It's a stupid argument. If someone doesn't like PF because of the guns/SF/Cthulhu/pulpiness of it, I think that's kind of a stupid reason, since it's easy enough to strip all that out for your game. But saying "No, you're wrong. All that stuff has always been part of D&D, so Golarion really does feel like D&D to you" or whatever the argument is supposed to be here, isn't going to convince anyone.
You got my point, however just to clarify - its not that I don't like pathfinder. I just don't experience it as an edition of D&D. It feels like a different game to me - largely due to the different focus of the flavour material.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the strengths of Pathfinder in particular is the quality of content independent of system. Even if I were to resolve to stop playing Pathfinder itself altogether (which I doubt will happen any time soon) it wouldn't stop me from continuing to pick up APs and setting guides. There's a lot of inspiration in those, at the very least.
If "edition" is no good... how about "release"? Or "version"?
I would honestly love RPG companies to use "version" to indicate "we threw out the old game and made a new one based around similar concepts" and "edition" to indicate "we put in some major changes but it's essentially the same game underneath."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what I really don't understand is why people wouldn't at least try the free rules? I mean I completely understand not putting money into another system that might be invalidated or preceded by another edition a few years down the road but from the looks of the way things are going, Basic is all free with options to play characters to 20th level with monsters and ways for people to make up their own adventures.
So there is not cost investment with the Basic rules, no subscription, or signing of forms, or any of that stuff. It's free and usable and a "complete" game from all portrayals. That way NONE of it interferes or supersedes someone's financial desires to continue to support Paizo. And, really, who can't decide to switch the game just once to give it a go from their normal Pathfinder campaigns? Even for a beer/soda and pretzels kind of game?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And, really, who can't decide to switch the game just once to give it a go from their normal Pathfinder campaigns? Even for a beer/soda and pretzels kind of game?
To what end? So we find it's a good game that is loads of fun to play... Okay... However, some of us have already determined that we do not have the time and/or money to invest in a totally new game system.
For me personally, I have precious little time these days to game, so I don't want to spend that time away from my currant game learning the rules for a whole new game that I may or may not like...
I'd rather spend the time I have on things that I know I like, rather than gamble that precious time on a "what if"... If that means I miss out, then so be it; I guess it's my loss then...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If "edition" is no good... how about "release"? Or "version"?I would honestly love RPG companies to use "version" to indicate "we threw out the old game and made a new one based around similar concepts" and "edition" to indicate "we put in some major changes but it's essentially the same game underneath."
So, Pathfinder 3.42 with SP 2?
|
Beats me? I hated THAC0 too but I'm not going to begrudge people who did like it. It probably IS in there for nostalgia's sake and for easier reference on converting older material. Different strokes and all that.
See, I just don’t get this nostalgia thing that seems very prevalent in Next; I still have my BD&D and AD&D books if I suddenly crave some old-skool dungeon crawling with overly-simple and disparate mechanics. However, the market’s flooded with really nice OSR and indie games – most of which are IMO vastly better than either of them (e.g. Dungeon World, Torchbearer and Whitehack). Designing something just for the sake of nostalgia is not necessarily a good thing; I think there’s a good reason why all my AD&D books have been gathering dust for the last 15 years. Besides, I’m not entirely sure there are enough grognards willing to switch, but that’s just my own not-so-educated guesswork. ;)
Well yeah, that's exactly what D&D:Next is trying to accomplish. Take the starter set's pre-generate Fighter character. You could play him right alongside someone who created their character right from the Player's Handbook with feats and Maneuvers. No problems at all. AND you'll probably have a closer balance than what's available in Pathfinder. The system is designed for that sort of customization. One character uses feats where one doesn't, no problem. Another character uses the multiclass rules and the others don't, no big deal.
Wild Surge table is for one specific sub-path of the Sorcerer and they'll probably have a Dragon-blood Sorcerer too. Not seeing the big deal with this? However I believe your mistaken with players using different Armor systems. Either the group/DM decides that everyone is using THAC0 or no one is. Same thing with the different healing rates they talked about.At first I agree with you that I hated the "set Strength to 19" aspect of the Gauntlets but then I started thinking about it and it made more sense. Take the Wizard with Strength of 10, put the gauntlets on him. In PF/v3.5 he now has a Strength 12.....so he doesn'thave Ogre Strength, he has slightly less wimpy Strength. It definitely created a disconnect with me when viewed in that light.
Based on what I’ve seen so far, I’m not convinced the devs understand how modularity works in this context, or perhaps it means something completely different to them? I mean, wasn’t Next supposed to have subsystems that work as modules, with those ”dials” and ”switches” they used to talk about as a means to finetune the mechanics? AFAIK they are now referring to ”modules” when they’re actually talking about rule variants and optional rules presented in sidebars. Also, I don’t think variant channeling in PF is a ”module” per se, but I rather mean the *whole system* is constructed to be modular in nature in how the different mechanics interact with each other. I don’t see that same quality in Next, which seems to be ruleset that demands a lot of tinkering to offer the same kind of versatily PF does. That’s how I see it, anyway.
