|
What good mechanics?
I have already listed a few, but one of the best for me is Second Wind. Its an answer to the cleric having to waste spells to cast cure spells, and also having to waste his action casting them in combat. Instead each PC gets the ability to recover just a bit, if they take more damage than anticipated.
Channelling in PF was their solution and one that I initially liked, however it still doesn't solve the cleric having to waste his action healing others, and also makes Clerics more essential, rather than less.
Rituals IMHO are another good one, they are the solution to wizards not bothering to prepare spells that can be really useful, but only in the right circumstances. Unless you know damn well you are going to be teleported to a plane of Cold, you are unlikley to "waste" a spell slot preparing Endure Elements. Equally if you anticipate dungeon crawling through narrow tunnels and passages you may not prepare Fly but then encounter a massive cavern broken by a wide chasm.
Rituals provide magicians with the benefit of always being able to cast them without the need for prep, at the expense of it taking a bit of time and costing money in the form of magical components.
In PF you could possibly have a way to cast any spell known without preparation, but it requiring significant time (10 minutes, so not in combat) and cost.
Those are just some good mechanics that come to mind.
|
What good mechanics?I have already listed a few, but one of the best for me is Second Wind. Its an answer to the cleric having to waste spells to cast cure spells, and also having to waste his action casting them in combat. Instead each PC gets the ability to recover just a bit, if they take more damage than anticipated.
Channelling in PF was their solution and one that I initially liked, however it still doesn't solve the cleric having to waste his action healing others, and also makes Clerics more essential, rather than less.
A waste? Healing your allies so they can kick ass is not a waste IMO. Also, the primary purpose of the cleric is healing and support buffing, with some extraordinary abilities to smack undead/outsider/elemental ass.
Second wind would be fine if it healed 1d8 + level, plus an additional 1d8 per four character levels. Also it would be usable a number of times per day equal to 2 + the constitution modifier of the character.
Rituals IMHO are another good one, they are the solution to wizards not bothering to prepare spells that can be really useful, but only in the right circumstances. Unless you know damn well you are going to be teleported to a plane of Cold, you are unlikley to "waste" a spell slot preparing Endure Elements. Equally if you anticipate dungeon crawling through narrow tunnels and passages you may not prepare Fly but then encounter a massive cavern broken by a wide chasm.
Rituals provide magicians with the benefit of always being able to cast them without the need for prep, at the expense of it taking a bit of time and costing money in the form of magical components.
In PF you could possibly have a way to cast any spell known without preparation, but it requiring significant time (10 minutes, so not in combat) and cost.
Those are just some good mechanics that come to mind.
Rituals seem ok to me thus far...
I like the concept of the second winds, but I just don't know how they would work in Pathfinder. Designers have to tread a fine line in discouraging a 15 minute work day, but also make sure that the characters aren't so tough that they don't feel like they ever have to stop. Perhaps something like the monk's ability to heal themselves with a cap per day based on level would be the best way to implement something like this. Rituals in addition to regualar spells would be interesting; rituals in place of regular spells just didn't work for me. They simply took too long to cast to be of much use at all, especially the movement or travel ones. By the time I knew I needed them, I was already in combat or a similarly stressful situation that I didn't have 10 minutes to stand around.
|
|
A waste? Healing your allies so they can kick ass is not a waste IMO. Also, the primary purpose of the cleric is healing and support buffing, with some extraordinary abilities to smack undead/outsider/elemental ass.
I think others have expressed why it might be considered a waste. Waste was perhaps a bit of a poor choice of word TBH, more like player disappointment at not getting a chance to cast a cool spell because he has to heal others, or not get a chance to do a cool attack.
I suffered exactly this myself in a PF game, fighter roars in without caution, gets hammered down to near death, I have to heal him rather than join the melee, and then the healed fighhter and the rest of the party finish off the foes. The recklessness of one player meant I as a player didn't get to have as much fun.
And because channelling is so powerful now in terms of how much it can heal (in addition to all the spells that could be potentially turned into Cures) a cleric is almost considered essential to a party. I just started playing a Cleric in our monthly PFS group because we "needed" a cleric. I would have preferred to have played a fighter personally.
3.5 has something close to Channelling - in PHB2 a couple of feats allowed something like channelling but it only took a Swift action, which is great because a cleric could still do his cool stuff then.
Is there a feat in PF that allows Channeling as a Move or Swift action? I would really like that.
Second wind would be fine if it healed 1d8 + level, plus an additional 1d8 per four character levels. Also it would be usable a number of times per day equal to 2 + the constitution modifier of the character.
There is nothing to say that a a Second Wind mechanic couldn't be implemented in that way, however I imagine many people would prefer it to heal less, I know I would.
