|
The shift to 3e from 2e didn't allow us to be nearly as seamless, yet conversions from 2e to 3e worked reasonably well. We could't really even do that with 4e so there was no chance of taking the 20+ year old campaign and characters to the new system.I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't agree with this last part. I'm pretty sure it was possible to convert a 3E campaign to a 4E one -- I know people that did it.
Possible to convert a 3E campaign, yes. Not possible to convert HIS 3E campaign.
While I've never played with an alternate magic system like Words of Power, I've heard that they slow down games a lot. When you have to take time to construct a (potentially) new spell each turn, I can see this being a serious problem.
But anyways, please don't take Vancian magic away.
I've played a few of the older versions of D&D, and the main advantage that Vancian has over it's alternate counter parts at this point is polish and refinement. The concept behind words of power, or power points, or the various alternate systems are good, but no one has taken the time to refine them to a truly usable state similar to where the Vancian system is. That is why I don't want to take Vancian away, but I also don't want every caster tied to it either; it works well enough for the prepared casters, but for spontaneous and partial casters, it has numerous shortcomings. I would love to see something like Words of Power developed to the point that it could be used as a good system for spontaneous casters as a counter point to the vancian system, and thus allow both kinds of casters to shine in their own way without being restricted by limitations imposed by everyone using the exact same system that cannot possibly accommodate both of them very well.
Possible to convert a 3E campaign, yes. Not possible to convert HIS 3E campaign.
Ah...I missed that he was using "us" in the "our specific campaign" sense, rather than as "we D&D players."
No thanks. Look, D&D is the single most popular and longed lived RP game out there. It out sold avery other game by 10X. No other game even came close. And Vancian Spellcasting has been part of it always. Yes, there were experiments- The early Psionic's with points, the Warlock, etc. But neither was very popular (most outright banned psionic).
In indeed, other spellcasting systems were so popular- why hasn't Fantasy Hero or Runequest or any of a hundred other Fantasy RPGs' supplanted D&D?
We like Vancian spell casting.
I'm sorry, but you seem to be passing off correlation as causation. If you wanted to finish the argument you started, you'd have to demonstrate that D&D is successful specifically because of Vancian spellcasting.
Also, what's us with the "we"? If you've been authorized to speak on behalf of D&D players, I didn't get the memo.
A better response:
"If Paizo moves to PF 2, then Paizo stops making stuff for PF 1. I like getting more stuff for PF 1. Therefore, I do not want Paizo to make PF 2."
Not if only minor changes and corrections are made. This is what many of us are hoping for. A fix to stealth, a few classes tweaked, the FAQ all put in there where they belong, take a look at crafting, do some work on the CM system.
Thus there would be no “PF1 or PF 2", just a revised PF1. All modules, adventure paths, etc would be fine as is, with only minor tweaks needed, if any, which could be fixed on the fly.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder flourishes because:1. Wotc/Hasbro abandoned 3.5 and replaced it with something far inferior
I imagine you mean that in the sense that it is your opinion, I have heard many others say 4e is best version of D&D they have played.
What I would say is that 4e was a very different game in its mechanics and that is what I think meant many weren't happy with (especially as the shift from 3.0 to 3.5 was so minimal). The post from Alexander Augunas (see my quote below) and BPorter's seconding of that idea seems to corroborate that.
3. Pathfinder turned out to be an improvement on 3.5
Again, debatable. Whilst PF improved some things, it IMHO made many others worse. I (and I don't believe I am alone) still prefer 3.5 over PF, to the point that I have recently re-purchased the Core Books and Spell Compendium in the Premium versions,
along with great service and support by the company.
I have to agree with you there, Paizo have great customer service and really connect well with the players (apart from one rather poor Facebook incident I encountered, and no I will not go into details here).
On a different note, one of the things that bugged me about Dungeons and Dragons was that new "edition" actually meant "entirely new game." If your core mechanics aren't staying pretty much the same and you're getting a massive overhaul, you don't really have a new edition anymore. You have a new game. A new edition should be minor tweaks and changes to the previous edition that cleans it up a little bit.
I think it comes down to semantics, some would say a new version of just tweaks and changes is a revision, not a new edition (see Star Wars D6 2nd Edition and Star Wars D6 2nd Edition Revised and Expanded).
