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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

651 to 700 of 912 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>

ryric wrote:
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.

You could give minions 1 HP per level and rule that AoE deal 1 damage per die. And, instead of 1d20x5 you could roll fistful 1d20-1d20-1d20-1d20-1d20. It's flexible enough to minimize/remove the worst-offending gaminess.

Liberty's Edge

One thing that I think needs to be fixed. Or come up with a better system. Is the CR system. I recently had to reboot the AP I was running. I'm running Carrion Crown and I added in a encounter with a Wight. One of my own not in the first module of the AP. I group with minimal optimizers. Even with increased AC and Hp as well as small increase in to hit and damage. A group of six first level players took down a CR 3 monster. Too easily imo.

I'm not a fan of the APS. I use them because they reduce time. Yet the npc design is mediocre at best imo. Even with a group of non-optimizers a group of four adventurers can go through most of the npcs. Even the BBEGs. Put one in a locked room yet giving them no area control spells. Poor equipment. Some good awful feat choices.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
healing surge is definitely a disassociated mechanic (martial characters can't heal without magic)

They do it every night they go to sleep. The only reason they can't do so faster is because you [the generic you referring to everyone who ascribes to this philosophy] say they can't.

Seerow wrote:
Second Wind is an in-combat action. Pretty sure a standard action in 4e and 5e both. Which is why I compared it to troll healing if you look at HP as 100% flesh wounds.

Ah, you have made your point then good sir. I'd have no problem with it for a more mid-level Fighter but at the lowest levels that kinda pushes it even for me.

Might make it an SU ability Fighters got then...

IMO recovery and healing should work quite differently.

And powerful recovery influences the types of games that will be played. If martial characters can fully recover indefinitely between battles it makes no difference if you have 5 encounters or that you have 1 encounter.


Morzadian wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
healing surge is definitely a disassociated mechanic (martial characters can't heal without magic)

They do it every night they go to sleep. The only reason they can't do so faster is because you [the generic you referring to everyone who ascribes to this philosophy] say they can't.

Seerow wrote:
Second Wind is an in-combat action. Pretty sure a standard action in 4e and 5e both. Which is why I compared it to troll healing if you look at HP as 100% flesh wounds.

Ah, you have made your point then good sir. I'd have no problem with it for a more mid-level Fighter but at the lowest levels that kinda pushes it even for me.

Might make it an SU ability Fighters got then...

IMO recovery and healing should work quite differently.

And powerful recovery influences the types of games that will be played. If martial characters can fully recover indefinitely between battles it makes no difference if you have 5 encounters or that you have 1 encounter.

Is the healing in the game we're discussing unlimited?

To give an example of non-resource-burning healing I use in my games, the Heal Skill cures a person as a Cure Spell of the highest level a character of the Healer's Ranks could cast, but can not restore more damage than was taken in a battle no more than twenty minutes prior to the treatment. Treatment takes one minute [but at high ranks can be done as a Full Round Action and eventually can function as Breath of Life]


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
One thing that I think needs to be fixed. Or come up with a better system. Is the CR system. I recently had to reboot the AP I was running. I'm running Carrion Crown and I added in a encounter with a Wight. One of my own not in the first module of the AP. I group with minimal optimizers. Even with increased AC and Hp as well as small increase in to hit and damage. A group of six first level players took down a CR 3 monster. Too easily imo.

Um... I'm not sure I see the problem. With 6 characters you should be treating them as APL+1... so a CR3 monster is 1 level above. Which isn't generally going to be slightly more than a speedbump for most parties. Encounters don't tend to get actually threatening until you're at APL+2-3. Especially when the encounter design is a lone monster with no bonus action economy. Seriously those are awful encounters; but you can totally design CR appropriate encounters that are challenging.

That said I will agree a redesign such that using 4 monsters is the expected baseline, with fewer monsters being the rare exception would be something I would be interested in. Either way, a DM can work within the CR system and get worthwhile results.

Quote:

IMO recovery and healing should work quite differently.

And powerful recovery influences the types of games that will be played. If martial characters can fully recover indefinitely between battles it makes no difference if you have 5 encounters or that you have 1 encounter.

So what we're saying here is that 3.PF's "buy a few wands early in your career and stop worrying about healing from that point on" is bad? Or are we talking about resources for martial abilities?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

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 see that someone has read my very mind on this mess! :)

Anyways, while I personally like Pathfinder's complex world simulation, one jarring problem that failed to have itself addressed in the Core Rulebook has to do with that bolded one. So, can anyone explain...

