Page Jump!
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 to that. In addition, I'd like to see the end of iterative attacks and the Full-attack action...
2. Like many, I feel that that's how it should be but I resist it for purely subjective/nostalgic reasons.
3. I'd be happy with a new official wording that replaces the word 'level'.
4. Yes please. Nothing locks down combat to 'I hit you, you hit me' like full-attacks and AoOs on movement and maneuvers in particular.
5. No opinion on this one. I'd be happy with Feats to emulate as such.
6. Isn't this the case already?
7. I agree to a certain extent. Information should be easy to retrieve, but I'd expect a game to be more thrilling then a university-level math book.
8 and 10. This ultimately boils down to monsters having different rules than PCs, to which I agree wholeheartedly.
9. Not sold on bloodied as defined by 4th edition, but I like the concept that damage is impairing mobility/clear thinking and that some abilities may be tied to that condition (Second wind? Bloodlust? A morale mechanics? Adrenaline boost?)
I also applaud the shifting concept from 4th ed which I prefer to the default 5-foot step.
As others have mentioned, the ritual concept is interesting but I'm not sold on it implementation in 4 ed. The idea that some spells are meant to be cast quickly and in the heat of battle are developed and cast differently from lengthy spells that need to be cast in a calm environment usually is worthy of consideration.
Personally, I would love to see effects that are easier to recreate via potion-making that through spellcasting, but that's a subject for another thread.
'findel
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
We use the same method for hit point rolling in my group, as well. It seems to work great- less worries about ending up with that gimped character through bad luck, but we still get to roll. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way I hope it is a very very long time before there is a new edition of pathfinder. anther 5 or 6 years -- at least.
I'd buy a Pathfinder 2E (or D&D 5E) tomorrow, if for no other reason than I'm fascinated by the design choices. Of course, that isn't to say I'd necessarily like what I found. I'm just a system junkie (which is odd, given that I hate rules bloat). What can I say? I'm a sucker for a clean, flexible core system.
This left a very bad taste in my mouth when I played it. Granted, we did have a larger party (7) and a DM who refused to think that "more" might be better than "bigger" but what I remember is a lot of attacks that had an additional action-denial effect that never, ever, missed. And since the save was at the end of the turn, I got to feel like I might be allowed to do something next round before being hit with the same action-denial attack again before it happened. In my opinion nothing that removes a turn should ever be decided solely by the attacker's die roll.
As opposed to an attacker rolling, say, a 3d12+9 crit with an axe that removes your life?
But joking aside, I get what you mean. Many people seem to feel this way.
I removed some posts.
In no particular order:
Disagree politely. Don't evade the profanity filter. Flag it and move on.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In my opinion nothing that removes a turn should ever be decided solely by the attacker's die roll.
Is it somehow different when it's the defender's die roll?
Some Random Action-Denial Effect:
3.5/PF - Defender rolls d20+X against the attacker's 10+Y.
4E - Attacker rolls d20+Y against defender's 10+X.
What exactly is the difference? Having the 10 and the d20 swap places doesn't affect the power level at all. Either way you still have an effect that removes a turn being decided solely by someone's die roll. What difference does it make whether the attacker or defender rolls the die?
Anyway, getting back on topic:
I confess I was hoping for feedback on my comments about how 4E consolidated Touch AC and Reflex into a single stat. Anyone agree or disagree on that one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sincere questions:
If you're a fan of 4e, why are you hoping for those mechanics to make their way into Pathfinder? Why aren't you just enjoying 4e?
I ask because most of us are very happy that Pathfinder doesn't have many traits of 4e mechanics. I'm very happy with Pathfinder. I couldn't care less if D&D 5e adopts PF mechanics.
4e is still early in its life cycle. Pathfinder's even younger. I hope we're many years away from PF 2E.
Other random thought:
My kids and their friends don't find making a PF character particularly difficult, especially after having done it once. It's when people min/max excessively or have a poorly defined character concept that number of options is intimidating (the whole eating an elephant aspect).
