Making the sorcerer something other than a wizard alternate class feature would require developing new mechanics. Paizo has shown very clearly from their publication track record that that is something they are either unable or unwilling to do. It's much easier/cheaper for them to rename old 3.5 mechanics to avoid legal troubles and repackage it, so that's what they do.
Essentially my problem with the PF sorcerer is that the class feels like it should just be a wizard archetype. It's definitely not as bad as 3.5's in that regard, but it still definitely feels that way.
I actually hope they stop trying to develop new mechanics outside the AP line. Word casting, mass combat, wounds and vigor, armor as dr, downtime, race builder were all black eyes on otherwise really good books. I just want good quality choices without filler options or alt systems with only a few weeks of play testing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Puzzles are a hard one as you can have an idiot barbarian being played by the smartest person in the group, while the dumbest person is playing the beyond genius wizard and yet the barbarian is the one answering the puzzles.
It kind of breaks my immersion when that happens.
Moreso than when the entire description of the puzzle, and how it is solved, is summed up with "Puzzle: DC XX" ?
:P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Puzzles are a hard one as you can have an idiot barbarian being played by the smartest person in the group, while the dumbest person is playing the beyond genius wizard and yet the barbarian is the one answering the puzzles.
It kind of breaks my immersion when that happens.
Moreso than when the entire description of the puzzle, and how it is solved, is summed up with "Puzzle: DC XX" ?
:P
Yeah, but then it may as well be, "You come across an incredibly complex and outstanding puzzle. Make a DC 25 Int check to solve."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit I'm not a fan of puzzle DCs at all, except as a means to provide hints.
Yes, it means the player does the thinking. But, we don't roll against a tactical skill DC to place characters in the best possible position and make the best possible action in combat, either - the player still does the thinking for their character there, in just the same way.
We don't make a roll to decide whether the best manner to proceed is to negotiate or initiate combat - the player has to think and make that decision.
I really don't see any real difference here. It's just about where you draw that line between rolling and thinking. Otherwise, we'd just start an adventure with rolling against an adventure DC, checking for success, and then declaring game over.
|
To go forward in updating PF into a rule set of it's own, 3.5 will most likely be left behind.
That isn't to say that a lot of the mechanics will still continue into the next "edition" of the rules, but some of the old stand byes (Sacred Cows) need to be updated into a modern design while keeping with the overall aspect of the game intact.
The other edition someone had the poor taste in mentioning didn't do that, it became another game completely while pasting the name on the cover of the book.
The next step in PF should be a restructuring of the rules.
Things like getting a universal magic use mechanic buttoned down, creating and adjusting the classes around the mechanic instead of using different mechanics to class. Having Feats not give out Class abilities and bringing weapon focused feats to be Fighter class abilities instead of universal pick and choose. Adjust CMB/CMD and allow for some maneuvers to target different defenses other than CMD, according to ability and situations. Have Wizards cast spells from a spellbooks. Have casters use wands to augment their spells and cast a spell known tied to the wand as a 0 level instead of having them be charged batteries. Make magical items have price points that is more than just the magical properties, make some things cheaper or more expensive by design rather than the 3.5 layman terms.
I could go on and on.
Yes, there will be a new step. It needn't be a simple clean up of the massive blob of rules and a hit or miss tweak here and there. Paizo will most likely take a clear and concise step that will move foward, not a side step and twiddle like the TSR Advanced and 2nd edition "meh" change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't see any real difference here.You don't see why it feels kind of trashy when the 4 int fighter with no ranks in anything other than climb and swim solves all the puzzles because his player plays sudoku (or whatever) as a hobby?
I think he means he doesnt see it as any trashier than when the combat-inept character behaves like a mini-Rommel just because the player is a strategic genius who reads up on small-squad tactics in bed each night.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think he means he doesnt see it as any trashier than when the combat-inept character behaves like a mini-Rommel just because the player is a strategic genius who reads up on small-squad tactics in bed each night.I really don't see any real difference here.You don't see why it feels kind of trashy when the 4 int fighter with no ranks in anything other than climb and swim solves all the puzzles because his player plays sudoku (or whatever) as a hobby?
That's why I like to take Knowledge (tactics) on some of my characters >.>
I really don't see any real difference here.You don't see why it feels kind of trashy when the 4 int fighter with no ranks in anything other than climb and swim solves all the puzzles because his player plays sudoku (or whatever) as a hobby?
