There are a lot of problems that Pathfinder inherited from 3x. These include the Xmas tree effect and the discrepency between caster and non-casters.
But there is one thing that Pathfinder brought in all on it's own that absolutely annoys the crap out of me. This is Sorcerer bloodlines. It makes no sense fluff-wise and is inherently limiting to character concepts. They followed it up by giving the fluff that should have gone to the Sorcerer to the witch (an Int based caster) instead - which is like trying to fix a spoon stuck in your eye by sticking a spoon in the other eye.
I have to agree that bloodlines don't make a lot of sense. After all, why does a ''sorcerer'' with celestial or fey bloodline use arcane spell instead of divine spell? Celestial creatures and feys are more linked to the divine than the arcane...
What I don't like about PF is :
- To much love to the caster (1d6 hp/lvl, more powers, etc.)
- Not enough nerf to the caster (the new concentration checks are a step in the right direction, but it's not enough)
- Fumble Deck (I just made a post about it)
- The APG's new classes (sorry, but I find nothing compelling about them. On the other hand, archetypes are awesome and they are the main reason why I bought the APG)
- All the stuff that I didn't like about 3.X
That's all for now ! :)
Not my idea, Gygax's. If the inventor of D&D didn't know how D&D was 'meant' to be I don't know who would...
Dave Arneson? :)
To me, Gygax is to gaming as Freud is to psychology -- an important early guy who got a lot of things rolling and is indispensible from a historical perspective, but nonetheless someone who had a lot of hilariously terrible ideas. Which, in turn, don't diminish the genius of his great ideas, but you can't pretend everything in the pile is a gem.
There is a lot of blather about casters being demi-gods and sword swingers being wimps at higher levels. How many of your play one on one games. I mean how many times do you play a sword swinger and fight a caster one on one?
Casters are not that hard to deal with if you have a balanced party and use team work. You might take some lumps but killing a high level caster is not that hard if you use your brain.
|
Not my idea, Gygax's. If the inventor of D&D didn't know how D&D was 'meant' to be I don't know who would...Dave Arneson? :)
To me, Gygax is to gaming as Freud is to psychology -- an important early guy who got a lot of things rolling and is indispensible from a historical perspective, but nonetheless someone who had a lot of hilariously terrible ideas. Which, in turn, don't diminish the genius of his great ideas, but you can't pretend everything in the pile is a gem.
Firstly, thanks Mongoose. It was an almost unforgivable oversight to miss out Dave. Apologies.
Gem, no. But ALL other editions of D&D are not D&D, they are derivatives of D&D. Not a statement that should raise the ire of any on the boards, it's a simple fact. D&D isn't a philosophy or an idea, it's a set of rules as defined by the authors. We say casters should not be Vancian, but in D&D they ARE Vancian, again because the authors of D&D decided that was the way is was to be. Except their choice or not, that doesn't change the fact that D&D is what Gary & Dave penned it to be.
S.
|
Firstly, thanks Mongoose. It was an almost unforgivable oversight to miss out Dave. Apologies.Not my idea, Gygax's. If the inventor of D&D didn't know how D&D was 'meant' to be I don't know who would...Dave Arneson? :)
It's an all-too-common mistake. I've noticed over the years that Gygax seems to get nearly ALL the credit for the game. When Arneson is mentioned at all it's generally as an afterthough...something like "and this Dave guy was there too when Gary Gygax was creating Dungeons & Dragons".
inherent bonuses idea from 4eCould you please expand on this. I play 4e and aren't sure what you mean exactly, and non-4e players don't have a show.
Cheers dude,
S.
Made in DMG 2 (and expanded in the Dark Sun book), inherent bonuses means that each character as they level get the bonuses they normally would've gotten from magic items. In 4e it's the +x to attack/damage and to armor (Dark Sun added the increased critical damage you get from higher weapons to). In 3e it would assumably capture the "big 6"
The idea is that boring magic items that are just there for math are instead thigns a character gains inherently, freeing those spaces up for 1) cooler magic items, or 2) less need to have magic items at all.
