I definately think it could! All I am talking about is looking at the mechanics of 4e and incorporating the best of them into the PF rules.I would suggest PF would be used as the base, i.e. keep the more simulationist model and "robust system", but look at some of the great things 4e did like Second Wind, Short Rests, At Will and Encounter powers etc.
I still don't think much of this would exactly work. Pathfinder is simulation heavy in presentation and you seem to be dropping some of 4Es cinematic elements in there willy nilly. At Wills are obviously not a problem - in reality everything in Pathfinder is, using 4E terminology, either an At Will or a Daily. The Second Wind works reasonably well or at least could be fairly easily explained. The Short Rest though is at odds with a simulation based system. It 'simulates' the idea that action hero's can dramatically recover between scenes, which works fine with 4Es cinematic conceits but much less so with Pathfinder. Encounters are right out - there is nothing simulationistic about an encounter power, they are designed to make 4E characters behave like Xena essentially this is the opposite of simulationism...your being rewarded not to stick to one part of the script but to bounce around like its a modern light saber duel.
There are other issues here as well. In the above encounter a Pathfinder GM should not worry all that much about the rules because the players will probably teleport away or take to the air. In 4E they can forget that as a viable option...run for your lives is probably the only really viable option on the table. The result is that the 4E DM puts this scene together starting with DM fiat and the skill and level guidelines but should have the details hammered out if at all possible because his players will nearly certianly need to interact with it. They can't easily get away - they are going to need to use terrain or some such to escape. Hence there are power level differences between the systems.
While I in general agree, I wold have to say that "In 4E they can forget that as a viable option" isn't true. For most class combinations it is true, but at some point the party will have access to utility powers that will allow mass flight, teleportation, and other lava-escaping techniques. If the 4th edition party was all martial characters this is unlikely to be the case (unless they are high level, had learned, and already used the phantom steed ritual).
The ideal situation would be for Hasbro to give up the license to another company that is not Paizo. But I agree some would like to see the 4E license bought and buried.That would be incredibly stupid and wasteful. You may not be able to abide this fact, but there are people that do play and like the system. You want to yank out the carpet from them just for spite?
I can definitely see where the impression of spite may come in, since context is everything, but I want 4E to continue, but I don't like the current direction it is headed. But it would be stupid and wasteful for those that are content. But if I had to choose between 4E being discontinued, I would hope someone would take it over that would be more responsive and free from Hasbro, but at the same time would have no conflicts of interest in making it the best game possible.
|
That would be incredibly stupid and wasteful. You may not be able to abide this fact, but there are people that do play and like the system. You want to yank out the carpet from them just for spite?
Most probably...it's like Star Wars vs. Star Trek kinda thing...me, i like both and enjoy watching both, but there are some people, to whom suggesting to watch anything from the "opposition" would constitute a grave insult. For some reason, that is how i feel about 4th edition. It is a Star Trek to my Star Wars.
Assuming Paizo got the D&D licence and wanted to use that brand name instead of using the Pathfinder brand, and they were going to take the opportunity to change some of the Pathfinder rules at the same time (so that D&D 5e is effectively Pathfinder 2e) then I see no reason why they shouldn't learn and possibly use some of the good mechanics that first saw print in 4e.
What good mechanics?
|
|
Healing surges are terrible for simulation: They work excellently in SW:SAGA, which follows most of the mechanics of PF and 3.5.
Actualy you have catch breath which will restore some hitpoints and can be used only once per encounter...and there is no force power that can make it happen again. There are no healing surges in SW SAGA. ONly kind of healing is natural healing, and life transfer force power.
OTOH, what i have against the concept of encounter and daily powers is the fact that the mechanics are dissociated. So you have a daily power which lets you shove an opponent six squares away from you (i'm just giving an example, i don't know if an actual power exists). And after you use it once, you suddenly forget how to use it? What? IF you take vital strike, you can use it all day...same thing with combat maneuvers. This mechanic gives me a feel of skills on cooldown. And if i want to play an MMO, i will damn do so...i don't need a pen and paper one.
Now, i played 4th edition several times, and combats were fun, it's just that to me, it no longer has that D&D feel it had from 1st to 3.5 editions. It's just so completely different it's almost unrecognizable.
|
|
I'm not sure you actually read what I just said. by the way, could you explain why it is acceptable for you to have daily powers and abilities in Pathfinder and not in 4th? Is it okay for you to "forget" how to do something because it's Pathfinder? I'm not sure if I'm attempting to address a simple double standard here, or if you have some logic that I haven't caught onto yet....
