There are relatively few design ideas I would like to see in pathfinder from 4E. Mostly because I dont want the design goals of 4E spilling over to pathfinder. It is important to me that the rules are coherent and helpful in building a world that makes sense. A lot of the rules in 4E dont lend themselves to that very well.
That said, there are things I like, for example the minion rules is an interesting idea. The idea of a relatively weak enemy that still threatens the party is very useful. However I am not a fan of the 'boss monster' rules.
I dont like the idea of certain creatures following a different basic set of rules then everyone else. That is in my mind a purely metagame concept. I dont think single monster encounters should be encouraged as I see them as relatively boring encounter design. The reality is that in movies/books, the big monster fight has plot/meta rules to keep it fun and exciting. In even a casually realistic world, any being that can challenge 4 people on its own will kill one of them fairly quickly. That isn't a good encounter.
I definately dont want to see rituals implemented in pathfinder the way they were 4E. The clever use of non-combat spells in combat is one of my favorite things about the game. Cutting a large portion of the spellbook into 'this isn't done in combat' would have very little appeal to me.
Also, while i am not sure i want iterative attacks to go away, I'd love to see options for martial characters that make standard action attacks a consideration.
I would also like to see well implemented skill challenges. The idea is good, but the implementation, at least in the core 4E rules was lacking. I'd like to see a system of rules that instead of encouraging a list of useful checks, sets up the framework for dms to create a sort of flow chart, so that a series of successful skills (with the appropriate roleplay for the situation) leads the players to their goal, or to failure.
Like all but 9 an 10.
Especially dislike Bloodied. There was a similar wounded in d20 Star Wars, I think. No one ever remembered about it...
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There are relatively few design ideas I would like to see in pathfinder from 4E. Mostly because I dont want the design goals of 4E spilling over to pathfinder. It is important to me that the rules are coherent and helpful in building a world that makes sense. A lot of the rules in 4E dont lend themselves to that very well.
That said...
I love how so many people in this thread preface their posts with a sort of "disclaimer" to make it clear that despite noticing the good things in it, they're still definitely anti-4E. It's like they're afraid of being mistaken for a terrorist or something.
And Kolo, I'm not trying to single you out - yours was just the only example on this page and was thus the easiest to click "Reply" on. ;)
List Of Interesting Things Snipped
1. Although not a bad idea, I'm not sure how much this will help or if it will be overly confusing for returning players who already understand the lingo of the game. I'm neutral on this one. (Though - slight tangent - I do prefer the term "shift" to "five foot step" and "free strike" to "attack of opportunity" or "opportunity attack". Less words is better.)
2. I too harbor the nostalgic stigma of "If you don't roll hp and ability scores, you aren't really playing D&D". However, I'll concede that this may be a good change - as a GM, I frequently let players reroll hp if they drop a 1, especially if they are low-level or have no Con mod, and I suspect I'm not alone in that. Perhaps making fixed progression the norm with the die rolls as optional rules would be the solution - I LOVE playing hand of God with ability scores, which is one reason I'm a fan of C&C.
3. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Monte Cook did this in his Book of Eldritch Might. It isn't hard to do, and it's far easier for new players to comprehend.
4. Agreed. Too many rules come into play when dealing with AoOs in general. Simplification is needed.
5. Not a bad idea. The warlord in the Tome of Secrets, an early PFRPG-compatible 3PP resource, is quite well done. Perhaps that publisher would be willing to license his creation to Paizo for the second edition?
6. Agreed, but as with #2, rolling stats should still be mentioned as a viable variant to please the grognards.
7. Couldn't agree more. As I've said in the past, it often feels like a lot of things in PFRPG are worded a certain way because that's how 3.5 did it, and I think that's a paradigm that needs to shift very badly.
8. YES. I have been trying to template this for awhile but have yet to playtest my work - though I may try doing it tomorrow night... hmm.
9. Here I disagree. What function does bloodied have except to amplify effects, restore usage of monster powers, and let PCs know something is at 50% health? I'd also argue that marking and zones are bad design that PFRPG doesn't need, because they force a lot of unnecessary tracking duties onto players who may not have an interest in doing all that brain work - a common pitfall for newbies who elect to play fighters in 4E, IMO.
10. On the fence about this one. I like it in theory, but in execution I think you could end up throwing off the CR scale by making this too accessible of a build option, especially for lower-CR creatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed some edition bashing. Please play nice in these kinds of threads.
There are relatively few design ideas I would like to see in pathfinder from 4E. Mostly because I dont want the design goals of 4E spilling over to pathfinder. It is important to me that the rules are coherent and helpful in building a world that makes sense. A lot of the rules in 4E dont lend themselves to that very well.
That said...
I love how so many people in this thread preface their posts with a sort of "disclaimer" to make it clear that despite noticing the good things in it, they're still definitely anti-4E. It's like they're afraid of being mistaken for a terrorist or something.
And Kolo, I'm not trying to single you out - yours was just the only example on this page and was thus the easiest to click "Reply" on. ;)
I am actually not anti-4E. I like the game just fine, I just consider it something different.
That said, the point is to avoid a flame war, or pointless bias. Obviously being here in these boards I prefer pathfinder, but not because 4E is the devil, but instead because of personal preferences. Its an important distinction to make because I dont think 4E fans should be blasted with flame here any more then i'd want the same to happen to me on the wizards boards. Its not a disclaimer, its an attempt at courtesy while discussing a potentially divisive issue.
There are a lot of things I liked about fourth edition before wizards effectively let it die a quiet death, but most of them were bound up in principles I absolutely hated.