What I will say about 4e being an "entirely new game" is that it gives me reason to play it alongside 3.5 - I get different things out of it. Pathfinder gave me no such enticement, its too close to 3.5 to encourage me to make the shift and learn all the little tweaks and changes. The Organised Play Campaign is the only reason I play PF. So while I prefer 3.x over 4e, I have a hell of a lot more 4e books than PF books.
Anyway... I just wanted to provide the other perspective.
We're drifting dangerous close to both irrelevance and edition warring, so I'm going to be very careful here.
IN MY OPINION, 4E's mechanics were a big improvement over 3.5/Pathfinder's. But I play Pathfinder in spite of this because of the support, the network, and the way WotC operated during the 4E run.
I would love to see pathfinder get a good streamlining. I would also love to see 5E come out and be very successful. Either of those outcomes would be preferable to the current situation, which (again, in my opinion) is a chronic case of Pathfinder rules bloat, as exemplified by the forthcoming Mythic rules.
YMMV.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3. Pathfinder turned out to be an improvement on 3.5
Again, debatable. Whilst PF improved some things, it IMHO made many others worse. I (and I don't believe I am alone) still prefer 3.5 over PF, to the point that I have recently re-purchased the Core Books and Spell Compendium in the Premium versions,
I have to agree with you. I think that 3.5 was a better game all in all, than PF turned out to be. It's not bad, but there are just as many things I really don't like about PF as there are those that I do. The Skill System in PF is great, for example, but not so much the Reach issue, or Stealth improvement. Or that Combat Maneuvers are so wonky and ineffective options now. I like the way the Sorcerer was super buffed, but I think that the Paladin was too much.
Pathfinder flourishes because:1. Wotc/Hasbro abandoned 3.5 and replaced it with something far inferiorI imagine you mean that in the sense that it is your opinion, I have heard many others say 4e is best version of D&D they have played.
What I would say is that 4e was a very different game in its mechanics and that is what I think meant many weren't happy with (especially as the shift from 3.0 to 3.5 was so minimal). The post from Alexander Augunas (see my quote below) and BPorter's seconding of that idea seems to corroborate that.
3. Pathfinder turned out to be an improvement on 3.5Again, debatable. Whilst PF improved some things, it IMHO made many others worse. I (and I don't believe I am alone) still prefer 3.5 over PF, to the point that I have recently re-purchased the Core Books and Spell Compendium in the Premium versions,
along with great service and support by the company.I have to agree with you there, Paizo have great customer service and really connect well with the players (apart from one rather poor Facebook incident I encountered, and no I will not go into details here).
On a different note, one of the things that bugged me about Dungeons and Dragons was that new "edition" actually meant "entirely new game." If your core mechanics aren't staying pretty much the same and you're getting a massive overhaul, you don't really have a new edition anymore. You have a new game. A new edition should be minor tweaks and changes to the previous edition that cleans it up a little bit.I think it comes down to semantics, some would say a new version of just tweaks and changes is a revision, not a new edition (see Star Wars D6 2nd Edition and Star Wars D6 2nd Edition Revised and Expanded).
What I will say about 4e being an "entirely new game" is that it gives me reason to play it alongside 3.5 - I get different things out of it. Pathfinder...
You are not alone in your preferences.
3. Pathfinder turned out to be an improvement on 3.5I have to agree with you. I think that 3.5 was a better game all in all, than PF turned out to be. It's not bad, but there are just as many things I really don't like about PF as there are those that I do. The Skill System in PF is great, for example, but not so much the Reach issue, or Stealth improvement. Or that Combat Maneuvers are so wonky and ineffective options now. I like the way the Sorcerer was super buffed, but I think that the Paladin was too much.Again, debatable. Whilst PF improved some things, it IMHO made many others worse. I (and I don't believe I am alone) still prefer 3.5 over PF, to the point that I have recently re-purchased the Core Books and Spell Compendium in the Premium versions,
*3.5 Fist-bump*
The one thing I would not want to see in Pathfinder 2.0 is a vast overhaul of the system. In my opinion, you can hardly call the various D&D games "Editions" because "Edition" implies that you kept more than just some names and the theme the same. How you play Dungeons and Dragons is so vastly different between 2E and 3E, or 3.5E and 4E that I feel the term "edition" is a bit of a misnomer. Considering the tweaks it made, only the relationship between 3 and 3.5 really felt like a new Edition to me, so when Paizo feels ready to update Pathfinder, that's the level of change that I would expect to see.
