I can't believe I'm saying this, but I want a new edition...


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 912 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
it is a pointless argument because Paizo and WOTC are rival companies, and 'bounded accuracy' is 5e's trademark. It is what defines the two different systems and game publishers.

Yeah. And who could possibly imagine Paizo "borrowing" any concepts from WotC for their system. Ridiculous!

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
it is a pointless argument because Paizo and WOTC are rival companies, and 'bounded accuracy' is 5e's trademark. It is what defines the two different systems and game publishers.
Yeah. And who could possibly imagine Paizo "borrowing" any concepts from WotC for their system. Ridiculous!

Not here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can see this thread is going well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sgt. Ed Itionwarrior wrote:
I can see this thread is going well.

"would you like a chair? I brought popcorn!"


Sgt. Ed Itionwarrior wrote:
I can see this thread is going well.

Actually very well.

We debunked the myths surrounding Bounded Accuracy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, since it was brought up...

I really liked Bloodied, second winds, and minions from 4th edition. While the first is really just a house rule as easy as saying a thing, the other two could be a really good edition to Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I always describe characters at half HP as bloodied when I'm running Pathfinder. It helps to give in-game cues on how the fight is going.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Albatoonoe wrote:

You know, since it was brought up...

I really liked Bloodied, second winds, and minions from 4th edition. While the first is really just a house rule as easy as saying a thing, the other two could be a really good edition to Pathfinder.

Some of the options associated with Wound Thresholds in Pathfinder Unchained are reminiscent of the 4e abilities that triggered off of the bloodied condition. ^_^

Liberty's Edge

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:

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.

People gravitate to games that have rules they like. For instance, I loathe the entire idea of Bounded Accuracy and hope it dies in a fire. That's why I'm playing pathfinder and not 5e. I wouldn't be shocked if I'd get pushback if I went to the 5e forum and told them I couldn't wait until a version of 5e came out were they got rid of Bounded Accuracy for some other good idea like how pathfinder does it. I don't know how you expected a different reaction here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Jester David wrote:

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 agree with you (on both points, really - the aggression in this thread is unpleasant).

However, I think it's worth bearing in mind that context is important. A good idea in a simple, limited game (like 5E) may not be a good idea in a complicated, option-rich game (like PF). It's kind of the mirror image of those treating proficiency bonus as BAB. The concepts are similar, but not identical and analysing "differences" based purely on that between the two systems isn't particularly fruitful.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
graystone wrote:
Jester David wrote:

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.

People gravitate to games that have rules they like. For instance, I loathe the entire idea of Bounded Accuracy and hope it dies in a fire. That's why I'm playing pathfinder and not 5e. I wouldn't be shocked if I'd get pushback if I went to the 5e forum and told them I couldn't wait until a version of 5e came out were they got rid of Bounded Accuracy for some other good idea like how pathfinder does it. I don't know how you expected a different reaction here.

Because it's possible to disagree without getting aggressive?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
graystone wrote:
Jester David wrote:

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.

People gravitate to games that have rules they like. For instance, I loathe the entire idea of Bounded Accuracy and hope it dies in a fire. That's why I'm playing pathfinder and not 5e. I wouldn't be shocked if I'd get pushback if I went to the 5e forum and told them I couldn't wait until a version of 5e came out were they got rid of Bounded Accuracy for some other good idea like how pathfinder does it. I don't know how you expected a different reaction here.
Because it's possible to disagree without getting aggressive?

I haven't seen anything I'd count as excessively aggressive. I don't see people asking "if you like 5e stuff, why aren't you playing that instead of trying to turn our game we like into it?" as aggressive. I don't begrudge people for liking another system but I don't then got to that other system's site and try to change it into another game I like. It comes off as "you've playing it wrong, this game does it better" when you LIKE how it is. The reaction is to be expected.


Jester David wrote:

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.

Not one poster on this thread said they hated D&D 5e, bounded accuracy...well that's a totally different story.

@ Steve Geddes, passionate not aggressive there is a big difference.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
graystone wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
graystone wrote:
Jester David wrote:

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.

People gravitate to games that have rules they like. For instance, I loathe the entire idea of Bounded Accuracy and hope it dies in a fire. That's why I'm playing pathfinder and not 5e. I wouldn't be shocked if I'd get pushback if I went to the 5e forum and told them I couldn't wait until a version of 5e came out were they got rid of Bounded Accuracy for some other good idea like how pathfinder does it. I don't know how you expected a different reaction here.
Because it's possible to disagree without getting aggressive?
I haven't seen anything I'd count as excessively aggressive. I don't see people asking "if you like 5e stuff, why aren't you playing that instead of trying to turn our game we like into it?" as aggressive. I don't begrudge people for liking another system but I don't then got to that other system's site and try to change it into another game I like. It comes off as "you've playing it wrong, this game does it better" when you LIKE how it is. The reaction is to be expected.