There is a lot of blather about casters being demi-gods and sword swingers being wimps at higher levels. How many of your play one on one games. I mean how many times do you play a sword swinger and fight a caster one on one?
Casters are not that hard to deal with if you have a balanced party and use team work. You might take some lumps but killing a high level caster is not that hard if you use your brain.
Uh, none of us are talking about one on one games.
The problems is that fighters start at level one with "hit thing with sword" and end at twenty with "hit thing with sword oh I guess four times."
Casters start with Sleep and Colorspray and end with Wish and Time Stop and a billion other spells that let him completely reshape reality.
I mean, look at how epic levels worked. Casters could create their own spells all willy nilly and forge entirely new realities, and non-casters got to hit a thing one extra time (at a penalty) and maybe wear two hats.
The card art for the armor, weapons and magic items in the game, A LOT of it is so not representative of what they're supposed to look like...
*Points at the Pilum picture* is not a *Points at the picture of a real Pilum!!!*
The art is at times too stylized, while it's lovely art, it's not accurate. I actually mentioned this during beta and hoped it was just place holder art...
|
|
Most of this also applies to 3.X:
The fact that it's so miniature based.
The fact that it's so over-codified. When the time comes for Pathfinder 2.0, I'm hoping they scale back the rules a good bit, and make a simpler system.
The fact that to really excel at something, you HAVE to be of a high level. You can't have the greatest cobbler in the world be a simple -3 level commoner or expert, because any PC that decided to put some points in Profession: Cobbler could quickly outstrip him. But not because they practice making shoes...because they kill a lot of orcs. I'd like to see the skill rules from Chaosium's BRP system be a major influence.
Gem, no. But ALL other editions of D&D are not D&D, they are derivatives of D&D. Not a statement that should raise the ire of any on the boards, it's a simple fact. D&D isn't a philosophy or an idea, it's a set of rules as defined by the authors. We say casters should not be Vancian, but in D&D they ARE Vancian, again because the authors of D&D decided that was the way is was to be. Except their choice or not, that doesn't change the fact that D&D is what Gary & Dave penned it to be.
My feeling is this:
What is D&D? It's whatever YOU say it is.
If you feel that one particular edition of D&D - and I mean ANY one given edition of D&D - is the real D&D, then to you, it is.
If you feel that every RPG ever created is D&D with a different name, then to you, it is.
You should think of it in whatever way is most conducive to your having fun, and making it fun for everyone else you're playing with.
After I played 3.0 for a few months, I came to think of 3.X as THE D&D, and I have thought of it that way ever since. You'll never convince me that I'm wrong, because I don't include "as created by Gygax and Arneson" as part of my definition.
(And besides, even the original D&D was a collaborative effort of many people.)
If you feel that only the original D&D is the the REAL D&D, or that only 1st edition AD&D is the REAL D&D, then that's fine. Just don't be shocked if other people have different definitions. A definition is NOT a fact; it's a convention.
|
Pathfinder, like any RPG, is what you make of it.
Don't like Vancian magic? Hack in WoD magic into your home rules. It really is that simple.
No game will ever fit everyone's tastes. See each system as starting point and then pull together the elements you like of all system to create one that works best for you and your group.
|
|
The worst thing about Pathfinder is that there are more products than I can afford to buy and that I buy more products than I have the time to read.
Apart from that, it's mostly that I miss the tables for treasure and town generation from the DMG (or Magic Item Compendium, respectively). I like the new town statblock, but I would have loved an adaptation of said tables for the Pathfinder RPG. I can adapt the old ones, so it's not a major gripe, but I had hoped that we would get something like this in the GMG.
Pathfinder, like any RPG, is what you make of it.
Don't like Vancian magic? Hack in WoD magic into your home rules. It really is that simple.