I liked monsters. Minions and solos were brilliant, as were roles. Most of all, every monster has some ability that makes it unique, so an orc has ferocity, a kobold is shifty, etc. But the first thing that made me love third edition was that monsters and characters used the same rules, which is antithetical to the design philosophy of fourth.
I liked rules streamlining, but it made character abilities feel cookie cutter. I hate that you can explain an ability in five seconds. there are only so many abilities you can make that are explained in five seconds. The same goes for standardized HP and ability scores - part of the magic is the random factor. I fell in love with it when I first picked up the game eighteen years ago.
I loved healing surges, but they rely on an extremely rigid and limiting gameplay style that fits in with the at-will, encounter and daily abilities. Basically, along with the streamlining, there's far less that really differentiates any of the classes from others in their chosen role than the classes in pathfinder.
I'm sure there's a way to bring in the good while leaving out the bad. Part of what has embittered me to fourth edition is that I honestly adore parts of it, which makes the frustrating elements that much worse for me.
There are relatively few design ideas I would like to see in pathfinder from 4E. Mostly because I dont want the design goals of 4E spilling over to pathfinder. It is important to me that the rules are coherent and helpful in building a world that makes sense. A lot of the rules in 4E dont lend themselves to that very well.
That said...
I love how so many people in this thread preface their posts with a sort of "disclaimer" to make it clear that despite noticing the good things in it, they're still definitely anti-4E. It's like they're afraid of being mistaken for a terrorist or something.
And Kolo, I'm not trying to single you out - yours was just the only example on this page and was thus the easiest to click "Reply" on. ;)
Coming at it from the view of simulating a world with 3.5 (and not an action movie as with 4E) I can see why he qualified his support. I stayed with 3.x / PF to maintain my world / campaign, not because 4E was "horrible" etc. It was just a different game. It didn't lend itself to world building, or being reasonably compatible with previous editions. As with any game there are still ideas that might be useful in another game which, I believe, is what he was pointing out.
*Edit* having said that, to be clear, there is nothing wrong with either action movies or 4E as a game / genre of game...
Disease progression rules: They are very good for slow diseases and are easily adapted to curses (you're slowly turning into a frogman, that one ring is sooooo precious)and other things.
I hadnt thought of this, but I agree. The poison/disease mechanics are really well done, although 'cure disease/poison' spells and abilities would need to be reworked slightly in order to keep the threat meaningful beyond the first few levels.
3--- um why, you can't figure out spell progression? I started playing D&D in 1979, I was 6 almost 7, playing with older friends. I didn't have any trouble figuring it out then, what is the issue?...
5. isn'tthat what a fighter is supposed to be? I mean back in first edition they just got an army, but I realize that later editions nerfed that. Still if you want to play a leader of me, put a decent stat in Cha and take leadership, how hard is that?
Your argument on #3 is reminiscent of people who were nostalgic of reverse-scale armor class and THAC0. They aren't that hard to learn, but there are easier ways of expressing the concept. A 1:1 ratio between character levels and spell levels is a reasonable change that will make the game more accessible to new players, and it also helps graduate the much-maligned power of spellcasters by stretching out the amount of time it takes them to get higher-powered spells.
On #5, the problem is that Leadership and a high Cha only do so much to help you aid your own allies if you're not a bard. Warlords in 4E (and the 3PP Pathfinder warlord base class) are able to boost their allies' abilities, and to me, that's more fun than bossing around a bunch of NPC mooks. Bards already fill this role to some degree, and there may be archetypes that can be used in lieu of a whole new bass class, but a Pathfinder warlord adds an extra dimension of play to sometimes-boring melee characters and lets them do something more interesting than "HULK SMASH" in a combat.
Your argument on #3 is reminiscent of people who were nostalgic of reverse-scale armor class and THAC0. They aren't that hard to learn, but there are easier ways of expressing the concept. A 1:1 ratio between character levels and spell levels is a reasonable change that will make the game more accessible to new players, and it also helps graduate the much-maligned power of spellcasters by stretching out the amount of time it takes them to get higher-powered spells.
I think this is also symptomatic of the (probably irrevocably entrenched) over-reliance on the term "level" within the game rules. From dungeon levels to character levels to spell levels to encounter levels.. In my opinion, it would have been better to go with some more 'in character' denotation for spell level.
1. The concise and clear action types, and the ability to "downgrade" any action for the next, "lesser" type. So clean in play.
Interesting in principle but not important to me. On the other hand, the current system allows designers to create actions and abilities that they can be confident can't and won't happen more than once per turn. Swift actions provide that. One per turn, no exceptions. Otherwise, most actions do work the way you want. You can perform two move-equivalent actions per turn if you want.
2. Fixed hit point progression. Just way too important to be random.
My reluctance here is mostly tradition, I suspect. My groups use a roll-twice, take-best technique which admittedly does increase their hitpoint totals somewhat, but more importantly pushes the curve center upwards. I by far prefer that over static hit points per level.
3. Consistency between spell levels and caster levels. A 4th level wizard should cast 4th level wizard spells.
This one I'm going to disagree with. Assuming we stick with a 20 level career, it's impractical to balance 20 levels of spells. There's already quite a bit in all the books which are questionable. Doubling the granularity of the scale is just asking for more balancing woes. I don't want developer time wasted on deciding if such-and-such a spell should be a 7th level spell or 8th level spell.
4. Pared-down list of actions which provoke.
How about an enlarged list of actions which have tactical significance instead? As in, make the mechanics of combat more rich instead of simple? As in, I respectfully but strenuously disagree. I get the arguments about "flow" and "speed" but really, I'm gaming... I'm not in a hurry.