I expect better, personally. I consider allegations of lying and stupidity aggressive. Similarly "loathing and hoping it dies in a fire" - to me that doesn't sound like not begrudging someone what they like - you hope what they like ceases to exist.

"This is what I like or don't like and this is why" is useful. "That's stupid/People who say that are lying or don't understand/I hope it dies in a fire" is not useful.

There is no correct way to game and different preferences will result in different answers to the question of what's a "good" element of an RPG rule set. Paizo are inclusive and welcoming of all players of all games - they don't need defensive reactions on their behalf. They need polite, considerate discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seerow wrote:
Quote:
I do agree. Throwing monsters that once challenged the PC back at them can be fun. But that' works just as well with bounded as unbounded accuracy. While the PCs aren't really threatened either way, difference is in one the monster is ineffectual and can't hit or make a save. It's pretty much a cut scene.

There's a pretty wide range between "Can't effectively hit or make a save" and "Exactly the same numbers as a level appropriate monster". Like as wide as a 10 point swing between those. Further if you expand that to include the other extreme (monster higher enough level than the party that they can't meaningfully affect it).

Add to that the part where different numbers scale at different rates for different characters (so yes the fighter might auto hit, but the rogue does not. The wizard's AC is still on the RNG even if the melee characters' are not. Saving throws in general scale slower than hit/AC) and the range of what can be threatening broadens even more.

Just skipping straight to "cut scene" and deciding that the combat isn't worth playing out is something that can happen, but the threshold for which it should happen is much higher than what you imply.

I just want to toss out that I frequently make use of enemies that are drastically below the party's level range. It's nothing for a ton of low level mooks to serve as a meaningful factor in encounters I run. The catch is, they aren't challenging because of their raw statistics but because of what sort of tactics they can bring to the table.

Which is my way of saying "You are so right".


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Morzadian wrote:
Jester David wrote:

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.

Not one poster on this thread said they hated D&D 5e, bounded accuracy...well that's a totally different story.

@ Steve Geddes, passionate not aggressive there is a big difference.

Sure. I don't object to the passion. I object to the aggression.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:
So when you have a scale of +/-10 you quickly have situations where the monsters cannot miss the wizard but cannot hit the fighter.

1. That wizard clearly isn't trying very hard.

2. Gee, who ever would have thought that all that plate mail, shield, and kickass combat ability should ever amount to anything. That's just crazy talk! Man Mr. Wizard, it's sure is amazing that no matter how hard I try or the fact I'm literally every tier of armor more proficient than you, plus shields, magic shwag, and class features, I'm only 20% harder to hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
graystone wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
graystone wrote:
Jester David wrote:

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.

People gravitate to games that have rules they like. For instance, I loathe the entire idea of Bounded Accuracy and hope it dies in a fire. That's why I'm playing pathfinder and not 5e. I wouldn't be shocked if I'd get pushback if I went to the 5e forum and told them I couldn't wait until a version of 5e came out were they got rid of Bounded Accuracy for some other good idea like how pathfinder does it. I don't know how you expected a different reaction here.
Because it's possible to disagree without getting aggressive?
I haven't seen anything I'd count as excessively aggressive. I don't see people asking "if you like 5e stuff, why aren't you playing that instead of trying to turn our game we like into it?" as aggressive. I don't begrudge people for liking another system but I don't then got to that other system's site and try to change it into another game I like. It comes off as "you've playing it wrong, this game does it better" when you LIKE how it is. The reaction is to be expected.

I expect better, personally. I consider allegations of lying and stupidity aggressive. Similarly "loathing and hoping it dies in a fire" - to me that doesn't sound like not begrudging someone what they like - you hope what they like ceases to exist.

"This is what I like or don't like and this is why" is useful. "That's stupid/People who say that are lying or don't understand/I hope it dies in a fire" is not useful.

There is no correct way to game and different preferences will result in different answers to...

Steve, I agree with you.

From the amount replies about 'bounded accuracy' and thoughtful replies, pro-Pathfinder supporters did read and listen to what the D&D 5e supporters had to say.

It might of become a little heated, but it wasn't spiteful or insulting on purpose.

'Bounded Accuracy' is a very contentious issue. Many of us were part of the 5e play-test (myself included), and 'bounded accuracy' was the deal breaker that made us stay with Pathfinder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

AC 44 is pretty easy to achieve for anyone willing to invest in it.

And for anyone who does, that Level 15 orc is a joke who will probably flail around missing for two rounds and then die. And an Orc Barbarian is about the best case scenario for an NPC that can hit high AC. Look through the NPC Codex and you'll find things like a CR 17 monk with +24 to hit.