With Channelling if you are doing a combat light scenario with maybe one combat a day you can spam your Channellings at the end of the day to ensure everyone is back up to full HP. Starting at full HP each day is one of the things I don't like about 4e and why I prefer 3.5. When I was playing the cleric in the PF game I really didn't like healing everyone up like that, but that was no reason not to really other than my character choosing not to.
Rituals seem ok to me thus far...
yeah, they are pretty cool, they are what Arcana Unearthed's Incantations should have been IMHO.
I've been running a Pathfinder game now for about two years. We've had one or two divine casters during that time (I dont know if you'd classify an Oracle as a divine caster...) but no clerics. We've had two character deaths, one due to a poor tactical move by one chaaracter that led to the death of another. The other due to one character sarificing an action that could have prolonged his life in order to get healing (a potion) to another character.
Most of the time though the healing is done after combat and even within the scope of combat the party is mostly using potions.
My question is this: Why cant this be done WITH a cleric in the party?
I played a cleric in 3.5 for 11 levels and probably was the 2nd or maybe 3rd most powerful member of my party. Granted, I understood that we needed to work as a team and that when the Barbarian (the major damage dealer in the party) was getting hurt in order to keep him in the fight to keep dishing out the damage I would heal him when I felt I had too.
I understood the vaule of support, but what I also understood was that I wasnt going to be able to be everywhere at once so I started making potions for the party in general and scrolls for our rogue. They paid the costs but at least they had the ability now to self heal if they needed it without relying on my PC.
I like to think the reason that we lasted so long was becasue of this and I had fun playing that character and I wasnt FORCED to be a heal bot. There were plenty of times where I simply told other players that this hold person I'm about to cast is more important that the 15 points of damage that you just took that you want me to heal so I'm gonna do this thing instead.
I guess my point is that you can play a cleric and do what you want to do and not be FORCED into being a heal bot.
|
|
Hmm...well, dunno, 5d8+20 is pretty good...it's like casting breath of life 2 or more times per day.
Anyway, who said that a cleric has to be played like a healbot? Most of my clerics are LN and refuse to heal allies who do not participate, or act reclessly during combat. Also, if the party wanted to ressurect the character, they had to come up with the cash or it had to come from his share of the loot.
Very, very true, Shin. But this is also group dependent.
If you have a cleric in the party, some people will expect them to heal no matter what. I understand that it is not always (actually, seldom is) more effective to heal someone in combat than it is to cast X spell which will end the combat quicker and prevent the whole party from taking more damage, but not everyone does--including some cleric players who would rather not play clerics, but wound up making one out of obligation rather than enjoyment.
Frankly, if you've got a party full of clerics druids and wizards, this kindof thing almost never happens in the first place, and everyone's busy enough doing the cool stuff that no one ever really needs to get healed--does usually lead to an initiative race at high levels though. ^_^
True very, very true.
I just want to add something about obligation to play a cleric, and this is in no way a critique. As DM I always left the character choices up to the PC's and was amazed that no one chose a cleric in my own group. I thought that we'd be seeing a character death every few sessions, but so far we've been together for about 2 years and only had 2 PC deaths and it's doubtful that the cleric would have made a difference in either one (well maybe the 2nd one..).
|
|
Hmm, maybe I was a little over zealous in stating how essential a cleric is in PF, ironically when I GM I try to make it clear that a cleric is not essential and I will adjust threat level according to the party's capabilities (including healing ability or lack thereof).
Hmm, makes me potentially want to change my choice of character for my monthly PFS games, not sure how that will go down though.
Hmm, maybe I was a little over zealous in stating how essential a cleric is in PF, ironically when I GM I try to make it clear that a cleric is not essential and I will adjust threat level according to the party's capabilities (including healing ability or lack thereof).
Hmm, makes me potentially want to change my choice of character for my monthly PFS games, not sure how that will go down though.
If the other players don't like it, they can roll up a cleric themselves. There is no need to play a cleric if you don't want to. They can be a fun class, but are no more essential than any other class.
I removed a post. Let it go.
while I agree that Paizo should NOT do anything with 4e, if I were responsible for business policy I really would create addtional income sources and not rely solely on Pathfinders explosive rise. (the next downmove will come sooner or later thats for sure, even if its called D&d 5th edition)
As we say in my home country: dont put all eggs in one bag because then you cannot afford to stumble even once
As we say in *my* home country: If you only have to eggs, putting them in different bags looks silly.
Well, we don't really says that, but you can see where I'm going. Paizo doesn't really have the eggs for different baskets. They really want to fill up this basket right. Otherwise, they're not full. An optimist might call them half-full, but a realist might say that you could have one full basket instead of several nearly empty ones.
I would go on, but I think the metaphor is nearly at its breaking point. I know you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, but - there, it's broken.
Move on, nothing to see here.
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.
