Lack of support for parrying; why must every character (including barbarians) be draped in steel just to get a decent AC?
I feel exactly the same way. The good news is, the game does have parrying it just doesn't really talk about it beyond a single line:
What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.
The higher level you are, and the more physically-oriented your class, the more you parry.
It's only because of the somewhat strange healing rates that people think about HP as being all bleeding gashes.
|
I think that it also has a lot to do with the way mechanics of the game works compared to narration. Generally, it sort of feels natural that if someone rolls high on an attack and then does fairly good damage, I want to describe it a bit, ("you lung forward, driving your blade through their chest, piercing their armor, though you miss the heart and other vital organs. Clutching their wound they are not ready to give up the ghost just yet and ready to swing back at you. . ."), regardless of how much HP they have. It just feels weird/bad to me that a good critical hit would be "you swing true, and they parry it". It sort of leaves a "better luck next time" feel.
Now, on the other hand there are actually some parry options, allowing you to negate a hit in various ways.
I had never interpreted that as parrying, but I suppose it applies. I always interpreted it as dodging to where the hits are just scrapes or wounds that avoid vital organs.
I'm definitely in the minority placing more importance on that one line of rule text. I have a house rule to further clarify the issue. But even without the house rule, I think describing some hits as parries improves the ambiance of the game.
But yes, back to the original topic, Hit Points are a sacred cow of Pathfinder (and D&D). Many other RPGs have taken a different approach, but HP are here to stay.
Was Thac0 really a sacred cow? I never played 1st edition so I don't know.
|
|
I don't really think it was a Sacred Cow, and it really didn't go away as much as switch to a different way of doing it in BaB. Basically it was just a less efficient Attack vs AC system, where AC ranged from 10 (worst) to -10 (absolute best), and you rolled to see if you hit AC 0 (THAC0 = To Hit Armor Class Zero), and then modified the roll up or down according to the targets actual AC at the time. Now you just do most of the modification with the Attack Roll up front, and it's generally less complicated.
I don't really think it was a Sacred Cow, and it really didn't go away as much as switch to a different way of doing it in BaB. Basically it was just a less efficient Attack vs AC system, where AC ranged from 10 (worst) to -10 (absolute best), and you rolled to see if you hit AC 0 (THAC0 = To Hit Armor Class Zero), and then modified the roll up or down according to the targets actual AC at the time. Now you just do most of the modification with the Attack Roll up front, and it's generally less complicated.
That is how I saw it also..
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was Thac0 really a sacred cow? I never played 1st edition so I don't know.
First edition did not have THAC0, it had combat tables, on pp76-77 in the DMG. I don't know why the page numbers stuck in my head for over three decades. : /
Each class had a table, though some shared a table. To find your target number, you cross-referenced your level on the correct table with the target's AC. Lower numbers were better, as they are an easier target when trying to roll high.
The magic-users' table went up (IIRC) every four levels, while the fighters' went up by two every two levels (rather than the more intuitive one every level). In 2nd ed someone realised that you didn't need a table with all 21 possible different ACs, just one number for one AC (=AC 0) and you can modify for actual AC.
So THAC0 was never a sacred cow, just a more efficient way to get that target number than lots of tables.
Was Thac0 really a sacred cow? I never played 1st edition so I don't know.First edition did not have THAC0, it had combat tables, on pp76-77 in the DMG. I don't know why the page numbers stuck in my head for over three decades. : /
Each class had a table, though some shared a table. To find your target number, you cross-referenced your level on the correct table with the target's AC. Lower numbers were better, as they are an easier target when trying to roll high.
The magic-users' table went up (IIRC) every four levels, while the fighters' went up by two every two levels (rather than the more intuitive one every level). In 2nd ed someone realised that you didn't need a table with all 21 possible different ACs, just one number for one AC (=AC 0) and you can modify for actual AC.
So THAC0 was never a sacred cow, just a more efficient way to get that target number than lots of tables.
Good info.. :)
Thaco was what was written on the player character's sheet, that's where it came from. I.e. when your PC hit a certain level, the DM referenced the tables and told you what your new THACO and saves were.
As for parrying, a critical hit is "oooo, that's gonna leave a mark, but you didn't quite cut his throat open. Missed it by that much with a desperate parry!"
===Aelryinth
So, the Good that arbitrarily limits itself for no real reason is the "Highest Good"? I'd say it's the "Lowest Good" really.
Any Good character that would honestly let something as silly as a Code get in the way of saving people is not as Good as those that won't.
