That having ben said, magic arms and armor will be easier to come by, as more people learn that craft than the others (staff/wand/rod makers, ring makers, etc). Wizards can keep scribe scroll, other than that no.
Honestly, what do ya'll think? CoD, be nice.
|
I'm ridding my campaigns of stat boosting spells as well as the items. Basically stat boosting into the stratosphere is pretty much out in my games going forward. The only readily available access to boosting a stat is a modified version of what you get by leveling. (and maybe the classic gauntlets of ogre power and giant strength belts; but even those will only provide a bonus to strength checks and damage only, not attack rolls). I know it'll be problematic at high levels because monsters in the Bestiary have attacks that assume stat boosters, but a) I don't plan on playing past 12th level and b) I'll adjust the numbers when I get there.
Consider that stolen. Might even keep the spells but have them work like you suggest the items should, while the items don't add to your score, just set it to the score the monster has, like they used to.
I don't know if this is the right answer, and I'd kinda like ya'lls opinion on it, but I'm about ready to just flat out deny access to crafting feats, period.
Fluff would be, those that can learn to harness mana and infuse it into their creations, but this takes time and effort and they do not adventure, instead increasing in skill as they craft. Whether this be jewel crafting or magic weapons and armor. Wondrous items I think I may just have randomly drop and not buyable in a store because, if you can make em all willy nilly, what about that is wondrous?
That having ben said, magic arms and armor will be easier to come by, as more people learn that craft than the others (staff/wand/rod makers, ring makers, etc). Wizards can keep scribe scroll, other than that no.Honestly, what do ya'll think? CoD, be nice.
I ran my last campaign in low magic style... I managed it by introducing a few characters early on in the campaign that were capable of crafting magic items (anything the characters wanted, really) but in order to balance it out a bit better I MADE the characters take part in the crafting of the item.
The overarching theme of that entire campaign was personal sacrifice for greater power, so I made them give up something that mattered to them for what they got. One character traded their reflection for an item, another traded their youth (this was for a +5 Holy Avenger, mind you). I don't think characters really need to take the crafting feats, ad I've rarely seen it done although my players know it's very powerful.
I wouldn't necessarily advise you to get rid of the crafting feats, but I think I'd put a higher price (personal price, like a year of their life, an eye, I dunno) then is listed in the book. A canny player can really powergame the hell out of the crafting rules with traits and feats.
I can share an example of the other side of the coin, however. I was playing in a Legacy of Fire Campaign with a character who I'd built to make things, and the DM seriously over-reacted and basically denied me the use of the skill altogether. It was REALLY frustrating for me as a player, and when he realized the limitations on making magic items he ended up allowing it after all.
I think, ultimately, people see the magic item crafting rules and panic a little bit. Just make sure you're not shutting it down before you read it, as the core crafting rules normally shouldn't pose much of a threat.
I think in someways you could just remove the 50% price reduction from crafting (or maybe just scale the discount down to 5-10%).
In my mind the primary appeal of having craft magic items is that you can make the items you want rather than having to negotiate with craftsmen or depending on the luck of the draw. Plus the potential of crafting unique items.
If there isn't a massive cost reduction in items stat boosters show up later and noncasters don't have to depend on caster pity nearly as much.
There is also less of a discrepancy between the haves (casters) and the have-not (non-casters) because the non-casters aren't having to pay twice as much money in order to get access to the items that the PC caster is unlikely to invest feats in (rings, armor, weapons, etc).
I'd even go a step back to AD&D and have it so that crafting wasn't so much a financial benefit but actually an XP benefit.
If the crafter actually got XP from his crafting (instead of the 3.x model of having to pay XP) it would actually simulate learning and growing as a person instead of "infusing life force into item".
You'd have to keep the XP bonuses relatively modest (even high end 2e items gave a pretty modest bonus) but it would explain why so many casters hang about building stuff rather than adventuring.
Second Edit - DM can't metagame.
Agreeing with Kirth here, as I have had to play in games run by Meta-gaming 'dms'. Close order drill by 'chaotic' goblins that all know your feats and drills, etc.