Really? You're throwing out "nerdrage" and when someone acts on it, you back-pedal and go "only the raging nerds are nerdraging"?
|
Really? You're throwing out "nerdrage" and when someone acts on it, you back-pedal and go "only the raging nerds are nerdraging"?
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.
Huh?
Anyway, Kaeyoss, your position on 4e is quite well known. Is it really worth going there again? I don't see much to be gained, especially for you.
Sure, though I think this sidesteps the issue more than addresses it. There are folks who want to play pure healing clerics. There are also those who want to play character who can heal, but do other stuff as well. If a system can reward both styles of play, is that not a good thing?
I think we are talking about different things. All I said was that clerics weren't required. You seem to be talking about how 4E handled the cleric which is another topic entirely. I don't have a problem with their way of doing it personally, and many of their ideas could be translated and put into PF in regard to healing and party roles in general, but direct translations would be very difficult because the design philosophies are so different that you can't use the same mechanics in both without 1)running into major copyright issues, and 2)distorting both systems into something they were never meant to be. I personally like the idea of seconds winds, and its implementation doesn't cause any serious problems in a system designed around it, but they would not work as well in Pathfinder without some significant changes in the implementation.
Probably the biggest difference is random healing results versus predictable, and although I played the majority of the games using the former, I prefer the later as a DM. Even before Pathfinder or 4E, I modified the 3.5 system so random healing remained in combat, but outside of combat, you recieved maximum results. I hated the down time waiting for everyone to heal. Some like the random nature of it. Another aspect already referenced is no one wants to be a primary healer at the expense of loosing out on combat effectiveness.
If the other players don't like it, they can roll up a cleric themselves. There is no need to play a cleric if you don't want to. They can be a fun class, but are no more essential than any other class.Sure, though I think this sidesteps the issue more than addresses it. There are folks who want to play pure healing clerics. There are also those who want to play character who can heal, but do other stuff as well. If a system can reward both styles of play, is that not a good thing?
I mean, is there anyone who feels that 4E's approach - a cleric being able to heal with a swift prayer, and then smite an enemy with a righteous mace - is inherently a bad concept?
I'm sure there are objections to specific aspects of the execution. (For example, early on, the inability to play a purely healing character - though that has been addressed.)
But is there anyone who finds the concept of 'having the option to heal while doing other stuff' fundamentally flawed, simply due to it being different from how things have been done in the past?
I dont know, do we have to find it "fundamentally flawed" as a pre-requisite to not particularly caring for it?
Why is making a choice fundamentally worse than the alternative? Why is it so hard for a player to simply say "Look, casting this Hold Person on the baddie, this Enlarge Person on the Barbarian, this Doom on the bad guy is fundamentally MORE important than casting this cure light wounds on you?"
I dont think anyone here is saying that he 4E way is bad. What I'm saying is that the other way doesnt have to be the deal breaker that some people think it is or see it as. It's your PC and you have to make a choice when it's time for you to take action. The whole idea of being FORCED into being a heal monkey is kind of a weak argument to me. Either you accept that sometimes in the role of a cleric youre going to be a support character or you dont and do your own thing. But being FORCED to heal? I dont know man...
I mean what I was alluding to in my earlier post was basically what happened in the group that I'm running a game for now: What happens when there IS no dedicated healer? Who's forced to heal them now? They rely mostly on a few spells from the Oracle or Inquisitor PC's when they were around (I forget which one has the cure spells, I think it's the Oracle). that and potions and scrolls. I know 4E doesnt rely on these that much instead relying on rests and healing Surges but these arent mechanics that I cared for when I ran 4E near the beginning of it's life cycle (well the Healing Surges I tried to impliment in my 3.5 games before Pathfinder came out. It worked with mixed success.) Trailblazer has a mechanic that incorporates rests into 3.5 / Pathfinder. I havent tried it out though...
|
|
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.
Really? You're throwing out "nerdrage" and when someone acts on it, you back-pedal and go "only the raging nerds are nerdraging"?
Sorry, you have lost me. When you say "when someone acts on it" who are you referring to, yourself?
Also, what am I meant to be back pedalling on?
To summrise our conversation has gone:
Me: If Paizo were to get the D&D licence (and access to the 4e rules) I would hope they would create a 5e that would be a mashup of the best bits of both :)
You: And that wouldn't make anyone angry?
Me: 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.
Still Me: Now if some Paizo fans are so entrenched in their nerdrage hatred at WotC that they couldn't evaluate those mechanics on their own merits, and instead would get angry just because WotC may have influenced Paizo's work, then TBH I couldn't care, and maybe Paizo shouldn't either.
You: Sure, everyone who disagrees is "entrenched in their nerdrage hatred". That's one option. The other is that the idea is just staggeringly bad. I'll go with staggeringly bad on this one.
