I second the motion to "huh?"
I don't think you understand what disassociated mechanics are. The only example you use is that you can't trip a cube, which make total sense. To me, anyway. Maybe you can give more examples?
um, um. . . Vow of Poverty, .cough, . . . cough. . .
Sorry Beckett, I didn't mean you, I meant the OP. Also, so to not derail the thread into a VoP discussion:
What I think the OP means is that the name of a maneuver or ability in Pathfinder implies some of the mechanics. Trip means engaging a legged creature's legs so that it falls prone, and so legless creatures (such as a Gelatinous Cube) cannot be tripped.
Some powers/abilities can have a name that implies something, but the actual rules have little or nothing to do with the flavor implied by the name. Example: The "Dash" feat (3.5) adds 5 ft to your movement; does that mean you can only use it when "dashing" (i.e., hurrying/ running)? Pathfinder has a similar feat named "Fleet", which lacks the implied "only works when running" that the name "Dash" had.
If that's not what the OP meant, then, yes, some clarification would be good.
I've read the article, and I can't really think of anything in PF that applies to. Fleet reminds me of "fleet of foot," which means fast, which fits the feat.
Do the developers get what they are? The big thing I like about PF over 4e is that the rules and abilities in PF mean something in the game. Words mean what they mean. In PF you can't trip a cube.
I feel like they are slipping on this a little. I thought grit was weak. I just read some of the UC paladin stuff and I thought tactical smiting was weak as well. I don't want to have to extrapolate what the powers mean in character.
I looked over at Holy Tactician (I assumed that's what you were talking about with the tactical smiting comment). I don't see a disassociation there, though I do think it's a bit convoluted in its description. I had to read it three times to really grasp Weal's Champion.
Basically, the paladin's smite becomes a kind of divine targeting laser. It's divine magic, so you flavor it however you want.
The closest example of a disassociated mechanic in Pathfinder, to me at least, would be a lot of the Alchemist's abilities. Things they make only function when used by the alchemist who created them? Oh, because they use some of their own essence in it... well, I guess that 'explains' it, weakly. Wizard bonded weapons make sense; chemicals you put together in 3-6 seconds that only function for you do not. Lame if you ask me (but you didn't).
Also: feats like weapon finesse and power attack. You shouldn't require a feat to do such things. Finesse should be a weapon quality, and power attack should be a type of action, like fighting defensively. To me, it's disassociated because the nature of certain weapons is such that you can't use them effectively if you use them the way you would an axe or a greatsword; power attacking is explained by nothing - you forego some accuracy for power. So you're swinging from the shoulder and the hips instead of from the wrist now? Meh.
I think I ranted... but I was just trying to illustrate a point. That... got lost. <<;
|
The two biggest offenders for this (to me) are the Alchemist abilities, and barbarian rage. Barbarian rage being an ability I thought was terribly designed in 3.0.
I'm also not a big fan of the grit mechanics from when I read them, but I dont like how any of the firearm stuff works in Pathfinder (guns, or gunslingers) so I haven't read them through in detail since the end of the playtest. (I did briefly skim them on d20pfsrd, and I still wasn't impressed).
The disconnected limits on the alchemist are enough to make my head hurt. I believe I houseruled them last time I allowed someone to use the class.
The alchemist ended up passing his bombs to the other characters occasionally, and they would throw them as well. I think I changed it to only work for a few rounds after mixing them. (but it doesn't matter who is wielding it).
Plus. If the bomb(and other things alchemists make) stop working the instant they leave the alchemist's possession, then they stop working when the alchemist throws them, before they hit the target. Just saying. lol.
The two biggest offenders for this (to me) are the Alchemist abilities, and barbarian rage. Barbarian rage being an ability I thought was terribly designed in 3.0.
I've considered making rage dependent on the barbarian taking or dealing damage each round, with higher levels extending the allowable delay between such events. That would be a good example of narratively-consistent rage mechanic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've considered making rage dependent on the barbarian taking or dealing damage each round, with higher levels extending the allowable delay between such events. That would be a good example of narratively-consistent rage mechanic.