On the other hand, the one thing I would like to see in Pathfinder is 4E's defenses. I find a lot of new players are confused by the differences between saving throws and AC; why they're not always rolling to overcome defenses or vice versa. I would estimate that 90% of new players that I game with try to pick up dice to make spells like fireball work; since they're watching their fighter friends pick up dice and roll to hit with their sword, they feel like they should have the same control to hit with their spells. And then the game throws a curve ball at them.
If they tighten and trim, they don't need an overhaul.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The shift to 3e from 2e didn't allow us to be nearly as seamless, yet conversions from 2e to 3e worked reasonably well. We could't really even do that with 4e so there was no chance of taking the 20+ year old campaign and characters to the new system.I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't agree with this last part. I'm pretty sure it was possible to convert a 3E campaign to a 4E one -- I know people that did it.
Conversion from 2E to 3E took work. Quite a bit more than 0E to 1E or 1E to 2E. I suppose I could have converted from 3.5E to 4E, but it would have gone beyond "work". If I didn't mind trashing most of my setting and starting new it could have been done. I bought the 4E core books btw to check it out for myself. I did not take the word of angry posters etc. After reading them I made the decision, well I like to think WotC did it for me, to stick with 3.5 (later PF). I gave my 4E books away. Something I've never done before. It wasn't so much that 4E was "horrible" or "a betrayal of D&D". That type of thing makes me roll my eyes. It was simply a completely different game in the same genre of FRPGs. And I didn't have the time, or inclination, to learn / play a game that different from what I already knew and liked. Ymmv.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing I would not want to see in Pathfinder 2.0 is a vast overhaul of the system. In my opinion, you can hardly call the various D&D games "Editions" because "Edition" implies that you kept more than just some names and the theme the same. How you play Dungeons and Dragons is so vastly different between 2E and 3E, or 3.5E and 4E that I feel the term "edition" is a bit of a misnomer. Considering the tweaks it made, only the relationship between 3 and 3.5 really felt like a new Edition to me, so when Paizo feels ready to update Pathfinder, that's the level of change that I would expect to see.
On the other hand, the one thing I would like to see in Pathfinder is 4E's defenses. I find a lot of new players are confused by the differences between saving throws and AC; why they're not always rolling to overcome defenses or vice versa.
1. I agree, good points. The change from 1e to 2E was another "real" edition change. You could easily play a 1E PC in a 2E game.
2. I despise the 4th ED "defense" system.
2. I despise the 4th ED "defense" system.
Just curious, why? I've never played 4e, so I haven't seen defenses in practice, but it seems fine in concept, though it's a pretty minor issue either way for me.
Just curious, why? I've never played 4e, so I haven't seen defenses in practice, but it seems fine in concept, though it's a pretty minor issue either way for me.2. I despise the 4th ED "defense" system.
I'm curious as well, especially considering that its not a hard house rule that doesn't really change the game much. Add 10 to your current saving throw bonus and subtract 10 from all saving throw DCs in the game. Boom. Done.
I will concede that the current set-up (players roll to hit and roll to protect themselves from big bad attacks) is designed mostly to put the thematic tension into the players' hands. They're the only rolling to determine their character's fate. But rolling all offensive attacks against a static defensive number is a much more elegant design in my opinion, even if it does take away a small bit of player accountability.
Possible to convert a 3E campaign, yes. Not possible to convert HIS 3E campaign.Ah...I missed that he was using "us" in the "our specific campaign" sense, rather than as "we D&D players."
I know of several others for whom the changes were so drastic that it wasn't worth converting their campaigns. My gut suggests that the number who converted old campaigns into 4e is small compared to the ones who brought 2e campaigns into 3e.
I think a new edition is probably 3-4 years away, and when it comes it will likely be needed, though we'll see what D&DNext does to the market.
The reason that we'll need a new edition will be rules bloat. There will be a point where enough new mechanics will have been introduced and toyed around with and they will have to be trimmed.
That was the real failure of 4e, in my opinion: it didn't trim 3.5, it built a new game with a few features retained. Classes didn't resemble their counterparts the way 2.5 to 3 classes did. In that case, the rogues were the only one who saw a major facelift, the rest were tweaked and feats and skills supplanted proficencies, which was great. A fighter still played like a fighter and a wizard still played like a wizard.