WHY ON EARTH YOUR FEET ARE GLUED TO MOVE ONLY 5 FEET WHEN SWINGING YOUR WEAPON MORE THAN ONCE?!

That's the biggest (and horrible, honestly saying) reason why I only play 5th Edition even though it doesn't have any legal gurarantees like the OGL protecting the fans... For the casters, even their lowly 1st level spells automatically enjoy scaling damage via caster level...


Morzadian wrote:


IMO recovery and healing should work quite differently.

And powerful recovery influences the types of games that will be played. If martial characters can fully recover indefinitely between battles it makes no difference if you have 5 encounters or that you have 1 encounter.

I know 5e is not your thing, but have you seen the lingering wound option from the 5e DMG? I think the biggest issue some folks are having is they are thinking HP are wounds and that is not the case in 5e.

Lucas Yew wrote:
I see that someone has read my very mind on this mess! :)

Nice to see someone who agrees.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the 'use your full martial power means you don't get to move' thing is a load of bull s$#%, especially when casters can use their full power and move freely [in most cases, a few spells like summons do take longer.]


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
healing surge is definitely a disassociated mechanic (martial characters can't heal without magic)

They do it every night they go to sleep. The only reason they can't do so faster is because you [the generic you referring to everyone who ascribes to this philosophy] say they can't.

Seerow wrote:
Second Wind is an in-combat action. Pretty sure a standard action in 4e and 5e both. Which is why I compared it to troll healing if you look at HP as 100% flesh wounds.

Ah, you have made your point then good sir. I'd have no problem with it for a more mid-level Fighter but at the lowest levels that kinda pushes it even for me.

Might make it an SU ability Fighters got then...

IMO recovery and healing should work quite differently.

And powerful recovery influences the types of games that will be played. If martial characters can fully recover indefinitely between battles it makes no difference if you have 5 encounters or that you have 1 encounter.

Is the healing in the game we're discussing unlimited?

To give an example of non-resource-burning healing I use in my games, the Heal Skill cures a person as a Cure Spell of the highest level a character of the Healer's Ranks could cast, but can not restore more damage than was taken in a battle no more than twenty minutes prior to the treatment. Treatment takes one minute [but at high ranks can be done as a Full Round Action and eventually can function as Breath of Life]

Healing Surges were practically unlimited in recovery ability for characters in D&D 4e.

And your house rule to give the Heal skill spell-like capabilities works fine in a game without Clerics but at the same time makes them redundant to some degree. Paladins and Monks (wholeness of body) are likewise affected.


Seerow wrote:
memorax wrote:
One thing that I think needs to be fixed. Or come up with a better system. Is the CR system. I recently had to reboot the AP I was running. I'm running Carrion Crown and I added in a encounter with a Wight. One of my own not in the first module of the AP. I group with minimal optimizers. Even with increased AC and Hp as well as small increase in to hit and damage. A group of six first level players took down a CR 3 monster. Too easily imo.

Um... I'm not sure I see the problem. With 6 characters you should be treating them as APL+1... so a CR3 monster is 1 level above. Which isn't generally going to be slightly more than a speedbump for most parties. Encounters don't tend to get actually threatening until you're at APL+2-3. Especially when the encounter design is a lone monster with no bonus action economy. Seriously those are awful encounters; but you can totally design CR appropriate encounters that are challenging.

That said I will agree a redesign such that using 4 monsters is the expected baseline, with fewer monsters being the rare exception would be something I would be interested in. Either way, a DM can work within the CR system and get worthwhile results.

Quote:

IMO recovery and healing should work quite differently.

And powerful recovery influences the types of games that will be played. If martial characters can fully recover indefinitely between battles it makes no difference if you have 5 encounters or that you have 1 encounter.

So what we're saying here is that 3.PF's "buy a few wands early in your career and stop worrying about healing from that point on" is bad? Or are we talking about resources for martial abilities?

The resources (spell-casters), non-resources (martial characters) system that exists in Pathfinder.

I'm not saying healing doesn't need fixing in Pathfinder, I just hope if it is fixed it doesn't rely on using disassociated mechanics and homogenising of the classes.

Unchained's stamina system works differently to spell-casting, one of its stronger design concepts.


Morzadian wrote:
Healing Surges were practically unlimited in recovery ability for characters in D&D 4e.

You have entirely missed the point of 4e healing surges. They were in place to limit your daily healing amount (and also remove the need for a dedicated healer).


Morzadian wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
healing surge is definitely a disassociated mechanic (martial characters can't heal without magic)

They do it every night they go to sleep. The only reason they can't do so faster is because you [the generic you referring to everyone who ascribes to this philosophy] say they can't.

