I would like to know why you think the knight is a generally weak class. In my limited experiance with the class it seems to be proving to be really effective. Now that said the player playing it is really good at finding the best options available, but, it still doesn'tseem weak. Can you elaborate?
I feel it's weak for a few reasons. The fact that it's MAD (Multiple Attribute Dependency) is the first problem. It needs a high Strength score so it can contribute on the front lines. It requires at least a 12 to 14 in Con to make up for it's Poor Fortitude and because it's on the front line, it'll be taking some heavy abuse. And Charisma for all their class benefits that are based on the Knightly Challenge stuff.
Another problem, as I mentioned above, was their poor Fortitude. A Knight is highly ineffective when they're poisoned, sickened, diseased, polymorphed into squirrles, or distintegrated on the spot (all of which require Fort-saves to half or negate). As a front line opponent, these are common enough encountered effects that shouldn't be taken lightly.
A third is poor lack of progression for their class abilities. Fighting Challenge should top out at +5 at 20th level or so not only at +4. Shield Block should top out at +4 far shorter, say between 14th and 17th level. Instead, it gets +3 at 20th. In addition to the poor progression is the silly requirement for your Knightly Challenge to only effect creatures of a CR equal to your CL or higher -2....it's just so strange that I've completly removed the restriction all together from my games.
I think the main issue is that a Paladin or Fighter can easily accomplish what this class does but can be better at it via Feats (espically the Fighter). That is a big problem with the more niche classes of v3.5, other "main stream" classes can emulate these styles but still perform better overall.
I do have a Pathfinder Knight variant on my tabletop PC but it's currently being restored (hard drive crash or OS problem hopefully) so it'll have to wait til I get it back before I can post it on here.
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.
I think it's because the shift and focus of 4E is nothing like that of Pathfinder. Any elements of pathfinder would be hard to find their way into 4E games because of this shift from 3rd edtion to 4th edition. Had Pathfinder come up with unique and variant rules, then I would love to see them and how they could work with 4E. But since it's really v3.5 Famework, well it's the reason why 4E is now present. Alternatively, 4E's wacky and strange mechanics offer some new insight into rules and such and it's far easier to incorporate this streamlined effect into v3.5/PF.
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?
That would depend on one's interpretation of it's Core Elements. Some of Mike Mearl's articles talked about what essentially D&D is. Is it rolling d20s for most rolls? Is it auto-hitting Magic Missile? Is it regeneration of Trolls or the incorporation of Kits, Skills, Feats? Recognition is such a varying opinion that it's hard to answer easily. Some people, according to this thread, hate NOT rolling for Hit Points and Ability Scores. For them, that's game recognition. For myself, character clases, level progression, and d20 rolls are game recognition. But, the easy answer is yes. A game can deviate from a heavy-handed rule-set (without 100 pages of intense material) and still get the point across that my fighter swings his sword and deals damage.
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.
But yet, how great would Mass Effect be if they had the scope of Multiplayer that Halo has, Dual Weapons like Halo has or melee-based weapons like Halo has? Not all of those ideas are bad ones and can work in a game like ME. Just because they're different, doesn't mean aspects from one can't help or influence the design of another.
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.
Because companies like to make money and you don't sell 3 PHB to one person. In a field like our hobby is in, people expect a certain flow of products to come every year. This flow is often heavy at first, trying to fill in the big gaps while trickling down to the more niche gaps. But after that? When you've done 2, 3, 4 PHBs or Character Option books. When you've highly detailed every idea for weapons there is or specific armors or magical items? Produced 4 to 5 books with Monsters ranging from the grotesque Abberants to the chilling, clawed hands of the undead? This bloat becomes too much for the system to handle. Every supplement that comes next makes it easier and easier for people to power-game and exploit at the table until your fighter 5 with proficiency in the Bastard Sword becomes fighter 2/ crusader 8/cleric 1/ ruby knight vindicator 9 with a Spiked Chain.
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?
