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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 912 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:
No one's going to rage quit over the conservative option.

People will rage quit over the most minor of things. An edition change is not a minor thing.

-Skeld


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Wiggz wrote:

Well, the good news is that you've been getting one. A new edition that is. Its called 'Unchained' (among other things) and its being enforced via PFS, a.k.a. Paizo's canary in the coal mine.

The only thing that is being 'enforced' in PFS is the new Summoner which, truth to be told, was long overdue. The remaining classes are optional, and no optional rules are available apart from skill unlocks if you're using the Unchained Rogue.

At the moment. But wasn't long ago when there were NO rules being affected by Unchained. The remaining classes are indeed optional... for now. Just as the Summoner once was.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Snorb wrote:
Some stuff needs to be baked into every character (looking at you, Precise Shot, Shot on the Run, and Spring Attack!!!)
If we're baking stuff in, I want chocolate chunks.

Fine by me! XD

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:

PFRPG has been a thing since 2009 and people have been speculating about a new edition for at least a couple years now. I've yet to see anyone put forth a compelling argument for why a new edition is needed.

-Skeld

"Needed"? If you use that as your criteria few things would ever improve.

I would love to see the beginner's box exploded into a new version that is fully compatible with the current system, but integrates improvements to the current system like the new versions of the rogue and barbarian. Also, we've learned a lot from the Beginner's Box and it would be great if we took that learning into the core system, making the system easier to learn and clearing up a lot of the confusing rules. While we're at it we can file off some proud nails like Stealth.

Essentially, It would be Pathfinder, but with the stuff we've learned since it was first released.

I would also love to see some big changes to high level play, but it would fully break compatibility which pretty much makes it a no-go.


Atarlost wrote:
Skeld wrote:
The problem is that everyone's PF2e looks different right now. One person's "that's about right" is another's "table-flipping rage-quit." Like I said, uncertainty = risk. The risk analysis for Paizo (from the cheap seats) is that a big misstep on PF2e could literally kill the company; they don't have a M:TG or corporate sugardaddy to fall back on.

No one's going to rage quit over the conservative option. That's pretty much clean up the stealth and mounted combat rules and reorganize the important stuff into a PHB and GMG.

There are some rules that need work. Or just taking work that was done and blogged about but couldn't be fit into the PF first edition CRB pagination and dusting it off and making sure it gets a proper public playtest in the case of stealth. The most troubled rules don't impact content, though. Stealth is currently a botch job around the skill condensation from 3.5 and mounted combat is a mess trying to close mutually exclusive loopholes in the mounted charge rules without changing any terminology. The terminology needs to go ahead and change. I'm inclined to think the enchantment(charm) and illusion rules could also use a going over. Possibly the polymorph spells should get access to monster qualities that were introduced in bestiary 2 and on as well and the stat adjustment by size table for polymorphing be rethought so it's not gimped for creatures not starting at medium.

I can't imagine anyone leaving over a real edition change even if what they want are the completely new game systems TSR and WotC have always passed off as edition changes.

Interesting thought. If one counts editions as TSR originally did with 1e, than in theory, PF (at least the CRB) is already on it's 6th edition!

That's right, we should be wondering why many want to go back to 2nd edition when we are already on the 6th edition!

Of course, that's with minor changes.

With that in mind, however, if Paizo went with minor changes and called it a second edition, that might be the best option if it was done sooner than later.

I think a LOT of the anger may be that people perceive an edition change as exactly what you mention, which is almost completely new game systems. We know that many here were upset with 4e (I liked it, but I know many here did not) because they didn't view it as much as an edition change as a totally different game.

If one thinks Paizo will do that with a PF 2nd edition, I could see why many are upset at the idea, feeling as if they were burned already by other companies and not wanting the same to happen with PF.

On the otherhand, as I said, in theory, according to very early thoughts on new editions of the game (which went away instantly the second AD&D 2e came out), PF is actually already on it's 6th edition/printing.


Everybody wants different things from a new edition. The most likely outcome is most people would be disappointed, because if you like Pathfinder there is no guarantee any thanges made would be the ones you want.

I could stand to se a few things changed, but I much prefer to keep the current version well into the future.


I wouldn't want an entirely new edition, but a version of the game (like Unchained maybe) that cleaned up some messy rules language and fiddly stuff would be nice. This is especially true of the combat section of the CRB, which is very messy at times, but also true to a lesser extent of the magic chapter.

There's a lot of "no this, except when this, or if this" that I'm not really fond of. It is a lesser problem for a player, who only usually needs to know what his characters are capable of, but I am very sympathetic to the sheer number of rules a GM may have to fumble around with on any given night.


A Revised CRB incorporating all errata and FAQ; with simple clear explanations would be great. New versions of classes are possible. Don't expect totally new rule sets for a while. And almost certainly no chance of a completely different system; rather just a revised system. Perhaps a CRB and an extra book that kind of encompasses a lot of other prime core material in a clear, focused manner.


thejeff wrote:
Some people have said they would rage quit over a new edition with only minor changes. On the grounds it would just be a money grab.