5. "Warlordish" leader of men in the core.
Please see Paladin.
6. Point-buy as the default stat generation method.
My groups already do this. Still, I don't get the point. DMs will still select whatever method they prefer.
7. Concise yet specific wording (at least in theory).
Yup. I think there are a lot of cases where trimming a bunch of words from feats and spells would remove ambiguity. I think a lot of the issue comes from not wanting to repeat the same verbiage over and over again to make things incontrovertible, and Paizo is generally really good, but more clarity revision would be reasonable.
8. Some sort of mook or minion rules.
Not a mechanic I like. I understand what's being modeled but I just don't like it. PC are never one-hitpoint-wonders relative to 20th level bad guys, even when they're 1st level. So why should bad guys ever be one-hitpoint-wonders relative to PCs? This rule just breaks the illusion that the world is consistent. In your campaign, feel free to throw "minion" class bad guys down to a quarter normal hitpoints or something. I'd rather not have it done as an official rule personally.
9. Bloodied.
Another rule I don't want spelled out. As a DM, I typically describe enemy condition. "You've bruised the monster all to heck but he's not ready to go down." Vague but getting the idea that there's meaningful progress being made. I don't want the players having another metagaming input that takes them out of the immersion. "Oh, he's at half. Let's see. Doug did 41, then Sam did the fireball for 35 but we think he's got resist fire 10 up so that's only 25, and Tom sneak-attacked for 27 more but his weapon didn't get through the DR which is probably 5, so that's 22 more, so let's see... we need to do..." No, no, no. All the players need to know is "stay" versus "flee". The DM can convey that information through more in-game queues.
10. Some way for solitary, powerful enemies to have a greater than normal # of actions. This is just so true to comics, movies, etc., and really enables the "big bad" enemy quite well.
This goes back to the minion rule. "Wait, what? We're 3rd level and we defeated the bad guy so he's maybe 6th level, tops, and he got like seven or eight arrows each round. When I'm 6th I'll be getting my third unless the wizard hastes me then I get one more. Hmmmm. How come when I'm as badass as the bad-guy I'm still not as bad-ass as the bad guy?" I don't want to answer that question to a player. Not ever. "Because you're the good guy and I need more more more to challenge you." The 3.x/PF rules demonstrate it's possible to build rules that follow the "good for the goose good for the gander" mind-set and I'd like to see any future Paizo rules maintain that ethic. This isn't a shoot-em-up video game. It's a game where ideally players get attached to their characters and the living world we play in. Anything that reminds them it's a game is bad, generally.
|
|
I think this is also symptomatic of the (probably irrevocably entrenched) over-reliance on the term "level" within the game rules. From dungeon levels to character levels to spell levels to encounter levels.. In my opinion, it would have been better to go with some more 'in character' denotation for spell level.
My group has always called spell levels "circles" as in a "2nd-circle spell." I don't reember exactly where this came from, but it's helped cut down on over-use of the word "level."
-Skeld
|
|
I don't see anything particularly beguiling in this list.
A couple of items are clearly open to house-ruling: hit points per level and the starting ability score generation. A future Paizo GM product might include a list of potential house rules for GMs to consider for their games.
A couple are clearly unnecessary: A warlord is close enough to bard, that I don't see a need, unless you wanted to make it an archetype. Bloodied does not mean anything in Pathfinder. It doesn't trigger powers, why track something meaningless?
Minions are a weakness of 4.0. It forces you to metagame. I see no reason to clutter PF with bad rules.
I can't say that 4e or essentials is a paragon of clear, consistent rules when they can't make up their mind on whether magic missile, one of the iconic D&D spells, needs to make an attack roll.
I think whether a person likes the minion rule comes down to whether they are similationists or narativists - that is, whether they are trying to play the game like a miniatures tactics game or are trying to tell a story.
Not for me. One of the things I like about 3.x is the simple fact that the rules work the same for PCs and NPCs. There is an inherant, internal logic to the game world. Things may not work the same as "real life" but there is an underlying system. It's "simulation" but not just of a combat situation, but rather of a world. If I wanted to play a tactical miniatures game I wouldn't chose any flavor of D&D / PF. Unless you want to go back to the 1970s and play Chainmail...
If they are trying to tell a story, then they know that a good story doesn't spend a lot of time exploring trivial stuff. The minion rules help decrease the time spent on trivial battles. The minion rules allow thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdjuS17DGlA
I like this.
A good story depends on a suspension of disbelief that is supported by the application of a common set of rules and expectations. Minions, for example, are a problem. They look like a character. They act like one. And then they go down like cheap cardboard cut outs on a movie set. Leaving players with puzzled looks until the metagame reflex kicks in and they go "oh, minions". Ymmv.
I'm way behind #4. There are actions that provoke that absolutely should not.If you hit your enemy with a flail you have to get within range of his longsword, but don't provoke. If you want to hit his longsword with your flail to disarm him you don't have to be in reach of his longsword. You can be two or three feet farther from him while performing a disarm maneuver against a one handed weapon than when attacking to do damage, yet it's the disarm maneuver that provokes. This is, to be blunt, fertilizer of a bovine extraction. Disarm should not provoke. Sunder should not provoke. They have no excuse provoking. There are probably other less obvious actions that provoke wrongly, but sunder and disarm are the big obvious ones.
A couple of points. He's not holding his long sword out for you to knock it out of his outstretched hand. The target range is, within the loose standards of PF, the same distance away as he is. When you target his weapon (Disarm or Sunder), taking your attention off killing him he takes advantage of this (an AoO) and tries to whack you upside your silly head. The AoO makes sense if you look at it this way. From a system point of view they probably wanted to make sure that people didn't go around Disarming / Sundering all day long. Ymmv.