Seerow wrote:
Second Wind is an in-combat action. Pretty sure a standard action in 4e and 5e both. Which is why I compared it to troll healing if you look at HP as 100% flesh wounds.

Ah, you have made your point then good sir. I'd have no problem with it for a more mid-level Fighter but at the lowest levels that kinda pushes it even for me.

Might make it an SU ability Fighters got then...

IMO recovery and healing should work quite differently.

And powerful recovery influences the types of games that will be played. If martial characters can fully recover indefinitely between battles it makes no difference if you have 5 encounters or that you have 1 encounter.

Is the healing in the game we're discussing unlimited?

To give an example of non-resource-burning healing I use in my games, the Heal Skill cures a person as a Cure Spell of the highest level a character of the Healer's Ranks could cast, but can not restore more damage than was taken in a battle no more than twenty minutes prior to the treatment. Treatment takes one minute [but at high ranks can be done as a Full Round Action and eventually can function as Breath of Life]

Healing Surges were practically unlimited in recovery ability for characters in D&D 4e.

And your house rule to give the Heal skill spell-like capabilities works fine in a game without Clerics but at the same time makes them redundant to some degree. Paladins and Monks (wholeness of body) are likewise affected.

I did play 4E a few times, though not enough to really figure it all out. Just looked it up and it seems Healing Surges healed 1/4th your HP, and you got an average of 7+Constitution modifier. Lets assume an average of 10 of them.

Yeah, I imagine that's pretty close to practically unlimited, restoring an average of 3.5x your HP per day.

Regarding your comments on my house rules, the Heal Skill is handy but it's more of a supplement. My players patch eachother up with the Heal Skill as best they can after each fight [when time allows, now and then fights are followed by another fight] but it's very much not uncommon for it to fail to heal the party completely. Depending on the amount of healing required determines which healing resources the party uses [if any.] If everybody's got a fair amount of wounds left a cleric [if the party has one] might blow a channel to clean them up the rest of the way.

Wholeness of Body sucks by the way, and a Paladin's special healing Schtick is Swift Action self-healing in Combat.

Clerics have been badasses on the battlefield who do a bit of supplementary healing afterwards since 3.0

That being said, I'm running a low magic world where magic items are extremely few and far between [and creating them requires specific reagents that may or may not turn up] so happy sticks [CLW wands] aren't really an option for the most part.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

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?

If D&D 5e's hp are not wounds and are just a way of measuring good luck and bad luck, why are they called hit points and why does healing spells, heal hit points.

It's a case of a dissociated mechanic pretending to be associated. Or what you said is simply misleading and they are in fact a measure of wounds or vitality.


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


IMO recovery and healing should work quite differently.

And powerful recovery influences the types of games that will be played. If martial characters can fully recover indefinitely between battles it makes no difference if you have 5 encounters or that you have 1 encounter.

I know 5e is not your thing, but have you seen the lingering wound option from the 5e DMG? I think the biggest issue some folks are having is they are thinking HP are wounds and that is not the case in 5e.

Lucas Yew wrote:
I see that someone has read my very mind on this mess! :)
Nice to see someone who agrees.

I don't dislike D&D 5e it's just a different game to Pathfinder. And yes I prefer Pathfinder.

This conversation is healthy for all of us. It gives us a greater understanding of both systems and past systems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Healing Surges were practically unlimited in recovery ability for characters in D&D 4e.

Healing Surges were actually designed to be worn down, they just overestimated how much damage characters would actually take and let every character recover 300%+ of their max hp every day. Number of Healing Surges available is something that should probably be tuned by the DM based on their DMing style. I definitely did play in 4e games where the entire party ran out of healing surges in a single day, but that was definitely not the norm; and having characters who had taken the sort of beating required to get there wake up the next day with full HP and full healing surges was admittedly really weird.

Drop healing surges down to X + con mod max [where X is set by the DM and generally ranges from 1 to 10, with 1-3 probably being the most fitting for typical games]. I've personally been running 3.PF with 3+con mod for a while and it works great for me, and recover only 1 per day, and you'll see a lot of characters getting worn down and deciding they need to break to recover after a hard day's adventuring, but still have enough healing to make it through most adventuring days.

Quote:

And your house rule to give the Heal skill spell-like capabilities works fine in a game without Clerics but at the same time makes them redundant to some degree. Paladins and Monks (wholeness of body) are likewise affected.

The healing from heal skill houserule I actually like. It is out of combat exclusive healing, and generally not enough to completely heal a character but enough to give everyone a bit of healing to press on between fights. There's still a place for actual spell based healing (topping off when you feel it's necessary, or extra healing after a bad cure roll).