There's nothing wrong with saying, "this mechanic/idea works really well in this other game, I could see using it in [my favorite game]." There's plenty of stuff in WOW that I was happy to see end up in Pathfinder at my suggestion (for example, all animal companions having base abilities that scale up with druid level, rather than some animals being unavailable until higher character levels because they're too powerful out of the Bestiary for low-level druids to have). Likewise, there are some ideas or terms in 4E that I find convenient and use them in Pathfinder--for example, I like the term "shift" more than "5-foot step."
It doesn't mean I want to turn PF into WOW or 4E. And it doesn't mean PF 2.0 is around the corner. And it doesn't mean the person who likes those 4E elements wants PF to be right around the corner, or that PF should be more "like" 4E. Much of playing a game is "let's try this house rule, I think it would be fun/easier than what's the current rule." And much of game design is, "I really like this house rule, it works well, eventually I'll want to make an official rule of this."
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
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?There's nothing wrong with saying, "this mechanic/idea works really well in this other game, I could see using it in [my favorite game]." There's plenty of stuff in WOW that I was happy to see end up in Pathfinder at my suggestion (for example, all animal companions having base abilities that scale up with druid level, rather than some animals being unavailable until higher character levels because they're too powerful out of the Bestiary for low-level druids to have). Likewise, there are some ideas or terms in 4E that I find convenient and use them in Pathfinder--for example, I like the term "shift" more than "5-foot step."
It doesn't mean I want to turn PF into WOW or 4E. And it doesn't mean PF 2.0 is around the corner. And it doesn't mean the person who likes those 4E elements wants PF to be right around the corner. Much of playing a game is "let's try this house rule, I think it would be fun/easier than what's the current rule." And much of game design is, "I really like this house rule, it works well, eventually I'll want to make an official rule of this."
When SKR replies to you, would you say you've been SKR-punched?
I think part of the reason there tend to be more "4E->PF" than "PF->4E" thoughts is the different business models in play. Because Paizo is operating under the OGL, Pathfinder is a much more open system. WotC has made it quite clear that whatever material they incorporate will be copyrightable so they can put it behind a firewall and control access to it. It's not necessarily a bad system, but it isn't one that particularly encourages people on non WotC websites to offer improvements, especially ones already being used by other systems.
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.
The cycles haven't been shrinking. Its actually about time to start looking at doing a moderate rules update/major errata, if history shows anything. Every version of d&d has had one introduced on mostly regular cycles:
1974 OD&D
1978 AD&D
1985 Unearthed Arcana
1989 AD&D 2nd Edition
1995 AD&D 2nd Edition was revised, and players options manuals released
2000 3rd edition
2003 3.5
2007 4th
2011 4th ed: Essentials
So about every 4 (3 to 7, most 4) years a major revision was introduced. It was shorter between 3.0 and 3.5 because there were a number of things that were flat out broken about 3.0 that needed fixing. With a 3 year production cycle for both 3.0 and 4th ed, and Pathfinder being out for 2 years, it is not unreasonable to start having discussions about what we would like to see improved upon in the next release, which will likely still be 3 years away.
The other thing to consider is that most customer are not long term customers. You will have the average customer for only so long (my guess is ~5-8 years). Life gets in the way. The people who stick with the game are the exception, not the norm. You need to keep new blood cycling through the hobby. If you can keep people, its good, but its the new blood you sell the majority of your products to. Too large of a collection of rulebooks, and you start to alienate new players. The rules become to large to reasonably gain expertise in without institutional knowledge (knowledge from the begginning of the process). This leads to people not picking up the beginner books because there are too many advanced books that overwhelm them and they feel the need to master it all. People avoid tasks that are too difficult. Therefore, you need to cull the data that has built up over time back down to a reasonable level in order to attract new members. The easiest way to do this is with the release of a new eddition. Bonus points for those who can keep the old edition compatible so that miscelaneous supliments don't need to be reproduced, like the Stronghold Builder's Guide from 3.0.
Now, I think the production cycle is a little too short on RPGs, but ecconomics tell a different story (3.0 and 4e releases were both driven by slowing sales). I would not be suprized to see Paizo go 6-7 years or so before releasing Pathfinder v2 though, since they do not focus on the rules as much as the Adventure Path content for their primary revenue.
