|
If I could go back in time, one of the silly geeky things I'd do is head to, say... 1972 and begin publishing some form of GURPS so that it would then supplant D&D as the iconic game system and a more refined "simulationsist" system would reign over these 36 years.
I'd do the same thing, only with BRP.
I would go back in time and laugh at both of you as you fail to do so because D&D would still be more popular then either games, and for a reason.
I don't think we can definitively state either way on that one. Maybe D&D is special, maybe it was just the first on the market, maybe it is special because it was first.
I don't think it's special because it was the first on the market, I think it's special because, for many gamers, it's the first tabletop RPG they played. So, in that case, it would be special because of a greater visibility/popularity. :)
Stuff, then... Aren't the bolded sections just what you wanted for the short article dicouraging the use of monsters, but in differen't words?
No. In fact, they're not. They're exactly what Paizo gave us - a half assed attempt. Just enough information to make PCs who want to play monster races dangerous - or at least annoying. If they wanted to discourage monsters as PCs (until the book came out), they could have just said "Sorry, that's for another book." But they're absolutely no help whatsoever when attempting to balance monsters as PCs.
As for half-celestial as +1 ECL... that's where we started. The half-celestial was still easily the most powerful member of the group. Then we dropped it's spell like abilities, and he's still pretty buff. We've now started debating just using the 3.5 level adjustment (+4) or the max CR adjustment (+3). Either way - what little guidance we got doesn't work at all for templated creatures.
And if they do come out with a "Monsters as Races" book, then that'll just be eliminated as a problem altogether. (Assuming it works better than Savage Species...)
Stuff, then... Aren't the bolded sections just what you wanted for the short article dicouraging the use of monsters, but in differen't words?No. In fact, they're not. They're exactly what Paizo gave us - a half assed attempt. Just enough information to make PCs who want to play monster races dangerous - or at least annoying. If they wanted to discourage monsters as PCs (until the book came out), they could have just said "Sorry, that's for another book." But they're absolutely no help whatsoever when attempting to balance monsters as PCs.
As for half-celestial as +1 ECL... that's where we started. The half-celestial was still easily the most powerful member of the group. Then we dropped it's spell like abilities, and he's still pretty buff. We've now started debating just using the 3.5 level adjustment (+4) or the max CR adjustment (+3). Either way - what little guidance we got doesn't work at all for templated creatures.
And if they do come out with a "Monsters as Races" book, then that'll just be eliminated as a problem altogether. (Assuming it works better than Savage Species...)
IIRC the reason why ECL wasn't brought over is because the folks at paizo didn't like it, BUT didn't have a truly satisfactory alternative. If you check out the council of thieves players guide they talk about that a little when it comes to playing tieflings. Also, its just not high on the list of do's when you are trying to publish games for characters with regular races.
Not to harp on your valid criticism, because everyone has something they don't like. But they did offer some alternatives and say that "its really up the what the GM is comfortable with".
Well, as I read that it says the monsters are not meant to be played as PCs and DM has the final say whether the character is allowed.
...
And if they do come out with a "Monsters as Races" book, then that'll just be eliminated as a problem altogether. (Assuming it works better than Savage Species...)
Well, hope so...
|
1)Continuing the rogue dependence on sneak attack by allowing it to work on 99% of the monsters in the game.
2)Continuing the weakness of the ranger class by allowing the extremly narrow version of favored enemy to continue.
3) Giving the fighter everything in the way of combat to make her superior to other warrior types in combat with always on powers and poorly thought out specialty fighter feats.
4) The loss of save or die spells but allowing instant kill options for non-casters (i.e assasin & rogue cap stones).
All of the players who have found problems with pathfinder, should try playing GURPS 4ed, and all your problems are solved...
Its that easy.
This is by far the most rediculous thing I've read on these forums.
|
I don't think we can definitively state either way on that one. Maybe D&D is special, maybe it was just the first on the market, maybe it is special because it was first.
