The game has also changed a bit since the playtest, greatly so depending on which version of the playtest was used.For me the play-test got worse as time went on. I liked the Fighter iteration that had maneuvers and then came along second wind (non-associated mechanic) and bounded accuracy.
Found the nearest box of tissues and had a bit of a cry. I love playing martial characters with that make or break D20 rolling, and I was hoping to see a martial character that had options in combat, sadly it wasn't meant to be.
To each his own, I hated the play test version but ended up liking the finished game. I may turn out to change my mind with massive play, after all it took 13 years or so to burn out on 3.x.
I think wotc got skittish and went a bit farther from radical then they needed to with 5e. 4E went to far, 5e may not go far enough.I do agree with you martial characters should have options, the idea of maneuvers was a good one to use without going nuts with high numbers. I still think the idea behind bound accuracy could be good for PF2, but I do not wanna see it taken whole hog from 5e.
I think Paizo should look at it, what it does right, what it does wrong and find their own way to do it. You guys recall all the skill changes from the PF Alpha to the finished books? The first system was pure up Star wars saga skill system. That changed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game has also changed a bit since the playtest, greatly so depending on which version of the playtest was used.For me the play-test got worse as time went on. I liked the Fighter iteration that had maneuvers and then came along second wind (non-associated mechanic) and bounded accuracy.
Found the nearest box of tissues and had a bit of a cry. I love playing martial characters with that make or break D20 rolling, and I was hoping to see a martial character that had options in combat, sadly it wasn't meant to be.
To each his own, I hated the play test version but ended up liking the finished game. I may turn out to change my mind with massive play, after all it took 13 years or so to burn out on 3.x.
I think wotc got skittish and went a bit farther from radical then they needed to with 5e. 4E went to far, 5e may not go far enough.I do agree with you martial characters should have options, the idea of maneuvers was a good one to use without going nuts with high numbers. I still think the idea behind bound accuracy could be good for PF2, but I do not wanna see it taken whole hog from 5e.
I think Paizo should look at it, what it does right, what it does wrong and find their own way to do it. You guys recall all the skill changes from the PF Alpha to the finished books? The first system was pure up Star wars saga skill system. That changed.
WOTC and the position they were placed in was a strange one. Unite the editions, trying to appease to a broad range of players.
Paths to get the 4e players on board and a simplified system to get the Grognards on board. Should Pathfinder 2e take a similar approach or do you have something else in mind.
Pathfinder is divisive and unapologetic but what it does, it does extremely well both in its positive aspects and negative aspects.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference is that if I go back to an area that is in the 1st AP, I'll face the same DC. If my level is high enough, I may not need to pick up the dice. No one came back and upgraded the DC while I was away..
Oddly untrue at least in most of the APs I've run and seen where you go back to the area you were at earlier levels (Age of Worms ~ return visit to Diamond Lake/The Whispering Cairn, Rise of Runelords ~ return to Sandpoint, Kingmaker ~ return to your capital, Council of Thieves ~ return to earlier areas in Westcrown).
The DCs for most skills as they relate to plot are set by the level of the character you are currently playing. Suddenly the mayor gets more stubborn as you advance from level 1 to 10.
Note: I'm not saying this is right. This is just the way adventures are written so that characters are appropriately challenged when it comes to skill checks.
I remember chuckling at this when preparing Rise of Runelords several months ago - now that your PCs are in their teens (level-wise), Mayor Deverin now needs a DC30 Diplomacy check (p239 of AE) if you negotiate with her.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference is that if I go back to an area that is in the 1st AP, I'll face the same DC. If my level is high enough, I may not need to pick up the dice. No one came back and upgraded the DC while I was away..Oddly untrue at least in most of the APs I've run and seen where you go back to the area you were at earlier levels (Age of Worms ~ return visit to Diamond Lake/The Whispering Cairn, Rise of Runelords ~ return to Sandpoint, Kingmaker ~ return to your capital, Council of Thieves ~ return to earlier areas in Westcrown).
The DCs for most skills as they relate to plot are set by the level of the character you are currently playing. Suddenly the mayor gets more stubborn as you advance from level 1 to 10.
Note: I'm not saying this is right. This is just the way adventures are written so that characters are appropriately challenged when it comes to skill checks.
I remember chuckling at this when preparing Rise of Runelords several months ago - now that your PCs are in their teens (level-wise), Mayor Deverin now needs a DC30 Diplomacy check (p239 of AE) if you negotiate with her.
I'm thinking of unopposed rolls. Did the walls in the area get harder to climb? Did weapons become harder to make? Did the waters become choppier and require a higher DC?