I think whether a person likes the minion rule comes down to whether they are similationists or narativists - that is, whether they are trying to play the game like a miniatures tactics game or are trying to tell a story.
If they are trying to tell a story, then they know that a good story doesn't spend a lot of time exploring trivial stuff. The minion rules help decrease the time spent on trivial battles. The minion rules allow this
Also on one's attitude to hit points, I suspect. I find them a necessary evil, but don't consider them to be modelling anything intrinsic to a creature. I think it would have been better if they'd listed minions hit points as 'trivial' rather than as being equal to one.
For those who consider hit points some sort of real property of a thing, minions are weird and/or 'unrealistic'. In 4th edition they're more a tool for tracking how things go in a combat - the same creature can be a minion one day and a solo the next. It doesnt mean that anything has changed about them from one day to the next - it's that one can use a different mechanic for modelling the situation depending on the context.
That's absurd. If you're not paying attention to the weapon that's when you're vulnerable, and just because weapon lengths between 0 and 10' are abstracted doesn't mean weapons don't have lengths, and they'd have to be negative for disarm and sunder attempts to put you in a more vulnerable position than normal attacks.
No, it's not. You pay attention to your opponent. As for weapon length, depending on his stance and the weapons position it may be farther away from you than his body. It could even be partially obscured by his body at times. It just doesn't stay poked out in front of him.
Also on one's attitude to hit points, I suspect. I find them a necessary evil, but don't consider them to be modelling anything intrinsic to a creature. I think it would have been better if they'd listed minions hit points as 'trivial' rather than as being equal to one.For those who consider hit points some sort of real property of a thing, minions are weird and/or 'unrealistic'. In 4th edition they're more a tool for tracking how things go in a combat - the same creature can be a minion one day and a solo the next. It doesnt mean that anything has changed about them from one day to the next - it's that one can use a different mechanic for modelling the situation depending on the context.
To me hit points are an abstraction of how difficult something is to kill. Whether from size, experience or some other factor. D&D / PF combat is not a "realistic" system by any means. I do find it odd that something is more difficult or easier to kill based on it's role in a scene. Depends on how you look at it I guess.
2--- I would not play a D&Dish game with fixed hit points, period.
6. Again why, point buy is accepted as a method, why make it the default, My entire group would quite playing if they had to point buy.
I'm not going to comment on this thread except for this bit right here: if these changes would make the difference between you playing D&D and you not playing D&D, chances are you were already itching to play something else. In the grand scheme of things, these changes would not have a huge impact. Everyone I've ever known who has been enthusiastic about D&D (or any RPG) has been enthusiastic enough that a change or two like these would not make a lick of difference as far as whether or not they would sit down at the table and play.
To me hit points are an abstraction of how difficult something is to kill. Whether from size, experience or some other factor. D&D / PF combat is not a "realistic" system by any means. I do find it odd that something is more difficult or easier to kill based on it's role in a scene. Depends on how you look at it I guess.
I dont know if the designers would suggest adjusting hit points based on role within a scene - but rather based on relative power within the story (which I see as subtly differnet but not in a terribly important way). The example I'm thinking of (from one rulebook or other) was low level characters duking it out with the town guards - statted out as usual monsters of varying roles. If they come back much later in their careers (at paragon levels or something) the guards may well then be well-modelled as higher level minions. They can still irritate and do a little damage, but they're not a serious threat and can be relatively easily defeated.
(Level being another concept I think is often reified by RPGamers - I have no problem with that altering either - silly if you consider level to be something 'real' and measurable, but not if it's just a tool to model how significant a threat the enemy is to some given opponent).
I agree it's about how you view such abstractions though - I didnt play much 3.5. When we did come to it we found it amusing that the modules would carefully list a kobold's swim score or similar - no matter how unlikely it would be to come into play. From that mindset, minions, DCs which scale with character level and so forth are not such a stretch of credulity since the concepts being morphed to suit the needs of the scene dont have any real-world analogs.
I'd find it odd if a town guard was a different height each time we met him or similar. I wouldnt suggest altering characteristics like that just to suit a scene for the same reason many object to minions. Ultimately though, if they'd said minions have 'trivial' hit points instead of quantifying it I would expect it to be at least clearer what they were intending.
I dont know if the designers would suggest adjusting hit points based on role within a scene - but rather based on relative power within the story (which I see as subtly differnet but not in a terribly important way). The example I'm thinking of (from one rulebook or other) was low level characters duking it out with the town guards - statted out as usual monsters of varying roles. If they come back much later in their careers (at paragon levels or something) the guards may well then be well-modelled as higher level minions. They can still irritate and do a little damage, but they're not a serious threat and can be relatively easily defeated.
For me level / hp models their relative power pretty well. Those town guards who seemed tough at first level (when the PCs were the same level) are going to be relatively easy for... say 4th level PCs to take.
(Level being another concept I think is often reified by RPGamers - I have no problem with that altering either - silly if you consider level to be something 'real' and measurable, but not if it's just a tool to model how significant a threat the enemy is to some given opponent).
Another abstraction of relative power. Levels just make the comparison easier as opposed to a more complex system. Again, I just prefer to keep the threat at the previously assessed level. The PCs going up will alter the relative level of power without me messing with it.
I agree it's about how you view such abstractions though - I didnt play much 3.5. When we did come to it we found it amusing that the modules would carefully list a kobold's swim score or similar - no matter how unlikely it would be to come into play. From that mindset, minions, DCs which scale with character level and so forth are not such a stretch of credulity since the concepts being morphed to suit the needs of the scene dont have any real-world analogs.
