|
That said, skills, skill challenges, and everything outside of combat is very...sparse.
Out of interest, how do you feel PF compares (which doesn't have Skill Challenges)? Do you feel PF has more non-combat support than 4e? I see the opposite - 4e has everything PF does and more.
Skill challenges are just "Roll X X and X. Okay well done you get to move on." Yes, I can fluff it up through description but ultimately it's kinda boring.
That isn't quite fair, players can come up with ploys that allow them to use other Skills in the challenges, and even come up with other things than Skill checks to help out.
I find Skill Challenges promote thinking of interesting ways to use your other skills, e.g. History to recall an incident and the consequences of the King failing to come to the aid of their neighbouring state, Streetwise to recall any shortcuts in town instead of an Athletics test in a chase etc.
4e demands a grid which makes power of imagination play difficult.
I agree that whilst it can be played gridless, it is more difficult, but then I think the exact same of PF.
That said, I like Pathfinder because it finds a nice balance between focus on combat and focus on story. Paizo's adventures rock.
I wonder, is your opinion thus based more on the adventures put out by Paizo, rather than the PF system itself?
Yeah. Is it a controversial view that they're still doing fine with their first edition?
Not at all. I thought you were referencing the "Paizo is the top ttrpg company" meme.
"Maybe I'm right" doesnt really relate to whether Paizo eventually produce a new edition. I'm commenting on the argument, not the likelihood.
I have a feeling we're having a semantic disagreement; I'm not particularly interested in the arguments for or against PF 2e, so I'll leave it at that.
The monster creation rules in particular are the literal heart and soul of 3.x. I believe that a key downfall of 4.0 was that it suffered a severe lack of DM friendly systems.
By taking away a well grounded encounter design system they completely alienated a lot of dm's and said dm's simply bunkered down in 3.5 and ignored 4.0 altogether, and then pathfinder came along :).
Monster creation was actually super well done in 4e. The statblocks are really nice and you can fine tune and reflavor them easily.
In the 5e playtest, it inherited the nicely organized monster statblocks from 4e.
I was just about to say that, among DMs who have run many systems, 4e is generally known as the most friendly. Except among the Viking Hat "Grrr, I don't need no stinkin' rules nor pansy guidelines for nothin'!" crowd.
Case in point being encounter powers.
I get really angry anytime I see an ability in PF that last for "the rest of combat" or "once per combat".
Is it really that hard to say, "after using this ability, you can't use it again until you rest for a minute."?
In an (overused) word: verisimilitude
On the other hand, is it really so hard to mentally replace "once per encounter" with "after using this ability, you can't use it again until you rest for a minute"?
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but really, this is the kind of complaint that rings hollow to many people, and sounds a lot like "I'm looking for things to complain about."
|
|
4e did a lot of things well, but it was fluffed completely wrong for a Tabletop RPG.
Case in point being encounter powers.
I get really angry anytime I see an ability in PF that last for "the rest of combat" or "once per combat".
Are there such abilities in PF? I would be curious to know which.
Is it really that hard to say, "after using this ability, you can't use it again until you rest for a minute."?
So its just the term "Encounter Power" you have an issue with, not how the mechanics actually worked?
I just see the phrase "Encounter Power" as shorthand - an abbreviation to save space in a stat block. But in the end, an Encounter Power in 4e is pretty much what you said (except it requiring a 5 minute rest):
Encounter Powers [...] You need to take a short rest (page 263) before you can use one again.
A short rest is about 5 minutes long.
It is interesting that more than a couple of suggestions of what to do in PF2 are things that 4e actually did. Paizo may want to take a look at 4e and see what stuff it did well and perhaps learn from that.
...But don't tell the fans! PF 2e might fail just because the haters carry the old "It's not really a rpg" nonsense over from 4e. ;)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is interesting that more than a couple of suggestions of what to do in PF2 are things that 4e actually did. Paizo may want to take a look at 4e and see what stuff it did well and perhaps learn from that....But don't tell the fans! PF 2e might fail just because the haters carry the old "It's not really a rpg" nonsense over from 4e. ;)
You been waiting since the OP to bust this out I bet!
