The early edition of the game didnt fail to quantify these things (though I remember dms in adnd using ability checks for social skills), they failed to realize they were important. Have you read the adventures actually written by Gygax? Do you think this guy had deep roleplay heavy game sessions at his table? His original vision was a very limited scope of story. Go to dangerous place, kill monster, get stuff, collect reward, get more badass, repeat. Later editions have incorporated more kinds of stories into the game rules (things like social intrigue).Many of the earlier published adventures are location based. So the books only have detailed the rooms and hte monsters and the traps.
That means nothing about the ropleplaying in earlier editions. It was the DM duty to fill the holes with his own story.
This is my whole point. DMs ADDED to the game to make it something different. Did the books, either rulebooks or adventures include descriptions of how to go about this? I am pretty sure no. The dms added that all on their own.
Houseruling a game to make it different then the printed product, doesnt mean that product is what you made it to be. You took a tomatoes and made gazpacho. Nothing wrong with that, by all means enjoy your gazpacho. But you cant then turn around and say the store didnt sell you tomatoes because you made them into cold tomato soup. The product the store sold was tomatoes.
It is not houseruling if you are not modifyng or adding rules. You could have your story story heavy game without without designing rules for it.The early edition of the game didnt fail to quantify these things (though I remember dms in adnd using ability checks for social skills), they failed to realize they were important. Have you read the adventures actually written by Gygax? Do you think this guy had deep roleplay heavy game sessions at his table? His original vision was a very limited scope of story. Go to dangerous place, kill monster, get stuff, collect reward, get more badass, repeat. Later editions have incorporated more kinds of stories into the game rules (things like social intrigue).Many of the earlier published adventures are location based. So the books only have detailed the rooms and hte monsters and the traps.
That means nothing about the ropleplaying in earlier editions. It was the DM duty to fill the holes with his own story.
This is my whole point. DMs ADDED to the game to make it something different. Did the books, either rulebooks or adventures include descriptions of how to go about this? I am pretty sure no. The dms added that all on their own.
Houseruling a game to make it different then the printed product, doesnt mean that product is what you made it to be. You took a tomatoes and made gazpacho. Nothing wrong with that, by all means enjoy your gazpacho. But you cant then turn around and say the store didnt sell you tomatoes because you made them into cold tomato soup. The product the store sold was tomatoes.
You can, but like I said, I think what little raw there was, things not covered in detail by the rules were supposed to be resolved with ability checks.
That aside. You dont have to add rules, but you do have to add content to the experience you were sold in the product. You are changing it. The roleplay didnt come in that red box. It was added by gms. The game experience provided by what 1ed and Adnd had no roleplay content beyond what current editions of the game provide.
But Pathfinder, like D&D, always was a wargame. No amount of rose-tinted glasses worn during re-reading Tomb of Horrors can change the fact that D&D grew out of a desire from Gygax and Arneson to have a small-scale tactical wargame they could use to play out their fave sword & sorcery heroes vs monsters adventures. And so they did.
When you try any RPG system that grew out of opposition to D&D - and has rules, narrative and acting interact together far more than D&D does - it become blindingly obvious that no matter if it's 0e, 1e, BECMI, 2e, 3e/3.5e/PF, 4e or 5e they're all wargaming rulesets with the entire role-playing part bolted on and only loosely connected. Having played quite a few dozens of non-D&D RPGs I always get a laugh when "old school" people ramble on about how 3e and onwards it's all rules and no role-playing. Guys, you're all wargamers arguing whether wood elves were better off in 2ed or 4ed of the game.
Now of course you can have fantastic role-playing in D&D and you can publish amazing campaign settings and adventures for it. But always, you'll be playing a tactical wargame, and the ruleset will concerns itself with combat and pretty much nothing else. The mechanical chassis doesn't interact with neither the players' acting nor with GM's narrative.
This is certainly true. The fact is that no edition of dnd actually lent itself particularly well to roleplay or narrative storytelling. The only thing that was different 'back in the day' was the rules were so poorly written that they were often ignored or houseruled by dms. That isnt to say the rules somehow stopped you from roleplaying, they simply never did anything to aid it. There is no narrative control built into the game. Its a tactical combat game, the simple fact that social skills are a NUMBER, or the fact that countless spells exist that simply solve narrative challenges should make this WILDLY obvious.
Counter to this, games like fate, not only have rules that directly interact with...