Let’s talk about those gauntlets, wild surge tables and whatnot. There's this one guy who is rolling D100 every now and then, while another player says his PC can’t benefit from Gauntlets of Ogre Power *at all*? Third player says his character’s Dex just jumped up 6 points from 10 to 16 as he put on Gauntlets of Dexterity, the fighter uses something called ’Feats’, and the cleric’s player reminds me that ’Bless’ adds +1d4 to my attacks? Wait, are we even playing the same game anymore, ’cause the mechanics and weird bonuses seem to be all over the place? THESE are the kind of disparate mechanics I’m talking about; and while there are classes and archetypes that use point pools, *most* of the benefits and penalties are ’-/+ X per Y levels’ type of thing in Pathfinder. And the way I see it, it’s easier to balance things if they’re on the same scale.
I agree that stat bump items don’t work ideally in either system; perhaps the best way would be to scale the bonus so that low strength PCs benefit the most, *but* you’d get at least +1 to your score, no matter what. Or, just name them ’Minor/Major Gauntlets/Belt of Strength’ or something? (i.e. no weird associations to stronger-than-human monsters)
As for bounded accuracy, I think it's about time someone put a cap on the ridiculousness that were the bonuses and modifiers we saw in the last two editions. Even as a staunch 4E fan I felt the numbers bloat in 4E and in 3E/PF were just completely unnecessary. There's NO need for +29 to hit, 148 damage per turn. No need what-so-ever. Not to mention the crazy AC values one could reach. My 13th level character (v3.5) has an AC of 29. I'm nearly untouchable (95% chance miss) by a good portion of the monsters in the Monster Manual. I don't think that's a good thing. I want monsters to be a possible threat and have greater versatility than what we've seen. Bounded Accuracy is supposed to address that.
If you’re ”untouchable” with AC 29, you guys probably used only the first MM and your DM is very kind. My 20th level paladin had AC 35, and it didn’t do him much good; maybe roughly 50-60% of monster and NPC attacks missed him. ;)
AD&D solved this problem by capping THAC0 and AC (0 and -10, respectively). I agree that the numbers don’t need to keep adding up to infinity the way 3E Epic Levels did it; that was ridiculous. However, I don’t like artificial boundaries that don’t make sense, for example demon/devil lords having AC 18 just so that PCs can hit him due to lower attack bonuses in Next. Didn’t those guys learn to put on some armor, ’cause a fighter can easily get that AC in Next, and these guys are supposed to be *powerful*. THAT is the kind of thing that creates a disconnect with me; a ridiculous thing simply done for the sake of mechanics and the underlying math (would a demon lord wearing full plate really break the game?). And at the same time ’Bless’ adds +1d4 to everyone’s attacks, which is just *huge* on the scale Next uses (why not just +1 per 3 levels, up to +4 at 12th lvl?).
I think attack bonus and AC could cap at 30, that would still be within sensible limits. And that is why I think Next is going too far, but that's just my opinion.
|
|
So what I really don't understand is why people wouldn't at least try the free rules? I mean I completely understand not putting money into another system that might be invalidated or preceded by another edition a few years down the road but from the looks of the way things are going, Basic is all free with options to play characters to 20th level with monsters and ways for people to make up their own adventures.
So there is not cost investment with the Basic rules, no subscription, or signing of forms, or any of that stuff. It's free and usable and a "complete" game from all portrayals. That way NONE of it interferes or supersedes someone's financial desires to continue to support Paizo. And, really, who can't decide to switch the game just once to give it a go from their normal Pathfinder campaigns? Even for a beer/soda and pretzels kind of game?
I think a lot of PF fans might see the free ruleset as something that is a simple gateway system to RPGs (and D&D specifically), but does it really give the same kind of experience PF does? And when it comes to RPGs, my group's time is very limited these days due to work and family life -- not to mention that we live in three different cities! We get to game once every two months, so it's time better spent on serious gaming rather than 'beer-and-pretzels' type of thing (besides, usually we prefer boardgames for casual fun).
I will probably take a look at it, but based on the preview I doubt I'll try it -- unless I'm going to run a campaign for kids/newbies (doubtfl).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If "edition" is no good... how about "release"? Or "version"?I would honestly love RPG companies to use "version" to indicate "we threw out the old game and made a new one based around similar concepts" and "edition" to indicate "we put in some major changes but it's essentially the same game underneath."
Or we could switch to an actual versioning framework. That would be remarkable, but I think people who didn't understand what it meant would throw a fit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish I'd used Gamma World as the example, since nobody cares about that so much and the point wouldn't have been lost or taken to be definitional. I find all editions of Gamma World to be different editions of the same game - the flavour is consistent even though the rules change a fair bit. The way I experience RPGs has very little to do with the rule set.
[Emphasis mine]Steve, how could you? ;)
Consider me a nobody that cares! :)
Also, the latest edition's "flavor" was complete nonsense and a travesty to the property*. I at least played 1e Gamma World gritty, even with Orlen and Dabbers...