If Pathfinder 2 should come to be, here's my two electrum to what the overhauls should be:
Magic: Love it as is. Love that some Non-vancian stuff is making it's way in, but the Vancian heart of D&D magic should beat strong. None of this per encounter noise. Perhaps a tinker or two with the relationships between saves and spells. Maybe rethink will, fort and reflex with a more dynamic set of defenses that can reflect more of the situational modifiers, like an elf's enchantments bonus. Would like to see it fail more, or have degrees of success rather than pass/fail.
Feats: Either do away with them or diminish their value. 3.0 turned proficiencies into skills and feats. Skills work wonderfully. Feats are a real mixed bag. Some classes rely on them, others just use them to buff already great core abilities.
Skills: Should remained essentially untouched. The skills system of 3.0 was it's crown jewel, and other than a little rewording to make perception, sense motive and stealth a little clearer, this should be nothing but a little tinkering.
Classes: Mostly untouched. Refining the new ones a little and giving the fighter, rogue and monk some loving in the form of class abilities that are distinct from feats and as zany as some spells would be my preference. But getting rid of feats would help this problem. What would also help is this:
Combat: DO OVER! If there is any one spot that could use some sweet sweet loving, it's combat. While the death of THAC0 was a wonderful thing for attracting those who dislike abstract mathematics, it also bred a whole new field of abstract mathematics that had no hard cap that kept things reigned in. 3.x decided giving the martials more attacks and no ceiling would scale with the quadratic casters. They were wrong. The full/standard/move/swift/free economy has problems of power once pets and spells and full attack benefits are considered. Combat maneuvers need to be addressed. AOOs need to be addressed. The list goes on.
Frankly, if there was one thing I'd love to see torn down and utterly rebuilt, it's the combat. If I were Paizo, I'd start here. Streamlining combat would probably fix a lot of the issues with the martial classes, feats and the class tier issue. I'd look at all the things people love about the combats (verisimilitude, a good blend of strategy and tactics, the ability to forgo the battle map on occasion while also permitting set piece combats) and what they hate (see above paragraph). [FTR, perhaps you love these things about PF combat. They will have to sift and make judgement calls, and some will be displeased, obviously).
I'd love to see an action economy that allowed for more mobile combat, fewer total attacks and more potent attacks AND more countermeasures. Let's have more instant kills and more tricks to parry those killing blows.
All in all, I'd like to see what the sharp minds at Paizo could do to fix the flaws of 3.x's architecture while keeping the beautiful stuff.
Skills: Should remained essentially untouched. The skills system of 3.0 was it's crown jewel, and other than a little rewording to make perception, sense motive and stealth a little clearer, this should be nothing but a little tinkering.
I think I'd like to see just a little more consolidation. I'm not sure the knowledge/craft split is really worth keeping around, for example. Alternatively, all class should get 2 more skill points. :)
|
|
On a different note, one of the things that bugged me about Dungeons and Dragons was that new "edition" actually meant "entirely new game." If your core mechanics aren't staying pretty much the same and you're getting a massive overhaul, you don't really have a new edition anymore. You have a new game. A new edition should be minor tweaks and changes to the previous edition that cleans it up a little bit.
Of course, you realize that if D&D had stayed true to this always, your beloved d20 system wouldn't even exist, right?
Also, the word "edition" in reference to RPGs is a very different thing as the same word when applied to, for example, textbooks. In textbooks, a new edition is just like you said, minor tweaks and a cleaning up of the presentation. If you really count that as a new edition, then Pathfinder is already on it's fifth edition (aka printing).
Just curious, why? I've never played 4e, so I haven't seen defenses in practice, but it seems fine in concept, though it's a pretty minor issue either way for me.2. I despise the 4th ED "defense" system.
Because if you get hit, you take a few points of damage. Fine.
But if you fail the wrong save- you die. Thus, I prefer to control my own destiny. If a “nat 1” is going to kill my favorite PC, I want to be the guy who rolls it, not the DM.
In 4E, you have almost no “save or die” effects, so it’s not as critical there.
Just curious, why? I've never played 4e, so I haven't seen defenses in practice, but it seems fine in concept, though it's a pretty minor issue either way for me.2. I despise the 4th ED "defense" system.
I'm curious as well, especially considering that its not a hard house rule that doesn't really change the game much. Add 10 to your current saving throw bonus and subtract 10 from all saving throw DCs in the game. Boom. Done.