There will always be houserules, but getting them incorporated into a system like 4E will generally be harder than an OGL system, since with OGL you have the additional step of the 3PP to boost their visibility with the main publisher. I don't blame WotC for being protective of their IP, but it does mean that official support for incorporating new ideas is by necessity going to be a lot more indirect and not as visible, which won't discourage those who want to try them, but will inhibit, or at least slow, the spread of their visibility. Obviously, being on this site, that visibility is even further reduced, so there are multiple factors at work.
I think the biggest one is probably that most supporters of 4E tend to be supporters because they like the clear break between it and what came before, and are less likely to suggest major imports, or lots of smaller imports, in an effort to maintain that clear break. You'll see people tinkering with this system or that base assumption, but even in the threads here that have included suggestions of how to fix or improve 4E, I've never really seen any that cover multiple areas that haven't already been addressed by WotC. I think a lot of that is that PF is based on 3.5, so people have had a lot more time to tinker with the system as a whole and figure out how changes in one area affect the other areas. It's possible that I simply haven't seen such overarching threads, but the comparative age of the two base systems, and people's propensity to prefer the new over the old would suggest that statistically, it's more likely to see overhauls of and changes to the older system than the newer one.
The cycles haven't been shrinking. Its actually about time to start looking at doing a moderate rules update/major errata, if history shows anything. Every version of d&d has had one introduced on mostly regular cycles:1974 OD&D
1978 AD&D
1985 Unearthed Arcana
1989 AD&D 2nd Edition
1995 AD&D 2nd Edition was revised, and players options manuals released
2000 3rd edition
2003 3.5
2007 4th
2011 4th ed: EssentialsSo about every 4 (3 to 7, most 4) years a major revision was introduced.
We're not quite there yet, I think. But we're closer than we were 3 years ago.
If, at the end of next year, Paizo announces a Pathfinder 2nd Ed, with the primary goal of incorporating ubiquitous rules like archetypes into the core, I wouldn't complain.
If at any time they decide to make sweeping changes (and I doubt they will) I will be shocked. At that point I'll just start hoarding Pathfinder 1e books.
The cycles haven't been shrinking. Its actually about time to start looking at doing a moderate rules update/major errata, if history shows anything. Every version of d&d has had one introduced on mostly regular cycles:
1974 OD&D
1978 AD&D
1985 Unearthed Arcana
1989 AD&D 2nd Edition
1995 AD&D 2nd Edition was revised, and players options manuals released
2000 3rd edition
2003 3.5
2007 4th
2011 4th ed: EssentialsSo about every 4 (3 to 7, most 4) years a major revision was introduced.
mmmmmm.... Between the Basic box, and the APG/UC/UM there have been a few very recent 'moderate rules updates.' UC alone introduces the Called shots, DR, and Arena combat that are quite sweeping changes, yet optional enough to put in the same catagory as the AD&D Second editon ----> Players Options revisions.
Actually Since the original Pathfinder Campaign setting and early APs were strictly 3.x material... Techniquely the Pathfinder Core rules IS Pathfinder 2.0
I stuck to Pathfinder because it WAS NOT 4E. I didn't like the way the game had gone. I like one or two aspects, like minions, but those are largely unnecessary to make "official." If Pathfinder strays too far from what it is now, I jump ship on it. Period.
Fair enough. But, like Lilith said, no one want's Pathfinder 4E stuff. There are a few gems that might fit PF's framework quite well. For one, and I hope they do get on top of this, was v3.5's system for Maneuvers and Stances. It was a good first try but there are some mistakes and mis-uses. For starters, I'd have it be fully integral with the current class system (not create more classes) and Second, I'd limit it to knowledge of maybe 1 or 2 Disciplines yet having the option of trading up for higher powers.
Think of it like this, a character could spend a feat to choose a specific discipline. With that selection, they could choose 1 or 2 maneuvers and a stance. As they gain in levels, they can gain a minimal amount of additional maneuvers and stances. It would, however, require additional feats to take more "Stronger" maneuvers. It would have to be either class based or Character Level based or a hybrid of both.