It makes sense your foes may have leveled up with you or their atitudes change based on what happened. It doesn't make sense that the walls, water and other inanimate items have leveled too...
The 5e DMG slices up levels into different scales (as I mentioned before) with the top one from levels 17-20 being "masters of the world" where it explicitly compares the PCs to demigods and talks about them facing challenges that determine the fate of the world.
I'm not trying to be hyperbolic. I'm using the scale that Mike Mearls and friends use.
Ah, cheers. I haven't read that. In that case, I think they failed in that goal. Level 20 is clearly best in the world (pretty much by definition) and if they're not tackling the fate of the world problems, I don't know who else would. But it's not what I would consider demigod level.
To me that still points to a significant difference between the two games, if not by intent then by effect, 5E starts at a higher level of power and caps out at a significantly lower level than PF. In my opinion, porting systems from one to the other is going to be more complicated, due to that than just a straight transplanting of a portion of the rules.
The difference is that if I go back to an area that is in the 1st AP, I'll face the same DC. If my level is high enough, I may not need to pick up the dice. No one came back and upgraded the DC while I was away..Oddly untrue at least in most of the APs I've run and seen where you go back to the area you were at earlier levels (Age of Worms ~ return visit to Diamond Lake/The Whispering Cairn, Rise of Runelords ~ return to Sandpoint, Kingmaker ~ return to your capital, Council of Thieves ~ return to earlier areas in Westcrown).
The DCs for most skills as they relate to plot are set by the level of the character you are currently playing. Suddenly the mayor gets more stubborn as you advance from level 1 to 10.
Note: I'm not saying this is right. This is just the way adventures are written so that characters are appropriately challenged when it comes to skill checks.
I remember chuckling at this when preparing Rise of Runelords several months ago - now that your PCs are in their teens (level-wise), Mayor Deverin now needs a DC30 Diplomacy check (p239 of AE) if you negotiate with her.
I'm thinking of unopposed rolls. Did the walls in the area get harder to climb? Did weapons become harder to make? Did the waters become choppier and require a higher DC?
It makes sense your foes may have leveled up with you or their atitudes change based on what happened. It doesn't make sense that the walls, water and other inanimate items have leveled too...
Yes, checks in Pathfinder are not all relative to level. To pick a simple lock on a dungeon door remains unchanged and jumping over a 5 feet gap on the floor of the local ruins.
@ Wakedown, pertinent point, the idea of challenge rating needs to be looked at. There needs to a presence and interaction of higher level folk. Otherwise the players can't get a sense of their place in the world and the 1st level-20th level growth becomes obscured behind democratic maths.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My first question is, if you have any characters like the handful of example characters I detailed whereby "bounded accuracy" specifically lowers the ceiling for them.
Yes. Virtually every character that has any right to be called a martial character. This includes everything from bards to rangers.
My "gentleman's agreement" essentially refers to players who either willingly don't push the limits of math or simply don't yet know that they can do so.
The thing is, the math really doesn't break down very easily. I've been "pushing the limits of math" on these boards for years explicitly to show how the game is actually solid. In fact, if you were to ask for advice, one of the first things I'd generally cover is getting your defenses really high because offense is usually baked nicely into the class.
3.5 and Pathfinder alike, and the adventures Paizo wrote for both systems generally feature locale-based adventuring, so a good gamer is going to have ablative barrier, barkskin, heroism, heightened awareness, discovery torch, etc all active for their 2 hours on site. Most of my other examples were simply uses of free or swift actions on round 1 or round 2 and are fully exemplary of PCs use of abilities in those rounds when they believe they are facing an appropriately challenging combat. A game system without some form of ceiling control (i.e. limiting which buffs stack, their durations, the action economy to bring them to bear) is what allows folks to exceed the upper bound.
The game system does have limits to which buffs stack. It's right in the core rulebook explaining that buffs of the same type do not stack. No stacking +2 morale and +1 morale, for example. They are limited in their action economies and durations. In fact, I actually wish that a lot of the durations of things were longer in Pathfinder rather than measured in a few minutes. Literally everything that you just said should be in the game is...already here.
I agree a lot of climatic finales are written poorly (single monster that can fail an unoptimized Slumber hex).
Honestly, the best experiences I've had with Paizo-modules has actually been from their module line. A lot of the encounters in the APs have frequently felt very hit or miss and often really weak in narrative or mechanical presence (and sometimes both). Meanwhile, when I GM'd Flight of the Red Raven it was really solid. A product similar to an AP was James Jacob's "The Red Hand of Doom" for 3.5 by WotC, and it was also generally far more interesting.