Couple of things. Ranger instant-enemy's for +8 to hit and damage against the high AC foe. If the foe has really high AC, he quarries as well for another +2 to hit and auto-confirms criticals against the foe (removing their inherent crit-resistance from AC). Assuming no other stat modifiers, this sets his to-hit at +25/+20/+15/+10. A mere +3 stat brings them to 28, haste to +29, and a +1 weapon to +30/+30/+25/+20/+15. This is before factoring in any common buffs such as heroism or greater heroism, flanking, inspire courage, or greater magic weapon or something.

In other words, said NPC has to actually make use of things like daily limited abilities when fighting the PCs.

Oh, and secondly...

1. NPC codex is busted and sucks butt.
2. You said monk. Shame on you.

Quote:
If all the encounters in an adventure need to be rewritten to provide any kind of challenge to competent players, that isn't a good sign. I haven't played 5E, but if it's found a way to avoid that, I'd like to give it a try.

Most of the encounters need to be rewritten because of...

1. Incorrect rules (e.g. noting that enemies charge through snow).
2. Bad design (nonsensical monster placement, nonsensical monsters "I'm a guy who was murdered by people who cannot create undead, cannot control undead, and just generally fold to undead. I then came back as a sentient intelligent undead, which is why I'm trying to kill you instead of them because reasons").
3. Other snafus ("it's wearing armor, but not really, even though it's in broken half plate, run it like it was naked instead").
4. Poor NPC tactics ("Yes I'm a wizard who was aware of you coming, no I have invested little in staying alive, and yes I was polite and didn't bother to cast any spells beforehand").


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Morzadian wrote:

Steve, I agree with you.

From the amount replies about 'bounded accuracy' and thoughtful replies, pro-Pathfinder supporters did read and listen to what the D&D 5e supporters had to say.

It might of become a little heated, but it wasn't spiteful or insulting on purpose.

'Bounded Accuracy' is a very contentious issue. Many of us were part of the 5e play-test (myself included), and 'bounded accuracy' was the deal breaker that made us stay with Pathfinder.

Sure. As I said I have no problem with the argument (FWIW, I don't think PF2 should use bounded accuracy).

I object to the "heat", though and always will, even when (as now) I agree with the people who are being aggressive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Bruno Kristensen wrote:
I don't think anyone is in favor of a "nuke & start over" new edition, but I for sure would like a Pathfinder 1.5, where all the errata had been taken in, where some of the feats are dropped or amended, where there is perhaps not 40+ base classes with 10+ archetypes per class, etc.

Yeah, it's like this time I went into an ice cream shop and they had more flavors than I wanted. I told them that I don't like Ube or Mexican Chocolate, so they should set fire to their store and rebuild it without those flavors.


graystone wrote:
People gravitate to games that have rules they like. For instance, I loathe the entire idea of Bounded Accuracy and hope it dies in a fire.

This is a term I'm not too familiar with "Bounded Accuracy"? If it's what I THINK it is, then I'm actually a fan... but what is the general definition and what is it that you dislike so much about it?

My theory, is that it harkens back to the 2E days of having a minimum and a maximum on numbers. Your AC started at 10 and lowered to -10 (ish). Strength topped out at certain point with higher numbers being reserved for giants and such... People who were really good with Attacking didn't completely overshadow those who weren't...

It really is one of the things I miss in 3.X. We have too many games going where one character has an AC of 20 and another has an AC of 39-45... anything that can POSSIBLY hit P2 NEVER misses P1...

It's a bit frustrating sometimes.

Am I close? Is that what people are debating here?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Most of the debate has been about 5E's specific incarnation of it, but yes ultimately. It's about narrowing the scale of power from incompetent to world's best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Most of the debate has been about 5E's specific incarnation of it, but yes ultimately. It's about narrowing the scale of power from incompetent to world's best.

Thanks!

Then yeah, I've never read up on 5E, but I love the idea of narrowing the field. Pathfinder's open ended stats seem more like a trap or an illusion anyway.

When we jumped over from 2E, I was very excited about the idea of being able to increase my stats by leveling... I thought it would lead to more well rounded, less cookie cutter characters. Until I realized that everything else was scaling at the same time, if not faster... and every bonus you got had to be put into your 'main stat' just to stay relevant.

Same with the idea of 'masterwork weapons'. Loved the idea that a weapon didn't have to be magical in order to give you a bonus... lost all meaning when you take a group of goblins with 'masterwork' Dogslicer... weapons described as shards of garbage tied together to make makeshift weapons >.<

Options are only options if you don't HAVE to take them. If the system builds in the assumption that you have boosted specific stats and wearing specific gear at a specific level using a specific WBL... then the 'options' were illusions at best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

It has far reaching consequences (at least the way 5E did it) - the very best in the world doesn't end up that much better than a novice. So levelling is a much more gradual increase in power.