We will never know until we have already gone back in time and tried. But since we haven't, we didn't, and we won't. Does that make sense?
:-)
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.
Best post I've read in a while. Absolutely hilarious and spot on.
My thoughts on what could be changed to improve the game.
1) Discrepancy between casters/non-casters- Which really comes down to a need to over hall the skill system, and give non-casters more skill points than casters.
2) Magic Item Creation System- It went from being bad in 3.x to being atrocious and ripe for abuse in PF. Stricter guidelines on what can and can't be made and a better system for what things should cost besides, it's up to the GM.
3) Weight between attributes- people often pump up their Str and dump Cha, although not true at least 50% characters are made this way. If you only have six attributes the value between them should be much closer. Too many PF character stats look the same.
4) Low Levels suck and are highly dependent on randomness of the dice- First off who wants to run fights between PC's and wolves, or oh god no a bear. Second, the low bonuses that beginning characters have mean that the dice have much more weight than they do with high level characters.
Ditch at least the first two levels if not the first four. Then you could go back to old hit dice without low-level wizards being nearly unplayable.
5) Vancian magic- I liked the system that Monte Cook used in Unearthed Arcana/Arcana Evolved, that was interesting and elegant, without having the abuse potential that a spell point system has. You memorized spells, but could cast them in any combination. So if you could memorize three 1st level spells they might be (Color Spray, Mage Armor, and Ventriloquism) Then you could cast each one once, one of them three times, or any combination of the three.
6) Feats- Not all feats are created equal. It would be nice if each feat were assigned a number of slots, so that for 2 slots I could either get Power Attack or Run and Quickdraw.
Stuff.
4) Low levels are fine, at least better than high levels IMO. You can fight bandits, kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, orcs (but not to much), gnolls, bugbears and even an ogre or two, and ther are only a few examples. For me, it makes more sense than fighting hordes of giants.
5) I love Vancian magic, but maybe only because it's different from all those ''mana''-based systems we see in all those video games that I'm getting tired of. I guess it's only a matter of taste.
Well, the problem with charisma is that a lot of weight in that skill is not put via game mechanics. It's about interaction with NPCs and that depends on the GM.
What's so easily abusable with the creation of magic items?
Well, the problem with charisma is that a lot of weight in that skill is not put via game mechanics. It's about interaction with NPCs and that depends on the GM.
That's the problem. I think they need to give some mechanical benefit to investing in Charisma
What's so easily abusable with the creation of magic items?
Even setting aside such ridiculous items as the CLW at will item for 1800 GP, or Silent Still Charm Person for 27,000GP. It's easy do things like: 1 item +1 AC(Deflection), another item +1 AC (Dodge), another item +1 AC (Insight), another item +1 AC (Sacred), which though it eats up four slots gives a net bonus to AC of +4, and Bracers of Defense +4 cost 16,000 GP.
All that aside, with the whole Christmas tree phenomenon going, simply being able to pick out your ornaments is a huge advantage.
4) Low levels are fine, at least better than high levels IMO. You can fight bandits, kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, orcs (but not to much), gnolls, bugbears and even an ogre or two, and ther are only a few examples. For me, it makes more sense than fighting hordes of giants.
I agree that high levels need more work than the low ones, I just rarely play high levels. And maybe it's more of a personal preference than something that is "wrong" with pathfinder, but I've killed so many orcs, goblins, etc. that I'm kind of done with that. Hell at this point I'd rather fight a pack of dolphins than see another orc guarding a chest.
5) I love Vancian magic, but maybe only because it's different from all those ''mana''-based systems we see in all those video games that I'm getting tired of. I guess it's only a matter of taste.
Yeah, I suppose that one is a matter of taste.
Some bad/poorly done elements.
1) Crafting system.
-This is a large remnant from 3.5. It technically works, but it is very ineloquent, bulky, and not very player friendly.2) Feats = Character customization
-PERSONAL NITPICK HERE!! I am personally bothered by the fact that 80%(+) of character customization is expected to be done through the feat system, meaning that certain classes are just factually more locked into what their role and playstyle is. I LOVE LOVE LOVE the archetypes as laid out in the APG and want more, these are the PERFECT way to mix up the classes without adding any real bloat to the system.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.