I think there should also be an option to rage at the beginning of combat, but with the caveat that he cannot just end it whenever he feels like.
Otherwise, I support this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So.
Hit points.
[/flamebait]
Hit points = supernatural toughness. Otherwise you cant justify how healing works.
But after so many arguments about problems with Hitpoints and AC, I've given up on arguing for those lost causes.
But in an ideal world, we'd have hitpoints that make sense (likely tied to size/constitution), a dodge/parry/block score of some kind replacing AC, and Armor as damage reduction.
The work involved to make that happen is immense.
Fixing the problems with individual classes? Much easier.
|
A lot of people say that Weapon Finesse doesn't make much sense as a feat and should be a weapon property or a general rule of how light weapons work. I disagree-- I think it makes perfect sense that using dexterity instead of strength to wield a weapon requires more specialized knowledge. Using your strength to power the thrust of a dagger is just a matter of figuring out which is the pointy end. Using your agility and momentum to put power behind your blade takes practice.
The biggest disassociated mechanic I can think of is reach weapons. Okay, so the longer haft on my polearm lets me hit people and still stay outside their sword range. Okay. But even though my weapon's haft has to pass through the five feet in between me and him for me to hit him, I can't hit anything in that five-foot range, not even with the haft. And if somebody manages to get inside my "ring of death", all I can do is stumble backwards and hope he doesn't do the same thing next turn-- the fact that I'm holding a 10-foot pole is of no consequence.
Whips are an even bigger headache. Never mind that they were nerfed into the ground from 3.5 to PF-- I can't threaten with a whip because... Combat Reflexes exists and it'd be OP to let me make 5 AoO trip attacks per round in a 15-foot zone around me. Granted that would indeed be OP, but it's an obvious exception in the rules just to prevent that abuse. There's no in-world reason you shouldn't be able to make an AoO with a whip.
Really, all the weapon stats are a bit suspect. It kind of makes you realize that Paizo was looking at old 3.5 weapon tables and spreadsheets instead of any actual weapons when those tables were written up.
A lot of people say that Weapon Finesse doesn't make much sense as a feat and should be a weapon property or a general rule of how light weapons work. I disagree-- I think it makes perfect sense that using dexterity instead of strength to wield a weapon requires more specialized knowledge. Using your strength to power the thrust of a dagger is just a matter of figuring out which is the pointy end. Using your agility and momentum to put power behind your blade takes practice.
First off, I agree with everything except the quoted bit. The reach bit, especially. I have never liked how reach is handled - but it's also similar to the whip scenario. If you received no penalties and increased your threatened area, that weapon will almost always be better than one that doesn't have the capability. It's just a balance thing.
However, the Weapon Finesse isn't a full agreement from me. I get your point. It's true that fighting effectively using agility is harder to do than just fighting with force. However, if a person is naturally quick but not very strong, they would be aware of that and learn to fight that way.
For example, the actual me is not very fast but I am kind of strong. In the fights I've been in, I use my strength in ways that are advantageous to me. Contrarily, I have a friend who is quite quick but is fairly weak. He fights using his speed. Neither of us have had any training, hand-to-hand or weapon wise, but we know our strong points and focus on using them.
I don't think a 10 Str/18 Dex rogue would ever pick up a dagger and just stab at something. He would use his speed over his strength naturally. As he learned the weapon (thus gaining proficiency in it), he would develop what would be a Weapon Finesse fighting style.
That's why in my group, we offer Weapon Finesse as a free feat at character creation. However, if you use the feat for free, you can't change the option later (like if you took Dex damage or the like). Obviously, though, the same restrictions on the weapon choices are in place, because some weapons simply aren't finesse-able.
Hit points = supernatural toughness. Otherwise you cant justify how healing works.So.
Hit points.
[/flamebait]
I disagree. Fundamentally, hit points taught me that the best RPG gods are the Greek and Roman style.
This is how I explain it.