Which is why I personally don't think it's such a good "fit" for pathfinder - I think the obscene difference between fragile level ones and earth shaking level twenties is really part of the game. In 5E you start more powerful, but you don't increase in scope of action very rapidly.


Steve Geddes wrote:

It has far reaching consequences (at least the way 5E did it) - the very best in the world doesn't end up that much better than a novice. So levelling is a much more gradual increase in power.

Which is why I personally don't think it's such a good "fit" for pathfinder - I think the obscene difference between fragile level ones and earth shaking level twenties is really part of the game. In 5E you start more powerful, but you don't increase in scope of action very rapidly.

It's been a long time since we had level 1s and level 20's (or more realistically level 10s) in the same party. So I'm not sure how much I'd notice that...

My issue was about the obscene difference between a level 10 rogue and a level 10 ranger... or sorcerer or anything really...

I just like the idea of a threat to one character in the group, is also a threat to another character in the group. They have different strengths and weaknesses... but what I see now is a mild inconvenience to one character is a death sentence to another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Yeah, it does solve that problem (to some degree, I confess I haven't played that much of it, but so far nearly every encounter seems relevant to nearly every PC and vice versa).

However, you end up with level twenties not being able to climb sheer cliffs (or with untrained novices having a chance to do so). That's the problem I envisage with trying to port it into a second edition of pathfinder.

I would recommend giving 5E a try though. It's not my cup of tea really, but my group enjoys it and it's a good compromise game for us (not too heavy, not too light).


Steve Geddes wrote:

Yeah, it does solve that problem (to some degree, I confess I haven't played that much of it, but so far nearly every encounter seems relevant to nearly every PC and vice versa).

However, you end up with level twenties not being able to climb sheer cliffs (or with untrained novices having a chance to do so). That's the problem I envisage with trying to port it into a second edition of pathfinder.

Isn't one of the complaints about high-level games, that there aren't any challenges left?

I guess I don't have a problem with not having much chance at some things. Actually I have a 14th level paladin who with his armor penalties... still can't climb nuthin. His standard method is for the rogue and sorcerer to get to the top, drop a rope and pull him up.

I like all the extra rules needing creative solutions or ropes or pitons or grappling hooks or something that makes climbing the cliff a challenge. At any level. There's something that gets a little boring when the environment isn't a threat anymore (endure elements, remove disease, teleport, etc...) We had that trouble in Serpent skull with the alchemist. It didn't take long before we breezed through a lot of the 'unique' challenges of the AP.


phantom1592 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Most of the debate has been about 5E's specific incarnation of it, but yes ultimately. It's about narrowing the scale of power from incompetent to world's best.

Thanks!

Then yeah, I've never read up on 5E, but I love the idea of narrowing the field. Pathfinder's open ended stats seem more like a trap or an illusion anyway.

When we jumped over from 2E, I was very excited about the idea of being able to increase my stats by leveling... I thought it would lead to more well rounded, less cookie cutter characters. Until I realized that everything else was scaling at the same time, if not faster... and every bonus you got had to be put into your 'main stat' just to stay relevant.

Same with the idea of 'masterwork weapons'. Loved the idea that a weapon didn't have to be magical in order to give you a bonus... lost all meaning when you take a group of goblins with 'masterwork' Dogslicer... weapons described as shards of garbage tied together to make makeshift weapons >.<

Options are only options if you don't HAVE to take them. If the system builds in the assumption that you have boosted specific stats and wearing specific gear at a specific level using a specific WBL... then the 'options' were illusions at best.

I'm not of a fan of mandatory options often labelled as "feat taxes" on forums.

In a previous post I mentioned my gaming group doesn't play with ability enhancement magical items.

We are currently 6th level, 4 players and AC ranging from 19-22 (24 with buff spells), its pretty manageable at the moment, especially when fighting large amounts of opponents, opponents with trip (CMD not AC) and flanking opponents.

And I can't see the contrast in AC changing much at higher levels.

If something is not working for your gaming group, create some house rules to fix it. If unsure or uncertain post them in the home-brew section (of these forums) and dedicated home brewers we give you some useful feedback.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah the discussion yesterday about +X bonuses, bounded accuracy, and monster creation was actually very civil and productive. People had different ideas but there was no belittling the opposition or vitriol. I really enjoyed the discussion even if I didn't agree with everything that was being said.

If minions were ported over I'd want to see them vastly revised from their 4e version. 4e minions seemed like these weird "slightly out of phase with reality" monsters from the Far Realm to me - they are either perfectly healthy, or dead. AoE spells, which normally are your best bet against a bunch of mooks, don't work very well on them because they all have effective Evasion. They don't roll damage so every hit from them is exactly the same - I dunno, they just gave me a weird vibe of not quite using the same physics as a normal person.


ryric wrote:

Yeah the discussion yesterday about +X bonuses, bounded accuracy, and monster creation was actually very civil and productive. People had different ideas but there was no belittling the opposition or vitriol. I really enjoyed the discussion even if I didn't agree with everything that was being said.