Yeah, I've heard a few grumbles about how that would be little different from Paizo going "Pay us $50 if you want errata!"

Admittedly, I might be tempted by that when the current policy seems to be "Maybe we'll errata the book a few years down the line. Maybe."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

PF doesn't need a new edition to fix what ails it, it simply needs a better method of fixing things. There are still far too many legacy issues, and I'm not just talking about 3.5 legacy - there are PF CRB legacy issues. The fact that the game system is still focused on printed editions means it is very difficult to change old rules/text to reflect new additions to the game. A simple example is the Spell Mastery feat. It allows preparing a few specific spell without your spellbook. It is in the Core Rulebook. When the CRB was written, the only class that had a spellbook was the wizard, so the feat has a prerequisite of 1st-level wizard. The problem is, now there are 5 classes with spellbooks, or similar mechanics, but it is highly unlikely that Paizo will alter the CRB rule to reflect that. They instead issue a FAQ note stating that GM's could allow other classes to use it if they like. That's a poor way to maintain a game SYSTEM.

What PF really needs, is to convert to a living digital ruleset. This would require a complete change in the way it is sold, but it is the only way for consistency to be maintained throughout the system from top to bottom.


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

I want a second edition so that I can time how long it takes for the first "I want a third edition" thread.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Wiggz wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Wiggz wrote:

Well, the good news is that you've been getting one. A new edition that is. Its called 'Unchained' (among other things) and its being enforced via PFS, a.k.a. Paizo's canary in the coal mine.

The only thing that is being 'enforced' in PFS is the new Summoner which, truth to be told, was long overdue. The remaining classes are optional, and no optional rules are available apart from skill unlocks if you're using the Unchained Rogue.
At the moment. But wasn't long ago when there were NO rules being affected by Unchained. The remaining classes are indeed optional... for now. Just as the Summoner once was.

The Summoner change is in no way different from "X and Y are not legal for PFS play" which happens with every rules content that comes out. By this reasoning, you should be expecting edition change from the moment PFS came into existence, because it has its own rules for and XP. And that item creation feats are verboten there, so they'll SOON(tm) be banned in normal games as well.

Sorry, you're just a hammer and everything looks like a nail to you.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing is to those saying don't change anything. Then why even bother buying it again. Seriously if all were going to get is 80-90% rehash with new art and organization and 10-20% if that of new material. I simply can't see the reason for purchasing it again. I play PF flaws and all. I don't need to buy the same flaws and all again. If there was no SRD sure. With 5E, 13th Age and 4E I simply need more than just the same. I'm probably not the only guy that feels this way.

I get that people want to keep using their books. I think gamers need to look further than their own bookshelves. I don't think a unchanged edition is going to sell as well. Not when 5E actually fixed some of the problems that 3E has. Gamers have more choices with D&D and more discriminating.

Skeld wrote:


People will rage quit over the most minor of things. An edition change is not a minor thing.

-Skeld

That's never going to stop imo. No matter what Paizo does. When 3E came out the same happened with those who played 2E. Too much change and no one buys. Too little and no one buys either. At least with the first you get new material. The second is simply a rehash.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of course Unchained awake the hunger for new edition anew, people were teased with ways to make the game overall better and homebrewing is not enough.


I stopped buying PF stuff in 2012 and my last purchase was Ultimate Campaign. The main reason was burnout and the amount of work to run the damn thing. 12 years of 3.x games as I started with 3.0 in 2000.

I basically see Pathfinder as D&D though. If they dump what makes it D&D to me I would not be interested in a new edition. I do not mind about mechanical changes though and I do not expect backwards compatibility.

That being said I never bought a massive amount of PF stuff just 6 hard covers and a few PDFs and APs the last of which was Skull and Shackles. There is just to much coming out and nothing like the old Dungeon/Dragon to maintain my interest. APs are one thing but no point buying more adventures to play when I have not and will not be running ones I already have. Rather than try and keep up with the glut of PF stuff I just dropped out.

I would be in the market for a fixed 3.5 system and I thing you could keep things like BAB that exists now and fort, ref, will and even +5 weapons. They have to look at a few of the other problems with the system such as touch ACs, spell buffs, spell stacking, and spell DCs in relation to the saves.

PF kind of kept the seat warm for a few more years between 2008/2012. The main reason I went there was that I was not done with 3.5 and 4E was not good putting it mildly. In 2012 I had 9 years of 3.5 gaming and 12 years of 3.x gaming. I was ready to move on and are using 5E atm I prefer AD&D/Casles and Crusades but my players prefer modern D&D and they get to play above 10th level as I will not generally run 3.x games beyond level 10.


I too would like to see a Pathfinder 2.0. Though it is fairer to say that I would like to see an updated, streamlined Pathfinder which is faster to create and run than the current model.