Alas, in terms of what Paizo prints is the common benchmark we have for an appropriate level challenge for PCs created in those systems. The fact that the rules have grown over the years where PCs created with the latest rules regularly end BBEG fights in printed APs within 1-2 rounds seems indicative of a revised edition trying to address that, at least for the purposes of delivering a climatic finale that can last for an hour of gaming.
Honestly, simply reexamining their goals for encounters would do wonders. It's not even that hard to make great encounters in this game, it's just Paizo frequently doesn't. They virtually never take the environments into consideration, almost never provide solid teamwork suggestions for NPCs, etc.
As a GM, I know I can regularly deliver this finale by going above and beyond a printed AP installment, but I need to essentially run something APL+6 or chain together a handful of APL+2 or APL+3 fights into one long fight (which is arguably worse than an APL+6).
You really shouldn't need to push it that hard. You really can make exciting and challenging encounters on an XP budget. It's just the encounters really need to be more than "whack it with numbers", which is unfortunately how a lot of the encounters are designed.
I would prefer a ruleset where GMs can more easily "rotate the dial" on certain settings to suit their tastes. So if they want a narrower curve from Level 1 to 20, they can reduce bonuses by a certain factor, or even use a die with more sides. Alternatively, they can cap the levels, or increase the XP requirements for higher levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would prefer a ruleset where GMs can more easily "rotate the dial" on certain settings to suit their tastes. So if they want a narrower curve from Level 1 to 20, they can reduce bonuses by a certain factor, or even use a die with more sides. Alternatively, they can cap the levels, or increase the XP requirements for higher levels.
You can do all those things really easily?
Like. . . super easily?
Just. . . end the game at 8 if you want? Or 6, or whatever level you like? Or just stop giving EXP at that point and finish out the story.
Want slower progression? Use the slow chart. Want slower than that? Double the values required for levels after 6 or 8 or 12 or whatever you want.
Want a smaller die size? Hey! Sub in d12s!
These are super simple changes to "suit your DM tastes". No reason to write things that simple in a book or switch to a new edition to accommodate them.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, simply reexamining their goals for encounters would do wonders. It's not even that hard to make great encounters in this game, it's just Paizo frequently doesn't. They virtually never take the environments into consideration, almost never provide solid teamwork suggestions for NPCs, etc.
I'll agree with this for the most part, but will reiterate that I think this is both useful and intentional on Paizo's part to at least some degree.
APs particularly are at least somewhat marketed to those new to the game, and scaling encounters up is way easier for an experienced GM than scaling an encounter down is for a novice GM. Given this fact, erring on the side of lower powered encounters definitely seems the way to go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, beside the bounded accuracy good/ no its the work of arch devils argument. I am gonna go ahead and put down what I feel PF 2e should go in. Recall guys this is just my opinions based off my own taste.
1: Something akin to Bounded accuracy. I want the mods cleared out, reduced and the math capped. It need not be done in the same way as 5e, but the lack of balance, rocket tag rules and the sheer amount of work at high end and with optimization drove me away from 3.x at last.
2:Spells need heavily redressed and the caster/non caster divide closed. Caster should not rule the game
3: BAB needs fixated and the ever worse extra attacks need dead. If you grant an extra attack its just that. Not a way worse attack
4:No more magic xmass tree/no need to have magic items. Magic should be cool and fun, not required.
5: I want healing for every class. You should not have to have a healer. If you want to call HP's vitality to make it not magical, cool.
6: Fewer classes but more customizable/ robust classes. Bake in the archtype concert and allow for broader classes
7: Please for the love of all that is holy, if you can not kill the evil that is Vancian casting. At the very lest add another non-vancian spellcaster class option.
8: Feats should be cool, not a +2 to this or a +1 to river dancing. They also should not be traps and all should be about the same power level
9: Some of those "feats" should be basic class abilities
10: Fix freaking saves
11: Ditto wth sklls DC and make fewer, but broader skills
I don't think I have seen you post in over 2 years.
I agree with some of these to varying degrees, especially 4, 9, and 10
What I would also want is for the dev to specifically say that flavor created by them is just the generic example, and flavor is not a rule, nor is it their intention that you have to go by the printed flavor in the book. Some people really need to hear this. Now of course a GM can say "no changing flavor", but he wont be able to say "this is the game's intent".
I would also want a way to get FAQ's done for books that not created by the rules team.
I figure if a new edition ever comes around other issues might as well be taken care of along with it. While not being rules, some of them affect the game just as much.
Could you elaborate Peter? What do you find so horrid about every single last one of them?Sure.