I have to strongly disagree, and my disagreement is based on experience not assumption.
From the above comment, I would assume that you have never played AD&D (1e). Because in AD&D there was less codification, there wasn't even any numbers assigned to social skills.
AD&D wasn't strictly a tactical combat game. Less codification, more associated mechanics and more characterization and exposition within the rules.
D&D 3.5 is the version of D&D when mass codification occurred:
In AD&D (1e) the Invisibility spell lasted for 24 hours. Giving the spell OoC utility.
In D&D 3.5 the Invisibility spell was changed to "invisible only in combat" evident by its short duration (rounds/level).
In AD&D (1e) a barbarian could summon a barbarian horde consisting of hundreds of barbarians. Is this a 'tactical wargame ability'? of course not.
In Pathfinder, a Bloodrager can grow wings and become a flying unit. Is this a tactical wargame ability? Of course it is.
Roleplaying can cover many things: associated mechanics, characterization, narrative control, exposition and to just highlight one of them doesn't provide a picture of the whole story.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll post what I said in the other "bloat" thread. I've been playing some form of D&D since '77 (others have too)... and pretty much any idea that could be done with the core races and classes, I've done. I like all the new stuff.. not because I want to "powergame" but because I'm just tired of the core stuff. Something new give me new mechanical toys to play with - I find that fun.
|
In D&D 3.5 the Invisibility spell was changed to "invisible only in combat" evident by its short duration (rounds/level).
It's minutes/level. And if you're a fan of longer durations, there's a 3.5 metamagic feat Persistent Spell. Poof, instant 24h pure roleplaying. See? 3.5 is every bit as roleplaying game as previous eds were.
In AD&D (1e) a barbarian could summon a barbarian horde consisting of hundreds of barbarians. Is this a 'tactical wargame ability'? of course not.
Of course it is. "Hundreds" is tactical. Now if it was "tens of thousands" you could make a case it's a strategic ability... Heck, am I pretending it was a serious ability? Of course it wasn't, apart from being turbo limited (can be summoned only in native land, yay!) it was a gamer over button because what sane GM would run an adventure that's about 500 barbarians trying to clear Tomb of Horrors?
Personally with the quality of the ACG was released as; I think it is past due to calm and reduce the amount of releases.Once is an anomaly, twice is a pattern. I think it's too early to judge if the rate of class-books is actually degrading.
They deserve a chance to learn from the mistakes in the last book.
There has been spells listed in previous books but with no descriptions. Also, my ACG, had "Adventure Path" subtitle under the Pathfinder logo. That is a hefty unprofessional mistake.
|
I have no reason to have rules for roleplaying. For me the heavier the ruleset about social interactions the lower the roleplaying and it is more like a "combat" in the middle of a talking.Right. Earlier editions of the game were wargames where roleplay was encouraged, but there were no rules for it. I think the difference in later editions (starting with 3e) is that an effort has been made to mathematically quantify more and more roleplaying aspects with game mechanics, such as social skills.
-Skeld
This man wins the prize!
This man wins the prize!I have no reason to have rules for roleplaying. For me the heavier the ruleset about social interactions the lower the roleplaying and it is more like a "combat" in the middle of a talking.Right. Earlier editions of the game were wargames where roleplay was encouraged, but there were no rules for it. I think the difference in later editions (starting with 3e) is that an effort has been made to mathematically quantify more and more roleplaying aspects with game mechanics, such as social skills.
-Skeld
What is roleplaying?
Can you have roleplaying in combat? Yes you can. Skeld's comment refers to codification of the rules in regards to social interaction. And yes I agree it's a poignant remark.
Roleplaying (Rollplaying) is a broad area that encompasses many things from character building, OoC utility to combat.
OD&D tried to be quite simulationist but it was in the framework of a wargame. Hence the hundreds of barbarians ability was meant for use in mass combat, either using chainmail or the later Battlesystem. It was literally "okay when the mass combat starts Dave gets a special bonus unit".
'Hundreds' is not tactical it is impractical for a skirmish miniatures wargame, a game that Pathfinder is increasingly becoming more like.Turbo limited? Nah. It was a simulation concept. Simulating what it means to be a Barbarian lord, combining mechanics with roleplay.
The Chainmail miniatures game was not used in AD&D (1e), you couldn't even buy it around the time of AD&D release.