D&D5E has sold me on It's simplicity; streamlined core mechanics such as finesse weapons and two-weapon fighting, Archetypes without crazy prerequisites, Backgrounds and deep customization of character. The limiting of Feats, which are now much more powerful and typically provide various bonuses that completely change what your character can do. I enjoy D&D5E for the ease of use and fantastic leveling mechanics (Bounded Accuracy), customizable spellcasting mechanics and action options. I do not feel that crunchy, complex mechanics (such as class abilities or feats) equals depth, but some do so to each their own.

While I thoroughly enjoy Pathfinder I find myself moving on to greener pastures with more room to roam and explore without having to constantly look at the map. I don't want Pathfinder too just hop on the bandwagon, but a simplified core mechanic would do wonders for a system is over a decade old.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Eventually, I'd like to see a new edition just to better integrate some of the many things which have been 'pasted in' to the game and setting over the years;

Kaiju are great... but given that most of Golarion was already fairly well documented the available places to introduce them were limited... and then they immediately eclipsed most of the spawn of Rovagug that had previously played a similar role.

Ditto mythic rules... some of the 'great powers' of the world are suddenly insignificant pipsqueaks in comparison.

The newer 'troop' and 'army' systems, along with existing 'swarms', are great ways of representing groups of opponents in a simpler format... but if they had been part of the game from the start they might be better integrated with rules for determining whether a group should be treated as individuals, a troop, or an army... rules for individuals fighting a troop or several troops fighting an army... and so forth.

Et cetera.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am playing 5E now and I don't think Pathfinder needs to go down that road (although Unchained has some 4E/5E isms like using feats to multiclass). 5E is seen as simple here on the Paizo boards. What drives character builds in 5E are more backgrounds and factions rather than class building. I like this because factions in particular really tie characters to the world and to each other if designed well.

As to PF, the only really weird thing about the Core Rulebook is that is has many outdated things when compared to PF. Take 5E out of the picture completely.

Core has no traits or archetypes. It has prestige classes. Core is missing main rules that as far as I can tell are considered standard now. And it has prestige classes that as far as I can tell many of which are completely useless in a majority of campaigns.

And that is strange. If I was brand new and I bought the Core Rulebook and found out many prestige classes don't work or that I shouldn't use a crossbow as a fighter I would be confused. And when other people were talking about archetypes and traits I would also be confused. Or how fighters and rogues suck. Or how overpowered clerics, druids, and wizards are.

It would just be tough to get the Core only. I'd feel I was missing out and way behind in understanding the system. And I'd feel like a part of the big book I just bought is full of suck. Especially if someone showed me the Unchained fighter, monk, and rogue (and maybe barbarian).

I think I would also have a damn hard time understanding the Christmas tree effect and even how to level up (all new players I've introduced to PF have struggled somewhat with leveling up). If I remember correctly, the Core doesn't even talk about or define the Christmas tree effect. That is a pretty core concept of the game.

I don't have a solution. But the Core Rulebook does not seem to represent Pathfinder completely anymore. And I personally and as a total opinion find that really weird.

5E is likely too streamlined to appeal to the majority of PF players. But at least the PH feels complete and is a solid next step from Basic D&D.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie D. wrote:
I am playing 5E now and I don't think Pathfinder needs to go down that road (although Unchained has some 4E/5E isms like using feats to multiclass). 5E is seen as simple here on the Paizo boards. What drives character builds in 5E are more backgrounds and factions rather than class building. I like this because factions in particular really tie characters to the world and to each other if designed well.

Factions? I'm not even sure what factions are. Are they part of the core rules? Or a setting thing?

Charlie D. wrote:

As to PF, the only really weird thing about the Core Rulebook is that is has many outdated things when compared to PF. Take 5E out of the picture completely.

Core has no traits or archetypes. It has prestige classes. Core is missing main rules that as far as I can tell are considered standard now. And it has prestige classes that as far as I can tell many of which are completely useless in a majority of campaigns.

And that is strange. If I was brand new and I bought the Core Rulebook and found out many prestige classes don't work or that I shouldn't use a crossbow as a fighter I would be confused. And when other people were talking about archetypes and traits I would also be confused. Or how fighters and rogues suck. Or how overpowered clerics, druids, and wizards are.

It would just be tough to get the Core only. I'd feel I was missing out and way behind in understanding the system. And I'd feel like a part of the big book I just bought is full of suck. Especially if someone showed me the Unchained fighter, monk, and rogue (and maybe barbarian).

I think I would also have a damn hard time understanding the Christmas tree effect and even how to level up (all new players I've introduced to PF have struggled somewhat with leveling up). If I remember correctly, the Core doesn't even talk about or define the Christmas tree effect. That is a pretty core concept of the game.

I don't think the Christmas tree is discussed in any of the rules. Maybe in unchained if they talk about avoiding it. It's implicit in Core though. That's a basic 3.x conceit. Don't spell things out. Let the players figure out what the working approaches are.