Not really. Spells have a daily limit because your body literaly can't take in more magic. From all the powers i've seen being used in some ten to twelve sessions i played 4th ed, most of them reminded me of combat maneuvers. I understand that a wizard may cast only a single, insanely powerful "spell" per day. But why can't a fighter repeatedly use that powerful overhead chop, it's not like he looses the ability to do so until a day has passed.
If you answer that it is for the sake of balance, it's not a good argument.And spells and spell like abilities are the only thing you cannot constantly use. Everything else is usable all the time.
If you answer that it is for the sake of balance, it's not a good argument.
Matthew have an excellent explanation of how it works, but I have an extra bone to pick with the above statement.
In Pathfinder, why can't I choose to start play with a personal armory full of some of the most powerful magical gear ever crafted? You can try and worm around the answer, but in the end it boils down to: for the sake of balance.
Declaring "for the sake of balance" to be a bad argument is just silly.
And spells and spell like abilities are the only thing you cannot constantly use. Everything else is usable all the time.
Because you say so? Or what?
Ok, but, why can't i push myself to force another overhead chop? I don't care if i take damage from my muscles bursting, so, why not?
Because you don't have the opportunity to do so. Is it just that you're having a hard time grasping the idea of a narrative element like this? I'm trying to figure out what the problem is, here.
The problem with healing surges, is the automatic refreshment each day, where it could be easily changed to have a set amount renewed per day. I also agree on the reference of daily versus encounter powers, and the simple fix is to make encounters only usuable so many times per day. There is also some breaks in logic in regards to certain melee classes being able to use dual wielding, one handed or two handed weapons with certain powers. There are a couple more, but overall we are not talking about monumental changes to make it a closer relative of previous editions of D&D. There is no need base it off of Pathfinder. That way the two products would remain distinct.
|
|
If you answer that it is for the sake of balance, it's not a good argument.Matthew have an excellent explanation of how it works, but I have an extra bone to pick with the above statement.
In Pathfinder, why can't I choose to start play with a personal armory full of some of the most powerful magical gear ever crafted? You can try and worm around the answer, but in the end it boils down to: for the sake of balance.
Declaring "for the sake of balance" to be a bad argument is just silly.
I am not talking about that kind of balance. I am talking about power balance. What you get in 4e is a bunch of classes that all do almost the same stuff, that is just called differently, depending on the class in question. That, imo is too much balance.
I prefer my unbalanced system thank you very much.
And so it begins. What I have learned from my debates with those that like 4E is that they see things differently from the way I do, and not much can change that. They are just willing to accept things I am not and vice versa.
My point:If the point is to just seek understanding then continue. If the point is to try to prove to the other person that they are wrong about something then much time is being wasted, unless you just feel like a good debate, to which I say, carry on. :)
|
|
I may have stepped in over my head a little, letting my hatred for the 4th edition blind me.
If you like it and have fun with it, kudos to you.
I don't and never will.
It's just, that to me, the imbalance of 3.5/pf is beautiful. The fact that not everybody is the same, just differently flavored is beautiful. The fact that there are several different mechanics to solve things is beautiful. I don't like sameness.
Also, maybe the 4th edition has a less steep learning curve of the two systems, but i find that playing a more difficult one is more gratifying in the end.
But, like i said, have fun and kudos!
EDIT: Just one thing to the last question on your post:
Vital strike...it deals alot of damage and it can be used all the time. There.
Actually GURPS treats damage along the same lines as 4E, and it only uses a D6. It is very good at portraying a fantasy setting. The comments on all 4E powers being the same is misleading, because they have all the properties of Pathfinder in regards to different damage types, damage dice, power sources, damage resistance, saving throws (reflex, fortitude, willpower defenses), effects, conditions, etc. Therefore, mechanically, all pathfinder abilities and spells are the same in comparison. I can understand some players don't like 4E, but some of the blanket statements in regards to everything is the same are just false, because any game system strives to implement consistent mechanics. Well maybe with the exception of psionics.
If your argument is you like the disparity between Pathfinder spell casters and melee, then I understand.