For example: Say we create a feat called "Hand of Faith". It's tied into the Devoted Spirit Discipline but there's a catch. You have to either be a Paladin 1 OR Character Level 4 to take the feat. This represents the basis that Paladin's are already charged with divine power, and learning differences in channeling that power is a bit easier than those not of a strong belief in deities. As the character levels up, he can take up to say....3rd level maneuvers and stances before he's reached his peak. Another feat would have to be used to continue further down the path. So at say...a Paladin 7 or Character Level 11, you can now gain 4th level maneuvers and so forth. What this does is have another way for melee-based character to have some flexability and optional choices during character advancement instead of just HP, BAB, Saves, and Skills with every other level being a Feat.
Of course, this is just a random musing and I've put no real effort into a mathematical sequence for balance based on Level of Character/Class and that of Maneuvers and Stances. If someone is interested, I'd be happy to help lend a hand though.
I also don't think the prospect of Pathfinder 2E needs thought about at this point, because there is a lot of untapped potential with what it is right now. Just look at Archetypes and what they've done for the game, eliminating endless prestige classes (thank you, Paizo staff).
I don't think putting forth such notions is a bad thing. It's not like we're advocating them to hurry up with a PF2e anytime soon. And I'd like to learn more about Archtypes and how they effect the character-creation process. Is this on the PFd20SRD site?
I'm not going to war for my favorite edition here (if I did that I'd start talking about Original and Basic Edition). I'm just saying the reason I've bought EVERY SINGLE hardcover in the Pathfinder line is that it is still the game I know and love, as I've played 3E since its inception and like it quite a bit. If it strayed too far, I'd be out. Just saying.
Games do evolve as do mechanics for those games. Pathfinder was built on a fun and intriguing system but it does have it's flaws (like anything else). Ways around those flaws or to band-aid them is to create new mechanics. What 4E did was scrap the system and build from scratch and it's worked for them. Pathfinder didn't think the OGL/d20 system needed scrapped and worked to fix a lot of inherent problems. They did an OK job with it. But there is room for improvements and experimentation.
Because 4E is soo off-the-wall with new mechanics and a new system, it's only natural to take some of those good ideas and adapt/convert/re-direct them to be useful in other games (which is what this thread is about). So monster ideas like Minions and Solos aren't, IMO, bad ones because they happen to work quite well in 4E and could do so in PF without the need for a large change in system-basics. Giving BBEGs more attacks per turn, more HPs, and Stronger attacks make them better yes, but your pitting one creature against 4 to 6 PCs. That means it'll get one round of doing damage against one or possibly two targets when it in turn defends against 6. IMO, not very challenging unless it has a lot of magic to pick the slack up such as potions, magical effects, flying spells, cast pre-combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Endless Archetypes aren't better than endless PrCs. We've yet to see if we'll end up with endless Archetypes - it's too early to tell.
I will flat-out contradict this point.
I love customizable characters. As far as I am concerned, as long as all the archetypes are relatively balanced with each other, I can never have enough options.
PrCs were insane in that they encouraged multi-classing and planning out ever skill rank and feat before ever rolling out with a character. The amount of deckbuilding that went on just to get access to PrCs was really off-putting to me as a GM. I would much rather let characters evolve organically, and not have to worry about meeting pre-reqs just to play the PC they want.
Archetypes do not have this problem. You pick the thing you most want to play at level 1, and roll with it. No pre-reqs to mess around with and interfere with your roleplaying.
The cycles haven't been shrinking. Its actually about time to start looking at doing a moderate rules update/major errata, if history shows anything. Every version of d&d has had one introduced on mostly regular cycles:1974 OD&D
1978 AD&D
1985 Unearthed Arcana
1989 AD&D 2nd Edition
1995 AD&D 2nd Edition was revised, and players options manuals released
2000 3rd edition
2003 3.5
2007 4th
2011 4th ed: EssentialsSo about every 4 (3 to 7, most 4) years a major revision was introduced.
We're not quite there yet, I think. But we're closer than we were 3 years ago.
If, at the end of next year, Paizo announces a Pathfinder 2nd Ed, with the primary goal of incorporating ubiquitous rules like archetypes into the core, I wouldn't complain.
If at any time they decide to make sweeping changes (and I doubt they will) I will be shocked. At that point I'll just start hoarding Pathfinder 1e books.