My youngest started playing PF when he was 5. He picked up the mechanics, in-character/out-of-character info, which dice to roll, and the basic math of roll+mod pretty effortlessly. If people are intimidated with the learning curve of a 1st-level character, they ain't trying too hard or aren't interested in the game. (IME)
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.
1) Yes
2) My players love this idea. I prefer random but I always DM.
3) Yes
4) Very much Yes.
5) no opinion really.
6) My players love this idea. I prefer random but I always DM.
7) Yes
8) I didn't like the idea at first now I love it.
9) I have been using a version of this since 1st edition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sincere questions:
If you're a fan of 4e, why are you hoping for those mechanics to make their way into Pathfinder? Why aren't you just enjoying 4e?
Because, as is usually the case, it isn't as simple as being or not being a "fan" of 4E. There are aspects of both systems, and their associated ecosystems, that I enjoy. As it happens, on the whole I prefer Pathfinder, but I believe some of 4E's mechanics to be superior, and would like to see them incorporated.
Really not loving the ubiquitous "sneetchery" around the whole thing, though. :(
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sincere questions:
If you're a fan of 4e, why are you hoping for those mechanics to make their way into Pathfinder? Why aren't you just enjoying 4e?
This thread isn't about being a fan of 4E and wishing Pathfinder would become (close to) 4E. If you hadn't noticed, 4E has a LOT of differences from 3.5/PF. Among them, a few would be (potentially - that's the subject of this thread) worth porting over. For instance, I like PF more than I like 4E, so switching to 4E wouldn't be satisfactory. But even so, PF still has some weird crap that 4E did better, and for PF to adopt that small subset of changes could make PF better while still keeping it closer to current PF than to 4E. Make more sense now?
I hope we're many years away from PF 2E.
I think we probably all agree there - but it's still fun to talk about! :D
Other random thought:
...
If people are intimidated with the learning curve of a 1st-level character, they ain't trying too hard or aren't interested in the game. (IME)
Sure, but a lot of those people who "aren't [very] interested" are friends/family/significant others who aren't gamers themselves but are being asked by their gaming loved ones to give it a try. Anything that can - without detracting from the quality of the game, mind you - be simplified would be good to simplify. This is where formatting/layout, standardized wording, and so forth would go a long way.
Hope that helps with your questions. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sincere questions:
If you're a fan of 4e, why are you hoping for those mechanics to make their way into Pathfinder? Why aren't you just enjoying 4e?
Because it's not about deciding which is the best, it's about hoping that future incarnations of any game are as good as they can be.
Sincere questions:
If you're a fan of 4e, why are you hoping for those mechanics to make their way into Pathfinder? Why aren't you just enjoying 4e?
I ask because most of us are very happy that Pathfinder doesn't have many traits of 4e mechanics. I'm very happy with Pathfinder. I couldn't care less if D&D 5e adopts PF mechanics.
As for myself, I dislike 4e as a whole.
Like Bugleyman, I enjoy system design and can appreciate a good idea when I see one. For me, it doesn't go much farther than that in terms of fan-dom.
'findel
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sincere questions:
If you're a fan of 4e, why are you hoping for those mechanics to make their way into Pathfinder? Why aren't you just enjoying 4e?
I ask because most of us are very happy that Pathfinder doesn't have many traits of 4e mechanics. I'm very happy with Pathfinder. I couldn't care less if D&D 5e adopts PF mechanics.
As for myself, I dislike 4e as a whole.
Like Bugleyman, I enjoy system design and can appreciate a good idea when I see one. For me, it doesn't go much farther than that in terms of fan-dom.
'findel
I like the guts of 4E quite a bit - basically, the bits in the Rules Compendium. It's simple, intuitive, and easy to run and play.
I do not like the glut of powers that the game leans on so heavily, which to me is its biggest drawback. I tend to think that the game should have dropped feats if it was going to focus on powers, because having two separate categories of things players have to pour over and pick when building or leveling up makes the game feel awfully dense. However, the same could be said of Pathfinder and the various abilities granted to base classes that fill up a character sheet - I like a lot of those elements, but I'll admit it can become cumbersome to track it all.