However, Battlesystem was released in the same year as Unearthed Arcana (Barbarian, Cavalier, Thief-Acrobat classes). Yet, very few people bought or used the Battlesystem supplement. It was a complete failure for TSR.
Realistically, the majority of people who played the Barbarian class, never used the Battlesystem rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the first time I have seen bloat = "too many weak options". Many people complaining of bloat just say that causes power creep, option paralysis, and so on. So it might be a good idea to for anyone using the term bloat to give their definition so they are not put in the wrong group. With that said bloat is not the problem if the complaint is about trap option. We as a community need to let the devs know that "floor" of power for feats needs to be higher.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Chainmail miniatures game was not used in AD&D (1e), you couldn't even buy it around the time of AD&D release.
However, Battlesystem was released in the same year as Unearthed Arcana (Barbarian, Cavalier, Thief-Acrobat classes). Yet, very few people bought or used the Battlesystem supplement. It was a complete failure for TSR.
Realistically, the majority of people who played the Barbarian class, never used the Battlesystem rules.
I could have sworn that the original strategic review version of the Barbarian was for OD&D. If I am incorrect apologies. Also I know that's not what the feature ended up being but that was the intent. Also the failure of Battlesystem makes me very sad, because I really enjoyed it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not the extreme codification that's the problem:
It's the extremely sloppy codification. That is the problem. Something can be one thing in one spot and other thing in another spot and be the exact same thing in a third spot but not work the same in any of those places.
The one thing I wish they had done better in the core was to set a commitment to codification and stuck with it. If something has evasion let there be an universal evasion. If a specific instance of evasion differs from the others then make the exception a specific part of that instance and say it as such:
For example evasion:
A creature with evasion can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only in light or no armor. A helpless person does not gain the benefit of evasion.
Rogues have evasion
Monks have evasion, however the monk loses this ability if he wears any armor.
Now the monk has evasion, and the rogue has evasion and evasion is evasion. The difference is the monk loses the ability when he wears armor, so it doesn't matter what armor he wears, he loses the ability.
In programming this would simply be a matter of building the classes (class type object) correctly.
The dice rolling is just part of the standardization process so that people can play together even if they have never met. Rule 0 exist so that you can make the game your own. Paizo is not sending men in black suits to rough you up if you decide use someone's real life ability to act as opposed to their chafacter's charisma modifier. If you are worried that some new player will cause problems because he wants to use the dice for social encounters then tell him your house ruless up front so he can decide if your game is the game he wants to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not the extreme codification that's the problem:
It's the extremely sloppy codification. That is the problem. Something can be one thing in one spot and other thing in another spot and be the exact same thing in a third spot but not work the same in any of those places.
The one thing I wish they had done better in the core was to set a commitment to codification and stuck with it. If something has evasion let there be an universal evasion. If a specific instance of evasion differs from the others then make the exception a specific part of that instance and say it as such:
For example evasion:
A creature with evasion can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only in light or no armor. A helpless person does not gain the benefit of evasion.Rogues have evasionMonks have evasion, however the monk loses this ability if he wears any armor.Now the monk has evasion, and the rogue has evasion and evasion is evasion. The difference is the monk loses the ability when he wears armor, so it doesn't matter what armor he wears, he loses the ability.
In programming this would simply be a matter of building the classes (class type object) correctly.
Even though I'm still sticking to my Extreme Codification stance,
Abraham I absolutely agree with you about the sloppy codification. If Paizo would of stayed within the same framework of codification (even if it would only be for their hardcover releases), many problems could of been circumvented.
Instead of continual patches that moves the game further and further away from what they started out with in the CRB.
Pathfinder and 3.5 are both extremely bloated, i combine parts of both and don't even care that it is so bloated. i play what i want to play, reskin and homebrew as needed, and combining both still doesn't really offer me enough options to work with, due to my alt itis and tendency to experiment with random classes for aesthetics rather than experiment with them to power game. but i will reskin to get concepts i want.
Well, there are a lot of feats that are not really good on the crunch side. (The following ist not meant to be offensive, just to prevent misunderstandings.) However, if one takes the campaign world more seriously and actualy read and understood the books and the world, a lot of those feats become much more interesting. Like the two disguise feats for halflings, which both help to disguise as a human child or small human.
The human centered world of Golarion has a lot of very practical and useful applications for those, like being a halfling in Cheliax.
Same is true for half-orcs and half-elves.
Many people never bother with those aspects of the game and then say it´s bad design, or bloat, while it´s actually just a question of perspective.