* Of course people who disagree are playing the game wrong and I'm sure Tequila Sunrise could drink the "nerdrage" apparently flowing off me for disliking something so much as to be dramatic enough to use "travesty".
At least one of my groups probably will be switching to D&D Next sometime following the release, but I doubt it will be a permanent switch. If the group enjoys it we would probably alternate between Pathfinder adventures and D&D Next sessions.
I personally enjoyed the D&D Next during the playtest. I found the characters and monsters refreshingly simple following Pathfinder, D&D 4E, Shadowrun, GURPS, etc. As a player though character generation and leveling didn't feel as rewarding as I had gotten used to with Pathfinder and 4E (as in, having character advancement choices each level).
As a GM, the magic items felt off to me. In theory I liked the way that magic items were laid out so they didn't feel like a core assumption of any character. Magic items did feel very special and that was enjoyable. However it seemed that when a player did get one particular special magic item, that player seemed to just jump in power rapidly enough to feel a bit absurd. The magic item generation rules felt lacking, I was a bit befuddled when trying to decide what common or uncommon magic item the party came across (either using random tables or just because I decided a particular hoard would get a magic item). This is probably another hold over from Pathfinder/4E where I see magic treasure/gear is just another form of advancement. I think I would enjoy it though if there was a better codified way to gain usable adventuring rewards (either castle building/land ruling rules or a subsystem for having relationships with allies you help like in Shadowrun.
I didn't really enjoy high level D&D Next play. That isn't a new thing however since I have felt the same with 3.5, 4e, and Pathfinder.
Playing in and running the pregenerated D&D Next adventures I did enjoy the adventures more than most, if not all, of the pregenerated 4e adventures I had participated in. They felt a bit more focused on NPC interactions than many of the 4e adventures I have been part of. Again, I did enjoy myself and I would happily play it with my group and make a game that we might run in some sort of rotation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So there is not cost investment with the Basic rules, no subscription, or signing of forms, or any of that stuff. It's free and usable and a "complete" game from all portrayals. That way NONE of it interferes or supersedes someone's financial desires to continue to support Paizo. And, really, who can't decide to switch the game just once to give it a go from their normal Pathfinder campaigns? Even for a beer/soda and pretzels kind of game?
I'm sure that I'll download the basic game, and will probably someday meet a DM who wants to run 5e, and I'll be happy to give it a try. But I've been playing D&D for twenty years now, DMing and playing three distinct edit...I mean, versions of it. ;) Anyhow, I like to think that I've acquired some sense of what kind of rules I'm going to find really fun, and what's going to be the same old same old.
In other words, I seriously doubt that an edition that's all about 'feeling like D&D' is going give me a dramatically unexpected play experience. And as I mentioned earlier, my game time and opportunities are limited.
Or we could switch to an actual versioning framework. That would be remarkable, but I think people who didn't understand what it meant would throw a fit.If "edition" is no good... how about "release"? Or "version"?I would honestly love RPG companies to use "version" to indicate "we threw out the old game and made a new one based around similar concepts" and "edition" to indicate "we put in some major changes but it's essentially the same game underneath."
I'm not sure that I'd throw a fit, but I also don't know what you mean by a 'versioning framework'...?
* Of course people who disagree are playing the game wrong and I'm sure Tequila Sunrise could drink the "nerdrage" apparently flowing off me for disliking something so much as to be dramatic enough to use "travesty".
Hey, at least you know. ;)
*Burp*
"Ah, taste that old timey nerdrage flavor! Make Oceanshieldrage Brew your game-time beverage!"
I wish I'd used Gamma World as the example, since nobody cares about that so much and the point wouldn't have been lost or taken to be definitional. I find all editions of Gamma World to be different editions of the same game - the flavour is consistent even though the rules change a fair bit. The way I experience RPGs has very little to do with the rule set.[Emphasis mine]Steve, how could you? ;)
Consider me a nobody that cares! :)
Also, the latest edition's "flavor" was complete nonsense and a travesty to the property*. I at least played 1e Gamma World gritty, even with Orlen and Dabbers...
* Of course people who disagree are playing the game wrong and I'm sure Tequila Sunrise could drink the "nerdrage" apparently flowing off me for disliking something so much as to be dramatic enough to use "travesty".
Yeah, my apologies. Universal statements are always wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I am sticking with 3.5 for my forseeable future, I don't think that a system is as important as the person implementing the system. A good DM will attract players whatever the system or the game is. I am sure I could tell my players that I am switching to a Barbie/My Little Pony themed world and my players would show up and continue to play provided the game is entertaining them. :-)
The system is a tool.
If I go to the hardware store and buy a random assortment of tools, I can probably build a table with enough time and effort. If I instead buy the tools that work best for building the table though, it will cost me less time and effort.
System really does matter. If you want to play Lovecraftian horror, a Fate based system is going to work against you. Fate automatically gives agency and control to the players, which runs counter to the concepts of horror in general. A player with a pile of Fate points knows they can't die until they spend them. A skilled GM can overcome that, but that means you're putting extra effort into struggling with the system itself. Whereas, if you just use Call of Cthulhu instead, the system is designed to do some of that work for you.