Why don't we make the barbarian's player try to physically break down a stone wall himself to see if his character can do it while we're at it.
Except that still doesn't explain why the tactical genius character is doing all the wrong things in combat, because the player themselves has no knowledge of tactics ;)
I'm simply saying there's a very gray area here, and that people tend to completely ignore the issue in some areas already. We already make decisions for our characters that they're not necessarily intelligent enough to make for themselves (or in some cases, really ought to know better than the poor choice we just made for them.)
Of course, it'd be far better (IMHO) if that 4 int fighter's player passed the solution to the 18 int wizard's player for them to implement - or it could simply be they happened to be familiar with that kind of puzzle, or took a really good guess.
For a literary illustration, we only have to look at Merry coming up with the hint to open the door to Moria, when Gandalf was struggling.
|
|
I don't see the problem. If puzzles are DC rolls, then obviously the higher Int character will have a better chance of solving things, and will be the puzzle solver 90% of the time.
D&D being built on randomness, however, means that there will always be a few times when, like Merry at Moria, the barbarian has a light bulb moment while the wizard has a foggy day.
That's the thing. Pathfinder isn't an update of 3.5. It's a cousin that's been moving along a different evolutionary path.
When the stated goal was to be backwards compatible, and the core book was mostly the same stuff in the Players Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide, I have to disagree.
Even in 3.5, psionics was an odd duck. There was no particular dramatic space for it along side the other paths of magic, it was just there with it's strange Sci-fi/comics inclusion being shoehorned into a traditional fantasy setting. The few DMs that were comfortable working with it, were more than outnumbered by those who found it's presence jarring at best.
I disagree. I have read plenty of fantasy that used various power sources and the projection of will being a common one. Psionics works just fine with that.
Flavor is mutable. There used to be a really good version on the WotC psionics boards, but my google-fu is weak.
Quite frankly, I still feel that psionics is best engaged in a setting which doesn't have any of the other magic schools operating.
And for my book, it was the Pathfinder Sorcerer which was the sorcerer finally done as something other than a wizard's poor cousin.
Most of the people I have played with were indifferent to psionics. A few really liked it, but never seemed to get past just using some of the feats to complement a character concept. Most of my storytellers didn't mind me playing a psionic class, but didn't go out of their way to include other psionic bits. The prime exception seemed to be the dms who did aberrations regularly. They seemed the ones to include more psionics, but that's just my experience.
And the psion and wilder, who were able to take their magic and tone it down or juice it up or apply what is effectively metamagic at casting time without taking more time... that's what magic channelers should be. They aren't forming magic so much as unleashing it. Putting it in a box is a wizard's job.
That is one of the beauties of the OGL -- nobody can stop anyone from doing something that the primary company isn't interested in. When Wizards of the Coast decided to make up a non-OGL version of D&D that was radically different from D&D 3.5e, they could not stop Paizo from coming up with Pathfinder. When Paizo expressed a lack of interest in updating D&D 3.5e psionics, that left Ultimate Psionics by Dreamscarred Press as the closest thing we are ever likely to have to an official Pathfinder update of psionics. As best I can tell, its only flaw as a Pathfinder product is that it wasn't published by Paizo. So, if you want psionics, why not go with that?
Oh no... I'm not complaining about the job Dreamscarred Press has done. I do use their products and thoroughly enjoy them. I love their work, even getting in on a kickstarter or two. But it does mean that psionics isn't available in PFS, which in turn, makes me much less likely to play in any PFS stuff. I just found it... possibly telling... that Paizo purposely failed to convert about a third of the 3.5 OGL content.
What I wish is that Paizo gave Psionics Unleashed a free pass for PFS because its a credible 3.5 update. But I realize that is an impossible wish.
I have to admit I'm not a fan of puzzle DCs at all, except as a means to provide hints.
Yes, it means the player does the thinking. But, we don't roll against a tactical skill DC to place characters in the best possible position and make the best possible action in combat, either - the player still does the thinking for their character there, in just the same way.
We don't make a roll to decide whether the best manner to proceed is to negotiate or initiate combat - the player has to think and make that decision.
I really don't see any real difference here. It's just about where you draw that line between rolling and thinking. Otherwise, we'd just start an adventure with rolling against an adventure DC, checking for success, and then declaring game over.