If you ask me, the worst feats and things are those closest to the old D&D, including feat taxes. Thinking of combat expertise and combat maneuvers here, as well as the INT 13, which is not removed for some classes that get combat expertise for free (without needing to qualify for it).
Is that bad design or bloat? I don´t think so. It´s more like artifacts from D&D and the carefull try not to step on too many peoples toes, because whatever they do, someone will cry it´s bad.
And to roleplaying and rollplaying:
In my eyes, pathfinder offers a pretty good solution for that.
If you want to, in a homecampaign, you can just straight out ignore that aspect. Personaly, i really don´t like the GM=God aspect and i´ve seen quite some bad examples of that, where GM´s just judge what is a good try or not at convincing someone just by talking as a player or coming up with creative solutions. I´m so good at it, i had GM´s deny them rightout, just because they felt i´m too good. Other players are really bad and then have no chance. In the end, it´s all about the player and not about the character.
Using the skill system there is a lot more about the character, gives newer players good chances and is also a lot more fairer than a GM doing whatever she wants.
That doesn´t mean you just have to roll and neglect the roleplaying. More likely, you can leave some things in the vague, things that can be fun sometimes, but quite as often slow down the game considerably or would be uncomfortable for some other people.
Well, there are a lot of feats that are not really good on the crunch side. (The following ist not meant to be offensive, just to prevent misunderstandings.) However, if one takes the campaign world more seriously and actualy read and understood the books and the world, a lot of those feats become much more interesting. Like the two disguise feats for halflings, which both help to disguise as a human child or small human.
I would agree if and only if it offered the same overall utility as a mechanically sound feat. If you want a feat that represents your halfing going incognito it should either be a trait or it should offer far more story related bonuses than just a flat bonus to disguise and taking 10 on bluff. It should also give bonuses on perception and stealth against the big folk as you've become adept at dodging them in the streets. Some sort of eavesdropping mechanic wherein people notice that you're present but don't consider you relevant enough to stop talking about their plan, etc. It should be built up like the tactical feats from 3.5 offering several pieces of situational utility to make up for the opportunity cost that could have otherwise gone to universally useful feat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the definition of bloated is to be malformed and not resembling the original.
Jabba the hurt probably looked like greedo before he ate too much and became bloated.
Pathfinders original purpose was to streamline and make 3.5 new again.
Instead it has fallen into all the same traps.
It made things better in the beginning. Took away the crazy over abundance of rules to peruse through and compiled them into something playable and understandable.
This is where they got their following, and shockingly fast I might add.
But now, looking back, we could have all just continued to play 3.5… Paizo could have just kept on with APs and Printed Golarion supplements, because the systems look the same and have the same shortcomings now.
Well, there are a lot of feats that are not really good on the crunch side. (The following ist not meant to be offensive, just to prevent misunderstandings.) However, if one takes the campaign world more seriously and actualy read and understood the books and the world, a lot of those feats become much more interesting. Like the two disguise feats for halflings, which both help to disguise as a human child or small human.I would agree if and only if it offered the same overall utility as a mechanically sound feat. If you want a feat that represents your halfing going incognito it should either be a trait or it should offer far more story related bonuses than just a flat bonus to disguise and taking 10 on bluff. It should also give bonuses on perception and stealth against the big folk as you've become adept at dodging them in the streets. Some sort of eavesdropping mechanic wherein people notice that you're present but don't consider you relevant enough to stop talking about their plan, etc. It should be built up like the tactical feats from 3.5 offering several pieces of situational utility to make up for the opportunity cost that could have otherwise gone to universally useful feat.
Well, human superiority is kind of hardcoded into the campaignworld and only broken (maybe unintendedly from designerside) by some races like aasimar and tieflings crunch wise.
Humans being overpowered is a note problem just like childlike being underpowered for how situational it is.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the definition of bloated is to be malformed and not resembling the original.
Jabba the hurt probably looked like greedo before he ate too much and became bloated.
Pathfinders original purpose was to streamline and make 3.5 new again.
Instead it has fallen into all the same traps.It made things better in the beginning. Took away the crazy over abundance of rules to peruse through and compiled them into something playable and understandable.
This is where they got their following, and shockingly fast I might add.
But now, looking back, we could have all just continued to play 3.5… Paizo could have just kept on with APs and Printed Golarion supplements, because the systems look the same and have the same shortcomings now.