The sheer amount of trivia you can get in a stat block can be really funny and a lot of it will never ever come into use but sometimes it can be good to "know" that type of thing. One of the reasons I don't see the need for minions is that low level threats basically are already minions. A high level Fighter is going to cut a swath through low level opponents whether they have 1 hit point or 5. Every blow will probably drop one and no matter the Fighters AC some blows will slip through and hit him.
I'd find it odd if a town guard was a different height each time we met him or similar. I wouldnt suggest altering characteristics like that just to suit a scene for the same reason many object to minions. Ultimately though, if they'd said minions have 'trivial' hit points instead of quantifying it I would expect it to be at least clearer what they were intending.
That would be funny. The PCs could try to figure out if the guards were shorter or they were taller :) To me a 1st level NPCs hit points are "trivial" compared to a 10th level Fighter for example. No need to mess with it. Changing things that the PCs already have a sense of (like a guards hp range) would get a similar effect to altering their height. Again, it depends on the GM and players I'd say. Being "hands on" enough to fiddle with NPCs stats constantly to suit the scene more closely would be annoying for me.
*edit* Essentially, I like to set the environment and let the players actions and growth impact it.
One of the reasons I don't see the need for minions is that low level threats basically are already minions. A high level Fighter is going to cut a swath through low level opponents whether they have 1 hit point or 5. Every blow will probably drop one and no matter the Fighters AC some blows will slip through and hit.
I would agree - ultimately it doesnt make much difference and I definitely dont think there's any need for minions. The advantage is the ease - keeping track of the eight lowly orc minions' 9 hit points just in case someone only does 8 hit points one round is more trouble than it's worth for me.
Again, it depends on the GM and players I'd say. Being "hands on" enough to fiddle with NPCs stats constantly to suit the scene more closely would be annoying for me.
I certainly wouldnt recommend getting too carried away with this within the framwork of PF - it's a different way of thinking and doesnt mesh with an approach which treats RPGs as a simulation.
Someone up above mentioned a desire to keep the design assumptions from 4th edition mixing with the design assumptions of Pathfinder and I think it's a salient point. Some of the things which work well in one wouldnt work in the other, in my opinion.
*edit* Essentially, I like to set the environment and let the players actions and growth impact it.
I used to favor this too - unfortunately the time available to us means we run much more streamlined and railroady campaigns than we used to. We just dont have the time required for too much behind the scenes prep work and note-taking/reading. Plus our sessions tend to be very goal oriented - I remember spending hours exploring a sandboxy locale, nowadays I think we'd consider that something of a wasted Wednesday night :(.
One of the reasons I don't see the need for minions is that low level threats basically are already minions. A high level Fighter is going to cut a swath through low level opponents whether they have 1 hit point or 5. Every blow will probably drop one and no matter the Fighters AC some blows will slip through and hit.
I would agree - ultimately it doesnt make much difference and I definitely dont think there's any need for minions. The advantage is the ease - keeping track of the eight lowly orc minions' 9 hit points just in case someone only does 8 hit points one round is more trouble than it's worth for me.
Again, it depends on the GM and players I'd say. Being "hands on" enough to fiddle with NPCs stats constantly to suit the scene more closely would be annoying for me.
I certainly wouldnt recommend getting too carried away with this within the framwork of PF - it's a different way of thinking and doesnt mesh with an approach which treats RPGs as a simulation.
Someone up above mentioned a desire to keep the design assumptions from 4th edition mixing with the design assumptions of Pathfinder and I think it's a salient point. Some of the things which work well in one wouldnt work in the other, in my opinion.
I agree. raen't we supposed to argue or something? :D
*edit* Essentially, I like to set the environment and let the players actions and growth impact it.I used to favor this too - unfortunately the time available to us means we run much more streamlined and railroady campaigns than we used to. We just dont have the time required for too much behind the scenes prep work and note-taking/reading. Plus our sessions tend to be very goal oriented - I remember spending hours exploring a sandboxy locale, nowadays I think we'd consider that something of a wasted Wednesday night :(.
Too true about the lack of time. Thank the gods my players still like to just knock around the world though. Not as focused on end results and levelling up as some I guess. It certainly makes the game more interesting for me (and them I guess) though. A night spent gambling, drinking and trying to find their way home through dark streets and alleys is as amusing for this bunch as kicking in the door on the BBEGs place. They spent an evening doing a bachelor party and wedding for one of the PCs. Complete with the best man fighting a duel to keep things on track. They have style :)
I think whether a person likes the minion rule comes down to whether they are similationists or narativists - that is, whether they are trying to play the game like a miniatures tactics game or are trying to tell a story.
If they are trying to tell a story, then they know that a good story doesn't spend a lot of time exploring trivial stuff. The minion rules help decrease the time spent on trivial battles. The minion rules allow this
I don't think that's necessarily an accurate breakdown. For me, a story doesn't work if the in-character rules governing some people are inherently different from the rules governing other people. Peasants get killed by charging knights because they lack training, courage an organization. Not because peasants only exist to get killed by knights. It might 'help carry the story along', but if the rules of the story are not internally consistent, it doesn't work for me.
A better 'minion rule', IMHO, would be to just say "all right, everyone in the world is a 1st level NPC unless they've done something significant." High level PCs will still go through them like scythes through grass, but at least the 1st level NPCs follow the same rules as the PCs did when they were first level.