Using a system that naturally reinforces the play style desired will achieve the desired results with less effort, allowing the GM to focus on playing the game more directly. It isn't a requirement, just an allocation of resources, such as your time and energy.
Won't buy, won't play. I will never, ever again touch anything with wizards of the coast logo.Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
Do or do not. There is no try.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.Do or do not. There is no try.
Which fits, because Yoda is obviously Sith. ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what I really don't understand is why people wouldn't at least try the free rules? I mean I completely understand not putting money into another system that might be invalidated or preceded by another edition a few years down the road but from the looks of the way things are going, Basic is all free with options to play characters to 20th level with monsters and ways for people to make up their own adventures.
So there is not cost investment with the Basic rules, no subscription, or signing of forms, or any of that stuff. It's free and usable and a "complete" game from all portrayals. That way NONE of it interferes or supersedes someone's financial desires to continue to support Paizo. And, really, who can't decide to switch the game just once to give it a go from their normal Pathfinder campaigns? Even for a beer/soda and pretzels kind of game?
Time is an investment. My friends and I have precious little time as it is - we have it nicely set up to meet once every 2 weeks and play in our long-running campaign that we enjoy, using a system that fits this campaign perfectly - a system that we really like and know well.
And as others have said - to what end? We're not interested in learning a new system (in fact, that's the LAST thing any of us want to do, it's the antithesis of fun), we're already having loads of fun playing something that is suited very well for us... with a new system, could we have "more" fun? What is "more"? It is measurable, or even relevant or material? (Very likely not.)
Why not try it? Why would we even bother, given the above? Time is a real investment... and it's a HUGE one.
(I find your "don't really understand" pretty strange, when it's pretty obvious AFAIC - I don't think you've thought about it as hard as you should have.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure that I'd throw a fit, but I also don't know what you mean by a 'versioning framework'...?
See this article (which, hilariously, actually references D&D towards the end). And before someone starts in with, "But D&D isn't software!" - yes, yes it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure that I'd throw a fit, but I also don't know what you mean by a 'versioning framework'...?See this article (which, hilariously, actually references D&D towards the end). And before someone starts in with, "But D&D isn't software!" - yes, yes it is.
This is something I've been messing around with in the back of my head for a while, too :)
If a table of players is the hardware, you can view an RPG and adventure module either as OS and application, or as game engine and data file. I'm tempted to define supplements as plugins.
RPGs have an API (the rules), they have defined interfaces (stat blocks, for one example), and anything designed to work with the API and rules is compatible with them. Anything that isn't needs "patching" manually in order to work.
Sometimes an upgrade of the RPG results in adventures and supplements no longer being compatible. Sometimes it's a minor enough change that many will run without modification.
AD&D solved this problem by capping THAC0 and AC (0 and -10, respectively). I agree that the numbers don’t need to keep adding up to infinity the way 3E Epic Levels did it; that was ridiculous. However, I don’t like artificial boundaries that don’t make sense, for example demon/devil lords having AC 18 just so that PCs can hit him due to lower attack bonuses in Next. Didn’t those guys learn to put on some armor, ’cause a fighter can easily get that AC in Next, and these guys are supposed to be *powerful*. THAT is the kind of thing that creates a disconnect with me; a ridiculous thing simply done for the sake of mechanics and the underlying math (would a demon lord wearing full plate really break the game?). And at the same time ’Bless’ adds +1d4 to everyone’s attacks, which is just *huge* on the scale Next uses (why not just +1 per 3 levels, up to +4 at 12th lvl?).
I always liked Thac0. Never had the same issues that so many others did. I'm also a fan of capping things off. Its one of my pet peeves about Pathfinder, is the open ended stats. We have a group right now where one player has an AC of 14 and another gets it up to 36!! It's REALLY tough to come up with a confrontation that is challenging to one, but doesn't outright pwn the other...
2E had issues too, and I'm not sure it was 'better'... but 3.x didn't fix any problems with that...
Also not a fan of the way Stats boost through the roof in 3.x Having a cap somewhere that says 'This is the best a mortal can do... and you have reached their ranks' is a pretty cool place to be.
While I am sticking with 3.5 for my forseeable future, I don't think that a system is as important as the person implementing the system. A good DM will attract players whatever the system or the game is. I am sure I could tell my players that I am switching to a Barbie/My Little Pony themed world and my players would show up and continue to play provided the game is entertaining them. :-)
The system is a tool.
If I go to the hardware store and buy a random assortment of tools, I can probably build a table with enough time and effort. If I instead buy the tools that work best for building the table though, it will cost me less time and effort.
System really does matter. If you want to play Lovecraftian horror, a Fate based system is going to work against you. Fate automatically gives agency and control to the players, which runs counter to the concepts of horror in general. A player with a pile of Fate points knows they can't die until they spend them. A skilled GM can overcome that, but that means you're putting extra effort into struggling with the system itself. Whereas, if you just use Call of Cthulhu instead, the system is designed to do some of that work for you.