The style of writing used for a lot of 4e products is also off-putting - it feels like someone trying very hard to make things sound cool and hip but never quite succeeding. But the ease of play and the way monster creation is streamlined to make the DM's job easier is admirable, and the simplification of basic combat mechanics is an aspect for which I think more and more narrativist gamers are beginning to hunger.
Pathfinder could learn a thing or two from 4E about simplicity and clarity. 4E could learn some good lessons from Pathfinder about style and narrative.
We use the same method for hit point rolling in my group, as well. It seems to work great- less worries about ending up with that gimped character through bad luck, but we still get to roll. :)
Thank you. You just accidentally helped me solidify my opinion the matter...
"we still get to roll."
Seriously. Rolling dice is the best part of this game. The thrill. The hope, the despair. The anticipation, the resolve. It's a little emotional roller-coaster.
That's probably another reason I love iterative attacks and the like. More chances to play, more chances to win.
Less dice bad, more dice good.*
*Though I've come to prefer point-buy stats. Primarily it allows generation of characters out of sight of the DM. As long as it builds right, it's fair.
|
Well, my experience was getting my actions denied across multiple turns. At that point I stopped being a participant and became the audience. Not a good thing.
I'd guess you've never been hit with Hold Person, Sleep, Calm Emotions, Glitterdust, or any of the huge number of spells that deny you not only your next action but potentially all the rest of your actions?
Yes you feel more proactive in this scenario by rolling your save but its no different on average than your odds of them hitting a static defense. Neither is fun to be on the receiving end of though.
I think this hasn't been mentioned, but I like the rule that lets you add either str/con to fortitude, int/dex to reflexes and/or cha/wis to will saves, I like it so much I am incorporating it as a house rule in my campaigns.
But I am still able to attempt something. That makes a difference. When you get hit and lose the turn automatically multiple turns in a row there isn't even a need to show up at the table, now is there? The potential loss of multiple turns in 3.X is still less of a bother to me than the certainty of losing them I faced in 4E. The campaign I played in no solo monster ever missed anything other than AC, ever. The GM was in love with that stuff and looked for it when designing encounters. He had a party revolt where we all stopped showing up in unison. It really left a very bad taste for that part of the system for me. So bad that it is a deal-breaker for me when considering a system.
This is so difficult for me to reconcile with my experience. In 3.5 (though we didnt play a lot of it) we often had one or more characters twiddling their thumbs for an encounter because they just weren't materially useful to that specific set of circumstances. In the 4th edition game we played on Wednesday we were fighting four separate monsters who had multiple ways of dazing us - a pretty debilitating condition in 4th Edition and one which significantly curtailed our ability to use our usual tactics. Nonetheless, there was nobody unable to do something useful each round - they just werent as useful as they would have been were they unaffected.
It sounds to me that your DM doesnt fully understand the encounter building rules, to be frank. If you were losing a turn (I presume that means you were dominated or stunned) regularly, then I could understand being frustrated. In my experience, one (peculiar) trap of 4th edition is that some of the monsters have cool sounding and unique powers - it can be easy to think that fighting lots of such monsters must be cooler than fighting only a few of them sprinkled throughout more 'regular' enemies.
|
|
But I am still able to attempt something. That makes a difference. When you get hit and lose the turn automatically multiple turns in a row there isn't even a need to show up at the table, now is there? The potential loss of multiple turns in 3.X is still less of a bother to me than the certainty of losing them I faced in 4E. The campaign I played in no solo monster ever missed anything other than AC, ever. The GM was in love with that stuff and looked for it when designing encounters. He had a party revolt where we all stopped showing up in unison. It really left a very bad taste for that part of the system for me. So bad that it is a deal-breaker for me when considering a system.
I hardly think its fair to blame a system for a DM who overuses aspects of it which are good only in moderation. Similar DMs in pathfinder might love rust monsters and Decinigrate spells.