1. Bounded Accuracy, even on a smaller scale, is not a desired outcome for me. The massive differences between a 1st and 20th level characters flat number (attack bonus, AC, saves, spell Dcs, ect) are desirable to me. Even within a single level the relatively large differences between various stats (say my 15th level wizards 27 AC and the party fighter’s 38) are things that give the system life and variety. Any and all capping needs only exist in the form of bonus types that are allowed, and in the amounts they are allowed in (e.g. what already exists with deflection, natural, ect).
Does bounded accuracy mean a fighter and wizard have the same bonus to attack or does it just mean stats(not just ability stat) have a ceiling built in such a way that characters such as a cleric and a fighter will have a meaningful difference in attack rolls, but it wont be so far apart that the cleric can not contribute in melee to what a fighter is fighting.
2. In combat my experience with a skilled GM suggests that the caster divide is the sort of thing that only comes up at heavily optimized tables (and I do not simply mean numerically) or those with relatively poor GMs. Spells and effects that I see people here claim win fights create headaches in my experience much of the time, and whatever people may say about ‘cleanup’ falls largely on deaf ears. In terms of the narrative power argument, I have some sympathy, but the solution to the relative lack of narrative strength built into the fighter / skill system lies with making changes to the fighter, not spellcasting writ-large. I thought some of the Unchained skill ideas went a long way towards redressing some of that divide, but in some plays not all the way.
At some tables this is a real problem, and everyone does not have the gift of being able to houserule, even if they are great GM's otherwise. I think the fighter and other nonmagical classes need a boost, and it would not hurt to have magic take a hit, but I don't want it to be too great, since I really have no problem with magic being better.
3. Attacks made at full BAB would turn fighters, barbarians, and co. into more lethal killing machines than they already are – which is not a direction they need to go. Offensive power has never been the weakness of the fighter or barbarian, and generally speaking the first two or three attacks even against level appropriate foes hit. The last attack becomes something that can be thrown at weaker enemies. In any case, these attacks build the narrative strength of martial characters by allowing them to, if nothing else, punish lower level enemies. I think this ties to your bounded accuracy love though, where you view every attack not hitting against level appropriate foes as a bug, not a feature.
I agree that if we go to a "one attack roll" system that giving a second attack at the same bonus will be a huge boost with regard to damage. If a second attack comes in, it should be at a penalty and/or reduced damage, so that it stays usable, but does not create a too large of a disparity. <----Assumes PF 2.0, just to be clear.
10. I have no idea what you mean by “fix saves’ but I imagine it ties to #1, which is not desirable. A moderate gap between different classes is desirable, and any more than a moderate gap is likely the result of a specific style of play. Hard coding it into the game play rules is a limitation on my enjoyment that I don't need.
It is hard to make the poor save unless you go out of your way to boost it a lot, and many players don't have the system mastery or inclination to think to do so. Having the poor save slightly better would not be a bad idea, so if PF 2.0 came about the the disparity between the best and lesser base save does not need to be as big.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I have seen you post in over 2 years.
I have not been active, I burned out rather fast and rather hard on 3.x. I had to close my pbp's which one I had run for years here and get my head cleared by playing something, anything else for a while.
I am in a better place now, so I am sticking my head back into it. I agree on the flavor thing. I would really like to see classes more generic and give flavor examples.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1: Something akin to Bounded accuracy. I want the mods cleared out, reduced and the math capped. It need not be done in the same way as 5e, but the lack of balance, rocket tag rules and the sheer amount of work at high end and with optimization drove me away from 3.x at last.1. IME Rocket Tag is a problem with playstyle, not the system. I've played several games into the low 20s where rocket tag never happened. The idea that offense trumps all leads to an emphasis on "glass cannons" who have to win initiative and kill the foes in one action, because they can't endure the counterattack. That is rocket tag, but you don't have to play that way if you don't want to. It's entirely possible to make balanced high level characters who will dish out less pain, but can also survive a few counterattacks. If you don't like optimization, don't optimize. It's not needed.
This is a system problem. You have to go out of your way to not rocket tag. A warrior NPC class just by virtue of being a full BAB class and pushing strength, and grabbing power attack, is not optimizing, but it can do a lot of damage.
A wizard just with energy drain can turn a fight into mop up mode.
There are other spells that do so also, just by how they affect the game.
I have seen confusion win fights, along with black tentacles, and those are lower level spells.
If you have to go out of your way to make weak(er) than normal characters then you could have a system problem.
Saying you dont have a problem, does not make it a "non-problem". I have run level 20 games also without a lot of issues, but just because I can do it, that does not mean it is ok.
Many people here have said they stop playing between levels 13 and 15 because the game gets out of control for them. I don't think everyone is building glass cannons, and you don't need to have a glass cannon, for it to be a cannon, so the "glass cannon" analogy does not really apply.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would also want a way to get FAQ's done for books that not created by the rules team.