But if you find that you have a lot of 'trivial battles', then I have to ask: Why even play them out if they are designed to be trival? You could just as easily gloss them over, or go "you fight your way through the unarmed cultists, to stand face to face with the Evil Lord" and take the fight from there. No reason to record every to-hit roll if a battle is meant to be trivial.
Does that make me a simulationist?
I love 4e's rules for monsters, personally. The advantage of minions is not the 1HP, btw. It's the fact that you can have a mook with non-trivial +to hit and dmg. In Pathfinder, for contrast, mooks tend to be so useless that they aren't worth the time it takes to run them through a combat.
For me, a story doesn't work if the in-character rules governing some people are inherently different from the rules governing other people.
I'm interested whether it's more or less important for you that the rules be consistent (as in this comment) or that they simulate reality?
Would you rather have rules which applied equally to everyone in the campaign world but which resulted in some odd 'non-realistic' results or would you rather have rules which were inconsistently applied but which were closer to modelling how the world works?
I agree. raen't we supposed to argue or something? :D
I can say you're doing it wrong if it will help. :p
Too true about the lack of time. Thank the gods my players still like to just knock around the world though. Not as focused on end results and levelling up as some I guess. It certainly makes the game more interesting for me (and them I guess) though. A night spent gambling, drinking and trying to find their way home through dark streets and alleys is as amusing for this bunch as kicking in the door on the BBEGs place. They spent an evening doing a bachelor party and wedding for one of the PCs. Complete with the best man fighting a duel to keep things on track. They have style :)
I find it a strange turn of events that I used to spend hours and hours poring over my two or three D&D books and could afford maybe one module every six months or so. Now I have around half a dozen supplements/books/modules each month but pretty much no time to play them.
Somewhere there was probably an optimal period of my roleplaying life....unfortunately I didnt notice it happen. :(
1. The concise and clear action types, and the ability to "downgrade" any action for the next, "lesser" type. So clean in play.
2. Fixed hit point progression. Just way too important to be random.
3. Consistency between spell levels and caster levels. A 4th level wizard should cast 4th level wizard spells.
4. Pared-down list of actions which provoke.
5. "Warlordish" leader of men in the core.
6. Point-buy as the default stat generation method.
7. Concise yet specific wording (at least in theory).
8. Some sort of mook or minion rules.
9. Bloodied.
10. Some way for solitary, powerful enemies to have a greater than normal # of actions. This is just so true to comics, movies, etc., and really enables the "big bad" enemy quite well.
I PROBABLY shouldn't post in this thread at all... since I've never played 4E and no nothing about the mechanics of the game... (I HATED some of the fluff that they changed too much for my tastes... but I never really looked hard enough at the system to make an informed decision...) I admit that
However, at it's heart... this looks like a 'things we'd like to change about PF thread... so I'll make a couple of comments.
1) You had me at 'clear and concise.' Pathfinder is a VERY rule heavy system... and LOTS of the rules are just... pointless. Example: theres a big section in the magic section detailing the difference between material componetns and Focus components... what is used.. .what isn't used... then they wrap it all up with 'but they don't cost anything, and to just assume the wizard has them'
O.o
Then why bother with all the rules???
5 foot step... is moving... but it's not a move action, but you can't take a move action if you took a 5-foot step...
For new players coming into the game... this VERY confusing.
Downgrading actions mean nothing to me... but I have never felt something like that was missing.
2) I'm not in favor of that... I suppose I could enjoy a 'minimum' but I also like the idea of a little variety in the 2 3rd level warriors standing face to face.
3) Never bothered me... I'm in the camp that it would be more trouble to change it then would be gained. I haven't ever seen a player confused overwhat he could and couldn't cast... the charts are pretty concise.
I would like an IN GAME terminology for the OUT of game concepts.. I have a hard time having my wizard talking about how many 3rd 'level' spells he has.. and how many '+'s' are on his sword...
4) Good heaven YES!!!!! I HATE the confusing chaos that the AoO stuff brings to the table. I've heard the 'basic boxed set' is supposed to not have them... I'm curious what that will be like.
5)No idea what that means... :)
6) Isn't this already the case? Since it's the only method with charts involved... and the APs tell you what 'build' they were designed for... I always thought in Pathfinder the point build WAS default... O.o
7-9 mean nothing to me...
10... I'm a little torn on. I guess 'people' get a little screwed over... but MOST of guys tearing into my characters are getting multiple attacks and just messing me UP... Some octopus thing got like 8 constricts or something on me... It was a bloodbath.
I don't like the idea of power = more actions... at high level, that ONE action should be powerful enough to tip the balance in his favor...
and at the end of the day, the Heroes SHOULD win... sooooo while I want the heroes to WORK for the victory... I don't want them dropping like flies either...
Apologies if it's been pointed out already, but PFS does two of these, and one more of my favorites...
everyone uses point buy
No one rolls HP
and...everyone has the same starting gold
My reluctance here is mostly tradition, I suspect. My groups use a roll-twice, take-best technique which admittedly does increase their hitpoint totals somewhat, but more importantly pushes the curve center upwards. I by far prefer that over static hit points per level.
I've never heard of this before, but I really like it. I've toyed with the idea of making everyone X+d4 with the same maximums as they have currently. Your method restricts the variance of classes with lower hit points than those with higher I think, which is probably a nice side effect in addition to reducing the number of unplayable barbarians.
Your argument on #3 is reminiscent of people who were nostalgic of reverse-scale armor class and THAC0.
Ironically when we first started Pathfinder our 2E group thought the new AC rules and BAB were AMAZING concepts... All numbers go up... hit equal to or higher... No more Thac0!!!!