While I agree with you about just having a dc to roll against defeats the purpose of puzzles in the first place, there is a separate issue. If someone is simply bad at puzzles as a person, he cant play a character that is good at puzzles. Its the same issue that things like diplomacy and traps fall into. Immersion is sort of thrown for a loop when someone just rolls diplomacy/bluff but cant come up with a good thing to say in character. But at the same time their actual ability at diplomacy/bluff as a person shouldnt prevent their CHARACTER from being able to do it.
Thats like a characters sword swing being based on the players actual skill with a sword, or better yet, a fireball based on a players actual ability to conjure fire. Our characters SHOULD be able to do things we cant. So do we limit purely mental things to just what the player is capable of? Should a player who isnt all that bright be banned from playing the 20 int wizard? Does it make sense that someone with a 20 int, and a 20 wisdom cant figure out a simple puzzle if the player doesnt have a clue?
Sometimes I really hate Diplomacy rolls. When you're playing a character that was intentionally designed to not be 'diplomatic' (think autistic savant) but you come up with a really good argument for something which is completely negated by the diplomacy roll.
It'd be like sitting in a room full of mathematicians and arguing 2+2=4 but failing because you biffed the roll.
I just found it... possibly telling... that Paizo purposely failed to convert about a third of the 3.5 OGL content.
What I wish is that Paizo gave Psionics Unleashed a free pass for PFS because its a credible 3.5 update. But I realize that is an impossible wish.
They were releasing an entire running core game in one book. Content requires pages, which requires printing, which costs money. Inflating the book size and price by 30 percent to print at best niche content would not have been a smart move.
As to the other part, the powers at be have decided that psionics does not fit the world setting
This isn't true at all, they have a whole continent of psychics, they just haven't printed rules for it. And they won't until they decide to go to that continent.
|
Sometimes I really hate Diplomacy rolls. When you're playing a character that was intentionally designed to not be 'diplomatic' (think autistic savant) but you come up with a really good argument for something which is completely negated by the diplomacy roll.
It'd be like sitting in a room full of mathematiciansa and arguing 2+2=4 but failing because you biffed the roll.
Roll results can be modified by both the actions and words of the characters. How much those words and actions affect the rolls are completely within the purview of the DM.
In your above example, I would give an auto pass for that conversation. However, imagine if your autistic savant had just made a brilliant discovery that flew in the face of previous beliefs. That is when your poor diplomacy is gonna hurt, because convincing others you're right and they've all been wrong this whole time is far more difficult.
I think the worst mistake in the skills system was setting DCs for reactions from NPCs. DM's can absolutely adjust those based on situational modifiers, but when they do, many players cry foul.
In one way, it took the role play out of the game for me.
I do agree with the above posters that in spirit of backwards compatibility (and the fact that Dreamscarred Press hit the PF update to 3.5 psionics out of the park, playable Soulknives who knew?) they should just use those rules as the "official" ones for Golarion and PFS.
Not everyone likes puzzles. Many others do, however. And relegating them to Puzzle: DC XX means removing that entire class of activity from the game. I think what often goes wrong is that puzzles are not hinted enough, they are very binary in outcome, and there are no alternatives.
Usually when a group faces a puzzle, the situation is something like: You are standing in front of a huge door made of unobtainium with force field hinges immune to magic, oh and the walls beside it are also impervious. The army of slavering orcs are behind you. A voice rings out: Which number of 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 does not belong with the others? What do you say? You have one minute until the army arrives and kills you (no save). This is, obviously, a very s#**ty position to put someone into. They may as well play Jeopardy or the like.
The situation can be made much better rather easily. First, give hints that the one who built this had a thing for numbers, and let the heroes have some chance to hear of a similar riddle, make sure the group understands prime numbers are a relevant concept in the game world. Don't make the door impervious to everything, let their other powers work as they should. Now, if they batter down the door, they could alert creatures behind it, they could not use the door as a delaying tactic against the orcs by shutting the door (seriously, the orcs might have a problem with prime numbers...), and so on. And if the orcs do catch them, perhaps the heroes are simply looking at getting to interact with a group of orcs that would be predisposed to accepting their surrender. Either way, there is no reason to auto-kill PCs for not solving a puzzle.
A little thought goes a long way. More generally, you could make sure to do other things like making different solutions with different results, such as adding the number 2 to the series above, giving rise to two possible answers that might mean different things happen. Make sure there are more clues to be had. If the heroes do not manage it, maybe someone else can get the door open, either by managing to solve the puzzle or by digging under it? It doesn't have to be either/or.