The correct inference is "So the Good that limits its course of actions to those of the highest moral AND ethical levels is the 'highest Good?'"
The answer to that is 'yes.'
I'm not sure where you got the inference that a code like that limits you from saving people. Sounds like LE to me. Are you sure you know what LG is?
And I'm afraid that a Code that allows you to lie, cheat and steal while calling yourself 'Good' is definitely going to get my definition of "lowest Good" before a Code that does NOT let you do these fairly anti-social things.
THe LG person simply uses different, more straightforward options to accomplish the things that CG will use skullduggery for. THe LG person will do it openly and forthrightly, the CG will do it from the shadows. The LG person will probably have to take responsibility for and deal with the consequences of his actions, the CG person will laugh snarkily and fade into the night.
The difference is in the means, and the LG will use more open and honest means, because that's what LG represents. CG is free to do the same, and they are free to be utterly sneaky bastards, break all sorts of social codes, mores, taboos, and, yes, laws, to accomplish what they want to.
The CG certainly aren't required to think about the Greater Good of it all.
==Aelryinth
Sounds like LE to me. Are you sure you know what LG is?
Careful about what you say! That could be taken as an insult. Quick thing, but that's why people sometimes talk about alignment in a negative fashion. People disagree about what something is all the time. Sometimes when people enforce their idea about a highly subjective subject(and philosophical with no correct answer), things don't always go great.
Can we not talk about alignment? That rarely goes another direction than south. I much preferred the cookies and hugs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is true. But making wrongful assertions, like that LG suddenly becomes unable to even ACT because it can't act non-Lawfully, or is so hidebound by the law that it will let bad things happen...meh, that's trying to make it seem far, far less then what it is.
LG is many things to many people. But weak, uncommitted, dithering, and downright IMMORAL are not part of the alignment. Neither is stupid, and being extremist certainly isn't a requirement, either. It's like adding 'lawful' onto someone makes them a total a*%!*!&% to people.
I tend to be of the opinion that simple demand makes LG people harder and stronger, because they find it very difficult to be tricky and deceitful. When all your fights tend to be stand-up fights, you tend to be REALLY good at stand up fights, and defending against trickery. If you aren't, you tend to take it on the sharp end. Isn't that how we see soldiers and cops? You don't fight those guys...you sneak and get around them. If there's serious straight up fighting, you leave it to them. The rest of us stay out of that stuff if we can.
And that's how I see paladins. Stand up, straight fighters who EXCEL at the straight fight, not clever shadow-skulking, mind games, or even ambush. They are built for the straight-up fight, and to win at it. The whole class is built to stride out into the middle of the battlefield and say "Take me if you can!" and then proceed to do the beat down. While it doesn't prevent them from being clever with individual PC choices, the class as a whole is built to be a classic tank class, leading the good fight from the front and surviving.
As soon as they move away from LG, the paladin class doesn't fit that mold anymore. A NG person SHOULD engage in more stealth stuff, compromise more, play mindgames, and be a trickier bastard. But that's not how I personally regard a paladin...that's how I see a ranger. It just doesn't fit the stereotype to me.
But, that's me. OTher folks, different views.
==Aelryinth
Oh, yeah, the whole meme of 'just how much can I bend the laws of probability before it blows up on me'.
While it CAN be a very good storytelling tool, leaving that much DM Fiat can also really blow up in your face. Not for everybody.
==Aelryinth
The correct inference is "So the Good that limits its course of actions to those of the highest moral AND ethical levels is the 'highest Good?'"The answer to that is 'yes.'
I disagree. Artificially limiting your means to doesn't make you the "Highest Good".
I'm not sure where you got the inference that a code like that limits you from saving people. Sounds like LE to me. Are you sure you know what LG is?
I got it from simple logic that anybody can use. Are you denying that a Code limits your means so soon after already saying it does?
And I'm afraid that a Code that allows you to lie, cheat and steal while calling yourself 'Good' is definitely going to get my definition of "lowest Good" before a Code that does NOT let you do these fairly anti-social things.
Why?
Lying, cheating, and stealing are not inherently bad things. NO action is inherently bad. It's intent and outcome that makes an action "aligned".
The LG person simply uses different, more straightforward options to accomplish the things that CG will use skullduggery for. The LG person will do it openly and forthrightly, the CG will do it from the shadows. The LG person will probably have to take responsibility for and deal with the consequences of his actions, the CG person will laugh snarkily and fade into the night.