Using a system that naturally reinforces the play style desired will achieve the desired results with less effort, allowing the GM to focus on playing the game more directly. It isn't a requirement, just an allocation of resources, such as your time and energy.
I agree the system is a tool but even Fate Points cannot overcome foolish player decisions, especially in a Cthulhu game. Let's say I want to use Dark Heresy rules for the Call of Cthulhu (I assume you are referring to DH as it has Fate Points), I can also simply do away with Fate Points/Hero Points and retain the rest of the system if I so choose.
A GM/DM may go easy on players no matter how foolish they are, even if player death is warranted or a GM/DM may brutalize players even when they handle...
No, not talking about Dark Heresy, talking Fate. It's a it's own system, for which many games have been published. Fate is a game that does pulp action very well. It doesn't do dark, gritty horror very well. You CAN do horror in Fate, it's just not the most efficient game system to do it. You have to overcome inherent qualities to achieve the effects of horror.
I'm agreeing with your core concept. You can take any game system and play any game with it. I'm merely pointing out that there is a fundamental potential for inefficiency with that method though.
Sometimes that inefficiency is tolerable, sometimes it isn't. If you're only playing one session of something, it might be better to just use a rule system you know and modify it slightly. If you're going to do a year long campaign with 3-4 sessions per month, picking a closely aligned game system will probably be more efficient.
It's a matter of trade offs and choices. Nothing is a "one-size fits all".
I'm not sure that I'd throw a fit, but I also don't know what you mean by a 'versioning framework'...?See this article (which, hilariously, actually references D&D towards the end). And before someone starts in with, "But D&D isn't software!" - yes, yes it is.
Haha, I can totally see D&D doing this at some point. Thanks for the link.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure that I'd throw a fit, but I also don't know what you mean by a 'versioning framework'...?See this article (which, hilariously, actually references D&D towards the end). And before someone starts in with, "But D&D isn't software!" - yes, yes it is.This is something I've been messing around with in the back of my head for a while, too :)
If a table of players is the hardware, you can view an RPG and adventure module either as OS and application, or as game engine and data file. I'm tempted to define supplements as plugins.
RPGs have an API (the rules), they have defined interfaces (stat blocks, for one example), and anything designed to work with the API and rules is compatible with them. Anything that isn't needs "patching" manually in order to work.
Sometimes an upgrade of the RPG results in adventures and supplements no longer being compatible. Sometimes it's a minor enough change that many will run without modification.
That is exactly correct. The fact that D&D isn't (entirely) digital isn't important - what's important that D&D represents a system built on a platform, and can be analyzed (usefully!) in the same way that someone would analyze computer software systems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally don't like the idea of committing all my gaming time to one game system. I'm married in real life, so that's plenty of monogamy. I'm happy to give new things a try. I've been running pathfinder pretty much straight for the past couple of years, so I'm looking forward to playing some different games. However, as I'm still in the midst of two campaigns, I don't see that happening for several months.
I'll definitely get the core books, and I may try to make my next fantasy campaign a D&D Next game. However, there's a bunch of other games I want to play as well: Edge of the Empire, Shadowrun, Numenera, Dark Heresy etc...
So many good games, so little time. (I'm looking forward to that first generation of gamers to reach the nursing/retirement homes, and seeing all these 70-80 year old dudes sitting around tables playing rpgs all day long. The younger gamers can start showing up at seniors residences to run games for them).
I'm almost certainly going to obtain an electronic copy of the core books. Hopefully WotC can reverse their terrible 'no pdf' policy that pretty much forced people who wanted pdfs of the books down an illegal path, by closing legal outlets to purchase.
I want the new art that comes with new editions. It is the one thing I'm looking forward to the most. However, I doubt my players are interested in trying new things (it's hard enough to get them to try new things IN Pathfinder, let alone out of it.) and I'm not really that interested in ditching my PF investment to make it happen.
If campaign setting books come out, particularly rules lite to moderate ones, I'll be happy to pick them up too.
|
|
AD&D solved this problem by capping THAC0 and AC (0 and -10, respectively). I agree that the numbers don’t need to keep adding up to infinity the way 3E Epic Levels did it; that was ridiculous. However, I don’t like artificial boundaries that don’t make sense, for example demon/devil lords having AC 18 just so that PCs can hit him due to lower attack bonuses in Next. Didn’t those guys learn to put on some armor, ’cause a fighter can easily get that AC in Next, and these guys are supposed to be *powerful*. THAT is the kind of thing that creates a disconnect with me; a ridiculous thing simply done for the sake of mechanics and the underlying math (would a demon lord wearing full plate really break the game?). And at the same time ’Bless’ adds +1d4 to everyone’s attacks, which is just *huge* on the scale Next uses (why not just +1 per 3 levels, up to +4 at 12th lvl?).I always liked Thac0. Never had the same issues that so many others did. I'm also a fan of capping things off. Its one of my pet peeves about Pathfinder, is the open ended stats. We have a group right now where one player has an AC of 14 and another gets it up to 36!! It's REALLY tough to come up with a confrontation that is challenging to one, but doesn't outright pwn the other...