I am not talking about that kind of balance.
Yes you are. The balance that prevents a PC from starting with the magic items of a level 20 character at level 1 in PF is the same sort of balance that lies behind the decision to limit spells per day, and is the same sort of balance that lies behind the decision to make daily powers daily powers and encounter powers encounter powers.
I am talking about power balance.
So are we..
What you get in 4e is a bunch of classes that all do almost the same stuff, that is just called differently, depending on the class in question.
Except that they don't all do almost the same stuff. At all.
I promise I won't duct tape you to one of my dining room table chairs and make you play in my game if you'll do the same. ;)
Whoa! Let's not get carried away... ;)
|
|
Oh, me not wanting to play 4th edition (i still may be persuaded otherwise, with a goood diplomacy check),has nothing to do with myself duct taping you to my gaming table. I have done it to all my players. Once you go Hama, you never go...back? Unless you cut the duct tape of course. :D
But i promise not to duct tape myself to your dining room chair, unless i have fun. :D
|
In Pathfinder, why can't I choose to start play with a personal armory full of some of the most powerful magical gear ever crafted? You can try and worm around the answer, but in the end it boils down to: for the sake of balance.
That's actually a horrible example because you can totally do that. :)
That's actually a horrible example because you can totally do that. :)
In Pathfinder, why can't I choose to start play with a personal armory full of some of the most powerful magical gear ever crafted? You can try and worm around the answer, but in the end it boils down to: for the sake of balance.
At 1st level? Not without DM fiat. And if we're counting DM fiat, a DM could also say that you could use as many daily powers as you want. You can't really have a meaningful comparison between the two systems unless you stick to the systems.
While I in general agree, I wold have to say that "In 4E they can forget that as a viable option" isn't true. For most class combinations it is true, but at some point the party will have access to utility powers that will allow mass flight, teleportation, and other lava-escaping techniques. If the 4th edition party was all martial characters this is unlikely to be the case (unless they are high level, had learned, and already used the phantom steed ritual).
OK I should have been a little more explicit - your right that by the time players are picking their epic destinies they'll have ways to get out of this. However that is a really long way into the game and for most of the play experience run like the dickens (and use a few movement powers) will be the method of choice for dealing with unexpected lava flows.
This is different then in 3.5 where access to flight magic and other methods of escape start coming on line really pretty early and escape via magic is basically on tap for most of most peoples campaigns.
Yes and no. A direct port probably wouldn't work. On the other hand, I think there are ways to structure it that could fit. And if one can accept daily powers as simulationist, not just spells but abilities like Bard Song and Rage... I don't think shorter-recharge powers are inherently opposed to simulationism. Provided they are presented in the right fashion.One approach would be something like Psionic Focus. This is similar to an encounter power, in that you can enter an encounter with it, expend it for a variety of benefits, and then recharge it between combats. Or even during a combat, with a full-round action.
Take that basic structure, and you could use it as the core of an encounter based power system if you truly wanted to blend PF and 4E. The fighter has his various at-wills. He can also expend his 'martial focus' to unleash some secondary effect - probably in conjunction with a normal attack, which empowers in some fashion based on his build, etc.
The main sticking point in terms of simulationism and encounter powers is that 4E often doesn't try to pin down the reasons why. It gives some possible explanations - they represent reserves of strength, or martial manuevers that can't be used again once an enemy sees them, or represent exploiting a rare set of circumstance that doesn't come up every round. The issue is that without pinning down one answer, it is harder for a DM to judge how specific situations interact with them, especially with the explanations that put some narrative control...
Your examples work but I just don't see them flying. I think a direct statement that 'everyone' is magic would turn off to many people.
This is different then in 3.5 where access to flight magic and other methods of escape start coming on line really pretty early and escape via magic is basically on tap for most of most peoples campaigns.
I must play very different style campaigns than you in PF/3.5 because while you do get fly and some other things to deal with magical movement and escape reasonably early, unless everyone is playing a class that gets it, as an entire group you still tend to be limited in how you can apply it without seriously impacting your effectiveness in other areas until you hit level 10 or so. If the DM is handing out disposable treasure right and left so that you can make an near infinite number of scrolls or wondrous items, than that changes things, but that is true of both systems.