Lay on Hands and similar features tend to work best as in combat burst healing, they aren't usually something used to help characters make it through the day. Wholeness of Body is just a bad ability and I've never seen a PF monk use it (2 ki for 1hp/level? Awful), and in 3.5 it only got used because "Why not? It's a little daily free healing, may as well use it"


Morzadian wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

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?

If D&D 5e's hp are not wounds and are just a way of measuring good luck and bad luck, why are they called hit points and why does healing spells, heal hit points.

It's a case of a dissociated mechanic pretending to be associated. Or what you said is simply misleading and they are in fact a measure of wounds or vitality.

HP in basic D&D were also not wounds. They were luck and avoiding a wound. This is what the PHB says about HP's

Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability. the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile.

So no, hits are not wounds. You also regain all your HP after an 8 hour rest, also putting lie to the idea that each hit is a wound. As for healing, its a left over name. Minor spells can gain HP but not do things like a "true" healing spell and remove poison or fix limbs

I mean look at video games. HP is HP and not really you getting hurt, nore is healing fixing wounds. Its just a way to show your health.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:


I don't dislike D&D 5e it's just a different game to Pathfinder. And yes I prefer Pathfinder.

This conversation is healthy for all of us. It gives us a greater understanding of both systems and past systems.

Agreed, the whole edition wars stuff is crazy. I like systems, I have yet to see any system that does not have at lest one neat idea.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Who is really edition warring really? Its been a while since I checked up on this thread but the gist I'm getting is that 5th ed is good but some of it's mechanics can stay the hell away from Pathfinder because it's fine staying over in 5th ed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing I've looked at a few times, though never fully implemented, was the idea of healing surges limiting the amount of healing a creature could receive in a day, as well as being a spendable "resource" for various effects.

Kind of like 4E, yet not quite, as none of the other changes take place. As well, generally a disease requires a healing surge to make a save. Return from the dead returns you with no healing surges and leaves you without them for a time (unless you get restorations or similar, or are brought back by true resurrection).

Without magic, you could normally heal an amount in a day equal to your healing surges, plus your constitution modifier, plus your hit dice. With Healing, I was thinking of allowing it to let a character expend a healing surge to heal 1d3 hit points per five ranks of Heal.

Buuuuuuuuu~uuuut that's an untested system, and prone to fluctuations. Just something I've been kicking around that this conversation made me think of. Hm... need to post that idea elsewhere...


Malwing wrote:

Who is really edition warring really? Its been a while since I checked up on this thread but the gist I'm getting is that 5th ed is good but some of it's mechanics can stay the hell away from Pathfinder because it's fine staying over in 5th ed.

I did not say anyone was. I said the whole thing was crazy. At my Flags the about half the 5e group is half the PF group. Folks can and do play many systems.


Morzadian wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Morzadian wrote:


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.

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?

My group is really optimized, but even if they were not smart play would help out. I played RotRL(3.5), and I have been running the Anniversary edition. I also ran Carrion Crown. The group only had trouble with two well known encounters in book 2. I am currently in Iron Gods, and if I could clone myself and play a full caster a lot of the fights would be walk-overs, but with no full caster support we are still doing ok, and nobody really has super-character at the table.

As to my experience playing 3.5 RotRL, it was difficult until I brought a cleric in. He was not optimized though. It just helped the party with versatility.

I almost forgot, that I played Council of Thieves. My druid, and mostly the animal companion did really well. Grapple, Pin, then we have a dead enemy or a prisoner.

If by older AP's you meant SCAP or AoW, then both seem more difficult than any PF AP I have played.

PS: I also played CotCT, and it was not difficult either. We made some bad logical choices, but once we stopped doing that only the GM boosting the encounters got us into any real trouble.


memorax wrote:

One thing that I think needs to be fixed. Or come up with a better system. Is the CR system. I recently had to reboot the AP I was running. I'm running Carrion Crown and I added in a encounter with a Wight. One of my own not in the first module of the AP. I group with minimal optimizers. Even with increased AC and Hp as well as small increase in to hit and damage. A group of six first level players took down a CR 3 monster. Too easily imo.

I'm not a fan of the APS. I use them because they reduce time. Yet the npc design is mediocre at best imo. Even with a group of non-optimizers a group of four adventurers can go through most of the npcs. Even the BBEGs. Put one in a locked room yet giving them no area control spells. Poor equipment. Some good awful feat choices.