Really, a lot of Paizo's policies regarding FAQ and Errata are in serious need of revision. I'm still baffled by the idea that they can't issue errata until a new printing of the book comes out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I am surprised by the amount of edition warring going on in this thread. I expect better from the Paizo community than hating on a game. You'd think this was RPG.net or something.
Yeah, I'd like to see Pathfinder 2 steal from 5e. Just like I wanted 5e to steal from Pathfinder. And I'd like to see Pathfinder steal from Fiasco and Fate and the FFG Star Wars. Because good ideas are good ideas.
I dont see any hate or edition warring. I see a conversation on how things from game X may or may not be a good thing for game Y.
+1 for bounded accuracy in Pathfinder Revised.
Pathfinder 1.0 has unfortunately become 3.5e's evil cousin when it comes to breaking the curve. You just need to play in a couple printed APs where a GM allows anything from the rules and doesn't routinely have "the talk" to have players artificially hold back from making PCs the "best they can be ".
Examples? Sure, I like to use level 7-8 as the "sweet spot" where PCs have interesting stuff.
Character #1 Example, Ike the Inquisitor:
Level 8 inquisitor of Ragathiel. Standard fare (bastard sword, +2 heavy shield, +2 breastplate, +2 amulet of natural armor, etc). Power attack. Dodge. Fate's Favored. Threatening Defender. (this is roughly an actual PC I know, and I've ignored 4 more feats they actually have).
That sounds like a lot of gear for a level 8 character, but then again he may also be focusing on defense. I also only see about 25 AC. Where is the rest of it coming from?
Maybe he is using combat expertise and fighting defensively to get to the low 30's, but you made it sound like that was his normal AC.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does bounded accuracy mean a fighter and wizard have the same bonus to attack or does it just mean stats(not just ability stat) have a ceiling built in such a way that characters such as a cleric and a fighter will have a meaningful difference in attack rolls, but it wont be so far apart that the cleric can not contribute in melee to what a fighter is fighting.Could you elaborate Peter? What do you find so horrid about every single last one of them?Sure.
1. Bounded Accuracy, even on a smaller scale, is not a desired outcome for me. The massive differences between a 1st and 20th level characters flat number (attack bonus, AC, saves, spell Dcs, ect) are desirable to me. Even within a single level the relatively large differences between various stats (say my 15th level wizards 27 AC and the party fighter’s 38) are things that give the system life and variety. Any and all capping needs only exist in the form of bonus types that are allowed, and in the amounts they are allowed in (e.g. what already exists with deflection, natural, ect).
@Wraithstrike:
Yes and no.
A fighter and a wizard that are the same level will have the same proficiency bonus added to their attack rolls (let's go simple and say they're first level, so their proficiency bonus is +2.) The Pathfinder equivalent would be "every class has the same BAB progression." A cleric would certainly be able to help out in melee if they have a decent Strength; hell, the wizard would be able to help out in melee if he has enough Strength or Dexterity (Daggers, one of the few weapons the wizard's proficient with, use Dexterity for attack and damage rolls.)
Of course, the wizard's Armor Class is 10 + his Dexterity modifier, because he can't cast spells while wearing armor he's not proficient with (read: ALL OF IT) and a dagger's only 1d4 + Str/Dex mod. Meanwhile, Studly Doo-Right the fighter's got 16 + Dex (max +2) for his AC because he started with scale mail. Hell, let's throw in a shield, so he's got another +2 AC on top of that. So, while the wizard CAN help out in melee if need be, it's probably not a good idea. (Fun fact: If you're a barbarian without armor, you add your Constitution mod to your Armor Class.)
Also, yes, I think fighters need a boost, but hell, I'm comfortable with giving them 4e Marking and 5e Second Wind/Action Surge and calling it a day.
I would prefer a ruleset where GMs can more easily "rotate the dial" on certain settings to suit their tastes. So if they want a narrower curve from Level 1 to 20, they can reduce bonuses by a certain factor, or even use a die with more sides. Alternatively, they can cap the levels, or increase the XP requirements for higher levels.You can do all those things really easily?
Like. . . super easily?
Just. . . end the game at 8 if you want? Or 6, or whatever level you like? Or just stop giving EXP at that point and finish out the story.
Want slower progression? Use the slow chart. Want slower than that? Double the values required for levels after 6 or 8 or 12 or whatever you want.
Want a smaller die size? Hey! Sub in d12s!
These are super simple changes to "suit your DM tastes". No reason to write things that simple in a book or switch to a new edition to accommodate them.