Charlie D. wrote:

I don't have a solution. But the Core Rulebook does not seem to represent Pathfinder completely anymore. And I personally and as a total opinion find that really weird.

5E is likely too streamlined to appeal to the majority of PF players. But at least the PH feels complete and is a solid next step from Basic D&D.

I suspect the same incompleteness would be true of any game that's developed enough. Core 5E feels complete because there hasn't been much added. Core PF would feel complete and is perfectly playable on its own. It's only when compared with the rest of the game as it's developed that it seems incomplete. The only way to avoid that is to not introduce any new concepts after the core is out.


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
memorax wrote:
The thing is to those saying don't change anything. Then why even bother buying it again. Seriously if all were going to get is 80-90% rehash with new art and organization and 10-20% if that of new material. I simply can't see the reason for purchasing it again.

Because one values new art and organisation.

If you only want to buy books with new material, it stands to reason you won't want a substantially unchanged system. The people who want minimal change are obviously not in that camp.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
memorax wrote:
The thing is to those saying don't change anything. Then why even bother buying it again. Seriously if all were going to get is 80-90% rehash with new art and organization and 10-20% if that of new material. I simply can't see the reason for purchasing it again.

Because one values new art and organisation.

If you only want to buy books with new material, it stands to reason you won't want a substantially unchanged system. The people who want minimal change are obviously not in that camp.

I think the assumption/fear for those strongly opposed to a minimal revision is that a new edition that is even a minimal revision of Core will lead to revisions and new editions of all the other material and thus to either repurchasing everything with minimal changes or giving up on the new edition.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
adembroski wrote:
Now, I'm not a balance fetishist and I don't believe wizards are the "win button" by any means. Bounded accuracy, however, is one of the best features in the history of the D&D game (I include its off-shoots when I say that). It does wonders to keep the game interesting well into the teens, and unlike PF, given monsters never really become obsolete.

Humorously, I think bounded accuracy is one of the worst features in the history of the D&D game.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Seriously if all were going to get is 80-90% rehash with new art and organization and 10-20% if that of new material. I simply can't see the reason for purchasing it again.

My first printing CRB is starting to fall apart. I am going to buy a new book before too long whatever happens. It would be nice to be able to buy a more streamlined and easier to use version.


If I wanted bounded accuracy crap I'd play 5e. If a new edition of PF came out with it, I'd just keep playing 3.P rather than PF 2e.

Sovereign Court

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

I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I like some things about 5e(for example, I'm intrigued by the cap of 20 on ability scores, and the way feats tie in with ability increases is neat), I'm not sure about bounded accuracy as a mechanic for D&D/Pathfinder style gaming. One of the big appeals to me of Pathfinder/1e-3.5e D&D is "zero to hero," - the concept that a 17th level character and a 1st level character are on different power scales and do different things.

Bounded accuracy seems like a way to expand the so-called "sweet spot" of 7th-12th level over the 1-20 range - but that means you don't get as much of the mechanical differences between low, mid, and high levels. I like that the game plays differently in those ranges. I like getting my martial able to hit on a 2. I enjoy reducing the effects of the d20 so that bad luck has less impact on my play. Honestly I enjoy the way Pathfinder plays at levels 1-3 and 17-20, and if you take out those options for "hope the orc doesn't crit so I survive" and "Ha ha ha watch as I smite your planar fortress!" styles of play then the game has less appeal for me.


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
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?

It was a design principle of 5E. Essentially it entailed keeping bonuses and target numbers more constrained as levels advance so that the dice roll remains relevant and to avoid the binary "autofail or autosucceed" issue of high level play in 3.5 and 4E.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
It was a design principle of 5E. Essentially it entailed keeping bonuses and target numbers more constrained as levels advance so that the dice roll remains relevant and to avoid the binary "autofail or autosucceed" issue of high level play in 3.5 and 4E.

Did 4e have that? I only played during the era of PHB1 but I remember hating the fact that the math seemed designed to make you perpetually need a 10-12 on the d20 to ever do anything, no matter your level or skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?

Basically, the numbers are limited to a specific range so that characters are "balanced" enough that things like goblins can still kill 20th level characters, that a simple skill challenge can ruin anyone that isn't a high-level rogue or bard, and Asmodeus can't bash down doors.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
ryric wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
It was a design principle of 5E. Essentially it entailed keeping bonuses and target numbers more constrained as levels advance so that the dice roll remains relevant and to avoid the binary "autofail or autosucceed" issue of high level play in 3.5 and 4E.
Did 4e have that? I only played during the era of PHB1 but I remember hating the fact that the math seemed designed to make you perpetually need a 10-12 on the d20 to ever do anything, no matter your level or skill.

It had the same enormous difference between low and high level.

I'm pretty sure you can construct DCs so that there's a fifty percent chance of success in any of those systems - that's a different issue though, as I understand it. Bounded accuracy is about the difference is ability between a low level and high level protagonist.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dennis Baker wrote:
Skeld wrote:

PFRPG has been a thing since 2009 and people have been speculating about a new edition for at least a couple years now. I've yet to see anyone put forth a compelling argument for why a new edition is needed.