Here is my view on hit points:
Hit points are not actual hits on your person...
That is why only a fraction of your health comes from your constition and in the books it says "a dagger through the eye is a dagger through the eye".
Hit points represent that near miss dodge that clipped some hair off or the strength you had to exert to stop that last blow with your shield IMO.
Just the way I have always played because you are right, viewing it as actual blows to your health is ridiculous
Most of my issues with Pf are holdovers from my issues with 3x in general, actually.Yep.
So what holdovers from 3e do I dislike?
I dislike how mandatory magic items are, and how non-magic characters still need something "magical" to keep up. I dislike how "Oh a spell can do that" exists for everything. I dislike the continuing reign of caster domination due to how DCs vs saves scale as well as the "Oh a spell can do that." I dislike that casters have a thousand and one options and ways of being cool, while noncasters are still limited to "I move and hit it with my sword. I don't move and hit it with my sword twice!"
To sum it into something more bite size: I hate that it remains a magic game rather then a fantasy game.
+1
All of the players who have found problems with pathfinder, should try playing GURPS 4ed, and all your problems are solved...
I tried. Believe me, I tried.
(Granted, I tried it with GURPS Third Edition, but still...)
I really, really wanted to like GURPS. In theory, it had what I wanted, such as a point-buy system, so I could make characters with fantastic powers. GURPS was supposed to free me from the tyranny and narrow mindset of D&D...
But I found GURPS too complicated, the damage system gave results that were ridiculous and no fun at all to play, characters and monsters were no fun to stat, and I found that character point totals were not only inaccurate, but weren't even in the same UNIVERSE as "accurate."
Then D&D 3rd Edition came out, with its concept of Level Adjustment. It wasn't as flexible as a point-buy system... but it WORKED!
|
|
For myself:
-The core book is just too large and intimidating for some. Plus a pain in the behind to read espcially if your like me and like reading it in bed. I understand why they did it yet if their is a 2E of PF please seperate them.
-Fighters still suffer at high levels and caster still dominate at high levels too. The devlopers tried to fix that with PF. While the fighter in PF is much better than the 3.5 version he still is imo a one trick pony.
-I like the APG overall yet some variant class abilites just not worth it. Take the Drunken Master. At level 13 he loses Diamond soul for DR. Which would be okay yet he loses a pretty good SR value for a pathetic amoiunt of DR. 3 points at 19th level. Creautres just need to sneeze on you at that point to bypass the DR
-The game to me anyway still requires a much work as it did in 3.5. Not much in the way of streamlining. Still requires a lot of prep time.
-The nerfing of certain things in the game. True sothings were broken yet to me it just feels like nerfing fo the sake of nerfing.
I'm glad the dropped the extra levels for taking a mosnter. It's all easy to say monster xyz should be required to have an ECl of +2 or +3 yet in practice it just plain was annoying. I think the devs at Paizo realized that. No one imo wants to play a race that requires you to have two or three more levels of experience to advance or cery few. If it bothers some posters so much don' allow mosnter races
-The nerfing of certain things in the game. True sothings were broken yet to me it just feels like nerfing fo the sake of nerfing.
I agree with this very much.
Humans got nerfed by attrition, and I can't help but feel that they are almost useless.
Barbarians at first where nerfed, and nerfed bad. Now, they have a completely different focus. Barbarians should have been the damage dealers, while the fighters be the hitters.
Mithral nerf made little sense. Anyone who knows working with real materials knows that it changes from material to material. Seeing as the lose descriptions on what makes armors their types, like say, what type of buccles and locks used in putting the armor on and/or joints for hinges used, both could be changed with a material that is drastically lighter, but still as strong. From the comments made by Jason the soul reason for starting the thought of changing this was completely base on this effect of mithral not making sense. Now there might have been mechanical reasons, but honestly other than clerics still using heavy armor, or shadow dancers using medium armor, I just don't see it.