I liked the ongoing damage in 4e and the manner in which you saved against the damage. The action tree pathfinder had was nice and tidy
Although I first liked minions. After a bit though it became more of a way to have variety in the same creatures. Almost a built in game mechanic for story telling, which I both liked and disliked. It may be more cumbersome as 4e had most characters with close burst powers that doesn't exist in Pathfinder.
I think this hasn't been mentioned, but I like the rule that lets you add either str/con to fortitude, int/dex to reflexes and/or cha/wis to will saves, I like it so much I am incorporating it as a house rule in my campaigns.
I do like that rule. It allows saves to be decent across a lot more character concepts.
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.
Suggestion: Shift the spells/day up one column, but don't shift the spells known. Thus at 3rd, you have 2nd level slots, but don't yet have 2nd level spells, so the sorcerer has to use first level spells in their place (possibly with metamagic). It solves the "specialist wizards can cast more spells at odd levels that sorcerers" problem, while keeping wizards as able to cast stronger spells.
On topic, I liked the idea of at will, encounter and daily abilities, but hated how 4th ed did it. I'm not sure what it would take for me to like it though.
bugleyman, this has been a very interesting and thought provoking discussion that has seen little in the way of edition warring. So on that part, I thank the posters here for a good job so far.
That being said, while there are so many discussions going that I'd like to comment on, it's best to stick to the subject matter. I guess here's my 2-cents on bugleyman's list:
1. The concise and clear action types, and the ability to "downgrade" any action for the next, "lesser" type. So clean in play.
I've always used this in my v3.5/PF games and thought that was standard fare. We've learned that sometimes it's important to sack your standard for a double-move or "run all round (x4 speed)" to get where you want to go. Also, as a Paladin in PF has to spend a minor action to Smite, I see no problem with him spending his move action for another smite in the same turn. Was this not the case before?
2. Fixed hit point progression. Just way too important to be random.
Hmmmmm, lots of divison on this matter. I do like Fixed HPs because I'm not of the opinion that you're required to find alterior ways to make your character good just because you've rolled poorly on a few levels of you HD. For example, a battle-geared cleric who rolls 1's and 2's in his first 4 levels isn't all that battle ready and is now required to take Toughness as a feat just to fit that concept. Rules should not override fun for rules sake (IMO). That being said, I'm also a fan of alternatives and I can see Fixed HPs for organized play while still having the option of rolling naturally for HPs or a mix between the two.
3. Consistency between spell levels and caster levels. A 4th level wizard should cast 4th level wizard spells.
A nice idea, but totally unecessary with v3.5/PF's ruleset. For starters, you'd need a whole re-vamp of the spell system and then you'll have people complaining that their wizard used to get Fireball at 5th level but now some hair-brained designer made it obtainable at 7th level! WTF??! Basically, it's a level of complexity that's not totally needed. It works brilliantly for 4E as characters advance regularly to 30th level, but not so much for PF.
4. Pared-down list of actions which provoke.
Agreed. I'm assuming you mean provoke AoOs and I'm quite happy with just moving from a threatened square or casting spells adjacent to opponents (this goes for using scrolls as well). Grabbing gear, drinking a potion, using tricks and special attacks should not require an automatic AoO.
5. "Warlordish" leader of men in the core.
Ah yep. I really enjoy the Warlord class. It can grant Temp. HPs, grant others additional attacks, lead from just behind the lines, and be that inspirational general/Marsha/Sgt. that keeps you going. Not with alternative class featurs or feats could make the Fighter or Paladin be like this class. It's really to unique a concept for conventional classes to obtain. A re-flavored, non-deific cleric might be able to do it, but it'd take a lot of refluffing.
6. Point-buy as the default stat generation method.
I'm going to clump this into the method for "Offical" play like fixed HPs but alternative rules should be considered and allowed for home-brews. The good thing is that it levels the playing field a bit, making players actually take time to invest in their class features and feats and not one player with the ability to do it all.