No game will ever fit everyone's tastes. See each system as starting point and then pull together the elements you like of all system to create one that works best for you and your group.
In situations where people are requesting game design changes they don’t like (i.e. not liking the Vancian magic system), I agree with you.
But I feel in a rules heavy game like PF (and 3.x before it), the rules should be clear, concise in almost instances they are used and not vague or open to interpretation.
Adding:
Hardcore players complaining about having too many rules when it in fact already has huge gaps in them.
Fans who feel that unless it's specifically covered by something in the rules, it must be umpossible! :P
That's why it's a tabletop RPG with a GM, kids, and not a computer game.
Has nothing to do with that. But when I see other threads in the ‘Rules’ forums that asks the same questions over and over and a lot of threads that are good candidate for FAQ’s, I think it’s a good indication that those rules need to be written more concisely and less vague.
Yes, you can homebrew a rule that is vague (and we have done so), but that can take time. And speaking from our groups perspective (including our DM), we would much prefer it was just covered in the rulebook already.
It lacks diversity in regards to campaign settings. All current elements support a standard fantasy setting, lacking any alternative setting sourcebooks (oriental, modern, sci-fi, dark fantasy, etc.).
I think one of my biggest beefs at present is the fact that Paizo didn't fix the "not all feats are created equal" problem, and instead exacerbated it and seem to feel that it's A-Okay that spending a limited character resource on something shouldn't necessarily be worthwhile. I'm looking at you, Quickdraw and Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Falcata notwithstanding)...
If you fix the caster/melee balance issues you end up with 4e. Magic is no longer magical, it's just fluff that exists to make Wizard powers different from Fighter powers.
True; however, you can get closer to balanced without ending up with 4E. Generally I think PF as a successor to 3.5 does this, even if it does give casters back new power in a few other areas that they probably didn't need.
|
|
Just to further skew all searches on 'crafting' for the forseeable future, either:
Fix crafting so it's feasible for an adventurer without 30-90 day vacations between every outing, or one who didn't take Leadership just to get a cohort who can be his magic item craft monkey;
-OR-
Have magic items that can be levelled up / enhanced with use over time (my personal preference) - less temporary buffs like weapon blanches and more interesting, permanent enhancements that can be earned in play without requiring heaps of downtime, in the vein of achievement feats (slay 5 dragons with your +1 longsword? It's now a +1 dragonbane longsword with a little help/investment, etc).
-OR-
Fix the concept of random treasure tables to obviate the need for incessant crafting, though this seems to contrived to me.
If you're going to make something a necessity for melee classes to advance & maintan parity, don't make it a huge, unfun pain in the keister.
inherent bonuses idea from 4eCould you please expand on this. I play 4e and aren't sure what you mean exactly, and non-4e players don't have a show.
Cheers dude,
S.
x2
What are these inherent boni that you speak of?
The problem with Pathfinder, or any version of D&D, is it is too focused, i.e. create a system that supports multiple genres or technology levels. This will also help streamline the rules, and hopefully will make the rules portable and easy to use.
inherent bonuses idea from 4eCould you please expand on this. I play 4e and aren't sure what you mean exactly, and non-4e players don't have a show.
Cheers dude,
S.x2
What are these inherent boni that you speak of?
I think what is meant is that there are 3 inherent bonuses that are assumed in 4 edition.
Save bonus (cloak)
To hit (weapons and implements)
AC (armour)
These increase from +0 to +6. There are rules that state you can just remove all bonus from these magic items (and just use the effects instead) and instead give each character a +1 to AC/hit/Saves every 5 levels (starting at ~ 3rd). I am sure they spell it out much better than me as I do not have the rules on hand. They may have done this for Darksun. I think this may be spelled out in the DMG2??
Another benefit of 4th edtion is all classes need these bonuses while in 3.X, not all classes need the big 6 (such as wizards). This creates further discrepancies. Hence wizards dominate a low magic item world.