This is different then in 3.5 where access to flight magic and other methods of escape start coming on line really pretty early and escape via magic is basically on tap for most of most peoples campaigns.I must play very different style campaigns than you in PF/3.5 because while you do get fly and some other things to deal with magical movement and escape reasonably early, unless everyone is playing a class that gets it, as an entire group you still tend to be limited in how you can apply it without seriously impacting your effectiveness in other areas until you hit level 10 or so. If the DM is handing out disposable treasure right and left so that you can make an near infinite number of scrolls or wondrous items, than that changes things, but that is true of both systems.
Seriously impacting your effectiveness in other areas?...Ummm what the heck is more important then not attaining the dead condition? Everything else is secondary to that. Maybe it was the lethality of the games I was playing in but in those if you had 1 spell of this level then it should be a 'get us the hell out of here' spell.
Even before such magic comes on line you can get pretty far if you can run fast and have a ring of feather fall. That's pretty good at getting you out of most bad situations.
While I in general agree, I wold have to say that "In 4E they can forget that as a viable option" isn't true. For most class combinations it is true, but at some point the party will have access to utility powers that will allow mass flight, teleportation, and other lava-escaping techniques. If the 4th edition party was all martial characters this is unlikely to be the case (unless they are high level, had learned, and already used the phantom steed ritual).OK I should have been a little more explicit - your right that by the time players are picking their epic destinies they'll have ways to get out of this. However that is a really long way into the game and for most of the play experience run like the dickens (and use a few movement powers) will be the method of choice for dealing with unexpected lava flows.
This is different then in 3.5 where access to flight magic and other methods of escape start coming on line really pretty early and escape via magic is basically on tap for most of most peoples campaigns.
The one power that is stuck in my mind (either because felt more neat than other utility powers or because I really liked having it with my wizard) was the 10th level utility power Arcane Gate. I recall it creating a pair of connected portals 20 squares from one another and being a cool "low level" teleportation power that could move the entire party.
From my faint recollections of creating characters a ways back, I am pretty certain that powers like this are uncommon and escape by flight/teleportation is much less common in 4e than Pathfinder or 3.5, but I don't believe it is a safe statement to say that a 4th edition party will certainly have to deal with any obstacle that is before them.
Seriously impacting your effectiveness in other areas?...Ummm what the heck is more important then not attaining the dead condition? Everything else is secondary to that. Maybe it was the lethality of the games I was playing in but in those if you had 1 spell of this level then it should be a 'get us the hell out of here' spell.
Even before such magic comes on line you can get pretty far if you can run fast and have a ring of feather fall. That's pretty good at getting you out of most bad situations.
My experience is that in general spell slots are extremely precious things and that most of the tactics that involve heavy use of spell effects also assume a very rich party. You can use spell slots to get the entire party out of a tough spot, but you better hope that is all you have to deal with that day, because any encounter after that is going to have to be dealt with the vast majority of your daily resources spent. This also assumes that every party automatically has a dedicated caster in the group who has spent almost all of their wealth on spells and spell related items, which is not even close to be true in most actual games with a DM that knows what they are doing.
This isn't to say that using those spell earlier was a waste or a bad idea, just that most of the power of wizards isn't in their basic spell slots, it's in their scrolls, wands, and other magical items, all of which the DM ultimately controls access to in how much disposable wealth they give the party. While casters can get around such limitations easier than most, the fact remains that the DM determines not only access to disposable wealth, but what is available to spend that wealth on. If the DM doesn't want a scroll shop that any old stranger can walk into and buy scrolls of potentially disruptive spells, the wizard has to find some other way of getting them, and it may not be easy or immediate.
It is by no means a default reality in 3.5/PF that by level 5, or even 10 or 20, that the party is automatically going to have the resources to render a massive lava flow insignificant to the whole party to the point that they can go looking for more encounters after doing so. This is true of both systems; the DM controls the resources the party has in both, and while it can be easier on an individual level to deal with some of these obstacles in 3.5/PF, the ability for the party to do so is entirely dependent on what resources the DM gives out and the composition of the party.
The one power that is stuck in my mind (either because felt more neat than other utility powers or because I really liked having it with my wizard) was the 10th level utility power Arcane Gate. I recall it creating a pair of connected portals 20 squares from one another and being a cool "low level" teleportation power that could move the entire party.From my faint recollections of creating characters a ways back, I am pretty certain that powers like this are uncommon and escape by flight/teleportation is much less common in 4e than Pathfinder or 3.5, but I don't believe it is a safe statement to say that a 4th edition party will certainly have to deal with any obstacle that is before them.