7. Concise yet specific wording (at least in theory).
I actually thought 4E had a lot of problems in this area. If you've read a lot of the Class Compendiums and Class Playtests, they've had to do multiple revisions on how powers work and how they work with feats to get it "right". So based on that yea, an easier language would be more useful and hopefully shore up more loop-holes that Char_Ops loves to exploit.
8. Some sort of mook or minion rules.
I love the idea and have exploited it in my v3.5/PF games with minimum fuss. It does help create the cinematic events like a Dwarf with an Axe killing multitudes of orcs as they storm the walls or that lonely paladin cutting through a swath of undead to reach the safety of the church. The good things about minions is that they're dangerous and you can literally throw dozens of them at your PCs for those effects. One problem I have encountered was that controllers (wizards more specifically) have a good variety of ways to take out this problem in 4E but none in v3.5/PF. This leads to wizards not wanting to waste their precious spells on minion fodder. Couple of ways around this like a class feature that boosts 1 spells radius to a 10ft. burst or a 0-level cantrip that deals 1 HP damage to a 10ft. burst effect. Something like this:
Immolation
School evocation [fire]; Level bard 0, Druid 0, Magus 0, Sorcerer/Wizard 0
========================================
Casting
========================================
Casting time: 1 standard action
Components: V, S, M
========================================
Effect
========================================
Range Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./ 2 levels)
Effect 10 ft. diamater burst of fire
Duration Instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex negates; Spell Resistance no
========================================
Description
========================================
This cantrip is used in conjunction with a piece of ember, ash, or coal. When the spell is completed, you hurl a small ember of flame amongst your foes that ignites them on fire, dealing 1 point of fire damage unless it makes a successful Reflex save.
Or something akin to that :D.
9. Bloodied.
Another mechanic that is rather strange to be used in PF. While I understand come mechanical benefits, unless you make this a really heavy mechanic that filters into PC races, class features, magic items, and powers it should be left alone. If you DO want to have this sort of impact, then I can see how character can gain benefits through it via Feats.
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 is probably the main reason why I'm so interested in this thread. For starters, I'm a believer that monsters should never have been build like PCs. This is the one true reason why class balance plays a pivotial role in game design. Parties with top-tier class decimate NPCs and Monsters with non-top tier classes. By adding a role, your saying to your players "Ok, this guy is the HEAD of the Orc clan and a chieftan who's slayed countless warriors and has been in countless battles." and then he falls prey to the cleric's Hold Person, wizard's Ray of Enfeeblement, and the Rogue's SA + Bleed feature while the fighter rolls in and Coup de grace and this guy did what? Oh yea, bad Initiative.
And while that may be fun for the first round and everyone says "OMG, I can't believe that just happened!!" it wears off and I don't think people get that much fullfillment from 1-rounding a BBEG. And to me it makes perfect sense that a character meant to battle 4 PCs at once SHOULD have multiple attacks, attacks that push/prone/stun/daze, and possibly spells or effects that can target ranged people as well. The point is, monster creation went away from being created like PCs because they're NOT PCs. They're diametrically opposed in every sense of the phrase. So why would they share construction-framework? Espically when they're supposed to be a threat to multiple targets. I do, however, find this to be a problem with humanoid-based monsters and NPCs because other creatures like a Dragon or Abberation has a "reason" for being strange or multiple-attacks unlike my lonely Orc Chieftan.
|
Sincere questions:
If you're a fan of 4e, why are you hoping for those mechanics to make their way into Pathfinder? Why aren't you just enjoying 4e?
I ask because most of us are very happy that Pathfinder doesn't have many traits of 4e mechanics. I'm very happy with Pathfinder. I couldn't care less if D&D 5e adopts PF mechanics.
4e is still early in its life cycle. Pathfinder's even younger. I hope we're many years away from PF 2E.
Other random thought:
My kids and their friends don't find making a PF character particularly difficult, especially after having done it once. It's when people min/max excessively or have a poorly defined character concept that number of options is intimidating (the whole eating an elephant aspect).My youngest started playing PF when he was 5. He picked up the mechanics, in-character/out-of-character info, which dice to roll, and the basic math of roll+mod pretty effortlessly. If people are intimidated with the learning curve of a 1st-level character, they ain't trying too hard or aren't interested in the game. (IME)
Why are you even here in this thread, then, eh? The OP asked about 4E features going into PF. Your post above contributes nothing to the thread except continue to smolder the edition wars.