So it is really easy to play a low magic campaign in 4th edition, if you so choose.
I think what is meant is that there are 3 inherent bonuses that are assumed in 4 edition.
Save bonus (cloak)
To hit (weapons and implements)
AC (armour)These increase from +0 to +6. There are rules that state you can just remove all bonus from these magic items (and just use the effects instead) and instead give each character a +1 to AC/hit/Saves every 5 levels (starting at ~ 3rd). I am sure they spell it out much better than me as I do not have the rules on hand. They may have done this for Darksun. I think this may be spelled out in the DMG2??
Another benefit of 4th edtion is all classes need these bonuses while in 3.X, not all classes need the big 6 (such as wizards). This creates further discrepancies. Hence wizards dominate a low magic item world.
So it is really easy to play a low magic campaign in 4th edition, if you so choose.
Thanks for the info, gives me something to play with.
1) The advantage that still magic users have vs all the others at high(mid+) levels ( especially in a low magic/magic items setting)
2) The sorcerer vs wizard thing (fixed with the APG but only for human sorcerers)
3) The Barbarian class gets 1d12 hp instead of 2d6 hp and their pathetic (at 65% percentage) rage powers ( fixed in some way with the APG)
4) There should be cross-class skills (the +3 bonus on class skills is just rediculous, made rogues and bards with their infinite class skills and skill points just having a mehhh +3 bonus on them)
5) The increase on HD to wizard, sorcerer, rogue etc. Why not give that increase on the other classes too? (note that this increase in the case of wizard and sorcerer is quite large)
6) The fact that still some classes can be viable with 1 or 2 ablity scores (fighter, barbarian, nearly all magic users) while some others in order to be close (not even equal) have to increase at least 3 or 4 of them (monk,red mantis assassin, and some builds of other classes as inquisitor, paladin, summoner etc.)
7) When someone will show mercy and give some love to the monk ? (a fighter can outmatch him even in the Combat Maneuver thing)
8) The lack of Level Adjustment for some races. For GODS SHAKE a drow noble in the beastiary is advancing by class levels when it should have at least +3 level adjustment (SR, Spell-like abilities, Stats)and the only thing CoreRB says is if a players plays a race like that the rest should start at a +1 level..... . CR just dont cant be used effectively for all cases
9) The rediculous half-orc race.....(fixed in a way with APG but even with that they are still the most useless race compared to the other)
10) Some rules/things that are just a copy paste from 3.x books, while those rules/things should have been re-written to match the new (very cool and unique ideas) rules.
11) The bad habbit of power-playing that much players have and the fact that PF RPG offers quite a few opportunities for power-gaming (blame goes 10% to PF and 90% to players)
12) I consume quite a lot of time for this game ( ITS F!~@ING ADDICTIVE :)
The good thing is that most of the bad things (not only those 12) can be solved by the DM and the help of the DMG (not only PF DMG :D), its very fun to play and the staff in PAIZO tries a lot to balance and add new stuff to this awesome 3.75 game
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think what is meant [by inherent bonuses] is that there are 3 inherent bonuses that are assumed in 4th edition.
Save bonus (cloak)
To hit (weapons and implements)
AC (armour)These increase from +0 to +6. There are rules that state you can just remove all bonus from these magic items (and just use the effects instead) and instead give each character a +1 to AC/hit/Saves every 5 levels (starting at ~ 3rd).
I admit, I'm not seeing how these are a benefit, but I don't want to tangle the thread, so i'll post things under a
In either case, a cloak of protection +3 is about the same price as the more flavorful robe of blending, and is useful every time the wearer needs to roll a save. The cloak simply a more useful item, and a resistance bonus stacks with an inherent bonus.
I don't see how giving a character better AC, better saves, and more powerful attacking opportunities discourages him from trying to improve them even more. Which leads to over-powered characters, which leads to commensurate threats and challenges, which leads to vindication that "we would never have survived, if it hadn't been for these utility items."