None of those approach Bounded Accuracy, while preserving the 20 level range and full range of abilities across those 20 levels. A d12 exacerbates the problem. You can use a d30, but the effect is minor compared to the modifiers you see in the high teens. Right now, you either accept widely varying modifiers, or you exclude much of the Pathfinder game.
You incorrectly assume my intentions. I don't want a new edition tomorrow, but I'm giving input about the inevitable next edition in the indeterminate future. And if it's possible to rotate dials more easily, there's less of a need to wall-off certain preferences in the game, for you or anyone.
I could be recalling this wrong, but in 5e only a fighter gets 4, maybe 5 attacks per round. Other melee classes can get 2, same with cleric of war and maybe someone else I have forgotten but fighters will always get more attacks, at the full amount.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, fighters get four attacks per round in 5e. At level 20. (Or at level 5, but only once per combat thanks to Action Surge. =p)
Barbarians, monks, paladins, and rangers are stuck with one extra attack (gained at level 5.) If you multiclass into two classes with Extra Attack, you only get one extra attack unless you have enough fighter levels to grant two extra attacks.
(And before you say "What, the monk only gets two attacks per round?! HAX" the monk flurry is "Swift action: Two unarmed strikes. This costs one ki point.")
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Monk's Martial Arts has a built in Flurry-lite, an improved TWF without ki cost.
Yes, fighters get four attacks per round in 5e. At level 20. (Or at level 5, but only once per combat thanks to Action Surge. =p)
Barbarians, monks, paladins, and rangers are stuck with one extra attack (gained at level 5.) If you multiclass into two classes with Extra Attack, you only get one extra attack unless you have enough fighter levels to grant two extra attacks.
(And before you say "What, the monk only gets two attacks per round?! HAX" the monk flurry is "Swift action: Two unarmed strikes. This costs one ki point.")
I just point it out as people have repeated and repeated, Oh even a wizard is as good as fighter in melee now. T be honest, I have no clue why the very idea of a bound accuracy concept is so off putting to folks. Almost every non-D&D game I have played has this concept built in some way.
Well if I get a vote, which of-course I don't. I never want to see bound accuracy or advantage/disadvantage in pathfinder. But, I wouldn't have a single problem with a degree of difficulty system being implemented, which would accomplish many of the same things BA did anyway.
That being said I was in the vocal minority that scoffed at the very idea of BA during the 5e play-test, and well that didn't get me anywhere anyway. So if it happens, I'll just keep playing 1e pathfinder. I like the super heroics over the top shenanigans of pathfinder.
Honestly, simply reexamining their goals for encounters would do wonders. It's not even that hard to make great encounters in this game, it's just Paizo frequently doesn't. They virtually never take the environments into consideration, almost never provide solid teamwork suggestions for NPCs, etc.I'll agree with this for the most part, but will reiterate that I think this is both useful and intentional on Paizo's part to at least some degree.
APs particularly are at least somewhat marketed to those new to the game, and scaling encounters up is way easier for an experienced GM than scaling an encounter down is for a novice GM. Given this fact, erring on the side of lower powered encounters definitely seems the way to go.
APs are marketed to people new to the game? Is there any evidence of this.
I'm currently playing ROTRL Anniversary edition and it is very hard. Close to a TPK a few times.
Specific classes change the power level of the game at certain levels like Druid archetypes who can do standard action summoning and really summoning in general.
And one cannot expect an AP to deal with all of the complexities of contrasting character power level. However, I agree with Ashiel more could be done about making encounters more interesting.
APs are marketed to people new to the game? Is there any evidence of this.
I'm currently playing ROTRL Anniversary edition and it is very hard. Close to a TPK a few times.
The one complaint seen elsewhere, over and over is the AP's are too grindy, to TPK happy and take far to much system mastery to play for most people.
Does bounded accuracy mean a fighter and wizard have the same bonus to attack or does it just mean stats(not just ability stat) have a ceiling built in such a way that characters such as a cleric and a fighter will have a meaningful difference in attack rolls, but it wont be so far apart that the cleric can not contribute in melee to what a fighter is fighting.Could you elaborate Peter? What do you find so horrid about every single last one of them?Sure.
1. Bounded Accuracy, even on a smaller scale, is not a desired outcome for me. The massive differences between a 1st and 20th level characters flat number (attack bonus, AC, saves, spell Dcs, ect) are desirable to me. Even within a single level the relatively large differences between various stats (say my 15th level wizards 27 AC and the party fighter’s 38) are things that give the system life and variety. Any and all capping needs only exist in the form of bonus types that are allowed, and in the amounts they are allowed in (e.g. what already exists with deflection, natural, ect).