If minions were ported over I'd want to see them vastly revised from their 4e version. 4e minions seemed like these weird "slightly out of phase with reality" monsters from the Far Realm to me - they are either perfectly healthy, or dead. AoE spells, which normally are your best bet against a bunch of mooks, don't work very well on them because they all have effective Evasion. They don't roll damage so every hit from them is exactly the same - I dunno, they just gave me a weird vibe of not quite using the same physics as a normal person.

Not a fan of the concept of statistically abstract monsters, there must be a better way of doing it.

For all intent and purposes Paizo's Monster Codex is similar to D&D 4e's Monster Manual with their minions, soldiers brutes and controllers. Except with added background text that can be seen in D&D 5e Monster Manual.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I personally would not like to see a new version of Pathfinder, but I do think the class and feat bloat is getting a little excessive. As a GM in PFS it is difficult to keep up with all the variation. In a home game I would limit classes and feats to fit the setting. I do agree that high level Pathfinder (level 15+) gets a little crazy but it is suppose to. If Paizo wants to do a new game system then branch out into different genres, a modern or sci-fi setting but please do not give us Pathfinder 2.0....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
ryric wrote:

Yeah the discussion yesterday about +X bonuses, bounded accuracy, and monster creation was actually very civil and productive. People had different ideas but there was no belittling the opposition or vitriol. I really enjoyed the discussion even if I didn't agree with everything that was being said.

If minions were ported over I'd want to see them vastly revised from their 4e version. 4e minions seemed like these weird "slightly out of phase with reality" monsters from the Far Realm to me - they are either perfectly healthy, or dead. AoE spells, which normally are your best bet against a bunch of mooks, don't work very well on them because they all have effective Evasion. They don't roll damage so every hit from them is exactly the same - I dunno, they just gave me a weird vibe of not quite using the same physics as a normal person.

Not a fan of the concept of statistically abstract monsters, there must be a better way of doing it.

Honestly I am not entirely sure what the pushback against abstract monsters is. I mean the only real difference is you don't get designers fudging back end statistics to make it hit their target anyway. Seriously it doesn't take long flipping through the MM to find examples of monsters with outrageously high strength or way more hit dice than average in an attempt to hit a certain threshold of hit/damage/hp/whatever.

You will almost never see a monster past low levels without an arbitrary number of natural armor. There is not any logic or reason behind the natural armor bonuses granted, it is all about taking the stats that are already there and pushing the overall AC up to where they think it will be.

You'll never see creatures with abnormally low skills, even if the stat block indicates they should. If the stats say a monster should be bad at hiding, but they want it to hide, they add arbitrary racial bonuses to the hide check.

I can go on, but basically the point is with every monster they have certain things they are attempting to accomplish, and fudge everything else in the stat block to make that happen. Yes it ends up being slightly more organic as that fudging can sometimes result in numbers higher or lower in a different area that you don't care enough about to fudge upwards... but if you don't care about it chances are it's not going to be relevant in the end, and players aren't going to notice.

Now I did look at the Unchained Simple Monster creation system yesterday... and it is not perfect. It is actually surprisingly better than I would have expected, but there is a lack of flexibility there. Specifically I am disappointed by having a max of 3-4 special options (most mid level creatures seem to have more special options than what is provided by this system), and that every option is valued the same (so I can choose to have Scent, or to have Regeneration. And this is supposed to provide a balanced monster). I also really don't understand some of the damage values they picked (sorry but I just cannot imagine a level 20 caster dealing 40-60 damage per hit unbuffed with a melee attack).

So yeah, not happy with specifics of implementation, but still optimistic about the potential of a system that lets you generate a monster by picking and choosing appropriate options from a relatively short list rather than building it from scratch by hit dice and calculations. This is an area where I'd like to see some homebrew takes on it.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

ryric wrote:

Yeah the discussion yesterday about +X bonuses, bounded accuracy, and monster creation was actually very civil and productive. People had different ideas but there was no belittling the opposition or vitriol. I really enjoyed the discussion even if I didn't agree with everything that was being said.

If minions were ported over I'd want to see them vastly revised from their 4e version. 4e minions seemed like these weird "slightly out of phase with reality" monsters from the Far Realm to me - they are either perfectly healthy, or dead. AoE spells, which normally are your best bet against a bunch of mooks, don't work very well on them because they all have effective Evasion. They don't roll damage so every hit from them is exactly the same - I dunno, they just gave me a weird vibe of not quite using the same physics as a normal person.

I had no problem abstracting minions.

It's like James Bond ducking behind cover and taking each goon out with a single shot, but still needing to respect that they could very well shoot him back and it would hurt (unlike say, the damage a lvl 1 archer would do to a level 10 archer).