I admit, I'm not seeing how these are a benefit, but I don't want to tangle the thread, so i'll post things under a ** spoiler omitted **I think what is meant [by inherent bonuses] is that there are 3 inherent bonuses that are assumed in 4th edition.
Save bonus (cloak)
To hit (weapons and implements)
AC (armour)These increase from +0 to +6. There are rules that state you can just remove all bonus from these magic items (and just use the effects instead) and instead give each character a +1 to AC/hit/Saves every 5 levels (starting at ~ 3rd).
4E didn't introduce these 'inherent' boni as a replacement to the big 6. Having been using them as house rules long time before 4E 'introduced them', I feel qualified to answer your question despite the fact that I don't play 4E.
Basically, you are assuming that players can have their PCs gain access to whatever magic items they wish. In my campaign world that is simply not the case. The PCs simply cannot 'choose' to get a cloak of resistance or something like that. They get the magic items I give them as rewards, treasure, etc. - and cloaks of resistance and such are not among them. Hence, PCs cannot abuse the system by stacking magic items on top of one another.
It is true that I don't use the (IMO terrible) magic item creation system in Pathfinder RPG, so if you use it than PCs can circumvent your rationing of magic items. But even if one does use the system, one can simply ban the magic items one doesn't like (e.g. cloaks of resistance) from being produced or even from existing in the game at all.
I love pathfinder, especially when comparing it to 3.5, but there are a few issues that bother me a bit with it.
- Multiclassing is a bit too weak now. I know that the designers were trying to make it so that people didn't have to design characters with 5 classes to be effective, but I think they swung the game balance a bit too much to the core classes. I tried to make an arcane trickster once, and let's just say that it wasn't a pleasant experience.
- The game focuses a bit too much on getting full round attacks off. I wish there were more options for mobile combat without having to drop 3 feats into vital strike. Spring Attack and Shot on the Run seem weak as well (especially since you can't use vital strike with them).
I admit, I'm not seeing how these are a benefit, but I don't want to tangle the thread, so i'll post things under a ** spoiler omitted **
In an inherent bonuses game, there is no wealth per level.
That's more or less the point - rather then having characters use magic items, they all use inherent bonuses. Then the DM can give literally whatever items he want and whatever gold he wants and not have to worry about what magical items may be needed.
The other thing to remember is that in 4e there aren't "cloak of protection +3." Well, there are, but...it's different. There's only three things that have the +1 and whatnot - items give attack/damage, armor gives AC, and neck/cloak slot gives to your saves. Thus why inherent bonuses only give to attack/damage and defenses. At a certain level, all weapons/armor/neck items are +x. So you have your cloak of protection +3 which costs less, but then you have your cloak of eyes +3 which gives the same +3 to fort/reflex/will but also gives it's extra stuff.
In 3e, MIC did something similar by stating you could just enchant other items with the Big 6 without it costing any extra - that way characters can take their Cloak of Eyes without watching their saves plummet. That was one of the major problems; there were all these cool items, but nobody wanted to take them because you NEEDED the cloak of protection.
I admit, I'm not seeing how these are a benefit, but I don't want to tangle the thread, so i'll post things under a ** spoiler omitted **I think what is meant [by inherent bonuses] is that there are 3 inherent bonuses that are assumed in 4th edition.
Save bonus (cloak)
To hit (weapons and implements)
AC (armour)These increase from +0 to +6. There are rules that state you can just remove all bonus from these magic items (and just use the effects instead) and instead give each character a +1 to AC/hit/Saves every 5 levels (starting at ~ 3rd).
4th edition also avoids the competetion between slots issue. Every cloak gives a bonus to saves + some other benefit. same with armour and weapons/implements.
I am not even sure if there is a wealth by level for 4th edition. The rules state that the PC's need these 3 bonuses or they could be weak for thier level. I don't think there is a table saying PC's should have X gear in gps per level like in 3.X. It is a bit vague to me know as I havn't played it in over a year.