Spiked Chain was also nerfed needlessly. The real problems with it was in the game mechanics, like the trip rules. This was fixed, but now it isn't worth a feat any more, and is more akin to a simple weapon.
Another thing is something left over from 3.5. Armor is still almost useless in later level. Even with a 12 in a stat it is easy with items and books to out grow mithral or even celestrial heavy and medium armor, making the feats useless. This needed to be fixed some how, not just some special class ability with fighters.
Mithral nerf made little sense
How was mithral nerfed?
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Mithral is a very rare silvery, glistening metal that is lighter than iron but just as hard. When worked like steel, it becomes a wonderful material from which to create armor and is occasionally used for other items as well. Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonus is increased by 2, and armor check penalties are lessened by 3 (to a minimum of 0).
An item made from mithral weighs half as much as the same item made from other metals. In the case of weapons, this lighter weight does not change a weapon’s size category or the ease with which it can be wielded (whether it is light, one-handed, or two-handed). Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral. (A longsword can be a mithral weapon, while a scythe cannot be.)
Weapons or armors fashioned from mithral are always masterwork items as well; the masterwork cost is included in the prices given below.
Mithral has 30 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 15.
Mithral is a very rare silvery, glistening metal that is lighter than steel but just as hard. When worked like steel, it becomes a wonderful material from which to create armor, and is occasionally used for other items as well. Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. This decrease does not apply to proficiency in wearing the armor. A character wearing mithral full plate must be proficient in wearing heavy armor to avoid adding the armor's check penalty to all his attack rolls and skill checks that involve moving. Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonuses are increased by 2, and armor check penalties are decreased by 3 (to a minimum of 0).
An item made from mithral weighs half as much as the same item made from other metals. In the case of weapons, this lighter weight does not change a weapon's size category or the ease with which it can be wielded (whether it is light, one-handed, or two-handed). Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral. (A longsword can be a mithral weapon, while a quarterstaff cannot.) Mithral weapons count as silver for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
Mithral has 30 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 15.
Short answer: it wasn't. The only differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder's mithral is that Pathfinder went out of the way to reiterate that you still needed the armor profeciency for the type of armor, as opposed to the weight category, and added the silver qualities to the weapons. If anything, Pathfinder improved mithral.
EDIT: Forgot to make it clear, but even in 3.5, you needed profeciency in Heavy armor to wear Mithral Full Plate. They just spelt it out in Pathfinder.
Or to elaborate, made Heavy Armor Proficency more worthy.
"Mithral nerf" is like "power attack nerf". It isn't.
EDIT: Forgot to make it clear, but even in 3.5, you needed profeciency in Heavy armor to wear Mithral Full Plate. They just spelt it out in Pathfinder.
Incorrect
Is a character proficient with light armor, such as a
rogue, considered to be proficient with mithral breastplate?
What about a character proficient with medium armor,
such as a barbarian—is he considered proficient with
mithral full plate armor?
The description of mithral on page 284 of the DMG is less
precise than it could be in defining how it interacts with armor
proficiency rules. The simplest answer—and the one that the
Sage expects most players and DMs use—is that mithral armor
is treated as one category lighter for all purposes, including
proficiency. This isn’t exactly what the DMG says, but it’s a
reasonable interpretation of the intent of the rule (and it’s
supported by a number of precedents, including the
descriptions of various specific mithral armors described on
page 220 of the DMG and a variety of NPC stat blocks).
Thus, a ranger or rogue could wear a mithral breastplate
without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as
light armor), and each could use any ability dependent on
wearing light or no armor (such as evasion or the ranger’s
combat style). A barbarian could wear mithral full plate armor
without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as
medium armor), and he could use any ability dependent on
wearing medium or lighter armor (such as fast movement).
The same would be true of any other special material that
uses the same or similar language as mithral (such as darkleaf,
on page 120 of the ECS).