My point was that it is about time to start looking at things you would want to change, not that those changes would or should be soon in coming.
At this point there are a couple of years of play data to start looking at. You can get a solid look at what people like and do not like. There is a big difference between collecting ideas for and starting to write a new system. These things take time. And the long the brainstorming time goes, the more likely you will find good ideas that stick. In the mean time, these types of threads can inspire houserules that may find their way into v2.
Endless Archetypes aren't better than endless PrCs. We've yet to see if we'll end up with endless Archetypes - it's too early to tell.I will flat-out contradict this point.
I love customizable characters. As far as I am concerned, as long as all the archetypes are relatively balanced with each other, I can never have enough options.
PrCs were insane in that they encouraged multi-classing and planning out ever skill rank and feat before ever rolling out with a character. The amount of deckbuilding that went on just to get access to PrCs was really off-putting to me as a GM. I would much rather let characters evolve organically, and not have to worry about meeting pre-reqs just to play the PC they want.
Archetypes do not have this problem. You pick the thing you most want to play at level 1, and roll with it. No pre-reqs to mess around with and interfere with your roleplaying.
+1
In addition, its much harder for Archtypes to be combined. There is much less of the 2-4 prestige class bs than with archtypes. You can, but in general you are not creating a more powerful character like you were in 3.5.
Someone had asked why there seemed to be less threads discussing PF->4E conversions. I gave the reasons I could think of that no one else had mentioned. Personally, while I think some of 4E's concepts are actually quite good, I don't think direct conversion either way is particularly a benefit to either system. They have different goals, underlying assumptions, and ways of doing things. Indirect conversion, while less problematic, still needs to be done with an understanding of the differing goals and assumptions of both of the systems involved.
Someone had asked why there seemed to be less threads discussing PF->4E conversions. I gave the reasons I could think of that no one else had mentioned. Personally, while I think some of 4E's concepts are actually quite good, I don't think direct conversion either way is particularly a benefit to either system. They have different goals, underlying assumptions, and ways of doing things. Indirect conversion, while less problematic, still needs to be done with an understanding of the differing goals and assumptions of both of the systems involved.The answer is simple. People may tear apart a hovel to put in a nice house. They are unlikely to do the opposite.
|
NOBODY wants Pathfinder to become 4e.
I'm sure WotC wishes 4e had not become 4e as it is. But the fact is they did have one or two good ideas, and borrowing isn't wrong, unless they are a big enough corporation to make things really expensive and painful for the borrowers.
Still twice the controllers of Dungeons and Dragons have become arrogant to the point of huburis and both times it cost them, either with Buck Rogers Games or 4e. We are yet to see if Pathfinder can pass the 'even my droppings smell sweet test." My guess is they will, because they have both recent examples of those that failed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answer is simple. People may tear apart a hovel to put in a nice house. They are unlikely to do the opposite.
A WINNER IS YOU!
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.
1,2,3,4,6 I like. Along side that I wish ac's scaled better as well.
I quite like the idea of the non-AC defences rather than saving throws too. We'd already implemented a similar thing in 3.5 and much prefer (as players) rolling to see if we succeed rather than watching someone else roll to see if we succeed.
None.
I quite like the idea of the non-AC defences rather than saving throws too. We'd already implemented a similar thing in 3.5 and much prefer (as players) rolling to see if we succeed rather than watching someone else roll to see if we succeed.
Some folks (Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, David Noonan, and Rich Redman) kinda beat people to that. Flopping who rolls against an "average" (see Take 10) Difficulty Check (which an AC is but or being hit) is not a mechanically hard thing to do, even logical. Much like going Up with BAB instead of Down with THAC0. Unearthed Arcana's collection of "house" rules, depending on how you reskin, adjust, or tweak them you can get any of the 4e mechanics.
Probably the best rolling rule is the rule of Average. If you fell something is "just way too important to be random," take an average result. Same applies to higher level combat or massive combats. A rule of Average in a GMs tool kit would go a long way speeding or addressing parts of the game people don't like.