That's really a pretty good power, though even here its much more limited then comparable 3.5/PF magic. You create a gate between two spaces that you can see (you need line of effect) within 20 squares of each other. I can think of a lot of uses for this power but then I can think of a lot of places where it'd not do all that much good. I can't think of a ton of comparable powers for other classes at this low a level either. It may not have been a blanket totally correct statement but I think its pretty accurate as a generalization comparing 4E to 3.x/PF in this regards. Generally speaking 4E players can get off the ground/out of the way in a much more limited manner.
All that said we've got a wizard in our group and he has not used this power for us and I could think of a few cases where it would have been bloody useful. Now where did I put those thumbscrews...
Artificers have similar powers like arcane springboard if my memory serves me, but high level rituals can re-introduce some of the more classic spells so you can have the entire party gate, used flying steeds, etc. But usually the party needs to find a point of safety, and the appropriate ritual, versus bugging out in the middle of combat. There is so much potential to expanded these for each class, but nothing really materialized, except for a supplement released by Goodman games.
As to the wizard power, it was very useful in the Against the Giants series. Especially for small parties that need to make tactical strikes or escapes.
So the dividing line is what you can do in combat, versus outside of it.
My experience is that in general spell slots are extremely precious things and that most of the tactics that involve heavy use of spell effects also assume a very rich party. You can use spell slots to get the entire party out of a tough spot, but you better hope that is all you have to deal with that day, because any encounter after that is going to have to be dealt with the vast majority of your daily resources spent. This also assumes that every party automatically has a dedicated caster in the group who has spent almost all of their wealth on spells and spell related items, which is not even close to be true in most actual games with a DM that knows what they are doing.This isn't to say that using those spell earlier was a waste or a bad idea, just that most of the power of wizards isn't in their basic spell slots, it's in their scrolls, wands, and other magical items, all of which the DM ultimately controls access to in how much disposable wealth they give the party. While casters can get around such limitations easier than most, the fact remains that the DM determines not only access to disposable wealth, but what is available to spend that wealth on. If the DM doesn't want a scroll shop that any old stranger can walk into and buy scrolls of potentially disruptive spells, the wizard has to find some other way of getting them, and it may not be easy or immediate.
It is by no means a default reality in 3.5/PF that by level 5, or even 10 or 20, that the party...
I agree they are precious and that the DM can influence how much magic is in the game etc. However making magic rarer does not make these abilities less common really, It actually heightens their importance. In some sense if you have a DM that is handing out magic like candy then you might well have wands or scrolls to deal with the unusual situation the party finds itself in. If magic is rare then you are more likely to find yourself, and the whole party, up a creek without a paddle. Getting the party out alive is just a general utility power that is just really, really, good. The only time I can see downgrading this type of escape spell from top priority is if you are fairly certain that your DM won't kill you. Only then might this become a waste of a slot.
Certianly if the ground hazards are really just inconveniences and transportation magic is currently rare and valuable the group may well decide to deal with the inconvenience. If one has time its better to climb to the top of the building then teleport up there, especially if the wizard only has one teleport. On the other hand there is a feedback loop here. If the more the DM makes the environment hazardous the more the players are inclined to get their hands on magic that helps them circumvent it. Its difficult for the DM to really control the magic in this regards as well. If the players can't get this magic on their wands and scrolls but they can get other types of magic then this becomes what the spell casters should be using their spell slots for. The only way to really get the rarity level up in this regards is to deny the magic wielding players access to any significant magic at all. In other words the magic players are being forced to spread their slots around because they just can't get their hands on a potion of Gaseous Form et al. or scrolls or wands or anything. I can't really speak to what happens in a game where the DM won't let the players have any scrolls, wands or potions because I've never been in such a game.
As for escape spells being top priority, that can be dealt with easily enough simply by throwing a wide range of encounters at the party. If the party has fly and is trying to fly over the mountain ranges all the time, bring in weather conditions and wind, and see they still continue to default to the fly spell. Don't do it all the time, just enough to point out that magic is great, but it doesn't solve every problem. As for teleport, they still generally have to know where they are trying to go. Point out that sometimes simply walking or talking to people or the things they were doing before they got access to the nifty magic still work and sometimes work better than the use of fancy magic.