I like how 4th edition handled magic items. It has other issues though, but that has been discussed to death in many, many, different forums.
Smite evil dominates our table, despite being halved in its damage-dealing. I feel like it also is so good that it impacts what kind of narrative you choose. If there's a PC Paladin, then choosing certain BBEGs means that the Paladin's in the spot light, even if you intended the battle to spotlight someone else for plot reasons.
Lack of a Pilot or Vehicles skill for carriage ride chases (like Zorro) or navy battles.
I'd like naval combat rules at some point.
I'm not going to give 4e credit for a rule I've seen used and recommended all over the Internet since long before 4e ever existed.However, I do think it's a good rule. I'd extend it by giving more feats which allow for all the super abilities the non-boring magic items currently give. Then, I'd get rid of gold and currency and have a perks system similar to what Champions has.
Magic items would be quest items (e.g., the holy grail) or class abilities (e.g. bonded objects).
I'd have loved to see this put in as well.
I wish Pathfinder were less rules-heavy. The rules in 3.x attempt to take control/worry for the game out of the DM's hands, and this is good; to an extent. However, it also bogs down gameplay, bogs down the introduction of new players into the system, and can end in hour-long derails of rules-focused rage.
The number of rules, and their intent? Is an inherited problem.
They may also be a sign of the times more than anything else.
While a number of folks have also pointed out that the text and phrasing could have been made more brief--and this would help--Paizo probably has enough on its plate to be able to address this just at the moment, if at all, and it would require a significant restructuring of the Core Book.
I hope we'll see this type of presentation shortening in the third or so version after this, though. There's alot of text that could be eliminated from the Core Book and summarized in other ways. It could save on printing costs. It would make it easier to teach the system. And taking in the user feedback from these forums and clarifying will help, I hope, ease the rule-focused rage that springs up.
It may need to wait for Pathfinder 2.0, when they can make a more "general" adjustment to the text and rules, without worrying for the legal effect--or the reasoned fear of changing established wording.
Regardless, though, I'd like to see some easing of the rules in general. The riding/mounted discussions add more complexity than they eliminate. It might do to take barbarians back to rage points. And so on, and so forth. 3.x just feels...bogged down at times, especially at the higher levels.
Recently switching over from 3.0/3.5 D&D, I don't remember there being so many various conditions- sickened, nauseated, constipated, gassy, etc. Every time something happens to my group, we have to look up some new condition. Also, all the monster special attacks that I have to look up to see what they do. I don't remember 3rd edition being that varied. I really like Pathfinder overall. I guess with time those faults will fade as we become more comfortable with the changes (like when I realized after a game that my skeleton champions could have being cleaving away at the PCs because the feat had changed).
Recently switching over from 3.0/3.5 D&D, I don't remember there being so many various conditions- sickened, nauseated, constipated, gassy, etc. Every time something happens to my group, we have to look up some new condition. Also, all the monster special attacks that I have to look up to see what they do. I don't remember 3rd edition being that varied. I really like Pathfinder overall. I guess with time those faults will fade as we become more comfortable with the changes (like when I realized after a game that my skeleton champions could have being cleaving away at the PCs because the feat had changed).
Sorry buddy but all those conditions already existed since 3.0. You should use the GM Screen however, all the conditions are resumed in it. That's what I do and it's a real time saver when you don't have to look into de CRB every time one of those conditions occurs. ;)
Recently switching over from 3.0/3.5 D&D, I don't remember there being so many various conditions- sickened, nauseated, constipated, gassy, etc. Every time something happens to my group, we have to look up some new condition. Also, all the monster special attacks that I have to look up to see what they do. I don't remember 3rd edition being that varied. I really like Pathfinder overall. I guess with time those faults will fade as we become more comfortable with the changes (like when I realized after a game that my skeleton champions could have being cleaving away at the PCs because the feat had changed).