-Skeld

"Needed"? If you use that as your criteria few things would ever improve.

I would love to see the beginner's box exploded into a new version that is fully compatible with the current system, but integrates improvements to the current system like the new versions of the rogue and barbarian. Also, we've learned a lot from the Beginner's Box and it would be great if we took that learning into the core system, making the system easier to learn and clearing up a lot of the confusing rules. While we're at it we can file off some proud nails like Stealth.

Essentially, It would be Pathfinder, but with the stuff we've learned since it was first released.

I would also love to see some big changes to high level play, but it would fully break compatibility which pretty much makes it a no-go.

Yes, needed. At least, I hope Paizo is basing these kinds of decisions on what their sales data tells them instead of what some people on the forums are saying they want (while others are explicitly saying the don't want).

-Skeld


An approach to bounded accuracy that might work better in a PF/3.x system would be to keep the full range of bonuses so you still get so much better than the low level character, but let the classes not specialized in that not fall so far behind. Keep the bad saves closer to the good ones, especially.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
ryric wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
It was a design principle of 5E. Essentially it entailed keeping bonuses and target numbers more constrained as levels advance so that the dice roll remains relevant and to avoid the binary "autofail or autosucceed" issue of high level play in 3.5 and 4E.
Did 4e have that? I only played during the era of PHB1 but I remember hating the fact that the math seemed designed to make you perpetually need a 10-12 on the d20 to ever do anything, no matter your level or skill.

It had the same enormous difference between low and high level.

I'm pretty sure you can construct DCs so that there's a fifty percent chance of success in any of those systems - that's a different issue though, as I understand it. Bounded accuracy is about the difference is ability between a low level and high level protagonist.

At first glance yes, but one of the major effects is that there are less differences between different high level protagonists. Which is one of the big ways the high level PF math starts to break.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
Basically, the numbers are limited to a specific range so that characters are "balanced" enough that things like goblins can still kill 20th level characters, that a simple skill challenge can ruin anyone that isn't a high-level rogue or bard, and Asmodeus can't bash down doors.

Part of me does kind of like that. If there was an Unchained option for that, I'd give it a try.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
Basically, the numbers are limited to a specific range so that characters are "balanced" enough that things like goblins can still kill 20th level characters, that a simple skill challenge can ruin anyone that isn't a high-level rogue or bard, and Asmodeus can't bash down doors.

And dragons get shot down by the town militia if they're foolish enough to show their heads near civilization. It makes adventurers redundant, basically.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

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

It had the same enormous difference between low and high level.

I'm pretty sure you can construct DCs so that there's a fifty percent chance of success in any of those systems - that's a different issue though, as I understand it. Bounded accuracy is about the difference is ability between a low level and high level protagonist.

Ah. What I remember was looking at a 1st level character and seeing that I could have +8 skills against a DC of 18, or +3 to hit against defenses of 13, and that the same character at level 18 would have +19 skills against DCs of 29, and +14 to hit against defenses of 24. So my thought was why am I even gaining levels if everything is a treadmill? (Again, PHB1 only at the time)

There was even a table in the DMG that could be interpreted to mean that the skill DCs for the same task would go up depending on the level of the PC - that the same locked door would be DC 18 for the 1st level guy and DC 29 when he came back later at 18th level. Personally I think that interpretation was a bad one but I played under a GM who thought that way(a lot of my bad experiences with 4e were due to GMs embracing the crazy gamist stuff in the system to the detriment of my suspension of disbelief).

Apologies for the slight 4e derail. Bounded accuracy, to give a less snarky answer, is a system where the numerical bonuses you get for leveling are toned way down. Like a 1st level fighter might have a +5 to hit, and that same fighter at 20th might have a +13. Much less variance than Pathfinder where a fighter might go from +6 at 1st to +50 at 20th. It can help keep other numbers sane and relevant - for example, an AC of 25 is good no matter who you're fighting.

It's an interesting mechanic. I'm not sure it embraces what I want out of D&D - one of the pleasures of high levels is absolutely curb-stomping lower level foes that used to be a threat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
Basically, the numbers are limited to a specific range so that characters are "balanced" enough that things like goblins can still kill 20th level characters, that a simple skill challenge can ruin anyone that isn't a high-level rogue or bard, and Asmodeus can't bash down doors.
And dragons get shot down by the town militia if they're foolish enough to show their heads near civilization. It makes adventurers redundant, basically.

Dragons can be hit by the town militia. If they sat there long enough, letting enough militia archers shoot them, they could even be killed.

More likely they scatter them with dragonfear, breath on the clumps and toy with any survivors.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
ryric wrote:
It's an interesting mechanic. I'm not sure it embraces what I want out of D&D - one of the pleasures of high levels is absolutely curb-stomping lower level foes that used to be a threat.