Me: 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.
More of Me: 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.
And then you accuse me of back pedaling on something. Seriously, I have completely lost you - could you elaborate please?
|
|
NOT TAKING SIDES HERE.
I think both of you should probably drop it and let it go. As an uninvolved third party, the posts to this point really do speak for themselves.
If you've just got to keep going with this, there is always ENWorld.
Fair enough, I guess we are thread jacking.
@ KaeYoss - if you care to explain what you mean feel free to PM me (these forums do have Private Messages don't they?)
Wow, yesterday there were only 3 pages!
I wanted to comment on the idea of Encounter/Daily spells-powers-prayers and it's application to "simulationist" style of v3.5/PF.
I think they work well when it comes to the supernatural and magical powers as those are easily explained in that sort of system. As an exmple, encounter-level spells and prayers are a some what moderate expenditure of your overall power. They're strong but not fatigue causing in their castings. Daily powers, however, are very STRONG and thus require more "umph" and take a great toll on your body/mind/soul. Thus when you cast these powers your going to need some recoup time to do so again. And I think all of that is genereally accepted when it comes to the magical side of the game. It's a given.
But when it comes to powers not associated with an FX-style or magic reasoning is where simulationists cringe. They don't like it that a fighter can only perform a martial-based power (ie. Exploit) 1/day because they presume it's based on the Vancian system of cast=forget. It's not, it's much simpler than that really. Let me make this analogy: When I go to the gym, I can easily sit on the Bench and do 165 lbs 10x for 3 sets and feel fine. It works the muscles but I don't get fatigued. Simple. I cannot, however, put 345 lbs (or more) on the bar and expect to do it more than once or twice. Not without a significant amout of rest and energy. Take that to the game-board or battlefield. Performing feats of strength or exploits of amazing battle prowess can happen but not without significant fatigue in one's muscles and psychie(sp?). Thus your going to need to rest before you can attempt to literally throw everything into such an exploit a few minutes or hours later.
I hope that helps shed some light on how Martial Exploits can be perform with limited useage on a per-encounter or per-day basis.
If the other players don't like it, they can roll up a cleric themselves. There is no need to play a cleric if you don't want to. They can be a fun class, but are no more essential than any other class.
The two biggest issue is 'what power level are we designing for'?. This comes up in a number of areas. If your a professional company then what is the presumption? All groups have clerics or all groups don't? You can make one of these two groups happy but not both. You can't split the difference because that just means both groups are unhappy since the product does not really work out of the box for either of them.
There is also a similiar problem where a group that the DM had previously been balancing around having or not having a cleric either gains or looses one resulting in a sudden shift in the groups power level.
Once can get around both these issues but it adds to the burden on the DM who has to tailor the game to power levels that are different then the adventure designers expect or has to deal with the fall out of a party whose power level is wildly oscillating. Especially problematic when the players have tangled with a villian before and now the DM has to defang the villain because the cleric retired and the climatic rematch is set to take place Monday night.
But when it comes to powers not associated with an FX-style or magic reasoning is where simulationists cringe. They don't like it that a fighter can only perform a martial-based power (ie. Exploit) 1/day because they presume it's based on the Vancian system of cast=forget. It's not, it's much simpler than that really. Let me make this analogy: When I go to the gym, I can easily sit on the Bench and do 165 lbs 10x for 3 sets and feel fine. It works the muscles but I don't get fatigued. Simple. I cannot, however, put 345 lbs (or more) on the bar and expect to do it more than once or twice. Not without a significant amout of rest and energy. Take that to the game-board or battlefield. Performing feats of strength or exploits of amazing battle prowess can happen but not without significant fatigue in one's muscles and psychie(sp?). Thus your going to need to rest before you can attempt to literally throw everything into such an exploit a few minutes or hours later.I hope that helps shed some light on how Martial Exploits can be perform with limited useage on a per-encounter or per-day basis.
Within 4Es system it works as one potential explanation but its to specific to cover all of them. A power that involves a mighty axe swing can be justified along these lines but not something like being able to pin some one to the ground with arrows.
My feeling is that going with an 'opportunity knocks' type approach and simply accepting that its the players themselves that get to have the story stick regarding when that opportunity knocks (and incidentally what it looks like) usually works better. If you accept that such martial exploits are really a certain kind of action point/fate point with which the players are allowed to effect the story this avoids running into too many incongruities where the 'go to' simulationist explanation that has been devised for power X does not really make sense in the current circumstance.
This also flows better with the narrativist elements that 4E tends emphasize since, by allowing ones players to narrate some elements of the evolving story, they become more involved in and attached to that story.
Within 4Es system it works as one potential explanation but its to specific to cover all of them. A power that involves a mighty axe swing can be justified along these lines but not something like being able to pin some one to the ground with arrows.