Is it really that hard to say, "after using this ability, you can't use it again until you rest for a minute."?So its just the term "Encounter Power" you have an issue with, not how the mechanics actually worked?
I just see the phrase "Encounter Power" as shorthand - an abbreviation to save space in a stat block. But in the end, an Encounter Power in 4e is pretty much what you said (except it requiring a 5 minute rest):
Encounter Powers [...] You need to take a short rest (page 263) before you can use one again.A short rest is about 5 minutes long.
That was just an example of how 4e tended to put the meta-wargame wording first with the thematic elements hidden somewhere in the rules.
It made the game easier to play but destroyed the (overused word) verisimilitude.
4e had the wrong fluff. Sure it mechanically worked better, but it was very similar to trying to play a rogue by playing a bard. Some mechanical adjustments to 4e would be needed. (for example, the great divide between the PCs and the monsters in terms of mechanics is another verisimilitude killing aspect)
|
|
That was just an example of how 4e tended to put the meta-wargame wording first with the thematic elements hidden somewhere in the rules.
I would hardly called the text "hidden", and whilst I agree that the term "Encounter Power" is metagame terminology I don't see how it is "wargame" terminology any more than Pathfinder's "Saving Throw" is "wargame" terminology ("Saving Throw" is also metagame terminology)
(for example, the great divide between the PCs and the monsters in terms of mechanics is another verisimilitude killing aspect)
I guess for some that is an issue, but it isn't as big a deal for me since I have always seen stuff like this in other games like Spirit of the Century (and other Fate games) where you have Minions and Companions, and even to a lesser extent in games like Shadowrun and M&M where you aren't obliged to use the same limits for building NPCs as PCs.
Mind you, even in PF do you give NPCs max hit points for their first level? Do you only use PC classes and not NPC classes? Even PF has different rules for PCs than for NPCs.
That was just an example of how 4e tended to put the meta-wargame wording first with the thematic elements hidden somewhere in the rules.I would hardly called the text "hidden", and whilst I agree that the term "Encounter Power" is metagame terminology I don't see how it is "wargame" terminology any more than Pathfinder's "Saving Throw" is "wargame" terminology ("Saving Throw" is also metagame terminology)
(for example, the great divide between the PCs and the monsters in terms of mechanics is another verisimilitude killing aspect)I guess for some that is an issue, but it isn't as big a deal for me since I have always seen stuff like this in other games like Spirit of the Century (and other Fate games) where you have Minions and Companions, and even to a lesser extent in games like Shadowrun and M&M where you aren't obliged to use the same limits for building NPCs as PCs.
Mind you, even in PF do you give NPCs max hit points for their first level? Do you only use PC classes and not NPC classes? Even PF has different rules for PCs than for NPCs.
Saving throw is an abstract concept that requires abstract terminology to describe. "wargame" is just slang, It implies that the mechanic basically assumes the game is mostly combat with adjoining sections that are just an excuse to do more combat. Which "encounter power" exemplifies this.
As far as PCs being different than NPCs. Only to an extent. Part of the (overused word) verisimilitude of being a PC is knowing that you are working with the same rules as your foes. What you do is something that an enemy can do. Breaking to far away from this begins to make the tabletop feel like a WoW dungeon.
@ Marthkus: The PC/NPC divide is a metagame issue, a PC would not know of any such thing IMO. I don't really think it has an impact on varisimiltude, although I can see why some might not like it.
@ Marthkus: The PC/NPC divide is a metagame issue, a PC would not know of any such thing IMO. I don't really think it has an impact on varisimiltude, although I can see why some might not like it.
The GM is aware of it and their sense of (overused word) verisimilitude is as important as the PCs.
@ Marthkus: The PC/NPC divide is a metagame issue, a PC would not know of any such thing IMO. I don't really think it has an impact on varisimiltude, although I can see why some might not like it.The GM is aware of it and their sense of (overused word) verisimilitude is as important as the PCs.
If the PC/NPC divide makes it harder for a GM to enjoy the game then that is an important point for them. I'm still not 100% convinced that it's a verisimiltude or metagame concern, but that's just semantics and no one benifits from those discussions, or at least they're not really my cup of tea.