I'm not sure that there are that many more conditions, but I think Pathfinder has the conditions come up more - there's more ways to sicken, nauseate, shake, fatigue, etc, a character or monster than there used to be. I'm glad about it, on the one hand, as it makes the rules more common and therefore less of a "Why bother to even create this status anomaly?" sort of thing, but it also means that until we get used to what they do, there'll be bits of confusion naturally.
8) The lack of Level Adjustment for some races. For GODS SHAKE a drow noble in the beastiary is advancing by class levels when it should have at least +3 level adjustment (SR, Spell-like abilities, Stats)and the only thing CoreRB says is if a players plays a race like that the rest should start at a +1 level..... . CR just dont cant be used effectively for all cases.
Drow noble is not intended to be equal to the PC races, that's what the common drow are for. Nobles should be NPC stuff.
As a pathfinder society player I find that the rules are not specific enough. I think a lot of people complaining about too many rules are talking more about house games. The solution is simple: ignore the tiny rules, and use house rules like you did before.
In the society I play with different DM's all the time. I can't make a character that does anything questionable, because one day I could play a game like usual, and the DM will be like "uhh you can't do that." Suddenly my character has been trashed because he was built around something that won't work in half the games I play.
I think we agree that increased clarity is a good thing. I'd like to see more of the text reduced, and boiled down into charts. Or, similar rules combined to a degree, as they did with Combat Maneuvers.
Players will always argue over rules; that can't be avoided. I would like to see Pathfinder continue to evolve, and shed some of the wordiness of 3.x as it moves forward.
This is an incredibly difficult task, though. On the upside, they're getting alot of feedback from their forums.
These shabby messageboards. I don't know why Paizo doesn't make a real, phpbb-based forums.
|
|
9) The rediculous half-orc race.....(fixed in a way with APG but even with that they are still the most useless race compared to the other)
Could you explain what your issue is with the Half Orc and how the APG fixes it? I have just created a Half Orc character for PFS and have the APG so would be interested to see if there are some improvements I can make. Thanks!
I hear that Rolemaster came up with a way to add more realism to injured pcs....
3) HP = Healthbar
-I understand that it is an extraction to allow for a certain level of playability but it totally shatters any concept of realism. The fact that a nearly unconscious person can fight, cast spells, and run around just as well (and unhindered) as someone of comparable level who just stepped out of his morning shower, massage, and daily clerical restoration.
I have a small game, Shadow, Sword & Spell, that starts issuing Target Number (their to hit mechanic) penalties for every 15 points of damage that a character suffers.
I'm still learning Pathfinder, but a similar mechanic be applied?
|
|
If you want a death spiral mechanic (where you take penalties to actions when injured, making it more likely to take further injury) then you could try something along the lines of Earthdawn's Damage and Wounds.
Whenever your Pathfinder character takes Damage, if the amount exceeds a certain threshold (perhaps Con Score, perhaps Con Score + Level) the character suffers a "Wound". Every Wound taken imposes a -1 wound penalty (stackable with other wound penalties) on all ability checks, skill checks and perhaps even AC (though that would be extremely dangerous). You can heal 1 Wound per 8 hours of rest or 1 Wound per d8 in a cure spell (not also used to heal HPs).
Alternatively if you want something a little simpler you could take a tip from Star Wars d20 Revised Core Rules. When your HPs drop below your Con Score you become Fatigued. This is however problematic at low levels when total HP are likely less than Con score and so any damage imposes the Fatigued condition.
|
There is no problem with the HP system if you don't describe every hit as being a bloody wound. Yes, someone with 3 hp fights as well as someone with 300 hp, but they are wearing down, reactions slowing, out of breath, losing combat readiness and one slip-up away from a fight-ending blow.
HP are an abstract system, keep that in mind as you are describing the ebb and flow of battle and it's just fine.