A character with 100 HP who takes 10 damage is missed almost completely. He suffers a jarring impact from a shoulder or deflected technique that rattles him at worst. Sometimes a hard hit can stay with you.
A character with 8 HP who suffers 10 damage gets stabbed through the stomach and dies. Basically 1 damage to a level 1 guy as 10 damage is to a level 10 guy.
When a level one guy is healed for 10, it regenerates his whole body. When a level 20 guy is healed for 10, it dusts off his shoulders. Why?
Because the Gods either hate him for his hubris or are jealous of him. The difference between a sixth level cure spell and a cure light wounds is non-existent in terms of energy level. It all has to do with how much the gods want to heal you, and how enlightened of a priest they require the prayers of to do it.
A first level priest praying over the wounds of a 20th level guy will hear little more than silence from the gods. They aren't interested in helping.
The problem is that hit points are demonstratively tied to sheer endurance. A dragon using the snatch feat can pin a warrior inside their mouth and prevent them from avoiding their breath weapon. Their breath weapon that can slag full plate in 3 seconds, which means it's likely hotter than a blast furnace, but a high level Fighter will just scream at the pain and not be vaporized instantly. Alternatively, see bolts of lightning, starvation, falling damage, lava damage, acid damage, or any other situation where simple avoidance cannot be used to explain HP.
It creates far worse verisimilitude problems - and disconnect - to suggest that these high level beings are actually just normal people who are parrying better than other people, or to assume that gods just hate them for being heroes.
Well, hit points are defined as partially abstract.
But it is also true that for healing they are treated as literal wounds.
It's a bit frustrating for GMs and players who try to make sense of it.
Still, I wouldn't call it a dissociate mechanic. To be dissociated it would have to be completely uncoupled from abstract defense and literal injury — which are both things that the character can discuss.
In the above examples where losing a small amount of HP doesn't represent a wound but "turning a serious blow into a lesser one", a character might still shout something like "I need some help over here" after taking that 10 hp of damage. For the serious hits where HP does represent wounds, the character has logical language to discuss his damage.
That's quite different from, say, the trick strike power mentioned in the article.
I can't believe I'm defending the HP RAW, I spend so much time doing the opposite.
How is grit disassociated with what it does? The whole idea is "cool shit", and that's what it does.
How is grit disassociated with what it does? The whole idea is "cool s*!&", and that's what it does.
I think the idea is that just about any of the 'point' systems is at least partially disassociative. "He has used up 3/5 of his ability to do cool stuff" isnt something you can say in game world. The same goes for alot of the per day mechanisms, but grit, because it can be recovered in very specific ways is more so.
I think the biggest cause of disassociation is an attempt to prevent loopholes and exploits. Game balance would always be the bigest enemy of a rational and cohesive ruleset. The alchemist being a prime example. The designers didnt want the alchemist to be a walking potion factory, so they had to come up with some reason to prevent the alchemist from simply handing off his concoctions. It ended up pretty shakey in the realm of disassociation as a result.
If your friends wishes to use the wrong definition of grit, that's his choice.
Is the use of it always perfect? Of course not. But the whole feel they were going for was doing cool shit in the face of hardship, which is basically the definition of the word "grit". It's a fluid thing that ebbs and flows through combat as you focus heavily on doing one action, leaving you a bit less effective elsewhere, until you are able to get some adrenaline back from doing cool stuff, or from being enheartened* by your successes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is grit disassociated with what it does? The whole idea is "cool s*!&", and that's what it does.I think the idea is that just about any of the 'point' systems is at least partially disassociative.
Except psionics. It only seems to add to the verisimilitude with a mana-esque system in place. Far less verisimilitude breaking that sorcerers and wizards and their magic-bullet casting. :P
|
|
Except psionics. It only seems to add to the verisimilitude with a mana-esque system in place. Far less verisimilitude breaking that sorcerers and wizards and their magic-bullet casting. :PHow is grit disassociated with what it does? The whole idea is "cool s*!&", and that's what it does.I think the idea is that just about any of the 'point' systems is at least partially disassociative.