To be fair, I also thought (in 3.0/3.5) you needed proficiency in the heavier armor category in order to take advantage of mithral. It was, in my opinion, way too good otherwise (especially for the price).
To be fair, I also thought (in 3.0/3.5) you needed proficiency in the heavier armor category in order to take advantage of mithral. It was, in my opinion, way too good otherwise (especially for the price).
I'm glad they fixed this in PFRPG.
To be fair, I also thought (in 3.0/3.5) you needed proficiency in the heavier armor category in order to take advantage of mithral. It was, in my opinion, way too good otherwise (especially for the price).
Actually, mithral in my opinion isn't good enough at increasing max dexerity at all, as I stated before, if you want to build a defensive character, the higher level you go, the more likely you would be better off with getting a 2nd stat to AC, like the monk, so without armor your AC could increase indefinitely, where with armor you are static on dex, and don't get a 2nd stat.
As to mithral being used with weapons,
1. It costs too much, and sometimes more than making the same weapon adamantine.
2. You are probably better-off getting a +3 weapon, which can bypass the silver DR anyway!
So it really does nothing, unless you have some weird carrying weight condition.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
As the thread says what do you think are the bad elements of Pathfinder. Please keep the topic civil.
Cleric aren't Clerics, they have to take a Feat to gain Heavy Armor proficiency. If we needed, we should have allowed it by giving up one of the two domains or one of your highest level spell slots, or something "worth" a feat. You shouldn't need to take a feat to be a Cleric.
Huh, did I miss something? Clerics without Full Plate aren't Clerics? o.O
|
|
Huh, did I miss something? Clerics without Full Plate aren't Clerics? o.OIncoming: The Much Anticipated Return of the Cleric Heavy Armor Proficiency Flamewar, or: how Paizo killed the class by stopping them from wearing Full Plate.
Film at eleven.
LOL. It is not even that bad. At most you lose two points or is it one point of your AC. There goes the usefullness of the Cleric class.
LOL. It is not even that bad. At most you lose two points or is it one point of your AC. There goes the usefullness of the Cleric class.Huh, did I miss something? Clerics without Full Plate aren't Clerics? o.OIncoming: The Much Anticipated Return of the Cleric Heavy Armor Proficiency Flamewar, or: how Paizo killed the class by stopping them from wearing Full Plate.
Film at eleven.
Personally I would have given them tower shield proficient, dropped their base attack to poor, and given them more class abilities in the later levels that are not combat damage oriented.
What about replacing the cleric entirely with a wooden frame to hold the full plate upward and cast cure spells upon any ally touching it? :o)
In general, that the game is continuing in the direction of making things less risky.
I might be in the minority, but I think the nerfing on save v death is a bad thing. I think the general weakening of some hated monsters in general is not good as well (rust monsters, basilisk, cockatrice, etc).
Oh, and I have not been a big fan of the artwork either. I know that they make the decisions they do for things like appearing modern and for marketing. But I do like to see art that is more graphic I suppose. I want to feel fear when I see demons, disgust when I see jellies and maybe a little embarassed when I see a succubus. I still think the best artwork came from the old 1st edition stuff.
Huh, did I miss something? Clerics without Full Plate aren't Clerics? o.OIncoming: The Much Anticipated Return of the Cleric Heavy Armor Proficiency Flamewar, or: how Paizo killed the class by stopping them from wearing Full Plate.
Film at eleven.
I had a cleric once I never dressed heavier than a chain shirt, even though she was proficient.
I suppose I ought to be executed now?
We will eventually do a book like that.
Oh, my DM will love to hear that, he loves playing as monsters. And will admit, I would be interesting on how you would handle it (I know you wouldn't butcher it like that broken Savage Species).
Pfft! Screw the powerful monsters. I'd rather play as a kobold or a goblin.
Me too. Love playing my Hobgoblin right now in our monster campaign. I am pretty sure (hope) the lesser monster races would be included on that eventual monster as players book.