I think your analysis is a good one.its definitely a different feel. Low level 5E characters start more powerful than PF low level equivalents, but the increase is much slower and they don't reach the same heights (based on reading - I haven't got beyond 8th level, yet).


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
Kalindlara wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
Basically, the numbers are limited to a specific range so that characters are "balanced" enough that things like goblins can still kill 20th level characters, that a simple skill challenge can ruin anyone that isn't a high-level rogue or bard, and Asmodeus can't bash down doors.
Part of me does kind of like that. If there was an Unchained option for that, I'd give it a try.

It facilitates some interesting stories/scenarios - the high level heroes going up against an army of orcs, for example (without having the miraculous coincidence of always meeting orcs with "just right" amount of templates/class levels).


avr wrote:
And dragons get shot down by the town militia if they're foolish enough to show their heads near civilization. It makes adventurers redundant, basically.

Only if you still believe RPGs are (or are intended to be) comprehensive world simulators.

Spoiler:

Hint: They aren't.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:

PFRPG has been a thing since 2009 and people have been speculating about a new edition for at least a couple years now. I've yet to see anyone put forth a compelling argument for why a new edition is needed.

-Skeld

You are probably not compelled because you are expecting (or at least desiring) someone to meet a threshold of "need."

Also, I'll point out that I don't necessarily want a new system because I'm happy to just fiddle with the current one to get what I want out of the game, but here are some things that could really use some help;

CRB organization and language. - even if the rules don't change at all, this could really use some love. Codify what some core terms actually mean (wield, I'm looking at you) make the statements more clear by using less words (requires patience and artistry on the part of the developer) and put the book in order to make it more accessible to new players. I would also suggest cleaning up language in spells and breaking all the spell lists down by school.

Incorporate FAQs as explicit examples in the text, make them errata if needed.

Consolidating pathfinder unique stuff into the CRB and not being afraid to slaughter the sacred cows of D&D legacy. - Magus, Inquisitor, Oracle, and Investigator should replace the Paladin, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, and Druid in the CRB (as an example.)

Design assumptions - balance the game around narrative power not combat power.

Spells - mentioned earlier but bares repeating, some spells are only problematic because they are missing half a sentence detailing how they should be limited.

Different things with the same name, the same things with different names - just don't.

Feat trees (and maybe the feat system) need a total overhaul.

Subsystems- make stuff like stealth and lighting easier to resolve and where ever possible lean on one another.

Scaling numbers- Saves and CMD are big culprits here. They don't scale well.

Assumed game economy - It doesn't make sense for a high fantasy game.

Essentially, take the rules team a say, "assume no legacy rules or design theroy. Spell out intent clearly and precisely. Organize, organize, organize. Logical flow to everything. Simplify and clarify. Use tables and charts wherever possible. Anything that can be consolidated should be consolidated. Modular options are more interesting than linear paths. Everything should have multiple entry options. You have a year, get going!"

Again, I'm not saying I need those things, but I think the future of the game would benefit greatly from those things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
It was a design principle of 5E. Essentially it entailed keeping bonuses and target numbers more constrained as levels advance so that the dice roll remains relevant and to avoid the binary "autofail or autosucceed" issue of high level play in 3.5 and 4E.
Did 4e have that? I only played during the era of PHB1 but I remember hating the fact that the math seemed designed to make you perpetually need a 10-12 on the d20 to ever do anything, no matter your level or skill.

Bounded Accuracy restricts bonuses from +2 to +6 (and stat bonuses to that) for what PF calls BAB and skill bonuses. It is the SAME for wizards AND fighters. This means a fighter gets a +6 to hit at 20th level and a Wizard gets a +6 to hit at 20th because of their class levels. It also means a Rogue gets a +6 at 20th level on their skill rolls and a Cleric gets a +6 at 20th level on their skill roll. Due to the fact that they want to limit the maximum stat to a +5, this means typically, without magic, your maximum bonus to a skill roll will be +11. Due to the limitations, you won't see someone who gets a +30 or more on a skill roll because of magic, high stats, and skill points.

Actually Bonded Accuracy started in 4e, they just didn't call it bonded accuracy. There were a few differences. First, with Attack bonuses the range was further from a +0 to a +10. Next, it was normally associated with a power on a stat (such as STR for Fighters or DEX for Rogues typically, or INT for Wizards) instead of being a base for normal attacks across the range. Everyone got the same bonuse to hit, but due to the powers system, they would normally use the stat that was associated with their class to utilize their bonus to hit.

I enjoyed it to a degree in 4e because at least the powers system meant that it was utilized in different ways by different classes.

In 5e, to me, it's an abomination. A wizard should not simply be as skilled as a Warrior in hitting with a weapon. The Warrior gets multiple attacks, but it still seems odd that a Wizard and a Warrior are just as skilled at hitting if the wizard just happened to have the same stat (and that's more likely seeing that the limit of a stat is 20, once you hit that max you have to put the rest of the points elsewhere or choose feats).