In terms of verisimilitude:
Vancian<Mana Pool<Fatigue.I dont magic cost gets any better than its handled in the game Ghosts of Albion.
But a Mana Pool does provide more verisimilitude than Vancian Casting.
Except psionics. It only seems to add to the verisimilitude with a mana-esque system in place. Far less verisimilitude breaking that sorcerers and wizards and their magic-bullet casting. :PIt's a bit hard to argue about the verisimilitude of magic. I think that Vancian spellcasting works just as well as point-based spellcasting in regards to how well you can translate their mechanics to an "in-game" explanation of what they are.
Accepting Pathfinder's spellcasting metaphysics as internally consistent makes it as good a simulation of magic as any skill-based system. Why shouldn't magic work with fire-and-forget spell slots and discrete levels of initiation? Is that not "realistic"?
I love skill-based magic systems. I just also happen to like spell slots (after decades of complaining about them). It would be a damned shame if they changed it to work like all the other games.
Except psionics. It only seems to add to the verisimilitude with a mana-esque system in place. Far less verisimilitude breaking that sorcerers and wizards and their magic-bullet casting. :PHow is grit disassociated with what it does? The whole idea is "cool s*!&", and that's what it does.I think the idea is that just about any of the 'point' systems is at least partially disassociative.
I really meant to exclude magic from my categorization of 'point' systems. I was thinking more along the lines of grit, magus arcana, bard song, barbarian rage, inquisitor bane rounds, that sort of thing.
Is anyone interested in a generalized solution to per diem mechanics? I am.
Is anyone interested in a generalized solution to per diem mechanics? I am.
I could see all characters having 'energy points' that they had to pay for each action they took with different values. Swinging a sword might be 1, where as opening a Gate might be fifty. You could tie in all of the mechanics of feats and classes to it but that would be a whole new system.
|
|
Is anyone interested in a generalized solution to per diem mechanics? I am.I could see all characters having 'energy points' that they had to pay for each action they took with different values. Swinging a sword might be 1, where as opening a Gate might be fifty. You could tie in all of the mechanics of feats and classes to it but that would be a whole new system.
This sounds like % actions in rolemaster.
This sounds like % actions in rolemaster.Is anyone interested in a generalized solution to per diem mechanics? I am.I could see all characters having 'energy points' that they had to pay for each action they took with different values. Swinging a sword might be 1, where as opening a Gate might be fifty. You could tie in all of the mechanics of feats and classes to it but that would be a whole new system.
Never played. How's that work?
I think PF has added a lot of "disassociated mechanics" to the 3e engine. Any effect that seems a little arbitrary, or doesn't have a clear grounding in reality can disassociate itself from the "reality" of the game. Things like Rage powers, the new cleric domain abilities, sorcerer bloodlines, the Inquisitor's Judgement ability, and especially the grit mechanic, while often flavorful, can stretch the metagame too far.
I am a fan of the simpler 3e classes, lot's of room to add your own flavor instead of relying on some very metagame choices as in PF (and 4e). If you compare AD&D to PF, you will see a greater departure from the game than if you compare 3.5 to AD&D. PF has a lot of piddley little pieces and abilities that are often hard to justify tacking on to a character, and often hard to console within the game's "reality" of a believable being in a believable world. PF in a way added a "powers" system to the game (even the Fighter got this with new feats), by allowing characters to choose many flashy abilities and in-game effects that, while often trying to mimic reality, just are gamist.
4e pushed disassociated mechanics to it's most extreme within D&D, and PF follows not too far behind. 3.5 became more and more bloated with disassociated mechanics as it went, and PF is now actually MORE bloated with these mechanics. The saving grace of PF is that everything works relatively well together, otherwise we'd see the same 3.5 endgame all over again.
I favor a more stripped-down D&D, I recently had a year-long campaign using 3.5 that was like a breath of fresh-air (once you add splats the problems quickly re-emerge), but I am returning to PF shortly. I look forward to 5e, where D&D has a chance to take a step-back, and hopefully facilitate a more stripped-down style, and yet offer options to add-in the dissociated stuff that some people seem to like (as opposed to having it as the base). A character should feel natural and play easily.