Funny. This got moved to the SUGGESTIONS/HOUSE RULES/HOMEBREW forum.
It made the game easier to play but destroyed the (overused word) verisimilitude.
...for you. And clearly many others. But not for me -- I rather preferred 4E. Sadly, WotC mis-managed it into the ground.
In any event, how about we take a step back from edition war territory and talk about PF 2e?
I'd like to see...
1. not so harsh a punishment for loss of a mount vs. loss of an animal companion.
2. better structure/ organization of Advanced Race Guide... it is a bit counter intuitive and has no index.
3. Flexibility with the arch types...
4. More/better magic items for the base classes... alchemists sort of get shafted right now.
5. A chart on multiplier stacking (charge w/lance+ crit+ spirited charge, etc) like they do with two weapon fighting.
6. A better Heighten spells feat
7. survey of possible house rules to add to potential a list or book of 'alternate rules to add'. (like spell words)
8. Make Hero points part of the main game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It made the game easier to play but destroyed the (overused word) verisimilitude....for you. And clearly many others. But not for me -- I rather preferred 4E. Sadly, WotC mis-managed it into the ground.
In any event, how about we take a step back from edition war territory and talk about PF 2e?
Actually I think this is some of the best criticism. Marthkus is explaining without being derogatory or using hyperbole why he may not like an element of 4E. Since those elements have been brought up as ideas for PF2 seems like fair game to me. Maybe we should back up from the E-war alarm until its neccesary?
Funny. This got moved to the SUGGESTIONS/HOUSE RULES/HOMEBREW forum.
That's what ultimately always happens with threads which suggest fixes to Pathfinder. We had a lively discussion some months ago if that was the appropiate for threads such as this and couldn't convince the devs otherwise.
Funny. This got moved to the SUGGESTIONS/HOUSE RULES/HOMEBREW forum.That's what ultimately always happens with threads which suggest fixes to Pathfinder. We had a lively discussion some months ago if that was the appropiate for threads such as this and couldn't convince the devs otherwise.
Which is aggravating. Suggestions != house rules.
Most of the people commenting have no interest in talking about house rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be happy with any new game where different classes have real and noticeable mechanical differences and play styles. This is what I like about 3.5 paradigm; mechanically playing a caster feels very different from playing martial characters and different casters and fighters have mechanics and systems (read: sneak attack, flurry of blows, rage powers, animal companions, turning undead, etc.).
This is why the game is hard to balance, but it is also why I love the game.
I want a game that has even larger differences in core mechanics than exist already, I guess. I would maybe add more magic and/or resource systems (a more complex ki system for instance; or a summoning magic system that subsumes all the summon monster spells and gets some other eidolon-y junk; or a separate magic system for "artificer" type classes; etc.) and/or does more to differentiate the existing types of magic (arcane, alchemy, and divine).
I like a lot of ideas in 4e but I just hated how it homogenized the mechanics between classes that were thematically supposed to be very different.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like a proper roleplaying game back like we had in the Gygax days, not this anime math nonsense!
And yet this is the Suggestions forum, so it goes here. So talk about your suggestions.
It's also the house rule/homebrew forum.
For some odd reason suggestions are considered the same thing.
Which none of that has anything to do with things people may want in a hypothetical 2nd ed.
I'd like a proper roleplaying game back like we had in the Gygax days, not this anime math nonsense!
This is the worst idea. There are easily 8 printing retroclones at any given time. Pathfinder should not be a retroclone.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yet this is the Suggestions forum, so it goes here. So talk about your suggestions.It's also the house rule/homebrew forum.
For some odd reason suggestions are considered the same thing.
Which none of that has anything to do with things people may want in a hypothetical 2nd ed.
Yeah, we know, this is one of those boring subforums with crap flamewars, not the blazing glory of Pathfinder RPG General subforum, where true gods dwell and the fiery sun never settles. I can feel your pain.
I'd like a proper roleplaying game back like we had in the Gygax days, not this anime math nonsense!This is the worst idea. There are easily 8 printing retroclones at any given time. Pathfinder should not be a retroclone.
So true. Throwbacks to the XX century should rest in peace. They could never optimize their way out of the shopping bag anyway. Give me a game where I can destroy human lives by posting builds on forums that display my absolute powergaming superiority over other sentient beings.