You are making some really wild assumptions about why people moved to pathfinder, and also in part, paizo's justification for pfrpg in the first place.
The whole point of pfrpg was to have a living ruleset to print adventures for. Living means changing. And yes, that means releasing books. For many, new is good and a lack of new is a turn off. In my mind, pathfinder rpg became a real game when the advanced players guide came out, and paizo ADDED their take to the 3.x system, instead of reprinting anwith slight changes the existing core rules.
If paizo never added anything of their own to pathfinder and stopped at the core rules, i'd no longer be a customer. In fact, during the stretch between ultimate combat and ultimate campaign, i didnt buy any paizo products more or less, what was released didnt particularly appeal to me. Ultimate campaign did, and so did the advanced class guide. So I've bought them, and consequently I picked up new aps, started running them and bought additional products to support those aps. New rules material, in my case classes in particular, get me excited about playing the game, and quite frankly, get me to spend money.
I am not the only person who feels this way. There is a reason the Advanced class guide sold out at gen con. Its not because paizo's customer base wanted them to only print new adventure paths.
For many, the 'crazy over abundance of rules' was the REASON we came to pathfinder. I came because i wanted to continue to use my 3.5 materials. In the end, i have slowly shifted to only content designed specifically for pathfinder, but that was a slow process, and it involves a massive 3rd party library as well as paizo's stuff. I and my group have ALWAYS wanted an abundance of options because things we havent tried before or seen tried get us excited. Those rules are important to us as customers, because what you call 'crazy over abundance' i call, not enough, and I want more, to help me represent more ideas, make new experiences at the table, and over all have fun.
Paizo hasnt fallen into any traps. They have created products for people that wanted them. We've bought them. They have caused us to buy other products. And while obviously there are those that wish those products didn't exist. The fact that the new option books sell so well says to me, theres plenty of customers that think they should.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the first time I have seen bloat = "too many weak options". Many people complaining of bloat just say that causes power creep, option paralysis, and so on. So it might be a good idea to for anyone using the term bloat to give their definition so they are not put in the wrong group. With that said bloat is not the problem if the complaint is about trap option. We as a community need to let the devs know that "floor" of power for feats needs to be higher.perhaps Bloat= Options that overshadow previously balanced options or are just so horrible that nobody take them and are basically page filler.
I'd agree that its both. Its options which are so worthless they shouldn't have wasted the paper on them, and its options which are too far into power creep that they turn older options into worthless ones.
Humans being overpowered is a note problem just like childlike being underpowered for how situational it is.
Honestly... I don't think Humans are all that powerful... IMHO, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are usually a better choice, unless your class is both feat-starved and skill-starved... Like Paladins or Clerics.
Dwarves are also a very strong Race. Not to mention Aasimars and Tielfings.
The issue is that everyone is feat starved in Pathfinder given the relative power of most feats to how many you get. Half-elves are better than humans only if you need skill-focus which is true for everyone getting eldritch heritage, so a fair portion of people with good charisma. Human did get knocked down a peg relative to 3.5, as balancing the races was something Pathfinder did much much better. It still is a bit of a proud nail due to how much freedom is given in its racial ability.
Pathfinder has been gradually shifting towards being a tabletop miniatures wargame like GW Warhammer (momentum originally caused by 3.5) rather than a Roleplaying game. I speculate the designers are aware of this and are trying to steer it back on course evident by Mark Seitzer's great Kineticist class in Occult Adventures.
While its true that the kineticist is a great playtest class, it seems odd that you chose it as a counter balance to the "Pathfinder is trying to steer away from being a miniatures war game," as the kineticist has poor skill ranks and all of its class features revolve around one combat attack.
The issue is that everyone is feat starved in Pathfinder given the relative power of most feats to how many you get. Half-elves are better than humans only if you need skill-focus which is true for everyone getting eldritch heritage, so a fair portion of people with good charisma. Human did get knocked down a peg relative to 3.5, as balancing the races was something Pathfinder did much much better. It still is a bit of a proud nail due to how much freedom is given in its racial ability.
How is Half-Elf better than Human if you want Skill Focus? Humans also get a bonus feat that can be anything they qualify for -- so Skill Focus is an option. Of course, if you plan to take Skill Focus as your human bonus feat, you may as well trade that class feature in for Focused Study so you can get Skill Focus two more times later on.