In hindsight, I THINK I prefer the old style a bit better. O.o
Something about Attack rolls of 40+ and AC's only being 23... SOMETHING seems off... I Think I prefer the concept of having a 'range' of how tough something is to hit... and you know it's going ot be in THIS range... The Open-endedness of Pathfinder/3.x seems pretty daunting sometimes. I got hit this afternoon with an attack at 36... when my 6th level sorcerer's AC is 15... PRETTY much put in mind, that I was going to get hit EVERY time... guaranteed...
I don't remember ever feeling that in 2E. I'm sure it HAPPENED... but the bad guy's Thac0 always seemed a bit closer to the players... O.o
One other thing that I think a Pathfinder 2e or rewrite should absolutley have... and go back to the 'clear and concise' philosophy.
BETTER PROOFREADING!!!
There have been LOTS of things that are in these books that are either... A) copy and pasted from outdated books and generally inaccurate. or B) Assumed that you are coming over from other 3.x games and already understand the basics..
A Core book should be just that. CORE. BASIC. Everything you need to understand should be RIGHT there...
Honestly, i don't need a definition of what D6 or D12 means anymore... but I shouldn't have to come online to find out that things are errated and redundant carryovers from 3.x.
That is VERY frustrating...
...
Though... not as frustrating as find information in a World of Darkness rulebook... THAT will bring a guy to tears ;)
For me, a story doesn't work if the in-character rules governing some people are inherently different from the rules governing other people.I'm interested whether it's more or less important for you that the rules be consistent (as in this comment) or that they simulate reality?
Would you rather have rules which applied equally to everyone in the campaign world but which resulted in some odd 'non-realistic' results or would you rather have rules which were inconsistently applied but which were closer to modelling how the world works?
I try to avoid using words like 'realism' or 'reality' in posts like this, because it always leads to someone responding with the 'fireball defence'. What's more important to me is that the world makes sense from an in-game perspective; to the characters inside the setting who aren't looking at the world through game mechanics. But I'm not really convinced the two options are opposites though. How can you model how (that particular) world works, if it doesn't have consistent rules?
I try to avoid using words like 'realism' or 'reality' in posts like this, because it always leads to someone responding with the 'fireball defence'. What's more important to me is that the world makes sense from an in-game perspective; to the characters inside the setting who aren't looking at the world through game mechanics. But I'm not really convinced the two options are opposites though. How can you model how (that particular) world works, if it doesn't have consistent rules?For me, a story doesn't work if the in-character rules governing some people are inherently different from the rules governing other people.I'm interested whether it's more or less important for you that the rules be consistent (as in this comment) or that they simulate reality?
Would you rather have rules which applied equally to everyone in the campaign world but which resulted in some odd 'non-realistic' results or would you rather have rules which were inconsistently applied but which were closer to modelling how the world works?
I don't think they're opposites, I just wondered what bugged you more.
So, for example, I find the whole concept of gaining hit points as you get better at your profession to be silly.
Inconsistent rules don't bother me as much as unrealistic rules - I wasn't suggesting it was some kind of dichotomy.
I don't think they're opposites, I just wondered what bugged you more.So, for example, I find the whole concept of gaining hit points as you get better at your profession to be silly.
Inconsistent rules don't bother me as much as unrealistic rules - I wasn't suggesting it was some kind of dichotomy.
Well, I'm not fond of hit points either. But in a hit point system, it would bother me more if some people had hit points and others didn't (for no other reason than to make them easier to fight), for instance (incidentally, we use a variant of the star wars wounds/vitality system in place of hit points in our home games. Rather close to the wounds/vigor system in UC).
|
1. The concise and clear action types, and the ability to "downgrade" any action for the next, "lesser" type. So clean in play.
2. Fixed hit point progression. Just way too important to be random.
3. Consistency between spell levels and caster levels. A 4th level wizard should cast 4th level wizard spells.
4. Pared-down list of actions which provoke.
5. "Warlordish" leader of men in the core.
6. Point-buy as the default stat generation method.
7. Concise yet specific wording (at least in theory).
8. Some sort of mook or minion rules.
9. Bloodied.
10. Some way for solitary, powerful enemies to have a greater than normal # of actions. This is just so true to comics, movies, etc., and really enables the "big bad" enemy quite well.
1. Yes.
2. Optional. I like random rolls, and I'd like them to stay.
3. Not so bothersome to me, but I can see your point.
4. No, I find it fine this way.
5. Yes.
6. No. I'd like it to stay optional, as for 2. There's more than enough math-number crunching this way, and while the point buy method has its own advantages, it also promotes a kind of metagamish character planning which I don't like in the least.
7. Yes. Clarification and streamlining of wording are much needed.
8. Not needed, but I can see your point.
9. Not needed. I'd rather see a brand new system to work out conditions based on wounds suffered, thusly getting rid of the catch-it-all HP value that stands for physical damage, stress/fatigue and determination or morale.
10. Not needed. In my experience as a DM, give the BBEG enough terrain advantage - combat zones from Iron Heroes are a good source of inspiration - and the action economy does not impact the balance so much. However, I agree that in equal terms a lower level group has a large advantage over a solitary higher level enemy, and just adding power to the BBEG screws the balance way too fast to be a workable solution.
|
1. The concise and clear action types, and the ability to "downgrade" any action for the next, "lesser" type. So clean in play.
Yes Yes a thousand times yes! I can't count how many times my group has wondered if Vital Strike is intended to be usable in charges, spring attacks, etc.