2E had issues too, and I'm not sure it was 'better'... but 3.x didn't fix any problems with that...
Also not a fan of the way Stats boost through the roof in 3.x Having a cap somewhere that says 'This is the best a mortal can do... and you have reached their ranks' is a pretty cool place to be.
I'm not fond of the inflation either or of the crazy differences between character abilities that result, but I don't think caps are the way to handle it. Caps just lead to the problem being exactly the same until someone hits the cap, then the laggard's bonus slowly catching up until everyone's the same.
Clamping down on the inflation, on the number of ways to get bonuses and on how easily you get bonuses,...
Yet this 'bounded accuracy' seems to result in weird math anyway, with demon lords having the same AC as hobgoblins -- or a low-level fighter wearing chainmail and a shield! IMO Next went too far, and I also feel the math is quite wonky anyway, with six saving throws and whatnot.
As for caps, they should be higher than 20, since you can get there pretty easily. After that, you're begging your GM/DM to give you that Belt of Giant Strength to surpass "mortal" limits (always happened back in AD&D, at least in my group).
|
|
Oh, as far as Sci-Fi in D&D...
The cat may already be out of the bag. And written by the guy who invented the game. 34 years ago. It doesn't just have guns, it has blaster rifles.
Doesn't mean you have to like it.
Well, I do, but I also wouldn't (or couldn't) force it on anyone.
Will you be switching to D&D Next when it comes out or will you stay with Pathfinder?
Neither. Next weekend, I am helping my group make characters for Shadowrun 5th Edition.
I also ordered 100d6 on Amazon ... hope that'll be enough. :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yet this 'bounded accuracy' seems to result in weird math anyway, with demon lords having the same AC as hobgoblins -- or a low-level fighter wearing chainmail and a shield! IMO Next went too far, and I also feel the math is quite wonky anyway, with six saving throws and whatnot.
As for caps, they should be higher than 20, since you can get there pretty easily. After that, you're begging your GM/DM to give you that Belt of Giant Strength to surpass "mortal" limits (always happened back in AD&D, at least in my group).
/shrug
Its a conundrum that we've tried many things to iron out. Still haven't found a good answer. CR isn't that much different now. My warriors seem to have to roll the same number at 1st level to hit the goblins as they do at 10th level to hit the Demons... One of the flaws with the level based game. Everything tends to level out.
As for gear? I don't mind the occasional belt of Giant strength... I'm just not a fan of character getting to Giant strength naturally.
One thing that surprised me moving from 2E to Pathfinder was the changes in stats and HP. I was VERY happy to see Wizards no longer getting that pathetic D4... and the idea of naturally getting better at stats was awesome to me...
But the system just raised the goalposts to compensate... so we didn't really gain anything. HP went up... but Damage went up too. Stats could be adjusted... but the NEED for those stats pigeonholed you into boosting that one specific stat.. so the dream of the more well rounded character still hasn't happened yet.
So yeah, I liked the cap. I like that if one character caps out on THAC0 or AC then the other characters aren't SOOOOOO Far behind to feel useless. I've seen pcs have to resort to 'aid another' constantly just to DO anything in combat because their attacks will never come close to touching the monster... and I've seen monsters who can bypass my AC by over 20 with a good roll yet still have missed another character.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm already playing D&D Next (PCs are up to 11th level now) and have been since last year. Next week, we'll convert over what we can to Basic D&D 5E. And then in August we'll finish the conversion to Basic D&D 5E and add in the full rules for characters. As the year rolls on, I'll then have more and more content to use as the DM and completely upgrade to D&D 5E.
Playing D&D again has been great. I'm using a lot of 1E modules, the 3E Magic Item Compendium, and even threw in 4E Shadowfell including a gloom deck conversion. Runs really smooth and the beholder that fought the PCs was really nasty. I also like not having to use magic items (no magic armor or weapons yet) and that I can mix up the number of monsters.
A couple of weeks ago a hundred coffer corpses surrounded the then 10th-level party. It was like the Walking Dead with magic. Great stuff. Then this week it was a solo blue dragon and a solo storm giant back to back. Really a tough couple of fights.
The PCs have a flying keep now, some followers, and a quest to end a curse. Lots of 1E elements are easy to toss in.
|
|
Yet this 'bounded accuracy' seems to result in weird math anyway, with demon lords having the same AC as hobgoblins -- or a low-level fighter wearing chainmail and a shield! IMO Next went too far, and I also feel the math is quite wonky anyway, with six saving throws and whatnot.
As for caps, they should be higher than 20, since you can get there pretty easily. After that, you're begging your GM/DM to give you that Belt of Giant Strength to surpass "mortal" limits (always happened back in AD&D, at least in my group).
/shrug
Its a conundrum that we've tried many things to iron out. Still haven't found a good answer. CR isn't that much different now. My warriors seem to have to roll the same number at 1st level to hit the goblins as they do at 10th level to hit the Demons... One of the flaws with the level based game. Everything tends to level out.