Yeah, we know, this in one of those boring subforums with crap flamewars, not the blazing glory of Pathfinder RPG General subforum, where true gods dwell and the fiery sun never settles. I can feel your pain.And yet this is the Suggestions forum, so it goes here. So talk about your suggestions.It's also the house rule/homebrew forum.
For some odd reason suggestions are considered the same thing.
Which none of that has anything to do with things people may want in a hypothetical 2nd ed.
When I want to talk about house-rules, I'll go to the house rule forum. (which I do from time to time)
I feel like this thread got moved because it offended someone and placed in a sub forum that the topic does not reflect.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, we know, this in one of those boring subforums with crap flamewars, not the blazing glory of Pathfinder RPG General subforum, where true gods dwell and the fiery sun never settles. I can feel your pain.And yet this is the Suggestions forum, so it goes here. So talk about your suggestions.It's also the house rule/homebrew forum.
For some odd reason suggestions are considered the same thing.
Which none of that has anything to do with things people may want in a hypothetical 2nd ed.
When I want to talk about house-rules, I'll go to the house rule forum. (which I do from time to time)
I feel like this thread got moved because it offended someone and placed in a sub forum that the topic does not reflect.
I think it's a part of a global conspiracy against you. No, I really do, I totally get my posts moved all the time and every time it happens there's a smiling bald guy standing right next to my window. It's SKR, I'm pretty sure.
A small change to how the game works that I think would make the game much more interesting strategically. Making it so that damage can have effect on a character beyond simply decreasing their hit points. This could obviously be implemented in a couple of ways: 1/2 or 1/4 hit points brings a status effect, or doing X amount of damage adds a status effect. Maybe tie it to the weapon or damage type that the character is doing. *shrug*
Whatever the change, I think it would be a helpful improvement over the current situation.
For some odd reason suggestions are considered the same thing.No, they just share the same forum.
Oh? So why are there separate forums at all then?
|
|
A small change to how the game works that I think would make the game much more interesting strategically. Making it so that damage can have effect on a character beyond simply decreasing their hit points. This could obviously be implemented in a couple of ways: 1/2 or 1/4 hit points brings a status effect, or doing X amount of damage adds a status effect. Maybe tie it to the weapon or damage type that the character is doing. *shrug*
Whatever the change, I think it would be a helpful improvement over the current situation.
Hmm kind of creates a death spiral dont you think? The more damage you take the worse you get and die especially if that damage is Con. I can see some upside to this but also some downside. Restoring stat damage can be a PITA for some groups. The change would also have to reflect ability to recover and give the party more tools for fixing it. Not a bad idea entirely but it leans towards being really problematic.
|
|
I'd like a proper roleplaying game back like we had in the Gygax days, not this anime math nonsense!This is the worst idea. There are easily 8 printing retroclones at any given time. Pathfinder should not be a retroclone.
Agreed. While Im enjoying lookin through my 2E reprints and like much of what Im reading. PF should not go back to that imo. If I want older style of gmaing I can use 2E or any of the retroclones.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. While Im enjoying lookin through my 2E reprints and like much of what Im reading. PF should not go back to that imo. If I want older style of gmaing I can use 2E or any of the retroclones.I'd like a proper roleplaying game back like we had in the Gygax days, not this anime math nonsense!This is the worst idea. There are easily 8 printing retroclones at any given time. Pathfinder should not be a retroclone.
Guys I hate to tell you this but.......LawLz
|
Hmm kind of creates a death spiral dont you think? The more damage you take the worse you get and die especially if that damage is Con. I can see some upside to this but also some downside. Restoring stat damage can be a PITA for some groups. The change would also have to reflect ability to recover and give the party more tools for fixing it. Not a bad idea entirely but it leans towards being really problematic.A small change to how the game works that I think would make the game much more interesting strategically. Making it so that damage can have effect on a character beyond simply decreasing their hit points. This could obviously be implemented in a couple of ways: 1/2 or 1/4 hit points brings a status effect, or doing X amount of damage adds a status effect. Maybe tie it to the weapon or damage type that the character is doing. *shrug*
Whatever the change, I think it would be a helpful improvement over the current situation.