They had a larger than normal advantage in numbers. Also CR X made of multiple creatures is normally more difficult than using one creature. That is why I don't use single boss encounters that much. I would prefer to drop the CR of the main boss, and use the extra XP for minions, and I don't just choose random minions. I try to make sure the synergize well.


wraithstrike wrote:
If by older AP's you meant SCAP or AoW, then both seem more difficult than any PF AP I have played.

SCAP?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If by older AP's you meant SCAP or AoW, then both seem more difficult than any PF AP I have played.
SCAP?

Shackled City Adventure Path, the first of the Dungeon Magazine adventure paths. ^_^


7 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
One thing that I think needs to be fixed. Or come up with a better system. Is the CR system. I recently had to reboot the AP I was running. I'm running Carrion Crown and I added in a encounter with a Wight. One of my own not in the first module of the AP. I group with minimal optimizers. Even with increased AC and Hp as well as small increase in to hit and damage. A group of six first level players took down a CR 3 monster. Too easily imo.

Laying aside that a CR 3 monster should only be a moderate threat, I find it absolutely hilarious that you felt the need to buff a Wight's damage.

You realize that energy drain applies automatically on each hit (the save is to remove the level after 24 hours), which means the wight automatically kills any 1st level PC it hits? Right? And 1d4 rounds later that character also becomes a wight? The wight is actually an iconic TPK monster at 1st level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I didn't even notice it was a wight. I was just focused on the CR. I never use wights on 1st level parties. That is just insta-death waiting to happen. Ghouls maybe, being paralyzed is a scary things.


I want to see stuff that is UNIQUE to a class.

For example: Fighters use to be the only class that got Weapon Specialization.

Go back to giving classes something special that no other class can get.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Vod Canockers wrote:

I want to see stuff that is UNIQUE to a class.

For example: Fighters use to be the only class that got Weapon Specialization.

Go back to giving classes something special that no other class can get.

I agree. I think the goal should be that every class has something the rest are jealous of. A cool feature with both power and style.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, something unique like Divine grace for pala-oh, oops.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
They had a larger than normal advantage in numbers. Also CR X made of multiple creatures is normally more difficult than using one creature. That is why I don't use single boss encounters that much. I would prefer to drop the CR of the main boss, and use the extra XP for minions, and I don't just choose random minions. I try to make sure the synergize well.

Indeed. Some of the most fun and awesome encounters are those where enemies are working together. They don't even have to be strong. Paizo frequently has this idea that a single WBL-possessing NPC is a good or interesting encounter, when it's really just a loot pinata.

If you want to see some PCs sweat, include an encounter with some synergetic classed NPCs. For example, a CR 3 encounter might include:

1 1st Level Orc Bard "Warmonger" (CR 1/2)
1 2nd Level Orc Warrior/Adept "Warpriest" (CR 1/2)
2 1st Level Orc Barbarians (CR 1/2)

The adepts cast bless giving everyone a +1 morale to hit. The bard uses inspire courage for +1 competence to hit and damage. The barbarians have fast movement and Rage. It's simple but very challenging.

Shadow Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

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?

If D&D 5e's hp are not wounds and are just a way of measuring good luck and bad luck, why are they called hit points and why does healing spells, heal hit points.

It's a case of a dissociated mechanic pretending to be associated. Or what you said is simply misleading and they are in fact a measure of wounds or vitality.

HP in basic D&D were also not wounds. They were luck and avoiding a wound. This is what the PHB says about HP's

Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability. the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile.

So no, hits are not wounds. You also regain all your HP after an 8 hour rest, also putting lie to the idea that each hit is a wound. As for healing, its a left over name. Minor spells can gain HP but not do things like a "true" healing spell and remove poison or fix limbs

I mean look at video games. HP is HP and not really you getting hurt, nore is healing fixing wounds. Its just a way to show your health.

That's been a way to view hit points in every edition. Unless you think that still mortal human(oid) characters, even of 20th level, can physically have a dozen swords shoved through their torso with no effect.


Ashiel wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
They had a larger than normal advantage in numbers. Also CR X made of multiple creatures is normally more difficult than using one creature. That is why I don't use single boss encounters that much. I would prefer to drop the CR of the main boss, and use the extra XP for minions, and I don't just choose random minions. I try to make sure the synergize well.

Indeed. Some of the most fun and awesome encounters are those where enemies are working together. They don't even have to be strong. Paizo frequently has this idea that a single WBL-possessing NPC is a good or interesting encounter, when it's really just a loot pinata.