As for gear? I don't mind the occasional belt of Giant strength... I'm just not a fan of character getting to Giant strength naturally.
One thing that surprised me moving from 2E to Pathfinder was the changes in stats and HP. I was VERY happy to see Wizards no longer getting that pathetic D4... and the idea of naturally getting better at stats was awesome to me...
But the system just raised the goalposts to compensate... so we didn't really gain anything. HP went up... but Damage went up too. Stats could be adjusted... but the NEED for those stats pigeonholed you into boosting that one specific stat.. so the dream of the more well rounded character still hasn't happened yet.
So yeah, I liked the cap. I like that if one character caps out on THAC0 or AC then the other characters aren't SOOOOOO Far behind to feel useless. I've seen pcs have to resort to 'aid another' constantly just to DO anything in combat because their attacks will never come close to touching the monster... and I've seen monsters who can bypass my AC by over 20 with a good roll yet still have missed another character.
I think the problem is in how we all define the limit between natural and supernatural abilities or skills. For example, some may be fine with wuxia-style stunts or giant-like strength, while others want hard caps on stats and prefer realism (or, rather, simulationism) in their games. And we know that D&D doesn't handle the latter very well.
Anyhow, I think Pathfinder rules have a more solid math and contain less "traps" than 3E. Of course, it's always possible to create a naked barbarian with a negative Dex modifier, while another guy maxes out his AC. But that would be a problem in *every* edition of D&D, although probably slightly less in 4E than the others.
The problem I see with Next is that... based on what I've seen so far, it reminds me a lot of AD&D, and I already have those books. Besides, as I've said, if I feel nostalgic there are very good retroclones on the market that are in my opinion WAY better than AD&D, and probably also better than Next. YMMV, but that's how I feel.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what I really don't understand is why people wouldn't at least try the free rules? I mean I completely understand not putting money into another system that might be invalidated or preceded by another edition a few years down the road but from the looks of the way things are going, Basic is all free with options to play characters to 20th level with monsters and ways for people to make up their own adventures.
So there is not cost investment with the Basic rules, no subscription, or signing of forms, or any of that stuff. It's free and usable and a "complete" game from all portrayals. That way NONE of it interferes or supersedes someone's financial desires to continue to support Paizo. And, really, who can't decide to switch the game just once to give it a go from their normal Pathfinder campaigns? Even for a beer/soda and pretzels kind of game?
Time investment. I am running a weekly Castles and Crusades game and playing in a semi bi weekly 1st ed/Pathfinder game.
I already own all the rule books I need but I need to convince everyone to give up a session they may only get every 2 weeks or so to try out something new.
It is like the martial healing debate? Why bother spending the time and effort to mod D&DN when I can just play BECMI-3rd ed or a clone instead?
Basically D&DN has an opportunity cost involved even if you play the free one and the free one is going to be very limited.
Personally I am looking forward to 5e. The game could fall flat but I feel it is likely to garner a better response from me than pathfinder does as a system.
THIS SAID, as someone who is heavily invested in pathfinder products and has a library and a half of products there is no reason I will stop buying pathfinder items.
So much of what paizo releases in hardcover format is going to find utility in any fantasy rpg ruleset really and even some of the more crunch focused stuff like Mythic rulesets should still be able to be quite easy hacked into a D&D 5e setting thankfully.
Then you have books like Campaign Guide, The Bestiaries and ofcourse all the APs... Really I am happy that both systems exist and if 5e doesn't provide me what I want system wise I will just move straight back to pathfinder.
One thing I would like to mention though, 5e as a ruleset atleast at the end of the last playtest, didn't seem to be very robust for higher level play. Ofcourse this may change, but I believe the way 3.5 works may end up feeling better at the tail end of a campaign (for a player ofcourse, for a GM if I didn't have herolab those npc statblocks would drive me nuts)
I am interested in seeing how they support the product as well as how they handle campaign setting material.
3E generally released a lot of new rulebooks that were mostly ignored by other supplements
I never got a chance to play 4E, but I felt (opinion, not fact) from looking at the books that the campaign source material/monster books/etc pared down a lot of flavor for rules and split books up that should really have been one book (the dragon books for instance), and I wasn't too fond of some of the directions they took the setting.
It's too early to judge whether or not the game will integrate different supplements well, but it kind of sounds like they might be dealing with flavor/campaign material a bit better.
I will definitely be playing D&D Next as my main game when it launches. I absolutely love what they have done with the newest version of the D&D game. It is a big step in the right direction in my opinion. My wife is also finally interested in playing a pen and paper rpg, so this is perfect timing. She even checked out the playtest rules and really liked them.
Of course this does not mean that I will abandon Pathfinder(it is a nice rpg), but it will not be my focus.
|
|
Long time lurker, first time poster.
My group made the switch from 3.5 to PF back in 2011. Our group has pretty much disavowed anything WotC (though I did break and purchase the 1e reprints). I'm sure 5e will be an excellent and successful game, I just have no desire to support it financially.