I will concede that the current set-up (players roll to hit and roll to protect themselves from big bad attacks) is designed mostly to put the thematic tension into the players' hands. They're the only rolling to determine their character's fate. But rolling all offensive attacks against a static defensive number is a much more elegant design in my opinion, even if it does take away a small bit of player accountability.
Of course you could reverse that and say that "Players roll to dodge blows and to see if their big spells affect the enemy" would be designed to put the thematic tension in players' hands.
If you really wanted to do that, you could put almost all rolls in the players' hands. They roll to attack the NPCs' static defenses and roll to resist or avoid the NPCs' static attacks. The math works the same way.
Actually, there wouldn't be any tension because the player himself (or herself) could never miss; whether or not a character connected with an ability would be entirely dependent on the NPC's skills and luck and the player would have no accountability. With rolling, you can always roll a natural 1 and bungle your own attack attempt; if your target is rolling dice to protect itself from you, success or failure is solely dependent on that opponent's abilities and luck and the attacker has no accountability. The same thing happens with spells like fireball; once the spell is launched, it automatically goes off. There is no accountability on the part of the mage who cast the spell; only on his target and their abilities.
Because if you get hit, you take a few points of damage. Fine.
But if you fail the wrong save- you die. Thus, I prefer to control my own destiny. If a “nat 1” is going to kill my favorite PC, I want to be the guy who rolls it, not the DM.
In 4E, you have almost no “save or die” effects, so it’s not as critical there.
I don't think this is as much of a problem in Pathfinder as you are making it out to be. The number of "save or die" effects are pretty low in the game, and honestly streamlining attacks and defenses would go a long way towards speeding the game up considerably.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just curious, why? I've never played 4e, so I haven't seen defenses in practice, but it seems fine in concept, though it's a pretty minor issue either way for me.2. I despise the 4th ED "defense" system.
I can think of 3 reasons why I prefer saving throws.
1) Rolling to hit a defense introduces the idea of a critical hit - something I don't think should be possible for lots of spells (like area effect spells).
2) I like the Action Point system from Eberron and 3e's Unearthed Arcana. You can spend a point to roll a number of d6 and add the best one to your d20 roll - be it a skill check, and attack, or a save. You can't really use it to pump up a static defense like your AC or 4e-style Non-AC Defense (NAD). I noticed this in SWSE with Force points. You can use them offensively, but you can't really use them very well defensively and that's backwards.
3) Saving throws were, as introduced, a last ditch attempt for a PC to survive certain death - hence the name saving throw. Turning them into a constant defense, I think, makes them too mundane and simply doesn't fit in with the rest of the game's tradition or feel.
Just curious, why? I've never played 4e, so I haven't seen defenses in practice, but it seems fine in concept, though it's a pretty minor issue either way for me.2. I despise the 4th ED "defense" system.
I can think of 3 reasons why I prefer saving throws.
1) Rolling to hit a defense introduces the idea of a critical hit - something I don't think should be possible for lots of spells (like area effect spells).
2) I like the Action Point system from Eberron and 3e's Unearthed Arcana. You can spend a point to roll a number of d6 and add the best one to your d20 roll - be it a skill check, and attack, or a save. You can't really use it to pump up a static defense like your AC or 4e-style Non-AC Defense (NAD). I noticed this in SWSE with Force points. You can use them offensively, but you can't really use them very well defensively and that's backwards.
3) Saving throws were, as introduced, a last ditch attempt for a PC to survive certain death - hence the name saving throw. Turning them into a constant defense, I think, makes them too mundane and simply doesn't fit in with the rest of the game's tradition or feel.
1) A natural 20 with a non-weapon spell would simply auto-hit. Only weapons can critically hit.
2) You're going to like mythic power, then. :) That said, there's nothing saying that you couldn't spend a point to add +1d6 to your AC or your Fortitude or whatever. Force points being Offensive only is an oversight, not a limitation of what the system could actually do.
3) You probably wouldn't call them saving throws anymore, considering you're not throwing any dice around. On the flip side of your argument, leaving things the way they are contributes heavily to the "godmode wizard" phenomena that many people complain about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically there's little difference, but psychologically there's a lot of difference to the player. Getting to roll for your attacks puts you at the center of the action when you're taking the offense in weapon combat, in a way that simply announcing an intent and waiting for the DM to roll defense cannot do. Likewise, rolling a saving throw makes it seem as if you are really in charge of your own success or failure, even though all you're really doing is tossing a piece of plastic.