Remember that in 3.5 diplomacy was JUST for making someone like you more. In Pathfinder they have DCs for asking someone for directions. Ech
You can apply penalties if the NPC doesnt like the PC. :)
Ravenloft had some examples of that, if a the NPC is evil, you will have a penalty if your PC is evil. You also had a penalty when dealing with different races, elves negotiating with humans had a -2 penalty on all diplomacy checks, etc.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a system for investigation and puzzle solving that's as involved as combat; that is, where each puzzle has an equivalent for AC, HP and attacks of its own against the players. (Modeling frustration levels or something, I guess?) I've homebrewed something similar for social interactions, and find it strikes a nice balance between the possibility of roadblocking with a puzzle that's too hard for the players, and the monotony of a single roll on Knowledge (esoteric bulls**t) DC 40.
Which number of 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 does not belong with the others?Thog the Barbarin "I would go with 9 it is the only non-prime number in that progression."
Which is why this is sort of silly. If thog the barbarian is being played by a mathmetician, and The 20 int wizard and 20 wisdom cleric are being played by people who dont know what prime numbers are, are we really saying the illiterate barbarian that counts with is tows is the one that comes up with the answer here?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What works best for puzzles is to give the Players a chance to work it out. If someone wants to RP a 8 Int and not guess, that's on him.
If they fail to get it, they can get hints by making various DC checks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why this is sort of silly. If thog the barbarian is being played by a mathmetician, and The 20 int wizard and 20 wisdom cleric are being played by people who dont know what prime numbers are, are we really saying the illiterate barbarian that counts with is tows is the one that comes up with the answer here?Which number of 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 does not belong with the others?Thog the Barbarin "I would go with 9 it is the only non-prime number in that progression."
"Thog not like stupid puzzle. Thog smack puzzle with axe until it surrender."
Thog then proceeds to hit the nearest panel - which just happens to be the one with the number 9 on it. The door opens.
"Ha. Puzzle surrender to Thog!"
However, I'm not suggesting that puzzles should always be presented OOC to the players - just that it's nice to have the option for those of us that enjoy solving them.
Again, bear in mind that it's equally silly for a battle-hardened veteran to run around standing in the worst possible positions during combat, just because the player doesn't understand tactics at the same level as their character or the game mechanics that would allow them to perform better.
Seriously... what you could do is simply to say that in most cases, it will be the int 20 wizard that figures out the solution even if Thog's player was the one to actually crack the puzzle.
And because it's a classic: "Level 3 fighter bad level. Thog not take."
|
|
Which number of 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 does not belong with the others?If thog the barbarian is being played by a mathmetician, and The 20 int wizard and 20 wisdom cleric are being played by people who dont know what prime numbers are, are we really saying the illiterate barbarian that counts with is tows is the one that comes up with the answer here?
If Thog has 4 Int and the wizard has 20 Int, and the DC is 17, then Thog has a 5% chance of figuring it out and the wizard has a 45% chance of figuring it out.
There are four potential outcomes:
Wiz fails, Thog fails: Nobody solves the puzzle. Party must find another way.
Wiz succeeds, Thog fails: Wiz solves puzzle. Everything is right in the world.
Wiz succeeds, Thog succeeds: Both understand the answer, but the wizard comes up with it first because of his higher Int. (Like in Initiative, same result, higher Dex wins.)
Wiz fails, Thog succeeds: In this VERY unlikely scenario that the wizard blows it, and Thog succeeds, I think it's more than warranted to give him that "Merry vs Gandalf at the gates of Moria" moment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's really a play style issue and is something to factor in at the start of the game.
Some prefer where the game is about challenging the player, not the character - the role play stuff is kind of layered on top but its fine to utilise player skill to come up with plans and solve puzzles beyond the abilities of the character you're playing.
The other end of the spectrum is the "100% role play 0% meta game" end where every new PC has to make a DC check to know whether trolls regenerate.
Most people are somewhere in the middle. All that really matters is that the DM runs a game where the placement on that spectrum is acceptable to the players. I think that if the game starts to jar for you due to then it's worth explicitly raising it as an aesthetic choice (rather than from a "that's not how it should work" perspective). Even if its not your cup of tea - once you know it's a deliberate choice rather than a mistake, it might be more palatable within the game if the rest of the group have a different preference than you. Also, it means the DM has a better idea about the kind of game you like.