You've got the guys the heroes can stab through the heart or behead in one hit without it feeling like beating up harmless kittens.

The damage had no roll because it presumably there were a bunch of minions to roll for. I think you could easily fix it, ie if the minion hits with a longsword for 11 damage, that's essentially 1d8+7.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Petty Alchemy wrote:

I had no problem abstracting minions.

It's like James Bond ducking behind cover and taking each goon out with a single shot, but still needing to respect that they could very well shoot him back and it would hurt (unlike say, the damage a lvl 1 archer would do to a level 10 archer).

You've got the guys the heroes can stab through the heart or behead in one hit without it feeling like beating up harmless kittens.

The damage had no roll because it presumably there were a bunch of minions to roll for. I think you could easily fix it, ie if the minion hits with a longsword for 11 damage, that's essentially 1d8+7.

But if James Bond threw a grenade into the middle of a group of 4e minions, some would be dead while others would be perfectly unscathed. Or, if the GM was like mine, James would make one attack roll and apply it to all the minions so the entire group would be perfectly unscathed or dead. Also all the minions made one attack roll for the whole group so six minions either hit James six times or not at all. I've said before that I had 4e GMs that really emphasized the "gaminess."

Really the immunity to all "half damage" things bugs me a lot. It creates a guy that can potentially walk unscathed through a warzone with explosions everywhere and cascading lava and fire, where repeated instances of half damage would eventually wear down the actual "tough" monster but the minion is just fine because reasons.

Heck, it would solve a lot of problems for me if you just gave minions 2 hp. Making a Reflex save or the like would do 1 hp damage, so you can guarantee taking out the group with 2 AoE attacks. 2hp is still low enough that they die in one actual hit as well.

Edit: Also there was the exploit of find a level 27 minion, use an effect that did 1 point of guaranteed damage, and catapult from 1st to 9th level from the xp. Silly but it illustrates a problem with the minion system.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

The hivemind minions with one roll for the group is a GM decision rather than the RAW of it.

The other scenarios (walking through a warzone unscathed, finding a lvl 27 minion at lvl 1) are statistically insignificant.

I don't remember if the book explains this, but minions should always be relative to the PCs. Something lvl 27 should never be represented as a minion for lvl 1 PCs.

Counter exploit: Find a high CR monster without flight or long range attacks, whittle it down from a height it can't reach, gain a ton of exp.
Or drink a potion of Fly so it truly has no chance of climbing up to where you are.

Edit: The Tarrasque is a favored example for a creature that has no answer to flight unless the person is flying low enough for it to jump to his level.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

I expect better, personally. I consider allegations of lying and stupidity aggressive. Similarly "loathing and hoping it dies in a fire" - to me that doesn't sound like not begrudging someone what they like - you hope what they like ceases to exist.

"This is what I like or don't like and this is why" is useful. "That's stupid/People who say that are lying or don't understand/I hope it dies in a fire" is not useful.

There is no correct way to game and different preferences will result in different answers to the question of what's a "good" element of an RPG rule set. Paizo are inclusive and welcoming of all players of all games - they don't need defensive reactions on their behalf. They need polite, considerate discussion.

Steve, I don't begrudge people for liking bounded accuracy, please don't begrudge MY complete loathing for it. I went through the 5e playtest and this was the main reason I went running away from the system as quickly as I could. 'Not liking it' does a disservice to HOW much I dislike bounded accuracy. "I hope it dies in a fire" is quite useful to explain just how much I dislike it. I didn't nag people about liking it better than sliced bread in their posts or go to the 5e site and do the same about pathfinder options.

Shadow Lodge

+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).

For the "big fights" of the day, he employs judgements, destructive smite, rage, bane. AC35 while raging (otherwise AC37). Touch AC20 or AC22. Swinging for 1d10+19 plus 2d6 (4d6 if you include vicious). Uses a mere 3000gp rod to ensure keen edge, heroism and most spells last 160 mins which is plenty for dungeon romps. Saves are all excellent as well, +12 range. He hasn't even cast divine favor here.

Believe if or not, Ike is a capable "tank" but is not built for tanking - but well-roundedness, bringing plenty of skills, spells and offensive punch.

Nothing spoilers below, just general references to undetailed monsters.

At level 8 in Runelords, he's at a certain farm with a wonderful tone set by Nick Logue. The main melee BBEGs (Ru--, Cr--) swing for +14/+7. Most spells are DC17 from the main level 8 caster BBEG.

At level 8 in Kingmaker, he's at a certain town with a wonderful tone set by Greg Vaughan. The main melee BBEG (a certain blue-grey skinned creature) swings for +14/+9. Even with a flank from his allies, he's fishing for a 19-20 to hit Ike. The whole table would cheer if she managed to hit Ike with a spell or touch attack.