But in an ideal world, we'd have hitpoints that make sense (likely tied to size/constitution), a dodge/parry/block score of some kind replacing AC, and Armor as damage reduction.
The work involved to make that happen is immense.
You could just play ELRIC!, which does all of those things, and well.
Do the developers get what they are? The big thing I like about PF over 4e is that the rules and abilities in PF mean something in the game. Words mean what they mean. In PF you can't trip a cube.
I feel like they are slipping on this a little. I thought grit was weak. I just read some of the UC paladin stuff and I thought tactical smiting was weak as well. I don't want to have to extrapolate what the powers mean in character.
That is certainly one way to look at things. The other way to look at disassociated mechanics are that they give you further ad-hoc creative space. Do you need all your mechanics to spell out their effects exactly, or do you prefer as a player to have narrative freedom to weave your characters actions into the wider story?
|
|
This sounds like % actions in rolemaster.
Never played. How's that work?
The system uses d% instead of d20s, but its still DC based.
Anyways: Essentially, you have 100% of your turn. You can take as many actions as you want (running, attacking, etc) (theoretically up to 100) allocating your focus.
If youre not 100% focused on a task (like say you assigned 60% to attacking), you'll have -40 to your attack roll (or maybe its multiply your attack bonus by 0.6, I'm a bit rusty on this), and that other 40% can be allocated to other actions with penalties, including attacking again.
Its kindof a neat way to do it. Its all about how you divide up your focus.
btw, in perspective, a -40 would be a -8 in Pathfinder. I think the DCs are set up assuming youre dividing your focus, so the base DCs are a bit lower.
Kindof Neat overall. I like the system, though it takes a long time to make a character; and there are pages in the book you definitely need copies of with your character sheet.
You could just play ELRIC!, which does all of those things, and well.
NOTED! I've been looking into new low fantasy systems (REIGN, Legend/Pendragon/Runequest, ZeFRS, Song of Ice and Fire), and I have not looked at the ELRIC System. Now I will. :)
LOL. I remember that thread.
Except psionics. It only seems to add to the verisimilitude with a mana-esque system in place. Far less verisimilitude breaking that sorcerers and wizards and their magic-bullet casting. :PHow is grit disassociated with what it does? The whole idea is "cool s*!&", and that's what it does.I think the idea is that just about any of the 'point' systems is at least partially disassociative.In terms of verisimilitude:
Vancian<Mana Pool<Fatigue.I dont magic cost gets any better than its handled in the game Ghosts of Albion.
But a Mana Pool does provide more verisimilitude than Vancian Casting.
There's a story thread on ENWorld's forums where a poster had heard of spell slots described in the sense of electron valences. He went with that nomenclature and described his 3.0 game's epic magic as "trans-valence magic".
I agree with EL, as long as it's internally consistent, I'm fine with spell slots. I also like the tactical aspects of the mechanic.
Except psionics. It only seems to add to the verisimilitude with a mana-esque system in place. Far less verisimilitude breaking that sorcerers and wizards and their magic-bullet casting. :PHow is grit disassociated with what it does? The whole idea is "cool s*!&", and that's what it does.I think the idea is that just about any of the 'point' systems is at least partially disassociative.In terms of verisimilitude:
Vancian<Mana Pool<Fatigue.I dont magic cost gets any better than its handled in the game Ghosts of Albion.
But a Mana Pool does provide more verisimilitude than Vancian Casting.
There's a story thread on ENWorld's forums where a poster had heard of spell slots described in the sense of electron valences. He went with that nomenclature and described his 3.0 game's epic magic as "trans-valence magic".
I agree with EL, as long as it's internally consistent, I'm fine with spell slots. I also like the tactical aspects of the mechanic.
Can I get a link to that? That sounds kind of awesome!
Can I get a link to that? That sounds kind of awesome!
It is awesome! Here's the link: Tales of Wyre.