For example take a modification of the Injury rules;
1) replace the 1 condition with a 3 step similar to Shaken/Frightened/Panicked
2) Use the Average weapon damage (plus "permanent" modifiers, no variable things power attack, etc) to calculate the "Damage Value"
3) ???
4) Profit
You can even make it go against a Fort "AC" of an Average 10 + Mods.
I quite like the idea of the non-AC defences rather than saving throws too. We'd already implemented a similar thing in 3.5 and much prefer (as players) rolling to see if we succeed rather than watching someone else roll to see if we succeed.Some folks (Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, David Noonan, and Rich Redman) kinda beat people to that. Flopping who rolls against an "average" (see Take 10) Difficulty Check (which an AC is but or being hit) is not a mechanically hard thing to do, even logical. Much like going Up with BAB instead of Down with THAC0. Unearthed Arcana's collection of "house" rules, depending on how you reskin, adjust, or tweak them you can get any of the 4e mechanics.
Probably the best rolling rule is the rule of Average. If you fell something is "just way too important to be random," take an average result. Same applies to higher level combat or massive combats. A rule of Average in a GMs tool kit would go a long way speeding or addressing parts of the game people don't like.
For example take a modification of the Injury rules;
1) replace the 1 condition with a 3 step similar to Shaken/Frightened/Panicked
2) Use the Average weapon damage (plus "permanent" modifiers, no variable things power attack, etc) to calculate the "Damage Value"
3) ???
4) ProfitYou can even make it go against a Fort "AC" of an Average 10 + Mods.
I don't remember our exact rules, but it basically started from as simple a change as the players rolling the monster's saving throw. It ended with a relatively simple algorithm (the original spell DC-10 became the player's bonus and the DC was 10+the monster's save or something equivalent).
I'd like it to be official in PF2 though - it increased our enjoyment in a completely irrational way.
I don't want anything messing with the tradition 9 spell level for wizard. I love the traditional vancian magic system. I like being able to easily adapt spells from previous editions.
And I would prefer that furture editions take very little of anything from 4E, that is why I play pathfinder. 4E makes my stomach churn and my bowls loose.
I would like the next edition of pathfinder to be more feat lite. No more stupid feat tax on skills. A feat should be completely independent of a skill in my opinion.
I would like them to tone down the awesome skills in acrobatics and percepiton that they give monsters.
One of the problems in the game is that skill ranks are useless unless maxed out with many skills. I would like to see it so that 5 ranks in a skill is useful instead of worthless if not maxed out and then require multiple feats to be effective.
I don't want anything messing with the tradition 9 spell level for wizard. I love the traditional vancian magic system. I like being able to easily adapt spells from previous editions.
And I would prefer that furture editions take very little of anything from 4E, that is why I play pathfinder. 4E makes my stomach churn and my bowls loose.
I would like the next edition of pathfinder to be more feat lite. No more stupid feat tax on skills. A feat should be completely independent of a skill in my opinion.
I would like them to tone down the awesome skills in acrobatics and percepiton that they give monsters.
One of the problems in the game is that skill ranks are useless unless maxed out with many skills. I would like to see it so that 5 ranks in a skill is useful instead of worthless if not maxed out and then require multiple feats to be effective.
Assume there is a skill trick that the game designers want to allow, but having it based on the skill alone would be unbalancing as the skill trick is too powerful.
Should they then just not include it in the rules?
Why have skill points if you have to max out a skill every level for the skill to be effective?
I don't so much not like a feat requiring a skill to be used as much as a skill being useless if you don't take the right feats. I don't like all the feats that give bonuses to skills. Stealth is useless without a high dex, skill focus, etc. I think that needs to be rethought. A feat like tracking operating off of survival, that was a good idea.
That's basically my thought process. Thanks for making me clarify a little bit.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While 4e as a whole doesn't work for me, there are some parts of it that does. That doesn't mean I want them incorporated directly into Pathfinder - it would require significant rewriting to make the rest of the game fit.
The biggest one is monster design. Not so much the minion/standard/elite/solo thing (although the two-dimensional power level has its advantages), but rather that monsters have the stats they need to be a challenge without building them according to mostly the same rules as PCs. It also removes unintended interactions between monster stats and PC abilities (one of the nastiest things you can do with most monsters according to 3.5/PF rules is add a level of sorcerer and have the monster learn Shield and Mage Armor - poof, +8 AC for +1 CR, and you get some other stat improvements as a bonus by using the elite stat array).