At level 8 in Council of Thieves, he's squaring off with a certain weakened duke (holy smoke this guy should be scary!). Oh wait, his attack line is +15/+15/+15/+15/+10/+10. He's alone, so we're fishing for 20s against this skill+DPR character that apparently doubles as an unhittable tank!

Pretty much, Ike can "have his way" with any level 8 AP. In fact, he can probably solo them.

Except, Ike's not alone...

Character #2 Example, Gary the Gunslinging Paladin

Yeah, Gary's decided to play in the AP, too (another real example PC I know).

Gary's an interesting mysterious stranger1/rogue2 who saw the light of Erastil as the Kingmaker group put down roots and now has 5 levels in paladin. He's pretty generic, just a +1 reliable double-barrel pistol, a +2 headband of charisma. The rest doesn't really matter.

Ignoring sneak attack and first attack double damage, he's firing at touch AC (rarely a creature over 15 in that department) for +12/+12/+7 and 1d8+16 if he can smite. Engage the double-barrels for +8/+8/+8/+8/+3/+3 and he's pretty much shooting for up to 120 damage in a round vs touch AC (and likely hitting when there's no misfire).

The average HP of a printed AP BBEG at level 8? Yeah he has like 65-100hp and is dead in the first or second round.

Worried about Gary falling to a saving throw? His low save is +13 and he's not even wearing a cloak. Of course, he's irrepressible for the bulk of those Will saves.

Except Ike and Gary aren't alone...

They may have brought an alchemist (with rapid shot and fast bombs) and a magus (with magic lineage'd shocking grasp) along for the ride. I should also explain both of these can do similar damage per round, often targeting touch AC as well.

This is also to say that someone didn't bring along several castings of haste as well (it just takes a 5th PC who is a bard who's also inspiring... oh my god, or an oracle/shaman/witch/wizard/sorcerer .. with appropriate efforts to unlock haste).

Sooooo... bounded accuracy?

After playing ten of the printed APs that Paizo themselves writes for the PCs they enable through rules... I'd love for the thematic feel of a chapter to come through, and for the scary BBEG to deliver on the wonderful vibes that writers like Vaughan/Logue/Pett/etc conjure up.

In the hands of competent PC-crafters, it's pretty much stacking effects and traits obliterating the math the game was built on (math that carried from 2e to 3.5e to PF and has gotten further obliterated each step along the way).

GMs running Paizo's excellently crafted APs have a few options. Soup up the adventures (if they have the time, and it's a decent amount of time), wonder why Paizo doesn't print APs that challenge the PCs they enable, have "the talk" and encourage players to not take the options that are clearly the best for their PCs, or to hold back PC leveling a few levels (so it's actually level 5 characters taking on the section that says "PCs should be level 8 when they begin X..").

Part of some of the beauty of 5e's bounded accuracy is that it actually fixes this particular case where people blow away the game's math. I'd absolutely love a PF 2.0 that addressed the high end of the power curve in the leveling sweet spot, so we could have people playing awesome thematic characters (alchemists, gunslingers, magi) in awesome thematic APs, but not destroying the challenge of adventures that Paizo themselves print (at the levels they are intended for).

I imagine the people who are against the very idea of bounded accuracy are coming from a standpoint where either: (a) their preference is games where PCs take almost no damage and resolve combat in a single round or two. Or.. (b) feel people should play with house rules that prevent the obliteration of the power curve (and if they are continually playing with such house rules, would then endorse said house rules becoming part of Pathfinder 2.0 as an essential balancing element).


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I think bounded accuracy is stupid.

The maths in this game aren't hard. My 9 year old plays with us.

Needing to make maths a 9 year old can do simpler is silly imo.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
I think bounded accuracy is stupid. The maths in this game aren't hard.

Bounded accuracy isn't about the math.

It's about playing a game with mechanics whose extremes can't be abused such that they'd interfere with telling and sharing an awesome story.

If a table doesn't have problems with the numerical extremes in printed adventures, then they're already using "gentleman's" bounded accuracy without even knowing or calling it such.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:
I imagine the people who are against the very idea of bounded accuracy are coming from a standpoint where either: (a) their prference is games where PCs take almost no damage and resolve combat in a single round or two. Or.. (b) feel people should play with house rules that prevent the obliteration of the power curve (and if they are continually playing with such house rules, would then endorse said house rules becoming part of Pathfinder 2.0 as an essential balancing element).

For me, bounded accuracy destroys any sense of accomplishment or growth. At end levels of the game, I can be fighting the same foes or failing the same skill rolls. That is NOT the game for me. It totally has 0% to do with your a or b. The best or worst optimized characters still have real growth in pathfinder, 5e seems more like characters that stay first level characters with slightly better abilities as time goes by instead of leveling in the pathfinder sense.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Could be worse.