If you want to see some PCs sweat, include an encounter with some synergetic classed NPCs. For example, a CR 3 encounter might include:

1 1st Level Orc Bard "Warmonger" (CR 1/2)
1 2nd Level Orc Warrior/Adept "Warpriest" (CR 1/2)
2 1st Level Orc Barbarians (CR 1/2)

The adepts cast bless giving everyone a +1 morale to hit. The bard uses inspire courage for +1 competence to hit and damage. The barbarians have fast movement and Rage. It's simple but very challenging.

Your earlier comment you mentioned the Red Hand of Doom.

The Red Hand of Doom pushed the envelope when it came to CR and was more diverse in how it created its encounters.

However, an optimised party could walk through Red Hand of Doom, no troubles. This is well documented in the GITP forums.

I GMed RHOD, and it was the catalyst that pushed our gaming group to make the move to Pathfinder. I created a 24,000 word document of customised encounters (for RHOD). Fantastic adventure but too much work.

I agree with you and Wraithstrike, harder encounters and more synergy is needed.

After some thought, ROTRL (AE) becomes much easier after Thistletop. I don't know if this is because of the encounters or that we have moved beyond the frail nature of being low-level.

Maybe identifying levels where players peak in power could help in stronger encounters and the inclusion of the Unchained Classes (thinking of you Rogue and Monk) would make a significant difference.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

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?

If D&D 5e's hp are not wounds and are just a way of measuring good luck and bad luck, why are they called hit points and why does healing spells, heal hit points.

It's a case of a dissociated mechanic pretending to be associated. Or what you said is simply misleading and they are in fact a measure of wounds or vitality.

HP in basic D&D were also not wounds. They were luck and avoiding a wound. This is what the PHB says about HP's

Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability. the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile.

So no, hits are not wounds. You also regain all your HP after an 8 hour rest, also putting lie to the idea that each hit is a wound. As for healing, its a left over name. Minor spells can gain HP but not do things like a "true" healing spell and remove poison or fix limbs

I mean look at video games. HP is HP and not really you getting hurt, nore is healing fixing wounds. Its just a way to show your health.

That's been a way to view hit points in every edition. Unless you think that still mortal human(oid) characters, even of 20th level, can physically have a dozen swords shoved through their torso with no effect.

From a mechanical standpoint HP is still considered wounds. An overnight rest heals a small portion of damage while magical healing heals a significantly larger if not all damage sustained by HP loss.

HP is tied to the Constitution ability score.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

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?

If D&D 5e's hp are not wounds and are just a way of measuring good luck and bad luck, why are they called hit points and why does healing spells, heal hit points.

It's a case of a dissociated mechanic pretending to be associated. Or what you said is simply misleading and they are in fact a measure of wounds or vitality.

HP in basic D&D were also not wounds. They were luck and avoiding a wound. This is what the PHB says about HP's

Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability. the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile.

So no, hits are not wounds. You also regain all your HP after an 8 hour rest, also putting lie to the idea that each hit is a wound. As for healing, its a left over name. Minor spells can gain HP but not do things like a "true" healing spell and remove poison or fix limbs

I mean look at video games. HP is HP and not really you getting hurt, nore is healing fixing wounds. Its just a way to show your health.

That's been a way to view hit points in every edition. Unless you think that still mortal human(oid) characters, even of 20th level, can physically have a dozen swords shoved through their torso with no effect.

A level 20 character with *no* magical items or effects whatsoever could potentially do the following (level 20 fighter, 20+5 Con, FCB HP and Toughness )

They can survive a fall from orbit onto a featureless steel plate and *guarenteed* survive at least twice.

They can swim across a lava river. They will *guaranteed* survive for 10 seconds. They will probably take half a minute to get knocked out by the intense heat.

They can punch out a T-Rex.

I would say that surviving a dozen swords to the torso would be relatively banal compared to the above.


If hit points are purely meat points, which stat represents my character's general skill at dodging and parrying? Note how I'm asking about general skill, rather than natural dodgy-ness (Dex) or above-and-beyond defensive training (combat expertise).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If hit points are purely meat points, which stat represents my character's general skill at dodging and parrying? Note how I'm asking about general skill, rather than natural dodgy-ness (Dex) or above-and-beyond defensive training (combat expertise).

Fighting defensively and total defense are the general skills that all characters have that reflects a character's defensive ability.

The idea that hit points is something other than health and vitality is purely fluff. There is no evidence (within the game mechanics) to suggest otherwise.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If hit points are purely meat points, which stat represents my character's general skill at dodging and parrying?

Base Attack Bonus.