This system also promotes a bit of "swinginess" in area-effect spells; since all the saves can be rolled separately (vs. a single attack roll vs. static defenses), there's no way for an NPC to roll a natural 20 and be pretty much assured of affecting the entire party (TPK City!), or for a player to roll a natural 1 and therefore automatically fail to meaningfully affect any of the 15 little monsters in the radius of his fireball.
I don't think this is as much of a problem in Pathfinder as you are making it out to be. The number of "save or die" effects are pretty low in the game, and honestly streamlining attacks and defenses would go a long way towards speeding the game up considerably.
Well, true, technically Disintegrate, Finger of Death, etc aren’t “save or die”- but generally the effect is exactly the same. And, since it involves one die roll , having it be the attacker rather than the defender doesn’t really “streamline” the game any. I have a 4th ED game on Saturdays and a PF game on Fridays and the PF games goes a LOT faster. Mind you, that could be the DM, players, or setting/table/environment rather than the system, but still that makes my point. Who rolls the die doesn’t change that much, as opposed to the DM, players, setting, environment, etc
At most (if any) there's a tiny savings not "long way towards speeding the game up considerably" and there's something to be said for tradition.
We like the tension argument so when we play PF, the spell casting player rolls their targets saving throw. When the monsters cast spells, the player rolls their own.
2) You're going to like mythic power, then. :) That said, there's nothing saying that you couldn't spend a point to add +1d6 to your AC or your Fortitude or whatever. Force points being Offensive only is an oversight, not a limitation of what the system could actually do.
You could add 1d6 to your defense, but you lose a crucial element of the system - feedback. With action points, the player gets to see his d20 roll before he decides whether or not to burn an action point to gain +1d6 (though the action point use has to be declared before the result - success or failure - is announced by the GM). If you roll badly, you may estimate that an action point won't help and save it. But if you think the roll is on the cusp of success, you use the point. With a static defense, that element is gone. You're burning the action point blind to how well the roll turned out. A static defense just doesn't work well with that style of action point - and it really is a very good style.
This system also promotes a bit of "swinginess" in area-effect spells; since all the saves can be rolled separately (vs. a single attack roll vs. static defenses), there's no way for an NPC to roll a natural 20 and be pretty much assured of affecting the entire party (TPK City!), or for a player to roll a natural 1 and therefore automatically fail to meaningfully affect any of the 15 little monsters in the radius of his fireball.
It's been a while since I've played 4E, but I'm pretty sure you rolled to hit separately for each target.
This system also promotes a bit of "swinginess" in area-effect spells; since all the saves can be rolled separately (vs. a single attack roll vs. static defenses), there's no way for an NPC to roll a natural 20 and be pretty much assured of affecting the entire party (TPK City!), or for a player to roll a natural 1 and therefore automatically fail to meaningfully affect any of the 15 little monsters in the radius of his fireball.It's been a while since I've played 4E, but I'm pretty sure you rolled to hit separately for each target.
In general yes. The DM may call for one roll against a bunch of minions, but usually, you make a ‘attack’ roll vs each target, but then one damage roll vs all of them.
|
|
No, it does not. Seriously, this is one of the iconic things of D&D. 4E tried to get rid of it, and where are they now?- Vancian Casting -
The magic mechanics needs to get away from this tired and annoying concept.
4th edition didn't "fail" because of the Wizard, since every single class worked like the wizard did with different names.
It didn't work simply because of the overall generic quality and hard handed balance that made every character the same.
Do you want to return to the original AC, and the formula T.H.A.C.0? Perhaps you still think the Elf should be a class?
It is time to move on. Vancian Casting is never used in fiction anymore, why should it continue to confuse new players in the game? "Fire and forget" is the single most frustrating mechanic in the whole D&D line, almost topping the whole Polymorgh question.
I know there are some that think it is THE sacred cow that ne'er needs to be slain, but I would hope that a defined and unified mechanic would be used instead of having each class create it's own. (I still get chills when looking at the Shadow Caster)
No, it does not. Seriously, this is one of the iconic things of D&D. 4E tried to get rid of it, and where are they now?- Vancian Casting -
The magic mechanics needs to get away from this tired and annoying concept.