Heh, you've never used a recurve/longbow have you? Trust me, firing multiple arrows in succession under 6 second (typical 1 round), and being accurate to boot, is an impressive feat a person would be very hard pressed to pull off more than once or a few times per day. The toll it would take on your fingers, shoulders, arm, and back is heavy. But yes, I was using my analogy as one example to quantify the encounter/daily mechanics of non-magical powers. And I agree that it's a narritive mind-set and description that really puts these powers into the scope of the edition and game. And this is something that a lot of simulationists aren't fond of because they do require hard evidence to explain these spectacular displays of non-magical effects (while magic is a perfectly viable median for such displays).
My feeling is that going with an 'opportunity knocks' type approach and simply accepting that its the players themselves that get to have the story stick regarding when that opportunity knocks (and incidentally what it looks like) usually works better. If you accept that such martial exploits are really a certain kind of action point/fate point with which the players are allowed to effect the story this avoids running into too many incongruities where the 'go to' simulationist explanation that has been devised for power X does not really make sense in the current circumstance.This also flows better with the narrativist elements that 4E...
True enough, both reasonings have their merrit and can both equally be applied to the "whys" and "hows" of martial expoits. Which to me says that this system CAN be applied to Pathfinder rules. Just look at the Tome of Battle! People may not like the ToB:Bo9S but it was a relatively balanced sub-system within v3.5 that worked well and was very popular on the whole. And while I feel the "hows" and "whys" can be changed to depict a very different feel for the Tome of Battle, the maneuver/stance system really works fine mechanically. It's this sort of blending PF could work with that would still keep me interested if some sort of PF + D&D merger were to occur. Give me something fantastic to do with non-magical classes and I'm stoked.
While I'm on the subject of taking 4E elements and converting them to PF-style, the defender system is something that PF could really take a page from. Fighters in PF are interesting because they gave them some additional skills, more interesting feats, and better proficiency with specific weapons/armor. And while those help the class on a 1-on-1 basis with X-monster, it doesn't help them really achieve their goal of being the Tank of the group. Nothing still stops BIG bad guys from going around them to attack their squishier allies. This lack of defender-ness led to the extream amount of Spiked-Chain wielding fighters with the Stand Still feat from v3.5 as it actually allowed them to do their job.
In fact, I think the only reason fighters think their good defenders is because a DM feels responsible to engage the fighter with the biggest monster on the block so that character shines at what he does. A smart DM would just by-pass the heavily armored, damage dealing problem for easier prey and then take down the fighter with over-powering odds after his party is destroyed. Case in point, there's nothing the fighter does to make the bad guys stick to him.
Really? You're throwing out "nerdrage" and when someone acts on it, you back-pedal and go "only the raging nerds are nerdraging"?
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.
Huh?
Anyway, Kaeyoss, your position on 4e is quite well known. Is it really worth going there again? I don't see much to be gained, especially for you.
So I have to be silent when someone makes blanket generalisations? Because I won't do that.
To summrise our conversation has gone:
You're omitting stuff. The original was this:
I'm glad that would probably never come to fruition. As a fan of both editions, I've come to like both for various reasons. And i'd fear if Paizo get the IP to D&D then they'd probably discontinue the 4e which would make me very very angry. With two separate, I can enjoy two different styles..yep, same here, I find each game offers something different so I am happy to play both, just like I would play Savage Worlds and M&M.
If Paizo were to get the D&D licence (and access to the 4e rules) I would hope they would create a 5e that would be a mashup of the best bits of both :)
And that wouldn't make anyone angry?
To summarise: Diffan says that if Paizo got the D&D IP and shut down 4e, that would make people angry.
You say you'd rather have a mashup of PF and 4e.
I ask why you think that wouldn't make anyone angry.
Because if you mash the games up, you'll end up with a game that is neither here nor there. Especially since the "best" parts of each game seem to be incompatible, since they're quite different and have different foci. If you mash them up, you'd have to compromise. The game would feel different.
That would, in fact, make BOTH camps angry. Because neither game would be left.
You weren't suggesting keeping PF and using some of the 4e stuff that would fit. You were talking about merging.
That's not "nerdrage". Calling it as such is insulting.
In fact, the word is one of those that are basically always insulting.
Pure flame bait.
|
|
So I have to be silent when someone makes blanket generalisations? Because I won't do that.Really? You're throwing out "nerdrage" and when someone acts on it, you back-pedal and go "only the raging nerds are nerdraging"?
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.
Huh?
Anyway, Kaeyoss, your position on 4e is quite well known. Is it really worth going there again? I don't see much to be gained, especially for you.
Pots and kettles? You're not standing up for democracy, you know, you are talking about a roleplaying game. I was simply suggesting you save yourself the blood pressure issues, but it's your funeral.