It's not as much about making the magic rare, as it is about pointing out that magic isn't always the best solution to a problem. Limiting access to spells and items is just one way of doing that, and necessary mostly because if you don't most parties won't consider the alternatives. Using the environment to the fullest is another way. And giving the rest of the world access to the same tricks, and just as important, defenses to those tricks is also important. Perhaps the best solution is simply to design adventures where simply getting from point A to point B or killing the one bad guy is not going to complete the quest.
None of those steps are limited to a given system. As I said before, it may be easier for an individual to get access to these effects in 3.5/PF, but it can be just as hard to get those effects to the entire party as it is in 4E. In both cases, unless the all of party members have their own access to such powers, it is going to cost resources, often significant resources, for the entire party to avoid environmental hazards, and using up all of one's magic on one encounter is something most smart adventurers would probably be avoiding when possible.
What's amusing to me (over the past page or so of this) is the folks convinced that 3.5/PF mechanics with 4e concepts mixed in is going to unquestionably be a bad system. This is not to say that you folks are laughable, just that I find some of the comments to be a bit on the silly side.
Healing surges are terrible for simulation: They work excellently in SW:SAGA, which follows most of the mechanics of PF and 3.5. I think the primary disconnect here is people assuming "hitpoints must be actual damage" in the same sentence that implies PF is "simulationist." It's arguing at cross purpose. Taking an axe to the chest at 8am being able to (by rules) hustle across the countryside until sunset is not a simulation of anything other than a world where people take axes to the chest and then hustle across the countryside all day. If one considers hitpoints to be a more flexible and ephemeral concept like a combination of luck, fatigue, "plot armor," mental focus, minor scratches, etc. where a combatant is worn down in order to get in the final blows that actually do the real damage, knock people unconscious, etc. then not being able to recover after taking a few minutes to catch your breath (which is all a short rest entails) makes [u]less[/u] sense when compared to reality.
Daily powers are okay, but Encounter powers are just ludicrous: Viewed in a simulationist view of reality, both are actually pretty silly. If you can be that awesome once a day, why don't you do it all the time? Is it magic? Is magic special? Why is magic special like that? Because you said it is? So again it's "simulationist" in a world where magic automatically gets to be better than anyone who doesn't want to be magic. Sounds kindof fascist to me, although I am certain no one meant it that way. Again, outside of taking a less specific view (capitalizing on circumstances that appear by chance, setting your foe up for a particularly harsh maneuver, weaving parts of a greater spell into several smaller ones that...
You seem to be missing my point. Your mainly making judgment statements on whether ability in the style of X is better or worse then ability in the style of Y. I'm saying that each system has a specific look and feel. PF more simulationist while 4E is more cinematic. There are a slew of elements that push each system in these general directions and while such elements are not uniform in either system its still the case that every element added to one system that is better suited to the other will probably anger fans of their chosen system.
The reality is there is no one perfect system that will universally please all the fans any more then there is one universal genre of music. While I suspect that each system can learn some things from the other I don't think attempting to mash them together would actually please the major fans of either system.
I suspect one could show this in an experiment by heading over to the Pathfinder specific section of the board and tacking a poll to see if the Pathfinder players think encounter powers would be good to add to Pathfinder. I'm pretty sure the negative reaction would be pretty intense.
Same deal if you tried to convince 4E players that the hard split in the rules between what the DM does and what the players do is a bad thing...most will likely tell you you have it all wrong, the split is great, either because the 4E fans like the freedom this gives them in dealing with the story...or because it threatens fan favourite 4E element of faster DM prep time.
|
|
At 1st level? Not without DM fiat. And if we're counting DM fiat, a DM could also say that you could use as many daily powers as you want. You can't really have a meaningful comparison between the two systems unless you stick to the systems.That's actually a horrible example because you can totally do that. :)
In Pathfinder, why can't I choose to start play with a personal armory full of some of the most powerful magical gear ever crafted? You can try and worm around the answer, but in the end it boils down to: for the sake of balance.