@Wraithstrike:
Yes and no.
A fighter and a wizard that are the same level will have the same proficiency bonus added to their attack rolls (let's go simple and say they're first level, so their proficiency bonus is +2.) The Pathfinder equivalent would be "every class has the same BAB progression." A cleric would certainly be able to help out in melee if they have a decent Strength; hell, the wizard would be able to help out in melee if he has enough Strength or Dexterity (Daggers, one of the few weapons the wizard's proficient with, use Dexterity for attack and damage rolls.)
Of course, the wizard's Armor Class is 10 + his Dexterity modifier, because he can't cast spells while wearing armor he's not proficient with (read: ALL OF IT) and a dagger's only 1d4 + Str/Dex mod. Meanwhile, Studly Doo-Right the fighter's got 16 + Dex (max +2) for his AC because he...
Action surge and second wind apart from being non-associated mechanics (the 3.75 system is based on associated mechanics) is lazy game design.
Problems with the disparity between casters and martial characters is not fixed by giving Fighters healing and more actions. Terrible idea.
How come? I like action surge, at least - I'm less enamoured of second wind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, simply reexamining their goals for encounters would do wonders. It's not even that hard to make great encounters in this game, it's just Paizo frequently doesn't. They virtually never take the environments into consideration, almost never provide solid teamwork suggestions for NPCs, etc.I'll agree with this for the most part, but will reiterate that I think this is both useful and intentional on Paizo's part to at least some degree.
APs particularly are at least somewhat marketed to those new to the game, and scaling encounters up is way easier for an experienced GM than scaling an encounter down is for a novice GM. Given this fact, erring on the side of lower powered encounters definitely seems the way to go.
APs are marketed to people new to the game? Is there any evidence of this.
I'm currently playing ROTRL Anniversary edition and it is very hard. Close to a TPK a few times.
Specific classes change the power level of the game at certain levels like Druid archetypes who can do standard action summoning and really summoning in general.
And one cannot expect an AP to deal with all of the complexities of contrasting character power level. However, I agree with Ashiel more could be done about making encounters more interesting.
I think it's not so much that they make AP's designed for new players as it is that they design them to be playable with characters who are at around the optimization level of the iconics.
Also, the Dice Gods are always going to be a big factor in combat, and I think the APs try to include a little extra wiggle room in case of bad rolls. Heck, when I was GMing RotRL with a pretty optimized group we still had a near-TPK due to my dice rolling insanely hot during one encounter. No martial is going to enjoy taking three triple-damage Ogre Hook crits in a single round.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does bounded accuracy mean a fighter and wizard have the same bonus to attack or does it just mean stats(not just ability stat) have a ceiling built in such a way that characters such as a cleric and a fighter will have a meaningful difference in attack rolls, but it wont be so far apart that the cleric can not contribute in melee to what a fighter is fighting.
The latter. There's nothing inherent in bounded accuracy that says everyone has to have the same bonus. That's a perception of 5E's implementation of it (although isn't actually true - BAB and proficiency aren't actually equivalents, they're just similar. So all the "fighting" classes have class features to boost their attacks. A fighter chooses from a variety of fighting styles which increase either to hit or damage, for example - on top of the proficiency bonus).
The key feature is that the difference between untrained and "theoretical best" is narrower (in any endeavour to which bounded accuracy is applied).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
APs are marketed to people new to the game? Is there any evidence of this.
I'm currently playing ROTRL Anniversary edition and it is very hard. Close to a TPK a few times.
The one complaint seen elsewhere, over and over is the AP's are too grindy, to TPK happy and take far to much system mastery to play for most people.
Lets look at the difference between D&D 5e and Pathfinder in relation to published adventures.
"And I’m not talking about one of those adventures that’s just boring to read on the page. I mean that the contents of this adventure, basically from top to bottom, are generic and dull and trite and uninteresting: There is no kobold that isn’t a generic kobold."
"There is no bedroom that isn’t a generic bedroom. There is no swamp which isn’t a generic swamp. And there is absolutely nothing fantastical or wonderful or unique or memorable."
"And one eats a man’s face off (is eating it, through a hole in the wall, when you find it). They roast limbs for fun, carry molten tongs and try to shove adventurers into a furnace. There are optional feral goblin babies to kill (or to try to raise)."
"They have a song (it is lame), and a druid that moves through their bramble walls as if the brambles were no obstacle at all, and a chief that rides a giant gecko."
"That’s in 60 pages or so. Half the length of Hoard of the Dragon Queen. f@#$."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
APs are marketed to people new to the game? Is there any evidence of this.