Pots and kettles? You're not standing up for democracy, you know, you are talking about a roleplaying game. I was simply suggesting you save yourself the blood pressure issues, but it's your funeral.
Don't feed the trolls. The quickest way to silence one is to ignore them.
|
|
@KaeYoss - Spoilered to avoid thread crapping too much.
To summarise: Diffan says that if Paizo got the D&D IP and shut down 4e, that would make people angry.
You say you'd rather have a mashup of PF and 4e.
I ask why you think that wouldn't make anyone angry.
Ah! Got you now, and apologies to you, I missed the context of Diffan's use of the term "angry", I thought you were just responding to my last sentence as for some reason the Paizo forums highlighted that.
So, where Diffan was saying if Paizo got the D&D licence and it meant 4e was dropped dead, then that would make some 4e fans angry, you are suggesting that a new edition that includes elements of 4e may make both PF and 4e fans feel like they have lost their game?
I can sort of see that, but as I stated in my second post if Paizo were taking the opportunity to make changes to the rules (and thus change was to be expected), then if handled in the correct way (such as an open playtest to get people on board, acknowledging the cool things 4e did to get the 4e fans onboard) then I think it could work. Not right now, but hypothetically if Paizo got the D&D licence and wanted to release D&D 5e in 4 or 5 year time, then it could work. If nothing else Paizo have shown they know how to get the fans on their side.
You weren't suggesting keeping PF and using some of the 4e stuff that would fit. You were talking about merging.
I don't think "mashup" has a strict definition, but at heart the two systems are quite similar in terms of abilities, feats, skills, etc. I think you could design a new game with the suimulationist design of PF but including and adapting stuff like At Will, Encounter and Daily powers, short rests, second winds and rituals. I would call that a mash up.
That's not "nerdrage". Calling it as such is insulting.
As I said I missed some of the context of your comment, so apologies for that.
What I was talking about was if Paizo put out a new edition (where you would expect some changes) and a PF fan would get actually angry at the prospect of those changes, not due to an evaluation of the mechanics, but simply due to the fact that those changes derived from 4e mechanics.
And to be honest once I made it clear that this was what I was talking about you did still just write if off as a "staggeringly bad idea" without even a discussion of what those changes may entail, which made me think I hadn't misinterpretted you at all.
In fact, the word is one of those that are basically always insulting.
Pure flame bait.
I agree I perhaps should have used a less touchy term, but I see digs at 4e so often on these boards (often at a complete tangent to the discussions) that a nerve was touched and I was just trying to say "For f's sake, WotC and 4e are not the devil! Incorporating ideas from 4e is not automatically a bad idea"
Note that I admit to nerdrage myself, basically an overly emotional dislike of a company or product because it doesn't quite match with my requirements. And my nerdrage has in the past been directed at Paizo - and my original comment would go for me too - Paizo would best to ignore my gnashing and wailings in those instances and start listening when I begin making rational, considered criticism :)
So to summarise:
Apologies for not quite getting what you originally meant.
Apologies for using the term "nerdrage" without making it absolutely clear what I was using it to refer to.
I still maintain that PF 2e (whether re-branded as D&D 5e or not) could be made a better game by looking at and assimilating some of the mechanics and design principles of 4e.
I also still maintain that anyone who dismisses this suggestion out of hand just because of their dislike of 4e without evaluating the specifics of those mechanics and how they would be adapted, is suffering from a prejudice that closes their mind to some possibilities.
And due to the previous requests I shall be dropping this discussion now that I have taken the opportunity to apologise and hopefully make clear what my comments were referring to. If you do want to continue I suggest looking me up on RPG.net and PMing me. Thanks!
I dont know, do we have to find it "fundamentally flawed" as a pre-requisite to not particularly caring for it?
Why is making a choice fundamentally worse than the alternative? Why is it so hard for a player to simply say "Look, casting this Hold Person on the baddie, this Enlarge Person on the Barbarian, this Doom on the bad guy is fundamentally MORE important than casting this cure light wounds on you?"
It's fundamentally flawed because clerics are required to reactively respond as opposed to being proactive. For example: the cleric goes last in the initiative. So the player thinks bless is a good prayer to cast because it'll help the party (Pro-active). The fighter in front of him just took a critical hit from a monster and now he's required to keep that fighter alive in order to overcome the encounter by casting Cure Light Wounds (reactive). He's lost his pro-active action so that one player can keep maintaining their. It comes to the point where the cleric is just hoping his allies don't die before he's able to act OR that his allies don't take so much damage that a healing spell wouldn't cover the bill.