You didn't say 'start play at 1st level'. You said 'start play', and in PF you can totally start play at 20th level with a personal armory like you described. And be totally balanced. :P
That's really a pretty good power, though even here its much more limited then comparable 3.5/PF magic. You create a gate between two spaces that you can see (you need line of effect) within 20 squares of each other. I can think of a lot of uses for this power but then I can think of a lot of places where it'd not do all that much good. I can't think of a ton of comparable powers for other classes at this low a level either. It may not have been a blanket totally correct statement but I think its pretty accurate as a generalization comparing 4E to 3.x/PF in this regards. Generally speaking 4E players can get off the ground/out of the way in a much more limited manner.
All that said we've got a wizard in our group and he has not used this power for us and I could think of a few cases where it would have been bloody useful. Now where did I put those thumbscrews...
Yep, I would agree with pretty much all of that. Although, I do think that arcane gate would be a pretty good choice for 10th level spellcasters in Pathfinder as well. Even requiring line of sight, I would connecting two points within 100 feet of each other with portals to dimension door. But it could also be that I've played Portal too much. :)
|
Sure, everyone who disagrees is "entrenched in their nerdrage hatred".
Now if some Paizo fans are so entrenched in their nerdrage hatred
We weren't talking about simply disagreeing, we were talking about people getting angry at even the suggestion that Paizo might incorporate some mechanics first seen in 4e, without even knowing the details of what those mechanics are and how they would be implemented.
The other is that the idea is just staggeringly bad.
I'll go with staggeringly bad on this one.
You are willing to write it off not just as a bad idea, but a staggeringly bad idea, before even discussing what mechanics and design principles of 4e might be a good idea to include, or how they may be changed in their implementation to better suit the simulationist model of 3.x?
Okay, thats your prerogative, I personally like to be a bit more open minded about such things.
|
|
The Short Rest though is at odds with a simulation based system. It 'simulates' the idea that action hero's can dramatically recover between scenes, which works fine with 4Es cinematic conceits but much less so with Pathfinder.
Perhaps at the level which PCs can heal in 4e, but the amount of HP that could be recovered per short rest could be reduced so its not "dramatic", maybe one fifth of lost HP, so a character with 25 HP normally who is currently on 15 HP could heal 2 HP, but if they were on only 5 HP they could heal 4 HP. There are options that could allow for some healing without being OTT.
In fact PF sort of introduced something like this with the Treat Deadly Wounds option for the Heal skill. And there is already the ability to heal Non-lethal damage by resting for an hour.
Arcana Unearthed had Reserver Points that also provided something similar.
Encounters are right out - there is nothing simulationistic about an encounter power, they are designed to make 4E characters behave like Xena essentially this is the opposite of simulationism...your being rewarded not to stick to one part of the script but to bounce around like its a modern light saber duel.
I can agree that the choice to use them is more narrativist but in game they can all have reasonable explanations - every once in a while you catch your opponent in the perfect position to deal a particularly brutal blow, the narrativist bit is the player gets to choose when that opportunity happens rather than let it be determine by chance (e.g. as is the case with a critical).
In terms of magical encounter powers, they are easier to explain in a simulationist way - they are somewhere between at wills and daily spells in that you have to rest for 5 minutes to build the required magical energies to cast that spell again. "Enounter" actually means "Usable once before having to rest", if you rush from one combat to the next without resting you don't get your Encounter powers back.
|
|
OTOH, what i have against the concept of encounter and daily powers is the fact that the mechanics are dissociated. So you have a daily power which lets you shove an opponent six squares away from you (i'm just giving an example, i don't know if an actual power exists). And after you use it once, you suddenly forget how to use it? What? IF you take vital strike, you can use it all day...same thing with combat maneuvers.
Vital Strike is akin to an At Will power in 4e.
Encounter powers and Daily Powers in terms of martial exploits are more like criticals in PF.
Chances are on average you may get one or two crits a day, but quite often you don't get any, and sometimes you are lucky to get quite a few. Criticals can be explained as catching your opponent in a particularly vulnerable spot, and also being in the right position and being quick enough to exploit it.
Encounters and Dailies can be explained exactly the same way, however rather than rely on chance to determine when those opportunities arise, the player gets to choose - its a metagame decision based on what would best serve the narrative.
It helps to overcome those times when you manage to roll a 20 to hit the big bad boss but fail to confirm the threat (initial excitement, then disappointment), or you roll and confirm a critical against a mook goblin foe who only had 5 HP anyway ("wasting" that critical).