Why are you even here in this thread, then, eh? The OP asked about 4E features going into PF. Your post above contributes nothing to the thread except continue to smolder the edition wars.Sincere questions:
If you're a fan of 4e, why are you hoping for those mechanics to make their way into Pathfinder? Why aren't you just enjoying 4e?
I ask because most of us are very happy that Pathfinder doesn't have many traits of 4e mechanics. I'm very happy with Pathfinder. I couldn't care less if D&D 5e adopts PF mechanics.
4e is still early in its life cycle. Pathfinder's even younger. I hope we're many years away from PF 2E.
Other random thought:
My kids and their friends don't find making a PF character particularly difficult, especially after having done it once. It's when people min/max excessively or have a poorly defined character concept that number of options is intimidating (the whole eating an elephant aspect).My youngest started playing PF when he was 5. He picked up the mechanics, in-character/out-of-character info, which dice to roll, and the basic math of roll+mod pretty effortlessly. If people are intimidated with the learning curve of a 1st-level character, they ain't trying too hard or aren't interested in the game. (IME)
Totally disagree. It's a completely valid point to ask if people aren't re-inventing the wheel. Interpreting it as something else, especially when the poster in question made the effort to show that his question was genuine, would seem to say more about you than him.
If you look at the thread as a whole, it is doing exactly that, as is inevitable. You have a large population, all with their own ideas of what from the other system ought to be incorporated into this system. Few of them are redundant. The end result is that, taken as a whole, the game becomes more 4th Edition than Pathfinder. Maybe not to each and every individual posting, but definitely to those who see the original post and in their minds are adding more and more.
If I owned a Ford truck, but I wanted a Chevy, I would not begin replacing all the parts of my Ford, one by one, until I had a Chevy. Neither would I call Ford on the phone and demand they redesign their plant so it was cranking out Chevrolets. I would just trade my Ford for a Chevy. I'm not saying individuals here are doing those things, but taken as a whole, the thread (unwittingly) is.
So I think it's understandable that somebody might feel the matter of just choosing an edition and sticking with it, is a reasonable one.
When somebody says that they don't like 4e and don't want it in their PF, that's not continuing the edition wars.
Seriously, it's like some of you pro-4e people are offended just by anyone daring to express a contrary opinion.
Sure it is, because it doesn't necessarily contribute to the discussion at hand. Discussion of contrary opinions is fine when you post something to actually discuss. It'd be no better than going into one of the multitude of Pathfinder forums and just saying "I hate PF, that is all." without rhyme or reason (which of course is silly and should be considered edition warring). Then the poster further goes into claiming people who don't find the learning curve easy are just being lazy (trying too hard) or have no interest. Blanket statements and generalization often produce nothing of value except arguments and thread closures (IME).
....anyhow...
Another thought came to me as I was thinking about certain mechanics that PF could adopt. "Marking". But lets not call it marking, because that does sound a bit gamish. The v3.5 Knight is probably the creator of the idea, with his Call to Challnge feature gained at 4th level. It allowed him to call out his enemies and if they didn't engage him, suffered for it. Of course, it had the requirement of a silly DC (which shouldn't IMO) and the Knight was a generally weak class but the idea is there.
So taking the idea of "Challenging" opponents, I could feesable see the idea of Paladins and Fighters gaining some sort of Challenge ability which actaully makes them excell in their role of meat-shield. Otherwise, you really don't have a sold reason to play one of these classes other than flavor (which is fine, but not really sound game-design). Of course, this is all my own opinion but I'd gladly give examples if people would like them.
When somebody says that they don't like 4e and don't want it in their PF, that's not continuing the edition wars.