As an aside, the big thing about minions in 4e isn't that they die in a single stroke. You can do that in 3e as well, just use low-level monsters. The thing is that they can pose an offensive threat at the same time. You may also note that you can often find a minion monster at a much higher level than a normal version of that monster - that allows, for example, a tribe of ogres to have a bunch of orc slaves they use as cannon fodder.
I like that all classes have limited-use abilities similar to spells. I don't like that you get them as slowly as you do in 4e (with a single encounter power from your class at level 1, and usually a less powerful one from your race, and then getting one more every five levels on average). I would have preferred something along the lines of the Warblade from Tome of Battle, who started out with 3 rechargeable powers plus one stance, or something like that. That, or a cooldown mechanic along the lines of Warhammer 3e (where most actions have a "recharge" counter - when you use the action, you put X recharge counters on it and every round you remove one per action and eventually you can use it again).
Hmm. Most of the stuff you'd like to see from 4e is the stuff that drove me away. I hate how monsters are just abstract collections of level appropriate stats in 4e. I still remember creating a starter adventure to show the system to my friends, deciding I wanted the goblin chieftain to be wearing magic armor, then searching the rules about how to adjust his AC until I realized that his equipment had no effect on his stats. Ugh.
Minions just feel like they come from some sort of alternate reality. Not rolling damage and the one HP thing really bug me. The fact that I could fireball a group of minions and they all might be completely uninjured is just bizarre, especially since their leader is going to be damaged by the same attack.
I also don't want every class using the exact same system. Giving every class "spells" might create parity, but it also creates sameness. Variety is harder to balance, but it is a good thing. I usually play casters, but I'm having a blast with a fighter in a CC game because it's fun playing something different.
Flopping who rolls against an "average" (see Take 10) Difficulty Check (which an AC is but or being hit) is not a mechanically hard thing to do, even logical. Much like going Up with BAB instead of Down with THAC0.
In the case of BAB vs THAC0, both rolls are taken by the attacker. The mechanics changed but the principle didn't.
However in the case of 3.x saving throws vs, 4e defenses, the roll shifts from the defender to the attacker.
Personally, I prefer the somewhat active defense that saving throws represent. Even if the maths comes out to be the same, it feels more frustrating to be denied any defense against an effect.
True, you don't get any defenses against being hit in melee (unless you're a duelist), but you've got a pool of hit points to mitigate the effects. While you can die from melee damage, it isn't a 'I hit you - you're dead' situation. This would be rather frustrating.
In 4e, this situation does exist however with many spells and effects (I beat your Will defense - you're charmed), and for purely psychological reasons, I do find it more frustrating than the saving throw option.
'findel
Flopping who rolls against an "average" (see Take 10) Difficulty Check (which an AC is but or being hit) is not a mechanically hard thing to do, even logical. Much like going Up with BAB instead of Down with THAC0.In the case of BAB vs THAC0, both roll are taken by the attacker.
However in the case of 3.x saving throws vs, 4e defenses, the roll shifts from the defender to the attacker.
Personally, I appreciate the somewhat active defense that saving throws represent. Even if the maths comes out to be the same, it feels more frustrating to be denied any defense against an effect.
True, you don't get any defenses against being hit in melee (unless you're a duelist), but you've got a pool of hit points to mitigate the effects. While you can die from melee damage, it isn't a 'I hit you - you're dead' situation. This would be rather frustrating.
In 4e, this situation does exist however with many spells and effects (I beat your Will defense - you're charmed), and for purely psychological reasons, I do find it more frustrating than the saving throw option.
'findel
This gets pointed out in variant rules for "having the players roll everything" and also in places like BESM d20 where opposed rolls (especially on attack rolls) are more the norm. Each method presents a different flavor.
Part of the attraction of making Saves an "AC" is to hide the results of Poison/Diseases/Mind-effecting saves. Things where the PCs/NPCs may not realize has succeeded. Personally I think a good player and GM can do a bit of meta-play and let the player know his/her character has been afflicted but not have it reflected in the character's actions.