So yes, casting proactive spells (Hold Person, etc..) IS fundamentally better in combat than casting cure spells, espically in D&D/PF's Action Economy. You want to make the MOST out of your turn and apply a liberal amount of support to you allies. Being forced to heal them instead of contributing to bringing down the enemy is a deterrent. In other words: a good defense is a strong offense. It's one reason Pathfinder made Channel Energy work the way it does, as they saw the cleric becoming nothing more than Healbots on the battlefield.
I dont think anyone here is saying that he 4E way is bad. What I'm saying is that the other way doesnt have to be the deal breaker that some people think it is or see it as. It's your PC and you have to make a choice when it's time for you to take action. The whole idea of being FORCED into being a heal monkey is kind of a weak argument to me. Either you accept that sometimes in the role of a cleric youre going to be a support character or you dont and do your own thing. But being FORCED to heal? I dont...
Of course your forced to heal, often because the party expects you to fill that role. It's no less expected for the Fighter in the party to take the front lines and attack. It's what they DO. 4E just made it so Clerics (and other leaders) aren't put into a position that it's ALL they do. Besides, it's my experience that a v3.5/PF cleric that doesn't heal often in the party or chooses to cast a spell in lieu of healing an almost dying friend always gets flack for it.
It's fundamentally flawed because clerics are required to reactively respond as opposed to being proactive. For example: the cleric goes last in the initiative. So the player thinks bless is a good prayer to cast because it'll help the party (Pro-active). The fighter in front of him just took a critical hit from a monster and now he's required to keep that fighter alive in order to overcome the encounter by casting Cure Light Wounds (reactive). He's lost his pro-active action so that one player can keep maintaining their. It comes to the point where the cleric is just hoping his allies don't die before he's able to act OR that his allies don't take so much damage that a healing spell wouldn't cover the bill.
So yes, casting proactive spells (Hold Person, etc..) IS fundamentally better in combat than casting cure spells, espically in D&D/PF's Action Economy. You want to make the MOST out of your turn and apply a liberal amount of support to you allies. Being forced to heal them instead of contributing to bringing down the enemy is a deterrent. In other words: a good defense is a strong offense. It's one reason Pathfinder made Channel Energy work the way it does, as they saw the cleric becoming nothing more than Healbots on the battlefield.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course your forced to heal, often because the party expects you to fill that role. It's no less expected for the Fighter in the party to take the front lines and attack. It's what they DO. 4E just made it so Clerics (and other leaders) aren't put into a position that it's ALL they do. Besides, it's my experience that a v3.5/PF cleric that doesn't heal often in the party or chooses to cast a spell in lieu of healing an almost dying friend always gets flack for it.
First, a cleric isn't always going to go last. If you build the cleric to have a high initiative, then the proactive spells suddenly become much easier to cast. Also, party tactics can give the cleric the opportunity they need to cast those spells. Instead of charging in immediately, the fighter can wait a round until the cleric gets a chance to act.
Second, while a cleric is going to have to heal at some point, no one can force them to do so in the middle of combat on a regular basis. Emergency healing to deal with the random critical the fighter just took or in a particularly tough fight, sure, but normal fights with no unusually hard hits, no. The rest of the party has to learn tactics to minimize damage and accept that their actions might put them beyond the reach of the cleric for a round or two. If they expect the cleric to follow them around whereever they go so they can be healed instantly irregardless of the danger that puts the cleric in, they are crazy.
It's fundamentally flawed because clerics are required to reactively respond as opposed to being proactive. For example: the cleric goes last in the initiative. So the player thinks bless is a good prayer to cast because it'll help the party (Pro-active). The fighter in front of him just took a critical hit from a monster and now he's required to keep that fighter alive in order to overcome the encounter by casting Cure Light Wounds (reactive). He's lost his pro-active action so that one player can keep maintaining their. It comes to the point where the cleric is just hoping his allies don't die before he's able to act OR that his allies don't take so much damage that a healing spell wouldn't cover the bill.
I think our definitons of "required to" and "forced" are different. Your above example is very specific to prove your point and leave little wiggle room for anything else. I'm not saying that instances like the one you stated above DONT HAPPEN. What I'm saying is that that's not the only way that things go down in a fight. And in those other cases? The player of that cleric has choices to make. They arent "forced" to do anything. Two sessions ago I watched one of my players risk life and limb to get a potion to another PC who was downed when she just as easily could have downed that potion herself and taken off to a safer position. Her actions wound up saving the other PC at the cost of her PC's life.
You could that in the situation (if you were there) that she was "forced" to take the potion herself and flee becasue if she didint there was a good chance that she would die. But that's not what happened. She chose to help her friend. Is it possible that she culd have had a stroke of luck that would have saved her a round orr two later? sure. Did that happen? nope.