Seriously, it's like some of you pro-4e people are offended just by anyone daring to express a contrary opinion.Sure it is, because it doesn't necessarily contribute to the discussion at hand. Discussion of contrary opinions is fine when you post something to actually discuss. It'd be no better than going into one of the multitude of Pathfinder forums and just saying "I hate PF, that is all." without rhyme or reason (which of course is silly and should be considered edition warring). Then the poster further goes into claiming people who don't find the learning curve easy are just being lazy (trying too hard) or have no interest. Blanket statements and generalization often produce nothing of value except arguments and thread closures (IME).
You're making a lot of assumptions. But the one you are not making, is that the thread itself is a valid point of discussion.
If you want to talk about things you want to take from one system to another, you must be prepared for people to disagree with the choices being offered. Likewise, you must be prepared for people to wonder if any choice is a bad one, or if any interchange is necessary at all.
By the way, I notice my original post is gone from page 1. All I did was ask if so many changes might not be too much change. My question as to whether it would make more sense to stick with 4th Ed was sincere. Somebody even answered me in an even tone. Why was my post then removed?
Seriously, the question can be asked without it being an attack. The mods ought to be looking harder at the people who react badly based on assumptions, instead of taking it out on the people who are asking genuine questions.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
When somebody says that they don't like 4e and don't want it in their PF, that's not continuing the edition wars.
Seriously, it's like some of you pro-4e people are offended just by anyone daring to express a contrary opinion.
I don't think he was saying that a disagreement was inappropriate, but rather that a disagreement-with-nothing-else doesn't contribute to a discussion. I.e., I think he would rather that poster have provided points of discussion along with his disagreements. For instance, there's a difference between saying "I don't like X", and saying "I don't like X because of Y". The first doesn't offer much to work with, while the second holds out point Y as something to be discussed in greater detail. I think that might be more where the protests (if you can even call them that) were coming from.
Also, pointing out a dislike of a single post hardly equates to being "offended just by anyone daring to express a contrary opinion". Someone could just as easily (and perhaps more validly) say the same about you for your apparent offense at someone disagreeing with you about the usefulness of the post in question.
Anyway, getting back on topic, I have mixed feelings about what someone mentioned earlier about the ability to use the better of two stats for each defense (INT or DEX for Reflex, etc). I liked it at first - and still do to some degree - but at the same time, one thing I liked when I switched to PF was that it felt like each ability score had sort of its own identity because it affected certain things and nothing else. On the other other hand, this means that in PF anyone who isn't a CHA caster (or someone relying on UMD) can dump CHA, making everyone just rely on the Bard/Sorc/whatever for social skills while they sit in the background. In 4E, since you can use CHA for will instead of WIS, you can make (for instance) a high-CHA, low-WIS fighter and have it be a lot more viable than in PF. So I guess I'm not sure where I land on that one.
Anyway, getting back on topic, I have mixed feelings about what someone mentioned earlier about the ability to use the better of two stats for each defense (INT or DEX for Reflex, etc). I liked it at first - and still do to some degree - but at the same time, one thing I liked when I switched to PF was that it felt like each ability score had sort of its own identity because it affected certain things and nothing else. On the other other hand, this means that in PF anyone who isn't a CHA caster (or someone relying on UMD) can dump CHA, making everyone just rely on the Bard/Sorc/whatever for social skills while they sit in the background. In 4E, since you can use CHA for will instead of WIS, you can make (for instance) a high-CHA, low-WIS fighter and have it be a lot more viable than in PF. So I guess I'm not sure where I land on that one.
When I first heard of the idea I thought it would be good. Then I saw what it did in practice and hated it. In a point buy scenario, it caused classes that were way too 1 dimentional, and some very bad dynamics. Classes that wanted 2 associated stats were penalized while ones that don't care were significantly stronger. It made certain builds obviously less optimal. A str-con based character got significant penalties over a con-dex one. Int+Dex characters take a huge hit. Overall, it encouraged way to much min-maxing.
Perhaps an additive system would be nice though. One where you are not completely tanking 1 of the 2 stats to add to the other. Then, characters with 2 high associated stats would have extreme defense in an area, instead of the same as someone with just 1 of those stats high. They would be sacrificing their defense in annother area to do it though.