This gets pointed out in variant rules for "having the players roll everything" and also in places like BESM d20 where opposed rolls (especially on attack rolls) are more the norm. Each method presents a different flavor.
True, I'm simply expressing my personal preferences here.
Look at from this point of view. I'm an Enchanter/Illusionist and I am assaulting another creatures senses and perceptions of reality. I'm the one "attacking" what's already there. If I can muster enough force of "will" I can break through their defenses. Some people have tougher defense then others. People with Iron Will have put some effort into hardening their minds against such attacks.
Having a set defense value of 10 + Mods says the character is already prepared, where rolling suggests they're struggling and unprepared. It could also work with both attacker and defender struggling in an opposed roll.
I guess it comes down who is trying to overcome what. A Fireball's blast is a 'thing' it's static. A wizard isn't trying to manipulate or alter the blast wave in a way that will out speed a rogues "stop, drop and roll" routine. The Rogue is trying to out speed the fireball.
Likewise with more static wide area illusions make more sense as a set DC the defender is trying to overcome (rolled saving throw)
Perhaps Single Target effects work better conceptually as "Attacks" or "Conflict" rolls. Personally targeted things are often trying to overcome something in/about the target, as apposed to presenting something to overcome.
Personally, this is why I'd love to see a more universal Averages Rule. If someone really wants to slow down the game and roll a d20 + AC mods instead of "taking 10" they could do so.
...While 4e as a whole doesn't work for me, there are some parts of it that does. That doesn't mean I want them incorporated directly into Pathfinder - it would require significant rewriting to make the rest of the game fit.
The biggest one is monster design. Not so much the minion/standard/elite/solo thing (although the two-dimensional power level has its advantages), but rather that monsters have the stats they need to be a challenge without building them according to mostly the same rules as PCs. It also removes unintended interactions between monster stats and PC abilities (one of the nastiest things you can do with most monsters according to 3.5/PF rules is add a level of sorcerer and have the monster learn Shield and Mage Armor - poof, +8 AC for +1 CR, and you get some other stat improvements as a bonus by using the elite stat array).
As an aside, the big thing about minions in 4e isn't that they die in a single stroke. You can do that in 3e as well, just use low-level monsters. The thing is that they can pose an offensive threat at the same time. You may also note that you can often find a minion monster at a much higher level than a normal version of that monster - that allows, for example, a tribe of ogres to have a bunch of orc slaves they use as cannon fodder.
I like that all classes have limited-use abilities similar to spells. I don't like that you get them as slowly as you do in 4e (with a single encounter power from your class at level 1, and usually a less powerful one from your race, and then getting one more every five levels on average). I would have preferred something along the lines of the Warblade from Tome of Battle, who started out with 3 rechargeable powers plus one stance, or something like that. That, or a cooldown mechanic along the lines of Warhammer 3e (where most actions have a "recharge" counter - when you use the action, you put X recharge counters on it and every round you remove one per action and eventually you can use it
I have to exponentially agree with this. There is very little about 4e I like. I would prefer Pathfinder stay as far from it as possible.
Look at from this point of view. I'm an Enchanter/Illusionist and I am assaulting another creatures senses and perceptions of reality. I'm the one "attacking" what's already there. If I can muster enough force of "will" I can break through their defenses. Some people have tougher defense then others. People with Iron Will have put some effort into hardening their minds against such attacks.
While I partially agree with you, I don't see the way an enchanter attacks its victims the same as a melee fighter makes his attacks. Mechanically speaking, the concept of hit points creates a difference.
If the defender had 'mana points' and that each successful charm attacks make the defender loose a certain amount of mana points, down to be charmed when the mana pool is exhausted, then I would consider the attack to be similar.
If on the contrary one hit was all you needed to drop an opponent, I'd rather have my character roll an active defense roll à la saving throw.
IMO, the passive average rule works best when the effects isn't an all or nothing thing.
Then again, I don't like all or nothing results. One thing I like form 4e is that most powers/spells have a certain effect, and then a bigger effect if the power succeeds. I wish all spells had a minor effect even on a successful save...