Pathfinder has been gradually shifting towards being a tabletop miniatures wargame like GW Warhammer (momentum originally caused by 3.5) rather than a Roleplaying game. I speculate the designers are aware of this and are trying to steer it back on course evident by Mark Seitzer's great Kineticist class in Occult Adventures.While its true that the kineticist is a great playtest class, it seems odd that you chose it as a counter balance to the "Pathfinder is trying to steer away from being a miniatures war game," as the kineticist has poor skill ranks and all of its class features revolve around one combat attack.
The whole position is odd, because there is somehow the implication that something has changed over the life of pathfinder. But no such change has occured. Maybe people are more aware of it. But pathfinder specifically and dnd has always been a tabletop tactical game. It literally started that way, and pathfinder was no exception. It uses both tactical movement (specific amounts of movement measured in explicate distance in a system where positioning is important), abundant abilities and effects related to said positioning and movement. The only way it could be more of a miniature game is if they were called figures instead of characters.
Games that dont use explicate positioning in their rules, and instead use relative distances, like long, moderate, and close ranges, or simply ignore distance, those arent tactical wargames. But dnd, and by extension pathfinder started as a wargame and still is one.
The issue is that everyone is feat starved in Pathfinder given the relative power of most feats to how many you get. Half-elves are better than humans only if you need skill-focus which is true for everyone getting eldritch heritage, so a fair portion of people with good charisma. Human did get knocked down a peg relative to 3.5, as balancing the races was something Pathfinder did much much better. It still is a bit of a proud nail due to how much freedom is given in its racial ability.How is Half-Elf better than Human if you want Skill Focus? Humans also get a bonus feat that can be anything they qualify for -- so Skill Focus is an option. Of course, if you plan to take Skill Focus as your human bonus feat, you may as well trade that class feature in for Focused Study so you can get Skill Focus two more times later on.
For one, unless you really want that second Skill Focus (it's nice, but not a big deal and most campaigns don't reach 16th level), getting +2 vs enchantment, immunity to sleep spells, low-light vision, access to options exclusive to humans or elves, including archetypes and favored class bonus, is usually much better than a getting single extra skill point per level...
Besides, Half-Elves can trade Skill Focus for Dual Minded, which makes them a better race for characters who plan to take Iron Will at some point, like Rangers.
You get the 2nd Skill Focus at 8th level and a 3rd one at 16th level. The general idea here is that if you are already taking Skill Focus at 1st level, why not sign up for the full subscription for free?
Still -- I must admit that I would favor Human when I want two feats at 1st level and neither of them is Skill Focus, since the promise of future Skill Focus feats is not worth giving up a bunch of future benefits for. But getting a 2 level jump on some other feat chain is probably the major reason (mechanically) to play a human.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You get the 2nd Skill Focus at 8th level and a 3rd one at 16th level. The general idea here is that if you are already taking Skill Focus at 1st level, why not sign up for the full subscription for free?
Because... Getting +2 vs enchantment, immunity to sleep spells, low-light vision, access to options exclusive to humans or elves, including archetypes and favored class bonus is usually better than getting +1 skill point and 1 or 2 additional Skill Focus feats.
Pathfinder has been gradually shifting towards being a tabletop miniatures wargame like GW Warhammer (momentum originally caused by 3.5) rather than a Roleplaying game. I speculate the designers are aware of this and are trying to steer it back on course evident by Mark Seitzer's great Kineticist class in Occult Adventures.While its true that the kineticist is a great playtest class, it seems odd that you chose it as a counter balance to the "Pathfinder is trying to steer away from being a miniatures war game," as the kineticist has poor skill ranks and all of its class features revolve around one combat attack.
I made the comparison because the Kineticist's Burn mechanic has severe drawbacks (non lethal damage that can't be magically healed) just like AD&D (1e) Haste spell (age 1 year, percentage chance of dying).
Also the Burn mechanic is a simulation. It simulates the dangers of kinetic powers in a similar way how the Haste spell simulates the dangers of messing with time travel.
A major signifier of roleplaying games/tabletop wargames is associated mechanics/disassociated mechanics.
D&D 4e primarily used disassociated mechanics, D&D 3.5 used associated mechanics, Pathfinder does as well, but with the new supplements more and more disassociated mechanics are creeping in.