The difference is in the means, and the LG will use more open and honest means, because that's what LG represents. CG is free to do the same, and they are free to be utterly sneaky bastards, break all sorts of social codes, mores, taboos, and, yes, laws, to accomplish what they want to.
Yes, he must be open and honest, thus limiting his means and restricting himself when it might count.
If the evil overlord can easily be poisoned from the shadows, his threat ended with little risk to the poisoner or those around him, the person who does that without letting petty "honor" get in the way of it is more Good than the moron who has to walk up to the gate, knock on the door, and challenge the overlord to direct combat (which it's very possible he might LOSE, accomplishing nothing).
Personal honor is a selfish concept.
The CG certainly aren't required to think about the Greater Good of it all.
==Aelryinth
Neither are the LG, obviously.
So as anyone tried variant systems of casting? Thoughts. I kind of like Monte Cooks WoD variant for "Mages" and think it could work well with a little work. I was also a big fan of 3.5's Spell Points.
I tried 3.5's psionic and enjoyed them much more than Vancian. Haven't had a chance to try them in pathfinder yet, but owning a few spells that could be augmented was much easier on the book keeping for me and the GM than keeping track of my spell book and what I had prepared later on. Also was easier in that I didn't occasionally just shrug and say "Well I ran out of spells that do x". YMMV. I don't like spontaneous much, but I enjoyed psionics more than any prepared or spontaneous caster I'd used before.
Every good alignment is required to think about the greater good. The point is that their means are different.
I though the point of alignment was to create arguments on the forum and table...
|
Strangely enough, we never argue about alignment. Everyone accepts the GM's interpretation and goes with it. Even if we disagree. Maybe it has to do with us having similar perceptions of the world and also, none of us in the group are sociopathic sadists who just HAVE to make the paladin fall or face an unsolvable moral problem.
Strangely enough, we never argue about alignment. Everyone accepts the GM's interpretation and goes with it. Even if we disagree. Maybe it has to do with us having similar perceptions of the world and also, none of us in the group are sociopathic sadists who just HAVE to make the paladin fall or face an unsolvable moral problem.
Define we? We as in the forum get into long arguements about paladins and alignments and morality and blahblahblah all the time. We as in your homegroup could be much more tame or much more worse. I've seen several home groups explode about someone's alignment or actions related to it(mostly actions.) I prefer to judge people on their actions myself.
For instance: Combat is over and you find a goblin straggler. He has no useful information. Do you execute him or do something else with him? What "alignment" is this?
Then we getting into context. Is this goblin unarmed? Why was he with them? Can you trust him? How do goblins act in your setting? What type of party are you in? Your deities/mandates? All sorts of madness.
Of course, if you don't have alignment that's one less thing to think about, and you might focus more about actions and consequences. Would anyone care if this goblin was killed? How about alive? What might he go on to do? Can we be friends? Will this any of our chooses have consequences?
Well, now I'm talking about alignment too... Didn't mean to do that.
Strangely enough, we never argue about alignment. Everyone accepts the GM's interpretation and goes with it. Even if we disagree. Maybe it has to do with us having similar perceptions of the world and also, none of us in the group are sociopathic sadists who just HAVE to make the paladin fall or face an unsolvable moral problem.
When I play in groups I almost never see it, but even then what the GM says is normally close enough that people let it go. As for paladins we are fairly strict, but they always have room to operate. Even if put in a situation of doing an evil act vs a lesser evil act the players I had would RP some sort of "I feel really bad about this" moment, and the deity would be like "I understand".
|
First edition did not have THAC0
Ahh, but it did; and from the very beginning no less...
At first, THAC0 was listed in the back of the 1st edition DMG (pages 196-215) as one of the stats used in the monster listings. Then later, in 1983, it was introduced to the game in Module "UK2: The Sentinel" as an alternative that the players could use to the combat tables (It was actually introduced to the game earlier than 1983, but its first appearance was in an article in "White Dwarf Magazine", and not in an "official" TSR release)...
It was "officially" added to the rules of 1st edition in 1986 with the release of the "Dungeoneer's Survival Guide"...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I should say "a 1970s take on morality as applied to fantasy gaming in the form of going into dungeons and killing things."
I think how morality affects everyday life has changed. Here is a controversial statement within a spoiler:
** spoiler omitted **
About the spoiler.