It also means that a bunch of first level characters can still be a major threat to a 20th level character (afterall, the difference to hit is a mere 4 bonus points), or a bunch of 5th level characters could theoretically take down really high level threats FAR easier than they could in PF or any previous edition of D&D.

I tried to like 5e, but for me, it just makes too little sense and really is NOT my cup of tea.


avr wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
Basically, the numbers are limited to a specific range so that characters are "balanced" enough that things like goblins can still kill 20th level characters, that a simple skill challenge can ruin anyone that isn't a high-level rogue or bard, and Asmodeus can't bash down doors.
And dragons get shot down by the town militia if they're foolish enough to show their heads near civilization. It makes adventurers redundant, basically.

Yeah, does kind of make you wonder why they need adventurers to take out a dragon. Adult dragons out of their lairs are kind of dead meat as are most monsters these days in 5e. Any large group of people/soldiers/peasants can take out any monster now, as it's ridiculously easy for them to hit said monsters.

Grand Lodge

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

IS the wizard as skilled as the warrior with weapons? Or do they just have the same class bonus?


GreyWolfLord wrote:

Bounded Accuracy restricts bonuses from +2 to +6 (and stat bonuses to that) for what PF calls BAB and skill bonuses. It is the SAME for wizards AND fighters. This means a fighter gets a +6 to hit at 20th level and a Wizard gets a +6 to hit at 20th because of their class levels. It also means a Rogue gets a +6 at 20th level on their skill rolls and a Cleric gets a +6 at 20th level on their skill roll. Due to the fact that they want to limit the maximum stat to a +5, this means typically, without magic, your maximum bonus to a skill roll will be +11. Due to the limitations, you won't see someone who gets a +30 or more on a skill roll because of magic, high stats, and skill points.

In 5e, to me, it's an abomination. A wizard should not simply be as skilled as a Warrior in hitting with a weapon. The Warrior gets multiple attacks, but it still seems odd that a Wizard and a Warrior are just as skilled at hitting if the wizard just happened to have the same stat (and that's more likely seeing that the limit of a stat is 20, once you hit that max you have to put the rest of the points elsewhere or choose feats).

It also means that a bunch of first level characters can still be a major threat to a 20th level character (afterall, the difference to hit is a mere 4 bonus points), or a bunch of 5th level characters could theoretically take down really high level threats FAR easier than they could in PF or any previous edition of D&D.

I tried to like 5e, but for me, it just makes too little sense and really is NOT my cup of tea.

There's a whole bunch of theory in there. It's not that likely the wizard will have the same stats since feats are really nice and stat boosts are limited. The warrior gets multiple attacks, as you say, but also other abilities letting him do more damage or other effects. The Wizard, assuming he boosted his stat, will have the same base hit number, but that's not the same as being just as skilled at fighting. At hitting yes, if you construct some contest where that's all that matters, but in an actual fight, they'll be far less effective.

The 1st (or 5th for that) level characters will be more of a threat than in PF/3.x, that was a design goal. They're still not going to be a serious threat. They'll hit more often, but they'll also drop like flies. In horde numbers they'll be effective, which I think is nice. A low level party tackling a high level threat will still be suicidal.

It's fine if you don't like it, but while you're technically correct about the bounded accuracy mechanics, they don't really have the effects you seem to think they do.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
IS the wizard as skilled as the warrior with weapons? Or do they just have the same class bonus?

It depends to a degree. The Warrior (well the Fighter specifically) gets multiple attacks. The Wizard typically does not (though there can be exceptions to this). This supposedly means the fighter is better.

For example, let's take a basic longsword doing 1d8 damage. They fight a dragon with an AC of 19 (yes, seriously). The bounded accuracy they have is a +4. The Fighter has a 18 STR and the Wizard has an 18 STR. (the Wizard already had a high INT and boosted it on the first stat increase to 20, OR, perhaps even better already had a 20 in INT at the beginning and with the additional stat bonuses increased STR since they no longer can increase INT any further).

Hence they both have a bonus of +8 to hit. The Wizard does their attack and does 1d8+4 damage. The Fighter has 3 multiple attacks, and in theory could do up to 3d8+12 damage.

The other warriors get a bonus attack at 5th level (but normally do not get the total multiple attacks a fighter gets). So they could in theory do a 2d8+8 damage if all their attacks hit.

Of course, if the wizard is multi class, he's at the same bonus multiple attacks as every other warrior except the fighter. Even multiclass he not only gets the bonuses equal to warriors, his spells also will make him more powerful (though obviously never as powerful as the full on wizard).

Hope that explains it in theory overall.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
avr wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
Basically, the numbers are limited to a specific range so that characters are "balanced" enough that things like goblins can still kill 20th level characters, that a simple skill challenge can ruin anyone that isn't a high-level rogue or bard, and Asmodeus can't bash down doors.
And dragons get shot down by the town militia if they're foolish enough to show their heads near civilization. It makes adventurers redundant, basically.
Yeah, does kind of make you wonder why they need adventurers to take out a dragon. Adult dragons out of their lairs are kind of dead meat as are most monsters these days in 5e. Any large group of people/soldiers/peasants can take out any monster now, as it's ridiculously easy for them to hit said monsters.