Morzadian wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If hit points are purely meat points, which stat represents my character's general skill at dodging and parrying? Note how I'm asking about general skill, rather than natural dodgy-ness (Dex) or above-and-beyond defensive training (combat expertise).

Fighting defensively and total defense are the general skills that all characters have that reflects a character's defensive ability.

The idea that hit points is something other than health and vitality is purely fluff. There is no evidence (within the game mechanics) to suggest otherwise.

Kind of a circular argument don't you think? No game mechanics suggest that HP is anything other than health, and any game mechanics that suggest HP is anything other than health are disassociated and thus bad.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If hit points are purely meat points, which stat represents my character's general skill at dodging and parrying?
Base Attack Bonus.

If only

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If hit points are purely meat points, which stat represents my character's general skill at dodging and parrying?
Base Attack Bonus.
If only

As your BAB goes up, you get better at hitting people while fighting defensively.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If hit points are purely meat points, which stat represents my character's general skill at dodging and parrying?
Base Attack Bonus.
If only
As your BAB goes up, you get better at hitting people while fighting defensively.

Well sure, but Fighting Defensively is usually a bad idea anyway.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Star Wars D20 had base defense. It wasn't an good there and wouldn't be any good in PF.

If defense goes up with level the same as offense it all just cancels out and we might as well not have any bonuses at all.

Lets make the entire game roll 15 or better to hit and 14 or less is always a miss why don't we? Then we can do away with all these books and character sheets. . .


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

Star Wars D20 had base defense. It wasn't an good there and wouldn't be any good in PF.

If defense goes up with level the same as offense it all just cancels out and we might as well not have any bonuses at all.

Except you're not covering your character with magical bling to keep up with the ever-rising attack rolls you're dealing with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If hit points are purely meat points, which stat represents my character's general skill at dodging and parrying?
Base Attack Bonus.
If only
As your BAB goes up, you get better at hitting people while fighting defensively.

Misleading statements are misleading.

As your BAB goes up, you get better at hitting people [Full Stop]
Any other qualifiers are extraneous.


Seerow wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If hit points are purely meat points, which stat represents my character's general skill at dodging and parrying? Note how I'm asking about general skill, rather than natural dodgy-ness (Dex) or above-and-beyond defensive training (combat expertise).

Fighting defensively and total defense are the general skills that all characters have that reflects a character's defensive ability.

The idea that hit points is something other than health and vitality is purely fluff. There is no evidence (within the game mechanics) to suggest otherwise.

Kind of a circular argument don't you think? No game mechanics suggest that HP is anything other than health, and any game mechanics that suggest HP is anything other than health are disassociated and thus bad.

Not true, if there were spells or feats with a luck theme that provided the recovery of hit points there would be a mechanic that reflected the idea hit points are not solely health or vitality.

Easily done with a house rule, if that's the game you want to play.

Out of all the characters that I played, I have never felt that hit points was associated with luck. Phrases like "I'm badly wounded" "Nearly Dead" are common in my games in relation to Hit point lost.


Nathanael Love wrote:

Star Wars D20 had base defense. It wasn't an good there and wouldn't be any good in PF.

If defense goes up with level the same as offense it all just cancels out and we might as well not have any bonuses at all.

Lets make the entire game roll 15 or better to hit and 14 or less is always a miss why don't we? Then we can do away with all these books and character sheets. . .

Now this is the problem with Bounded Accuracy. It cancels out customisation, and that's what D&D 5e supporters are missing from their games.

Bounded Accuracy has a 4 point difference, Pathfinder has around a 15 point difference without magical items.

And IMO, D&D 5e supporters are saying Pathfinder could have an 8 point difference and the gameplay would be improved.

I don't agree with it, but that's the general consensus...I think?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Well sure, but Fighting Defensively is usually a bad idea anyway.

It's all we got.

BigDTBone wrote:
Misleading statements are misleading.

Never claimed it was a GOOD measurement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If hit points are purely meat points, which stat represents my character's general skill at dodging and parrying? Note how I'm asking about general skill, rather than natural dodgy-ness (Dex) or above-and-beyond defensive training (combat expertise).

I find this question relatively odd, because there is no points associated in the game with dodging and parrying, unlike with hit "points".

Anything that we compare will be apples and oranges.

Basically, your premise is flawed.

However, under your premise:
- acrobatics (skill)
- AC (including DEX is analogous to including CON in hp)
- reflex save (analogous to the fortitude save)
- evasion and improved versions (the closest analogue being stalwart for Inquisitors)

Beyond that, others have noted Fighting Defensively (and thus BAB) and Total Defense represented these areas. Things like the Dodge and Cranewing style line of feats both work as well and are famous feats of their kind.