Pathfinder has been gradually shifting towards being a tabletop miniatures wargame like GW Warhammer (momentum originally caused by 3.5) rather than a Roleplaying game. I speculate the designers are aware of this and are trying to steer it back on course evident by Mark Seitzer's great Kineticist class in Occult Adventures.While its true that the kineticist is a great playtest class, it seems odd that you chose it as a counter balance to the "Pathfinder is trying to steer away from being a miniatures war game," as the kineticist has poor skill ranks and all of its class features revolve around one combat attack.I made the comparison because the Kineticist's Burn mechanic has severe drawbacks (non lethal damage that can't be magically healed) just like AD&D (1e) Haste spell (age 1 year, percentage chance of dying).
Also the Burn mechanic is a simulation. It simulates the dangers of kinetic powers in a similar way how the Haste spell simulates the dangers of messing with time travel.
A major signifier of roleplaying games/tabletop wargames is associated mechanics/disassociated mechanics.
D&D 4e primarily used disassociated mechanics, D&D 3.5 used associated mechanics, Pathfinder does as well, but with the new supplements more and more disassociated mechanics are creeping in.
You realize that many tabletop war games have rather significant efforts to be associated right? Like, to the point of being VERY simulationist. 4E is not the gold standard of tabletop war games. Many of them take great pains to make sure their rules make sense in the game world and flow logically from the thing they are representing. Tables to help you adjudicate hits on different panels of armor, specific modifiers of certain types of troops against others (like pikement vs cavalry). Table top wargames are most often MORE associative then rpgs are.
Also, an ability having drawbacks or not having drawbacks has nothing to do with how associated it is. All that matters is whether the mechanics of the game flow from the game world, and make sense in the context of everything else. In a game/world where magic is dangerous and risky, sure, adnd haste makes sense. In a world where magic performs as expected, on time every time, with generally no drawbacks, that doesnt represent the spell being associative. It can even make it dissassociative if it clashes with other rules, and general standards of the game world. 1E haste is ONE way to look at how such a spell should work in a specific kind of game world. It isnt representative of how ALL hastelike effects should work in some kind of general sense.
Pathfinder has been gradually shifting towards being a tabletop miniatures wargame like GW Warhammer (momentum originally caused by 3.5) rather than a Roleplaying game. I speculate the designers are aware of this and are trying to steer it back on course evident by Mark Seitzer's great Kineticist class in Occult Adventures.While its true that the kineticist is a great playtest class, it seems odd that you chose it as a counter balance to the "Pathfinder is trying to steer away from being a miniatures war game," as the kineticist has poor skill ranks and all of its class features revolve around one combat attack.The whole position is odd, because there is somehow the implication that something has changed over the life of pathfinder. But no such change has occured. Maybe people are more aware of it. But pathfinder specifically and dnd has always been a tabletop tactical game. It literally started that way, and pathfinder was no exception. It uses both tactical movement (specific amounts of movement measured in explicate distance in a system where positioning is important), abundant abilities and effects related to said positioning and movement. The only way it could be more of a miniature game is if they were called figures instead of characters.
Games that dont use explicate positioning in their rules, and instead use relative distances, like long, moderate, and close ranges, or simply ignore distance, those arent tactical wargames. But dnd, and by extension pathfinder started as a wargame and still is one.
Discourse concerning Theatre of the Mind vs. the Grid and Player Empowerment vs. Game Master Empowerment historically documents the dramatic shifts in D&D and its latest iteration Pathfinder.
It's very hard to be convinced by your statement, that it was like that (tabletop wargame) and it's still like that (tabletop wargame).
Pathfinder is a complex game with a long history (inherited by 3.5 and earlier editions) and to view the game through such a narrow framework creates all sorts of contextual issues.
Exposition was stripped from the AD&D (1e) Paladin Class, the Paladin used to have magic item restriction, 4 magic weapons, 4 other magic items and a 10% tithe of all income. Now the Paladin is just another tabletop wargaming class, even other classes have now got access to his class abilities (Divine Grace) detailed in the ACG.
Mithral armor used to be a rare commodity, could only be obtained as a gift from powerful Elven NPCs.
Now you can go to any city and buy mithral armor, just like in a video game or as a upgrade in a tabletop wargame. In D&D 3.5 themes, mythology and narrative was gradually being stripped from the game and Pathfinder is continuing along this disastrous path.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd agree that its both. Its options which are so worthless they shouldn't have wasted the paper on them, and its options which are too far into power creep that they turn older options into worthless ones.
This!