Do dragons still have fear effects? Do dragons still have area effect breath attacks? Do dragons have enough hit points to soak up a lot of attacks before dying?

Sure, put an army together and manage to get a few hundred arrows in the air before the dragon attacks and you might get somewhere.
A couple dozen town militia will die.

Liberty's Edge

Steve Geddes wrote:


Because one values new art and organisation.

If you only want to buy books with new material, it stands to reason you won't want a substantially unchanged system. The people who want minimal change are obviously not in that camp.

I like better art and organization like the next guy. I'm not willing to buy a unchanged edition of a rpg to get the art. It's why I could no longer buy the 40K RPGs after awhile. I don't need the same rehashed description of Bolters, Melta Guns and Psyikers for the fourth time. I can't really justify another 120$+ on a rehashed core and bestiary.

The only exception is when a core book breaks. The PF core really needs to be split into two books IMO. Or in the case of 7E COC or 5E where the changes were for the better. I just can't see the fanbase or at least a large amount reinvesting in more of the same. A new edition is not a guarantee of success either. Yet neither will be a easy sake to the fanbase


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
avr wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
Basically, the numbers are limited to a specific range so that characters are "balanced" enough that things like goblins can still kill 20th level characters, that a simple skill challenge can ruin anyone that isn't a high-level rogue or bard, and Asmodeus can't bash down doors.
And dragons get shot down by the town militia if they're foolish enough to show their heads near civilization. It makes adventurers redundant, basically.
Yeah, does kind of make you wonder why they need adventurers to take out a dragon. Adult dragons out of their lairs are kind of dead meat as are most monsters these days in 5e. Any large group of people/soldiers/peasants can take out any monster now, as it's ridiculously easy for them to hit said monsters.

Do dragons still have fear effects? Do dragons still have area effect breath attacks? Do dragons have enough hit points to soak up a lot of attacks before dying?

Sure, put an army together and manage to get a few hundred arrows in the air before the dragon attacks and you might get somewhere.
A couple dozen town militia will die.

So we have 64 town militia. They have a +2 to hit without any other bonuses. This means against an adult White Dragon with an 18 armor they need to roll a 16 or greater to hit. The white dragon has a 18 AC. 15 of them hit for at least 15d6 damage. A good militia that has decent weapons will probably use crossbows however, for 15d8 to 15d10 damage. The white dragon has 16d12+96 HP.

The dragon has lost in theory ~75 HP (we'll go with the militia aren't fools and have crossbows). The best defense is it's frightful presence which has a range of 120 feet (crossbows have a range of 80/320, which means in theory, militia could be outside that 120 feet at that first round actually). It requires a DC14 save. In theory, 24 of that militia will make that throw in the first two rounds.

The dragon can also use multi attack with up to three attacks. Under the best circumstances the dragon will have 21 militia left who are immune to it's powers.

On average 5 hit each round after that meaning the dragon now has 10d10 damage for an average of 50 HP damage (dragon takes 3 out each round). It now has 125 HP down and if it had 200 HP only 75 HP left.

Now it has 15 militia left and they get an average of 3 hits for the next two rounds for 60 HP damage. It now has 15 HP left...though it the HP rolled were lower than that the dragon is now dead.

There are now 9 left which get an average of 2 hits per round (1/4 of the attacks hit). They do 3d10 which is an average of 15 HP and the dragon is dead with 5 of the militia left alive.

Of course, you could say, the dragon has a breath weapon. This is true, it ONLY affects a 60 foot cone, which would kill a poorly planned militia to a degree, but definitely not all of them. However, in this example, that cone we could say makes the difference between the dragon and the rest of the militia (there were at least 40 militia left with 1/4 of them making their save each round, meaning we could in theory keep adding the ones that make their save each round to the attacks). Instead of adding their numbers to the attacks, we'll say the dragon just kills them with his cone attack because they didn't use ANY tactics and were all bunched together for the dragon to kill with it's cone attacks when the dragon got them (recharge on a 5 or 6).

This is an EXTREMELY generous example for the dragon I think. In theory, the town militia starts shooting 320' away before the dragon can use any of it's attacks and with luck have done 30D10 damage before the dragon can even strike in the second round...hence almost killing the dragon before the fight even begins.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Factions? I'm not even sure what factions are. Are they part of the core rules? Or a setting thing?

Factions are in the DMG. Organizations the PCs can join. The more things the PCs do that match the factions goals the higher they can go, the more influence they have, the more benefits they gain, and the more enemies they can make.

In the setting I'm running there is a faction for law enforcers and one for judges. A different PC belongs to each one. Sometimes their factions come down on the same side of an issue and other times they disagree. Working it out and also dealing with the criminals and the assassins those criminals may send after highly successful enforcers and judges spices up the game.

51 to 100 of 912 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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