Star Wars Saga Edition did this with their Condition Track. You had a Damage Threshold and when you took damage above that threshold, you moved down the track. Some abilities/hazards could push you down the track as well. Some abilities/feats/etc. were triggered by movements up and down the track.
In the end (after having GM'ed my group through 20 levels of SWSE), I think the Condition Track idea was much better in theory than in practice. As a character moved down the track, it became very difficult for them to do anything effectively. After a couple steps, you were basically ineffective (the penalties went to -10 at the bottom of the track). Also, it was yet another thing to keep track of, plus keeping track of all the mounting penalties, what abilities they activated, and what Condition other characters might have.
Ugh, no thanks.
-Skeld
|
|
Hmm kind of creates a death spiral dont you think? The more damage you take the worse you get and die especially if that damage is Con. I can see some upside to this but also some downside. Restoring stat damage can be a PITA for some groups. The change would also have to reflect ability to recover and give the party more tools for fixing it. Not a bad idea entirely but it leans towards being really problematic.A small change to how the game works that I think would make the game much more interesting strategically. Making it so that damage can have effect on a character beyond simply decreasing their hit points. This could obviously be implemented in a couple of ways: 1/2 or 1/4 hit points brings a status effect, or doing X amount of damage adds a status effect. Maybe tie it to the weapon or damage type that the character is doing. *shrug*
Whatever the change, I think it would be a helpful improvement over the current situation.
Star Wars Saga Edition did this with their Condition Track. You had a Damage Threshold and when you took damage above that threshold, you moved down the track. Some abilities/hazards could push you down the track as well. Some abilities/feats/etc. were triggered by movements up and down the track.
In the end (after having GM'ed my group through 20 levels of SWSE), I think the Condition Track idea was much better in theory than in practice. As a character moved down the track, it became very difficult for them to do anything effectively. After a couple steps, you were basically ineffective (the penalties went to -10 at the bottom of the track). Also, it was yet another thing to keep track of, plus keeping track of all the mounting penalties, what abilities they activated, and what Condition other characters might have.
Ugh, no thanks.
-Skeld
Yeah I dont have any personal experience with this concept but I pretty much imagined what you said here as the outcome.
I think it's a part of a global conspiracy against you. No, I really do, I totally get my posts moved all the time and every time it happens there's a smiling bald guy standing right next to my window. It's SKR, I'm pretty sure.
I feel like this thread got moved because it offended someone and placed in a sub forum that the topic does not reflect.
Not any more, it's not. Is there a bald guy that works at Paizo now?
Hmm kind of creates a death spiral dont you think? The more damage you take the worse you get and die especially if that damage is Con. I can see some upside to this but also some downside. Restoring stat damage can be a PITA for some groups. The change would also have to reflect ability to recover and give the party more tools for fixing it. Not a bad idea entirely but it leans towards being really problematic.
I'll deal with a little extra complication to make 249 damage to a level 20 character with 250 health more tactically impactful than a failed save vs color spray. It also makes healing magic more useful in combat for doing something beyond simply extending a character, as compared to other spells that would extend the character by making them stronger.
I don't think it's a change that could exist in a vacuum, though. Damage numbers would probably need to be scaled back a bit, and there would probably need to be a decrease in the number of fail save:lose turn status conditions. Along with plenty of other changes to take it into account, too.
The main change between the time Pathfinder was originally developed and now is that compatibility with D&D 3.5 is no longer a priority, as D&D 3.5 material is mostly out of print and there are more than enough true Pathfinder products to replace them. But since the current edition of Pathfinder was made to be compatible with D&D 3.5, a lot of the legacy 3.5 quirks are necessarily inherited.
One of the few items I could see working would be an overhaul of the skills system. While D&D 3.5 has several prestige classes whose prerequisites require dips into numerous otherwise pointless skills, Pathfinder's few prestige classes mostly limit skill ranks to a couple of skills at most. If a new edition of Pathfinder were to, say, eliminate skill ranks and make every skill "trained" or "untrained", most Pathfinder prestige classes would still work even though many D&D 3.5 classes could become nearly impossible to qualify for.