Annother thing I like about 4e - weapon bonuses to hit. It allows for an additional method of ballancing weapons against eachother and it front loads the to-hit so lower level characters can be more relevant against higher level ones. I would like to see the whole scale for AC and Hit looked at though, to make it so that low level characters can be more relevant. My group has a hard time using low level monsters since they are usually completely ineffectual agaisnt the ACs.
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, 4, 7, and 8 I definitely agree with. 5, I could take it or leave it, wouldn't bother me, but not something I feel is necessary. Here's how I feel about the others:
2. I think it should be average or roll for HP. If you roll, you have that risk of getting low HP for the chance of getting high HP.
3. That just seems like there would be a ridiculous amount of spell levels. 9 is more than enough in my opinion. I would like to see a mana or spell-points system though.
6. I have no rational reason for this, but I just hate point-buy. Rolling is more fun for me.
9. I think it's an interesting idea, but encourages to much meta-gaming for my tastes. Maybe if the definition of bloodied was changed to something besides half-hp. Perhaps if bloodied occurred after the creature takes X amount of damage in one attack, X somehow scaling with CR?
10. I'm undecided on this. It could work, or it could turn out a convoluted mess. I'd have to see what such a system looks like.
First of all, I’d like to thank those who didn’t take my post as an attack and weighed in on that feeling. Thank you. I very much appreciate it.
Second, my post was not an attack, nor an attempt to turn the thread towards (yet another) edition war debate.
My questions were sincere. The thread wasn’t a discussion of generic game design or house rules – it was a thread about incorporating 4e design elements into a new edition of Pathfinder. I was asking those questions from the following viewpoint:
4e and Pathfinder have significantly different design philosophies and goals. Generally speaking, they cater to different tastes. I have been puzzled by the oft-posted desire to have 4e elements incorporated into Pathfinder. I have not, however, seen many posts expressing a desire to have PF elements incorporated into 4e. Since I don’t play 4e, I was curious why people might want to add 4e elements to a significantly different system rather than just using the system that already has those elements.
Also, some games have a steeper learning curve than others. RISK, for example, isn’t likely to be played in 30 minutes or less out of the box with new players. My comment on character creation and game interest was based on the fact that Pathfinder is not intended to be a beer-n-pretzels game for the casual gamer. While I’m all for a streamlined intro experience like the upcoming Basic Box, I don’t see the logic in taking a game with hundreds of pages of printed material and suggesting that it should be a rules-light RPG. You can change a thing beyond recognition. Once it’s deviated that far from the original, are you still playing the same game?
To use a video game analogy, I don’t play Halo when I want to play Mass Effect. Right tool for the job and such.
I also don’t understand the desire to perpetuate the edition treadmill in ever-shrinking cycles. To me, having to purchase a new set of rules and learn what’s changed is a bigger barrier to customer longevity and a greater detriment to the health of the hobby than the initial barrier of admission of a core rulebook. 4e and Pathfinder are both young, even very young, games. There’s nothing wrong with edition speculation, I just don’t understand what’s lacking from the game in front of you. Hence, the questions.
As for why I didn’t “add to the original topic” – as I said I don’t play 4e, so I had little to add in terms of the original post. Even if I did have an extensive knowledge of 4e’s mechanics, I don’t know that I would have added “these should go into PF”. I used fixed hit point progressions and point-buy character generation, but I’m perfectly content treating them as home-campaign options.
As for “Why post at all?”, as I said, I was curious. I was under the impression that message boards were for discussion and since my question pertained to the discussion preceding my post, I thought it was ok. Given the number of threads that wander far away from the original topic and continue to proceed for pages-and-pages of subsequent posts, I had no reason to think my questions were violating a rule, thread-crapping, or adding to the Edition War.
For those who sincerely answered my questions, you have my thanks.
For those who took my post in the spirit in which it was intended, you have my thanks.
For those who found fault with my post, you have my apologies. I’ll move along to other threads.