And i have also found that the most religious people (at least in my country) are the worst kinds of bigots, warmongers, haters and criminals. But, hey, they go to church on Sundays, they must be good people right? because religion teaches morality.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if someone has quite mentioned this yet:
Having separate attack rolls and damage rolls.
I could totally see an alternative system where you just make one roll for how well you hit, and that translates into how much damage you do. All AC is damage reduction, so if you don't get past a certain threshold you don't deal any damage.
Weapons and class abilities could add bonuses to this roll; for example, maybe a fighter gets +1 per level, and having a longsword adds an extra d8. So you roll 1d20+1d8+x, and that's how well you smack the dude. If he's got 10 AC, you're hoping to roll more than 10 total.
Interesting idea?
|
|
That's a cool idea. I mentioned different dice for weapon damage as a sacred cow (d8 for longsword, d4 for for dagger, etc.). And I agree it's a sacred cow that could be put out to pasture (with the caveat I think there should be optional alternate rules for most or all of the sacred cows).I don't know if someone has quite mentioned this yet:
Having separate attack rolls and damage rolls.
I could totally see an alternative system where you just make one roll for how well you hit, and that translates into how much damage you do. All AC is damage reduction, so if you don't get past a certain threshold you don't deal any damage.
Weapons and class abilities could add bonuses to this roll; for example, maybe a fighter gets +1 per level, and having a longsword adds an extra d8. So you roll 1d20+1d8+x, and that's how well you smack the dude. If he's got 10 AC, you're hoping to roll more than 10 total.
Interesting idea?
Sure, it could be an interesting alternate rule.
I wouldn't say it needs to be killed (I like Pathfinder plenty good the way it is now), but if I were designing a new RPG system from the ground up, unified combat rolls would be a good thing to incorporate, I think. It would help keep things simple.
And you could work parrying into it pretty easily, too. Just give the defender a die or two to add to their AC.
|
|
That's a cool idea. I mentioned different dice for weapon damage as a sacred cow (d8 for longsword, d4 for for dagger, etc.). And I agree it's a sacred cow that could be put out to pasture (with the caveat I think there should be optional alternate rules for most or all of the sacred cows).I don't know if someone has quite mentioned this yet:
Having separate attack rolls and damage rolls.
I could totally see an alternative system where you just make one roll for how well you hit, and that translates into how much damage you do. All AC is damage reduction, so if you don't get past a certain threshold you don't deal any damage.
Weapons and class abilities could add bonuses to this roll; for example, maybe a fighter gets +1 per level, and having a longsword adds an extra d8. So you roll 1d20+1d8+x, and that's how well you smack the dude. If he's got 10 AC, you're hoping to roll more than 10 total.
Interesting idea?
Sure, it could be an interesting alternate rule.
I wouldn't say it needs to be killed (I like Pathfinder plenty good the way it is now), but if I were designing a new RPG system from the ground up, unified combat rolls would be a good thing to incorporate, I think. It would help keep things simple.
And you could work parrying into it pretty easily, too. Just give the defender a die or two to add to their AC.
There was a Hercules/Xena RPG (based on the TV shows) where each weapon did a set amount of damage, say '8' damage for a longsword. High strength didn't affect that directly.
If your attack roll was exactly equal to the target number, then the rating of the weapon was all the damage you did (if you missed you did none...obviously!). The clever part was this: for each point over the target number you rolled, you did one more point of damage! So, if you needed a 5 to hit, and you rolled a 5 after modifiers, then you did 8 damage with your longsword, but if you'd rolled a 9 then you'd've done 4 extra damage (because you'd exceeded the target number by 4), so did 12 damage altogether.
Since the attack roll was modified by strength, then the stronger you were the higher your attack roll was likely to be, and the more damage you'd do!
Clever, eh?
|
|
First edition did not have THAC0Ahh, but it did; and from the very beginning no less...
At first, THAC0 was listed in the back of the 1st edition DMG (pages 196-215) as one of the stats used in the monster listings. Then later, in 1983, it was introduced to the game in Module "UK2: The Sentinel" as an alternative that the players could use to the combat tables (It was actually introduced to the game earlier than 1983, but its first appearance was in an article in "White Dwarf Magazine", and not in an "official" TSR release)...
It was "officially" added to the rules of 1st edition in 1986 with the release of the "Dungeoneer's Survival Guide"...
Interesting...so why do I remember that one of those combat tables was for monsters, and they cross referenced their Hit Dice with the target AC? It was near the bottom of p77.
Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha
Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha
First off: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha. Phew.
Secondly: What about them?