4th edition didn't "fail" because of the Wizard, since every single class worked like the wizard did with different names.
It didn't work simply because of the overall generic quality and hard handed balance that made every character the same.
Do you want to return to the original AC, and the formula T.H.A.C.0? Perhaps you still think the Elf should be a class?
It is time to move on. Vancian Casting is never used in fiction anymore, why should it continue to confuse new players in the game? "Fire and forget" is the single most frustrating mechanic in the whole D&D line, almost topping the whole Polymorgh question.
I know there are some that think it is THE sacred cow that ne'er needs to be slain, but I would hope that a defined and unified mechanic would be used instead of having each class create it's own. (I still get chills when looking at the Shadow Caster)
Having each class be completely different would be a bit much to fit into a rules books, as cool as it would be to see. What could work would be two, or at most three, systems that allow for some diversity while keeping things manageable, and vancian casting could be very well be one of those systems. It's only vancian casting as the only magic system that I don't want to see.
|
I think this conversation about a "new Pathfinder" would be more relevant in the year 2019, rather than the year 2013.
Pathfinder still has a LOT of juice left,and I would liken a PF 2.0 to AD&D's 2e to 1e.
Let's not put the cart before the horse however. Do you realize that PF only really has ONE big supported campaign setting? How about a fully fleshed out alternate campaign setting before we start getting all crazy with a new edition.
I am with the OP on this thread.
I think this conversation about a "new Pathfinder" would be more relevant in the year 2019, rather than the year 2013.
Not completely. While I agree that PF 2.0 is about half a decade down the line, what I mean is the release. The developers will have to gather feedback and begin working internally on the new iteration way, way ahead of that. I just hope that they begin publically asking for that feedback before finalizing their ideas. ^^
Funny how WotC has taught people that the game must follow the "completely new edition every 5 years" paradigm. Call of Cthulhu players must be amused, in particular :_
TSR taught us that. Wizards just kept up the tradition
D&D 1974
AD&D/Basic 1977
BECMI 1981
UE (basically 1.5) 1985
2E 1989
2.5 1995
3E 2000
3.5 2003
4E 2008
PF 2009
D&D Next 2014?
PF 1.5/2.0 20??
Expect an new edition every 10 years and an edition revision every 5. This is what D&D does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny how WotC has taught people that the game must follow the "completely new edition every 5 years" paradigm. Call of Cthulhu players must be amused, in particular :_
Exactly, and in Pathfinders case we don't need a new edition at all.
|
|
I dislike 4e defenses because of an actual mechanical change. You always succeed on natural 20's. That's why dice roller has somewhat of an advantage. Dice roller almost always has advantage because its easier to buff your rolls than it is to buff static dc's in pathfinder.
So basically, in 4e they made save or suck spells that more potent. You don't get the chance of a natural 20 so someone who stacked around that basically can *boom* you're down. Otherwise you have to remove save or sucks from the game, and personally I felt like they did add to the game. I just feel that making some things completely unsaveable is a design flaw and this can happen with a defense system for saving throws.
But in PF a natural 1 on a Save is always a failure no matter how many buffs you have, so I don't really see a difference.
Um, unless I'm counting my fingers wrong, we are estimating the next edition to hit in half a decade and we are already 5 years ( with the beta ) into the current one. Makes ten in my aruthmeiticz skilz. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It boils down to two things really for me.
1. I'm relatively certain that while some things would be improved, other things that were changed for the worse going from d&d into pf (balance issues mostly, nerfing of certain spells [I am against balancing the classes further]) would go further in the wrong direction making any new edition an overall worse game.
2. A new edition would mean no more support/releases for the original pf, meaning I would eventually be forced to play the new game because I can't play it alone.
So those are the main reasons, and also I strongly feel that although there are some issues with the system, they are very minor and completely workable. I have played almost every week since pathfinder came out and I just don't agree with people saying this and that is broken.
|
|
Funny how WotC has taught people that the game must follow the "completely new edition every 5 years" paradigm. Call of Cthulhu players must be amused, in particular :_
Funny, I learnt that from Shadowrun (started in 1989 and getting its 5th edition soon, or 6th if you include the 20th anniversary edition as seperate from 4th ed). Savage World's has had quite a few editions as well. M&M is on 3rd ed as well. Really WotC aren't doing anything much different by releasing new editions as regularly as they do.