Our group plays so infrequently anyways, so it's not like we have the availability to play a different game each week. If I do start up another game, it will likely be Castles & Crusades.
That is exactly correct. The fact that D&D isn't (entirely) digital isn't important - what's important that D&D represents a system built on a platform, and can be analyzed (usefully!) in the same way that someone would analyze computer software systems.I'm not sure that I'd throw a fit, but I also don't know what you mean by a 'versioning framework'...?See this article (which, hilariously, actually references D&D towards the end). And before someone starts in with, "But D&D isn't software!" - yes, yes it is.This is something I've been messing around with in the back of my head for a while, too :)
If a table of players is the hardware, you can view an RPG and adventure module either as OS and application, or as game engine and data file. I'm tempted to define supplements as plugins.
RPGs have an API (the rules), they have defined interfaces (stat blocks, for one example), and anything designed to work with the API and rules is compatible with them. Anything that isn't needs "patching" manually in order to work.
Sometimes an upgrade of the RPG results in adventures and supplements no longer being compatible. Sometimes it's a minor enough change that many will run without modification.
I like this analysis for breaking down the problems that arise at different levels of play. Playability is effectively reduced to raw math and issues can be seen clearly to be addressed.
I think it gets more difficult when discussing how well the mechanics represent the imagined actions. That tends to be very much an individual taste issue so each system will become better or worse from the perspective of the players involved.
My main problem with 4e wasn't so much the mechanics (which I rather liked) but the lack of adventures and campaign material. This is where Pathfinder shines and why my group switched and why we are unlikely to switch back.
any idea whats included in the players handbook/dm guide vs the basic set?
|
any idea whats included in the players handbook/dm guide vs the basic set?
From what I have heard the PHB will have additional classes and races that the free PDF wont. It sounds like a comparison would be the PF CRB only swap the GM info with parts of the APG and ARG. The DMG will have the usual GM info plus some swappable mods for changing up the feel and style of the game. The basic set will have snipets of the above info but will be much more condensed than what a 3E/PF/4E player is used to.
|
|
any idea whats included in the players handbook/dm guide vs the basic set?
PH has 12 classes, several more races than Basic, many more spells, more backgrounds, etc. DMG is a hacker's guide with explanations of why things work the way they do. Big on world building and optional rules like THAC0 and different ways to handle damage and HPs.
Mike Mearl's quote on Basic:
Basic D&D is a PDF that covers the core of the game. It’s the equivalent of the old D&D Rules Cyclopedia, though it doesn’t have quite the same scope (for example, it won’t go into detail on a setting). It runs from levels 1 to 20 and covers the cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard, presenting what we view as the essential subclass for each. It also provides the dwarf, elf, halfling, and human as race options.
But the best part? Basic D&D is a free PDF. Anyone can download it from our website. We want to put D&D in as many hands as possible, and a free, digital file is the best way to do that.
If Basic D&D is the equivalent of the classic Rules Cyclopedia, then the three core rulebooks are analogous to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Want more character options? Pick up a Player’s Handbook. Looking for more critters for your campaign? The Monster Manual has you covered. Want to sculpt a unique campaign? Pick up the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Still, Basic D&D is the true heart of the game and could easily provide a lifetime of gaming.
At the launch of the D&D Starter Set, Basic D&D will include the material needed to create characters and advance to 20th level. In August, with the release of the Player’s Handbook, Basic D&D will expand to include the essential monsters, magic items, and DM rules needed to run the game, along with the rules for wilderness, dungeon, and urban adventuring. (The Starter Set already covers the aspects of these rules that you need to run the included campaign.)
As we introduce new storylines like Tyranny of Dragons, we’ll also make available free PDFs that provide all the rules and stats missing from Basic D&D needed to run the adventures tied into the story. The adventures released as part of Tyranny of Dragons are playable without requiring any of the core rulebooks or the Starter Set. With just the Basic Dungeons & Dragons rules, you can play D&D for years.
Mike Mearl's quote 2 on Basic:
As for the contents of the basic rules, let’s take a peek under the hood to see what you can expect. It’s important to remember that all of this material is drawn from the Player’s Handbook. The basic rules for D&D are not a separate game, but rather are a subset of Dungeons & Dragons.
Races: The dwarf, elf, and halfling each feature two subraces: hill dwarves and mountain dwarves, high elves and wood elves, and lightfoot halflings and stout halflings.
Classes: Each class features one option for specialization. The fighter has the champion martial archetype, the cleric features the life domain, the rogue has the thief roguish archetype, and the wizard has the School of Evocation arcane tradition.
Backgrounds: The backgrounds featured in the Starter Set pregenerated characters are included in the D&D basic rules.
Equipment: The basic rules include the Player’s Handbook equipment chapter in its entirety.
Rules of Play: The D&D basic rules cover combat, using ability scores, adventuring, and the rules for magic, all taken straight from the Player’s Handbook.
Spells: The game provides a wide selection of cleric and wizard spells, from 0-level cantrips all the way up to the most powerful 9th-level spells.