I'm currently playing ROTRL Anniversary edition and it is very hard. Close to a TPK a few times.
The one complaint seen elsewhere, over and over is the AP's are too grindy, to TPK happy and take far to much system mastery to play for most people.
This is interesting. Most AP's have that one or two TPK level encounter but overall I see them as normal or easy. I know my current group would has no trouble with the encounters as written. I always have to buff them up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Action surge and second wind apart from being non-associated mechanics (the 3.75 system is based on associated mechanics) is lazy game design.Okay I am curious, what is your actual definition for a disassociated mechanic? I ask because disassociated mechanics are one of those weird buzz words that popped up during the edition wars that gets thrown around a lot, but is all too often used incorrectly to the point where the term itself is all but meaningless.
My understanding is that a disassociated mechanic is a mechanic that has no correlation with the in-game world. For example, PF Spellcasting is associated because the caster in game can sit down and have a meaningful discussion about how he learns spells, how he prepares them, what they do, and why they work the way they do. We have the vancian casting mechanic, but that mechanic is associated because in world there is a valid reason that it works that way.
Meanwhile 4e power progressions were pretty much disassociated, because there is no in-world explanation for why powers operate on the schedules they do. Why does my Fighter have an ability he can use only once per encounter? I don't know, and neither does he. Why does he have an ability he can use only once per day? Well it might be because he gets too tired to do it again, but if he's really that tired why can he use a different daily power that is higher level and more stressful? With vancian spellcasting we know the reason (the wizard memorized certain spells a certain number of times, he can't spontaneously convert one to another), but with 4e there is no attempt at that kind of explanation, and the most common justification boils down to some narrative mumbo jumbo about "Well I could try to do it again, but the set of circumstances that lets me use it only happens once a day". So totally disassociated.
Okay, so what was the point of that diatribe on disassociated mechanics? Because I want to talk about Second Wind and Action Surge, and argue for the capability for these...
Yes that's what disassociated and associated mechanics mean. And you did a great job of explaining the differences.
Even though I loved TOB: The Book of Nine Swords, I wasn't impressed with the refresh (disassociated) mechanic.
And yes I agree you can have per day resources and it can still be an associated mechanic, healing surge is definitely a disassociated mechanic (martial characters can't heal without magic) and action surge is disassociated but is pretending to be associated.
Pathfinder Unchained's stamina system does a better job of explaining the 'action surge' than D&D 5e . What can martial characters do when they are desperate, when it's do or die time, what are their limitations? It's certainly more than just a few extra attacks every day.
Edit: The Unchained Barbarian's temporary hit points is associated and can only be used a certain amount of times per day. It's different to healing and it makes sense rather than I want the Fighter to heal just like the Cleric does, that is homogenising classes something D&D 4e was extremely guilty of doing.
There needs to be disparity between classes just not a huge power and/or option disparity.
Yes, yes, I want a new edition in the middle future. But I'm not having this discussion again so soon, after we just had this thread a few weeks ago.
This is interesting. Most AP's have that one or two TPK level encounter but overall I see them as normal or easy. I know my current group would has no trouble with the encounters as written. I always have to buff them up.
APs are marketed to people new to the game? Is there any evidence of this.
I'm currently playing ROTRL Anniversary edition and it is very hard. Close to a TPK a few times.
The one complaint seen elsewhere, over and over is the AP's are too grindy, to TPK happy and take far to much system mastery to play for most people.
Is there a significant difference between the older APs and the newer APs?
Have they got significantly harder (obviously not hard enough, from what you say) or have they remained unchanged?
Lets look at the difference between D&D 5e and Pathfinder in relation to published adventures.
I never said they were boring. Paizo's Ap are hands down anything but boring. What I said is the perception they have is they are often grindy, pron to TPK's and almost demand system mastery and optimization.
I would say, as I have ran three of these, that the last is for sure true. Its geared toward optimization IMO. Groups who do not do this have a much harder time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is interesting. Most AP's have that one or two TPK level encounter but overall I see them as normal or easy. I know my current group would has no trouble with the encounters as written. I always have to buff them up.
YMMV, I have seen some groups have cake walks, even a group I ran in RL Savage tide with zero casters dominate it. And I have seen groups who were not optimizes get TPKed left and right. Not because of bad decision, not because of "Bad" builds, but because they made non optimized build choices.
HP's in 5e are not wounds, they are luck more than anything. You avoid a big it, you take bruises, you have some scratches or minor wounds. 2nd wind is you "walking it off" or working though it.Also recall in 5e you "heal" 100% after a long rest.
You guys recall star wars revised vitality/wound system?
Second Wind (Fighter class ability) is a bonus action in 5e.