You could have 4e's "Okay, I'm adding half my level, my... Charisma mod, because I need that for this power for some reason... plus an extra +4 because I'm actually proficient with longswords and that's what I'm using. Am I missing something? Oh, the warlord's giving me +2 because he's within 20' of me shouting at me, the half-elf's giving all of us +1 because he's a half elf, I get another +1 because I used a power on my last turn and I rolled high but not too high, it's Friday so I get another +1, but my fighter overdid it a bit at the inn for lunch, so he gets a -1 to this attack roll. How long did that take to figure out? Who's President now?" math. (And yes, I'm exaggerating, but only slightly.)

Shadow Lodge

graystone wrote:
For me, bounded accuracy destroys any sense of accomplishment or growth.

I certainly know my paladin who is playing in a "bounded accuracy" system feels like he's grown when he's defeating an ettin or gibbering mouther on his own at 8th level when he was only able to really defeat a goblin on his own at 1st level.

graystone wrote:
At end levels of the game, I can be fighting the same foes or failing the same skill rolls.

In Pathfinder (lacking bounded accuracy), I recently played an adventure printed by Paizo where I was still fighting goblins at 7th level. In that same scenario, my cleric still regularly failed to climb or swim.

The absence of bounded accuracy didn't help me here.

Can you provide more details or an example in the case against bounded accuracy?

I want to understand the case against bounded accuracy, while working through common misconceptions about it. I'm all for an alternative in a game system to bounded accuracy, but I don't see it's existence/implementation mattering in the two cases you provided.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:

Bounded accuracy isn't about the math.

It's about playing a game with mechanics whose extremes can't be abused such that they'd interfere with telling and sharing an awesome story.

If a table doesn't have problems with the numerical extremes in printed adventures, then they're already using "gentleman's" bounded accuracy without even knowing or calling it such.

Or they're inexperienced. New players generally don't mess with the math that much.

Or the GM's doing some adjustment of creatures' stats and the CR of encounters. This last one is what I'm doing in the AP I'm currently running. And I actually quite enjoy doing it. Character/Encounter design is fun for me, and I like the challenge of representing characters presented in more mechanically effective ways without changing them thematically.

I'm not really arguing against a bit more bounded accuracy (what I'd really like are bounded Ability Scores and a lower number of buffs that stack with each other), I'm just noting that you're painting with a bit too broad a brush here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something I would like to see in a revised Pathfinder game is a clarification of order of operations. Little things like when you roll concealment against an attack.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I prefer that PF and 5e not borrow too much from each other. Too much borrowing is going to lead to the games being sorta same-y. I like that they're distinct games.

-Skeld


wakedown wrote:
graystone wrote:
For me, bounded accuracy destroys any sense of accomplishment or growth.

I certainly know my paladin who is playing in a "bounded accuracy" system feels like he's grown when he's defeating an ettin or gibbering mouther on his own at 8th level when he was only able to really defeat a goblin on his own at 1st level.

graystone wrote:
At end levels of the game, I can be fighting the same foes or failing the same skill rolls.

In Pathfinder (lacking bounded accuracy), I recently played an adventure printed by Paizo where I was still fighting goblins at 7th level. In that same scenario, my cleric still regularly failed to climb or swim.

The absence of bounded accuracy didn't help me here.

Can you provide more details or an example in the case against bounded accuracy?

I want to understand the case against bounded accuracy, while working through common misconceptions about it. I'm all for an alternative in a game system to bounded accuracy, but I don't see it's existence/implementation mattering in the two cases you provided.

Examples... I played the playtest. it didn't feel like I was getting any better even though the number in front of my level changed. What more do you want me to say?

In Pathfinder, I get better. Skills I used to fail at I advance and now I can make them without having to roll. Monsters that used to kick my butt are now pushovers. I have tangible means to see my advancement. Going through several 5e levels didn't seem to play any differently from one another.

If you like bounded accuracy, more power to you. Just don't pretend it's the game experience as pathfinder.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Something I would like to see in a revised Pathfinder game is a clarification of order of operations. Little things like when you roll concealment against an attack.

There's a dispute in this case?

Shadow Lodge

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'm not really arguing against a bit more bounded accuracy (what I'd really like are bounded Ability Scores and a lower number of buffs that stack with each other)..

Agreed.

The Pathfinder paladin/oracle with a 24-26 Charisma that uses it for his initiative and AC bonus in place of Dexterity, damage bonus, bonus to all saving throws and bonus to spell DCs is one such posterchild for bounded accuracy.

And the character who's in combat only in round 2 while simultaneously benefiting from bonuses derived from rage, divine favor + fate's favored, heroism, haste from their boots of speed, inspire courage, smite/judgement, slashing grace, power attack, freebooter's bane, weapon bane and a holy weapon is another such posterchild for the same.

451 to 500 of 912 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / I can't believe I'm saying this, but I want a new edition... All Messageboards