Digging for a few more, you've got the Swashbuckler has quite a few options, as does the Panther Claw style line (linked: panther parry); and, of course, the duelist PrC along with the improved parry and the incredible parry champion mythic ability, and the swordlord archetype and PrC.

You'll notice that most of those revolve around AC, attacks of opportunity, and who hits what first.

I think what your question is attempting is,

My interpretation of what Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If hit points grow over time and are purely meat points; the logical follow-up is that dodging and parrying automatically grows over time as well; given that presumption, which stat that increases over time represents my character's general skill at dodging and parrying? Note how I'm asking about general skill, rather than natural dodgy-ness (Dex) or above-and-beyond defensive training (combat expertise).

The fact is, though, there are only a few things that automatically increase over time as you level:

- total HD (determines the specific numbers of hit points and amount of BAB, based on the specific quality of HD)
- - hit points, base attack bonus {this impacts your CMB and CMD}
- saves
- skills
(- caster level) (presupposing you are a casting class)

For more general traits, you have the ability scores:
- STR: how hard you can hit things and how much you can lift [attack, damage, some skills, CM]
- DEX: your dodgy-ness, and how rapid your response-times can be [AC, reflex, some skills, CMD]
- CON: how tough you can be, and how long you can keep going [hp, fortitude]
- INT: how naturally gifted you can be at thinking and information processing [skill points, certain skills]
- WIS: how insightful and perceptive, and how strong willed you can be [will saves, certain skills]
- CHA: how persuasive or forceful you can be [some skills]

What I listed above were how the ability scores apply to everyone's sheet. The problem with refusing DEX as representative of general dodginess is because that's exactly what it is... just like CON is general toughness and what determines our hit points.

The "weirdness" with hit points-as-meat points in the d20 system, comes from the fact that hit dice (have the potential to) do so much more to add hit points than our CON score does. To further diminish CON's seeming importance in the situation, usually the ones with the most hit points also have a great fortitude save: the other thing CON is all about.

However, CON is definitively a super-important stat, just like DEX. Everyone wants good CON, because it's seemingly over-shadowed aspect of "how tough I am" is actually really fundamental to a character's over-all ability.

DEX is the same way. Some builds get away with relatively little of it, but those are only the ones who explicitly don't care about dodging or parrying. Warriors, mages, and skill-monkeys all highly value dexterity as a general all-around "dodgy-ness (and parry, under circumstances)" which can be increased over time, but not at the same rate as hit points.

Outside of DEX, feats represent this, which also accrue over time, but are more variable and some might not lead down the "I'm not getting hit" path.

Finally, it's just class features.

That's the reason your premise is flawed. "Meat points" don't cover all aspects of "how tough someone is" but only "meat points". There is no one single "dodge points" mechanic (though luck/panache/etc. make a semi-okay stab* at this).

* D'ohohohoh~!


HP is one of my least favorite abstractions, yet I have never found an alternative that works just as well.

All kinds of wound systems always seem nice on paper but everyone hates them in actual sessions because it makes heroics harder. On the other hand, HP especially at higher levels makes it really hard to kinda roleplay combat hurting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:

HP is one of my least favorite abstractions, yet I have never found an alternative that works just as well.

All kinds of wound systems always seem nice on paper but everyone hates them in actual sessions because it makes heroics harder. On the other hand, HP especially at higher levels makes it really hard to kinda roleplay combat hurting.

That's the downside to hp, yeah.

-----------------
"The mighty orc's great blade swings and crits! Oof! It deals *rolls 4d6, adds double STR* 30 damage!"

"Holy carp! That's enough to snap my tower shield into two pieces! I'm down to 12 hp! ... wait, what happens?"

"Uh, well, you see, it narrowly misses!"

"But, hold on... isn't that what my AC is for?"

"Well, maybe it just grazes a bit?"

"It just 'grazes a bit' equals snapping my tower shield in half?"

"... yes, for purposes of this conversation."
---------------

It's a weakness of 'hp' as a determining system. If it's not meat points, it's a case of 'that's really redundant with everything else that's going on and really confusing as well'.

Though, in PF, at least, it's pretty clear that it's meat points, in addition to the surrounding fluff.

One way of describing it beyond just "ALL THE BLOOD!" is similar to how some anime or films have guys so tough that blades will just scrape off their skin. Or maybe a creature catches a mace in its hand, like Gargoyles - still bleeds a bit, and certainly a wound that would kill many others, but they take it, 'cause they can.

Things like that.

651 to 700 of 912 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 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