It's been up since 2003 (actually, it's a repost, so the game has been likely going on longer than that), and they are still doing updates. Most recent is 30th of January this year.It is the best gaming example I've seen of how to play in Epic levels. It starts at high levels (around 16-18th depending on the character, remember xp costs?), and it has a great story telling blend of D&D mechanics alongside character perspective. The characters will act and speak about things that happen due to game mechanics (perfectly natural sounding in the context), and at the end of an entry he'll have the game rule they are referencing.
It's fairly big on the philosophical stuff (understandable being that their game is firmly entrenched into the planes), so some parts can get pretty heavy on that theme. But the high level combat and magic is just crazy.
Some of the terminology might be a bit jarring too... stacking empower metamagics to get stupidly high effects are one thing that gave me a pause. It's been soo long since 3.0.
Paizo cares about their products, but they do have to sell them in order to stay in business, so there's a certain amount of pressure to move away from realistic-but-unbalanced elements toward artifically-balanced-via-stronger-mechanics elements... I don't know that I blame either Paizo or its customers for it. ;)
You know, it doesn't have to be one or the other. Take, for example, monks. People complained that monks were fairly weak, but in Ultimate Combat we got archetypes that filled many of the gabs. Defensive Monk? Flowing Monk. Maneuver Monk? Maneuver Master. Monks still boring? Style feats. They filled gaps in the system and are perfectly well balanced without being "disassociated."
Not that I accept the premise that Paizo is getting more "disassociated," nor that it is more so than 3.5. Grit, bloodlines, Vancian magic, and most of the other examples in this thread make perfect sense to me in terms of a game world. The only really disassociated mechanic that stands out to me is per day non-magical tricks, which really can just go die in fire.
How is grit disassociated with what it does? The whole idea is "cool s#*@", and that's what it does.I'm letting someone play a gunlsinger sense his character just died. He's new to PF and for whatever reason, he can't stop making fun of grit.
"My character goes into a fight gritty, and comes out clean shaved."
"That fight was like a clean shave."
"This is going to get pretty gritty."
So what, the gunslinger wakes up every morning with a chip on his shoulder and a lot of cynicism, and as a day of killing goes on he gets less like that? Or being dark, gritty, realist gives him the special ability to focus in on his enemy, but it gets tiring? But when he kills someone with a crit or however grit comes back, he becomes more angry? Is grit Dark Ki?
If it isn't disassociated, it is stupid.
First you have to understand what Grit is. Grit is not being a dark realist.. Cause if it was, then you would have just said "Or being gritty, gives him the special ability to focus.."
Grit is the ability to possess and indomitable will. That is, a will that cannot be overcome, subdued, or vanquished. However that only goes up to a certain point, eventually in the world of pathfinder your will will become overcame.
This is what grit points are. A good portion of them do not require you to spend points to use them. In fact as you level up and become closer to having True Grit, the more capable you are of retaining your indomitable will.
You killed someone, or hit with a crit, you don't become "more angry" Grit is not a measure of ones anger, but of ones will. When you hit a monster in a sensitive point, AKA score a crit, The gunslinger gains grit because he just did something wonderful as opposed to when he spends a whole day fighting people (thus draining his grit, AKA his indomitable will) and not once could he do anything wonderful. Its basically the difference a person feels when they come first in a race vs when they just are running.
I think PF has added a lot of "disassociated mechanics" to the 3e engine. Any effect that seems a little arbitrary, or doesn't have a clear grounding in reality can disassociate itself from the "reality" of the game. Things like Rage powers, the new cleric domain abilities, sorcerer bloodlines, the Inquisitor's Judgement ability, and especially the grit mechanic, while often flavorful, can stretch the metagame too far.
Cleric Domain abilities: magical powers granted by your god.
Sorcerer Bloodline abilities: Magical powers drawn from the wellspring of your inherent magical ability.
Inquisitor Judgments: Channeling the power of your God to protect against/destroy the enemies of your faith.
Nothing remotely disassociated about those.