So yes, casting proactive spells (Hold Person, etc..) IS fundamentally better in combat than casting cure spells, espically in D&D/PF's Action Economy. You want to make the MOST out of your turn and apply a liberal amount of support to you allies. Being forced to heal them instead of contributing to bringing down the enemy is a deterrent. In other words: a good defense is a strong offense. It's one reason Pathfinder made Channel Energy work the way it does, as they saw the cleric becoming nothing more than Healbots on the battlefield.
I'm of two minds about this point. On one hand if youre playing a cleric you SHOULD be expecting to heal d00ds. In that youre absolutley right. Unless youre trying to be an iconclast and have a cleric with NO healing abilites whatsoever (I think it's possible?) you also need to let the other players know that so that they can plan accordingly. On the other hand I'm of the mind, again, having played a Clric up to 11th level in 3x that there were times where I had to make a choice. There was literally a fight where our Barbarian was about two hits from going down while fighting a vampire (the BBG for this adventure) the rogue and the fighter were preoccupied keeping the minions off of us while we dealt with the head vampire. Our NPC Wizard was providing support for us as well. I had to make a choice, cast this sunlight spell that could possibly kill the Vampire or at least enough get him to withdraw or run up and heal the Barbarian.
In your examples? I simply HAD NO CHOICE. I would have been forced to heal Kabok (our barbarian) and that's that. In games that I've played and run it's NEVER that simple. The choices we make have consqences but theyre still choices. We're not FORCED to do anything.
My choice to cast that Sunlight spell work out by the way and did enough damage to force him into mist form. We caught up with him later but at least kabok didnt die.
Of course your forced to heal, often because the party expects you to fill that role. It's no less expected for the Fighter in the party to take the front lines and attack. It's what they DO. 4E just made it so Clerics (and other leaders) aren't put into a position that it's ALL they do. Besides, it's my experience that a v3.5/PF cleric that doesn't heal often in the party or chooses to cast a spell in lieu of healing an almost dying friend always gets flack for it.
First, I'll agree that Fighting is pretty much all a fighter does. But healing isnt all a Cleric does. I dont know what kind of games you've been playing but while clerics are excellent all around support, I've never been in a game where all a cleric does is heal and that's it. I've had games where the Clerics are right along side the fighters dealing front line damage (usually thanks to buffs or an Enlarge Person). I've seen (and played) Clerics who pretty much only get into melee when they have no choice but typically casts support and buff spells out of the wazoo.
As for getting flack for not doing what other players want you to do? I suppose, but then you might be playing with people who feel a little entitled. I've certainly played with players like that. But as a whole most people expect to be healed by a cleric (especially during early levels) but usually they start coming up with ways to get healing in the middle of combat JUST IN CASE THE CLERIC GOES DOWN. I cant count the number of rogues that I've run games for who didnt either eventually get thier hands on a wand of Cure Moderate or light wounds and investt in UMB. Or other players who commission Cure potions for the specific purpose of saving themselves in a tight spot or reviving the cleric in case he/she gets taken out.
@Diffan....good to see you are still around. As to the cleric being forced into the healer role a couple of points.
1) Just because the players expect a constant strewam of healing from the cleric is not a problem with the system but a problem with the players. I have played lots of clerics( it is one of my favorite classes) and I have told my group I am not going to heal every round...they have learned to adapt to that style.
2) Actualy I like the tactical choice of what to do with my actions....do I heal...do I do x...or something else? It makes the game more challenging as I like it.
3) Now this is a common error in people thinking healing a ally is a zero sum effect in the action economy....but really what you are doing with healing is nagating the enemies previous actions. If your fighter friend gets hit for say 23 damage in a round by three different enemies...that you come along and heal that damage did you not just negate three actions by using one action of your own? It depends on how you look at it.
Though I think a Second wind rule could be actualy be neat in Pathfinder...having people healers is a interesting tactical option to play. And people should be open minded about looking at 4th ed (or anything for that matter) to improve the rules of the game.
Though I think a Second wind rule could be actualy be neat in Pathfinder...having people healers is a interesting tactical option to play. And people should be open minded about looking at 4th ed (or anything for that matter) to improve the rules of the game.
Even though I'm not a fan of 4E aas a whole, there are parts that I can see using for 3.5 / Pathfinder. I just dont know if I'd want them as part of an offical ruleset. Better them to be part of a Pathfinder "Unearthed Arcana" type deal.
Or even better? TRAILBLAZER.
(Which kind looks at some of the 4E mechanics and translates them to 3.5 / Pathfinder (although Trailblazer came out right before Pathfinder...)
To be honest, if 4th edition was like SAGA, i would play the hell out of it. The possibility of customisation in SAGA is incredible. They should have just stuck with it. No powers, just feats, talents and spellcasting like force usage. It would have been AWESOME!
I daresay there is far more room for character customization in 4e than there ever was in SW:Saga.