2. Fixed hit point progression. Just way too important to be random.
People actually use random rolls still? I guess thats what the core book says. Huh. Who'da thunk? I let my PCs roll once with massively lopsided results. They still talk about that campaign where the rogue had 17 hp and the fighter ~75 at level 6. Now they just ask what preset numbers I'll let them use. It would be nice if there was a standard and I didn't have to think it through.
3. Consistency between spell levels and caster levels. A 4th level wizard should cast 4th level wizard spells.
Meh. I can take or leave this one.
4. Pared-down list of actions which provoke.
I'm not sure what you mean here do you want fewer action to provoke or it to be in an easier to access list. I'm fine with the later (though it doesn't boil my blood) but the earlier should be examined in a case by case respect for the particular action without nessecarly the goal being to reduce actions being taken.
5. "Warlordish" leader of men in the core.
I think the cavalier fills this role well and I wouldn't mind seeing him in the core book.
6. Point-buy as the default stat generation method.
As long as its presented as a core option I don't think it has to be declared the default method. Lately I'm leaning toward having the PCs use the elite NPC array in my home game.
7. Concise yet specific wording (at least in theory).
Always the goal and really goes without saying (and BTW I'd suggest that 4E doesn't do any better. Just go open a first printing of the PHB to the skill challenge chapter.)
8. Some sort of mook or minion rules.
At mid levels simply using much lower level npcs / monsters works well enough for this IMHO. Some 0th level options for low level npcs might now be bad for the sub fifth level zone.
9. Bloodied.
I'm honestly unimpressed with the mechanics 4E has used for bloodied. Its useful I think to describe enemies as being more damaged, but I'm not sure how it should be implemented (if at all honestly).
10. Some way for solitary, powerful enemies to have a greater than normal # of actions. This is just so true to comics, movies, etc., and really enables the "big bad" enemy quite well.
Yes. Yes. Yes. I really want to though a BBEG against my PCs but I know that they will simply use their improved action economy to faceroll it.
Intrestingly your top 10 has aproxamatly no overlap with what I would change first (alingment, ability damamage, and save or be screwed spells) are what I want to expunge. Though I guess what we would remove is a different list.
1. The concise and clear action types, and the ability to "downgrade" any action for the next, "lesser" type. So clean in play.
2. Fixed hit point progression. Just way too important to be random.
3. Consistency between spell levels and caster levels. A 4th level wizard should cast 4th level wizard spells.
4. Pared-down list of actions which provoke.
5. "Warlordish" leader of men in the core.
6. Point-buy as the default stat generation method.
7. Concise yet specific wording (at least in theory).
8. Some sort of mook or minion rules.
9. Bloodied.
10. Some way for solitary, powerful enemies to have a greater than normal # of actions. This is just so true to comics, movies, etc., and really enables the "big bad" enemy quite well.
2 & 6. Getting rid of the option of rolling for stats and hp is not the way to go; I like the fact that in PF you have the option of rolling or the more predictable methods. My personal way of handling hp after 1st level is you can take average or you can roll and have a shot at the max. Those who choose to roll take the risk of lower hp, but have the chance of higher hp. Those who don't want the risk don't get the full reward, but get the comfort of knowing exactly what they are getting. Having both as an option helps the game by accomodating various gaming styles.
3. The current system isn't that hard to figure out; I'd rather see them ditch the delayed access for spontaneous casters, personally. That would simplify the system considerably, and the added power to the spontaneous casters would be noticable, but not really that powerful from what I've seen in actual play. They would still be tied to the few spells they knew, making them easy enough to deal with, regardless of what spell levels they have access to, and heavily reliant on scrolls and wands for anything beyond that.
7. The problem with your idea that simply reformatting a lot of the class specific stuff is that such formatting takes space, and in the printed book, that space may or may not be available. While I agree that most of PF's headaches could disappear with a complete reformatting of the material as a whole, that would a major undertaking, and the results would probably not please everyone. 4E achieved a lot of clarity, but it did so at the price of flavor; some kind of balance is required between the two, and you're not going to get that without a lot of work.
The rest of the points, I can agree to in concept, but would have to see actual PF implementations before I could make a final judgment. Even where 4E did a good job of implementing those ideas, PF is different enough, a direct porting over wouldn't likely work very well.
|
|
3. The current system isn't that hard to figure out; I'd rather see them ditch the delayed access for spontaneous casters, personally. That would simplify the system considerably, and the added power to the spontaneous casters would be noticable, but not really that powerful from what I've seen in actual play. They would still be tied to the few spells they knew, making them easy enough to deal with, regardless of what spell levels they have access to, and heavily reliant on scrolls and wands for anything beyond that.
I'm 100% behind the idea that the spontaneous caster penalty of getting spells later than everyone else needs to go the way of the dodo. In my next campaign (probably Jade Regent) I'm going to tell players that spontaneous casters should shift the spells per day and spells known charts down one level. I predict that oracles will be more popular than clerics, but wizards will still be seen as better than sorcerers.
I've never heard of this before, but I really like it. I've toyed with the idea of making everyone X+d4 with the same maximums as they have currently. Your method restricts the variance of classes with lower hit points than those with higher I think, which is probably a nice side effect in addition to reducing the number of unplayable barbarians.
Glad to be of service. By the way, here's the math for the averages of this method.
d12 (n(n+1)(2n+1)/3 - n(n+1)/2) /n2 = 8.486
d10 (n(n+1)(2n+1)/3 - n(n+1)/2) /n2 = 7.15
d8 (n(n+1)(2n+1)/3 - n(n+1)/2) /n2 = 5.8125
d6 (n(n+1)(2n+1)/3 - n(n+1)/2) /n2 = 4.472